Ray Comfort’s Blog
I love how the team members from WOTM (Way of The Master) write their blogs. I find them to be a whimsical read, at the very least. Ray Comfort provides some of the most humorous reading material of them all, in my opinion. Let’s take a look at the entry that I read today.
In this post, Ray speaks of a lunch meeting that he had with a leader of an atheist club. After the lunch, Ray goes to the atheist club to answer some questions. Personally, I feel that the questions that were asked were too basic, but hey, let’s take a look.
They were the usual questions skeptics ask. Here are a few, from memory: “Why do you reject all the evidence of evolution given by paleontologists?” I told him that I was a skeptic by nature, and that evidence for evolution given by paleontologists should be viewed with great skepticism, because they had big motives for lying. If a paleontologist comes up with any sort of evidence, he could find his face on the cover of National Geographic, with world-wide TV interviews, a book deal, and big honorariums for speaking engagements. So the modern paleontologist has a huge incentive for twisting the truth, just a little.
First of all, most of the people in the scientific community are not in the game for fame. Most of them simply love the field that they work in and have a natural curiosity about that which they work with. Most simply are looking for the answer to a question as objectively as they can. Generally, if one of these professionals are caught “twisting the truth,” even “just a little,” for the sake of fame or any other motivation, they would surely lose their post. They know that they would get caught eventually due to the nature of the scientific method. Somebody somewhere is going to check and recheck the data.
The next question was “Why doesn’t God show Himself by doing a little miracle, like simply moving a glass of water on the desk in front us?” I told him that over lunch he mocked the miracle of God causing the sun to stand still for Joshua. That was bigger and better than the moving glass. Besides, if he wanted an audience with the Queen of England, she doesn’t come on his terms, he comes on hers. He mumbled, “Good analogy.”
Well, of course it is easy to “mock the miracle of God causing the sun to stand still for Joshua.” I do not claim to be an astrophysicist by any means, but I am quite sure that there would be some dire consequences for causing the cessation of the Earth’s rotation. That is, Ray, if you believe that the Earth does rotate on its’ axis and revolve around the sun.
And yes, God should come down to our terms. Reason? He is the one that requires our belief in Him. I am not requiring anything of God. If He wants something from me, why should he not be required to come to my terms?
He also brought up the “banana” argument. Years ago, I published a booklet called “The Atheist Test.” In the booklet, I compare a banana to a coke can (with its own tab, etc.). It’s a parody, using a little humor to make a point. “The Atheist Test” has proven to be very popular (over a million have sold). However, it wasn’t too popular with atheists. They removed the coke can portion of the parody, maintained that I believe the banana is proof for God’s existence, and sure made a monkey out of me.
Nobody made a monkey out of you, Ray, except yourself. Let’s keep the coke can analogy in the story. We know that the Coke can was made with purpose by an intelligent being. How? Well, it is used to deliver a product to an individual in a convenient manner. The Coke can also has a bit of writing on it that I am able to read without need for interpretation. From what I understand, the can is printed up in a variety of languages so that those that speak other languages can read them too. The can has undergone an evolutionary process as well. Oh, and the can tells me exactly who made it, what is in it, when the best time to drink it is, how to open it, how much is in it and where to go to get in touch with the manufacturer.
What you neglect to mention to people in your pamphlet about the banana is that the banana that they are familiar with today is the result of man’s intervention and ingenuity with regards to the science of horticulture.
The ending paragraph was the most telling, really.
The incident confirmed what I had believed all along. The skeptic isn’t interested in truth. He only wants to confirm his presuppositions. That’s why they have their club–to build up each other in their faith (beliefs). How true that “Men love darkness rather than light; neither will they come to the light, least their deeds are exposed.” Oops. I quoted the Bible.
Really, Ray? What exactly is a church? Nothing more than a tax exempt club that is used to bolster the beliefs that you already have. And please feel free to quote the Bible all you want. It has already been pointed out that using the Bible to prove God is simply stating that God exists because he says he does….
> . So the modern paleontologist has a huge incentive for twisting the truth, just a little.
Wow.
