Bringing knowledge to children and children to God

When Ray asks the guys to tell him what was in the beginning without saying “I don't know,” Matt asks, “Why can’t I say that?” Well, here is one reason:

Eight and a half minutes into the video Matt asserts that “Athiests are not asserting absolute knowledge” when in fact—they are. By definition, atheists say “there is no God." Otherwise, they would not be athiests, but would be agnostics.

However, since Matt doesn’t know what was in the beginning, he can’t know that it wasn’t God. It’s possible that God was in the beginning, and Matt simply does not know that.

Moving on, Matt finds it reasonable to conclude that a painting is a created thing because all evidence points to its being designed. Well, all evidence points to tlhe universe being desinged as well. Matt states that we recognize design by contrasting it with what is naturally occuring, to which I respond—he is exactly right!

Things natrually go from order to disorder, so that fact that the universe did not end up in even greater chaos after the big bang is evidence of design. Normally, matter is neither created nor destroyed, yet the universe is not eternal, so the fact that matter exists at all is evidence of design.

We have no example anywhere in the universe of information being written, apart from some intelligent agent—so whenever we encounter written information (such as that contained in DNA) it is reasonable to conclude it must have been authored by an intelligent agent (God). The orderly appearance of sand dunes is brought to illustrate that of the fact that “order itself is not necessarily a product of design,” but the thing about sand dunes is they do not transmit information.

Twelve minutes in, Matt claims that Ray makes a statement which has a number of fallacies, but he then fails to identify a single one. He then begins to tout the scientific method, but almost immediately (fourteen minutes into the video) implies something which is completly antithitcal to it—that one day scientists will be able to create something out of nothing.

Matt also wants to know how Ray can justify the existence of God apart from his experience or personal revelation, failing to recognize that this can be done by the very scientific method he touts so highly (cause and effect, second law of thermodynamics, etc.). Moreover, additional evidence is found in form of the Bible, and in God Himself—Jesus Christ.

Note that when they begin to discuss evolution (about twenty-one minutes into the debate) no one distinguishes between micro and macro evolution. This is a major oversight. The hosts would like to know how it is that Ray is comfortable accepting science when it comes to his day-to-day life, but dismisses it when it counters his religious beliefs.

This is a valid point. However, our contention is that in most cases, genuine science does not contradict Biblical teachings, though someone like Hugh Ross is perhaps better prepared to argue this position than an individual such as Mr. Comfort.

The bottom line is...we fully agree with the point suggested by Ray in a roundabout manner: The theory of macro evolution in not even slightly scientific. The way we see it, it can’t even qualify as a theory.

A theory is blah, blah, blah...

The statement that Darwinian evolution is completely supported by the evidence, including DNA, is patently false. That DNA provides evidence of common ancestry is correct, but it does not provide evidence that such ancestry began with apes, monkeys, chimpanzees or even neanderthals! Moreover, the claim that there are fossil records from species to species is also patently untrue, and to merely say one species led to another proves nothing.

Again, the speciation cited as having supposedly been obeserved in the laboratory was nothing more than micro evolution. The fact of the matter remains, if you start out with a fly, you end up with a fly—case closed.

After the first thirty minutes, the dabate pretty much breaks down into a meandering discussion, with talk about the Latin origin of certain languages and whatnot.

During the last quarter of the clip, the participants get into a big discussion about slavery, but virtually nothing they have to say about the topic has much bearing on whether or not God exists.

When Ray compares the Gospel message wth a warning about a house being on fire, Matt inquires as to what evidence exists to back up the warning, given that he sees no flames, smells no smoke, etc.

However, we do see the evidence every day of our lives, in the form of hate, murder, rape, starvartion, calamty, disaster, etc. We know intuitively that this is not how things ought to be. This is our warning from God that something is terribly wrong with our world and with us. At the heart of it is sin, and the only escape from its consequences is Jesus Christ. If we ignore the warning, we do so at our own peril.

The Athiest Experience

My thoughts on the March 27, 2011 debate between Matthew Dillahunty, Russell Glasser and Ray Comfort

By Fred W. Duckworth, Jr.

TrinityTutors.com

Contrary to what you often hear, faith is not blind. John MacArthur got it right when he said, “Faith is a reasoned response to revealed truth.”

Genuine faith requires careful thinking. As a matter of fact, the Bible commands believers to engage in the kind of thinking that evaluates and acertains. Accordingly, as Christians we are to use our mental faculties to consider the validity and implications of truth related matters, and it is in this spirit of critical thinking that I would like to examine a verbal exchange between two athiests (Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser) and one believer (Ray Comfort).

About four minutes into the debate Russell Glasser states that he is “the way” and everything he says is true. He does this in an attempt to discount faith in Christ, but I think his approach somewhat silly in that, unlike Jesus, Russell offers no evidence (such as healing the sick, calming storms or rising from the dead) to back up his claim. Despite the fact that Russell tries to suggest otherwise, faith in God is a completely reasonable endeavor.

The question was asked, “How do you know Jesus resurrected?” In fact, we don’t know this absolutely, but it is nonetheless reasonable to believe for a number of reasons:

First, we have eyewitness testimony.

Second, no one ever presented the body of Christ to counter this claim, which His enemies most certainly would have done if it were at all possible.

Third we can consider the subsequent behavior of the apostles, who went from acting like docile, disheartened, totally discoraged disciples to bold, courageous leaders after Jesus’ supposed resurrection.

Morever, all but one of the apostles died a martyr’s death in the process of defending the Christian faith—not something anyone is likely to do in the defense of something they know to be a lie or for no better reason than to perpetuate a hoax.

About six minutes into the debate Ray states that to become a true Christian is to move out of the realm of intellect. This is a view with which we at TrinityTutors Virtual Academy whole heartely disagree. Contrary to what is stated by the hosts of this show, we believe intellect points to the existence of God just as “intellect points to the existence of electricity.”

For example, the universe had a beginning , so something had to have caused it.

Second, blah, blah, balh...

One of the hosts has a problem with Ray’s line of argument because “you cannot just call something ‘creation’ so you