I don't think Ray understands something very basic: there is great motivation in the sciences to *disprove* an established theory. Can you imagine the attention a scientist would get for overturning the theory of evolution? Or any other well-established theory?
It's not about fame so much as it is about accomplishment. I would love to be able to find evidence that evolution is an incorrect theory. It would be the accomplishment of a lifetime.
Let's see now ….. who do we know and revere in the scientific community that pulled something like that off ….. OH! Right! Albert Einstein! Although his theory of relativity didn't turn Newton's theories into hogwash, they did demonstrate that, at very high velocities, Newton's theories do not work.
That was revolutionary. As is true of Newton's theory of gravitation itself, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, etc.
These are revolutions in science, and they are critical.
Science is fueled by criticism. It encourages disproof. It begs for someone to find something wrong with an experiment or theory.
I have yet to find a religion that values critical thinking and encourages attempts to disprove its beliefs.
I also am amazed that I can't find anywhere in the Bible any passages that revere intelligence and creativity.
TomV,
Well, what do you expect when 2 pages into the story we God getting all pissy over whether or not humanity is allowed to possess knowledge. What a petty little ingrate. He's like a two-year-old kid who sees his sister playing with HIS toys.
“And please feel free to quote the Bible all you want. It has already been pointed out that using the Bible to prove God is simply stating that God exists because he says he does….”
You’re right in this: it’s a form of circular reasoning. The problem is, everyone does it. The atheist community begins with the “knowledge” or belief that God does not exist. Supernatural events, even those which are recorded as eyewitness testimony in the Bible, are dismissed out of hand because there is a foundational starting point from the empiricist’s mind: these things can’t happen.
So, it’s like this:
1) God doesn’t exist.
2) Scientific inquiry is limited to proposition #1…
3) All scientific experimentation and theory underscores what we already know, which is that God doesn’t exist.
The fact is, God has acted many times in history. The Bible, if you actually read the entire thing, is a marvelous piece of evidence that atheists ignore. Over 1500 years of writing and prophecy after prophecy has come true.
In fact, with Jesus there are over 330 prophecies that have come true, with precision. If you can do yourself a favor and simply admit that we all come with our bias and pre-suppositions, we could make headway.
I, like you, was at one point an agnostic. I didn’t have the courage to assume that God didn’t exist. After reading the Bible, I’d have to say that the burden of proof has been removed: God has acted in history in front of eyewitnesses.
If you doubt that, I’d challenge you to take up Simon Greenleaf’s testimony. He was an atheist, a lawyer, and head of the law dept at Harvard university. He wrote their tome on Evidence that lawyers have used for decades. What he set out to do was to de-bunk Christianity by looking at the evidence.
He came out of the examination, after years, as a Christian. What you have failed to do, I’m assuming, is to give the evidence (which you conveniently reject in ignorance and out of hand) a fair shake.
My guess is that you have the desire NOT to come to Christ, and thus you won’t heed the challenge.
I don’t blame you for what you write here, you prove what the Bible says about atheists: they don’t acknowledge God as God, they suppress the truth of God that we all have intrinsically (by being created in His image in the first place), and suppress that knowledge with a desire to do wickedness. In other words, you don’t want to have God or any of His laws as judge over you: you want to live as you please and to heck with the consequences (which consequences you deny).
Friend, in the name of the God who made you and has given you breath and life: take up the Bible and read it. Read the Gospels of John, Matthew, Mark and Luke. Read the book of Acts…and keep reading. Ask the hard questions along the way: how can this be possible? When did these things happen? What has archaeology been able to support or dis-prove of the Bible?
Did you know, for instance, that there has been NO EVIDENCE that archaeologists have found to contradict the Bible’s testimony, but in fact there have been numerous findings to support the testimony?
I’d challenge you to examine these things not because I want some power over you, or because of any weird thing, other than this: the joy of eternal life, forgiveness of your sins, and having an eternal purpose that extends beyond this mere terrestrial sphere can be yours: it’s a gift from God.
What do you have to lose, other than street cred amongst your atheist friends? Would you rather spend your life here denying the only answer to your deepest needs and desires and longings, and wind up facing an omnipotent judge, bereft of the mercy He so freely offered you?
God gives generously. Even in your atheism, you support the fact that He exists: because you can’t hate something that doesn’t exist.
May the peace of Christ find you out, and the Holy Spirit of grace relentlessly pursue you with the gift of eternal life.
–JMH
http://brazenhusseys.blogspot.com/
Well James, I think that you use the idea of circular reasoning far too liberally. I would say that in order to engage in any type of scientific inquiry or process of logical reasoning, one must begin with certain basic assumptions. For me, the assumption is that the universe is intelligible (not to be confused with intelligently designed). That is to say that the universe makes sense, and that by studying it we can better understand it. To assume otherwise would be to admit the futility of an further inquiry. If the universe does NOT make sense (or is mad, as Philip K. Dick might say), then we have no reason to expect to find discernible patterns – evidence would have no correlation to reality. So far, I see no circles or ellipses in my reasoning.
Given the assumption of an intelligible universe, we now come to the issue of miracles, or the “supernatural.” If you define a miracle as an event which cannot be explained, then it seems to me incompatible with an intelligible universe. Perhaps then you would like to draw a division between “natural” and “super”, but by what justification? If there is no god, then there is no reason to believe in anything other than natural processes. Yet if God does exist, why did he bother to create two separate realms of reality, or two different methods of operation? If everything is indeed God’s creation, shouldn’t it all be considered natural? Are there mundane natural processes that God need not bother with (cellular mitosis, photosynthesis), while resurrections and transmutations are better uses of his time? (Unless of course, God exists outside of time as theologians would have us believe)
If you are disenchanted with the empirical bias of the modern science, then I am curious to know how you would improve it. Shall we insert another step into the scientific method that allows for the possibility of miracles? What step could possibly follow that? Could you design a legimate experiment to test the existence of God? If so, what would positive results look like? Can evidence even be trusted in the realm of the supernatural, if you define miracles as inexplicable events?
As to your claim of prophetic fulfillment, I have little to say. I will admit that I am not as well versed in scripture as you are. However I do question the credibility of prophecies which are both made and fulfilled within the same book. The fact that the New Testament authors were cognizant of Old Testament prophecy makes this a case of not only self-fulfilling but self-assured prophecy. I am sure a biblical scholar such as yourself must have taken into consideration the fact that the Gospels were written decades after the crucifixion, by men who MAY have been witnesses. Considering also the multitudes of contradictory writings produced at the time which were subsequently suppressed by church politics and ecumenical councils – well, you certainly have a compelling case for modern Christianity.
For the record James, I don’t hate God. I hate the idea that, no matter what I do in this life, I cannot be considered a morally good man unless I declare myself slave to an imaginary master.
To add to Ryan’s already awesome rebuttal:
I know that this sounds all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that not one atheist claims to have “knowledge” that a god or gods do not exist. In order for us to have that knowledge, we would have to have some sort of empirical proof of that assumption. There is none, just as there is no “proof positive” that your God, or any other god, exists. If there were, faith would be of little use to you, now wouldn’t it?
Please provide evidence of “eyewittness testimony” as recorded in the Bible. Not Matt., Mark, Luke or John. These were written somewhere between 50-110 years after the supposed death of Jesus. The Pauline epistles were earlier than the Gospels and yet Paul never mentions Jesus in any historical sense. On top of that, the Pauline epistles tend to prove problematic as most Biblical scholars and linguists alike agree that many were not written by the hand of Saul from Tarsus.
Ray I would like to know how you carry tracts and not mess them up. I have been searching high and low for some thing I can keep track on me at all times. I don’t wear suits and am looking for something I can clip on a belt. Any Ideas. Thanks
Donald Norris
How can you say you would rather save your enemy then your pet dog?
Is a soul not the same and don’t dogs dream?
Then you babbled about the pain of a lobster.
I don’t like the aproche of that youtuber but you have some ego.
You speak like your 100% sure fact! very taxing to ones soul. Say maybe more often it looks for believing.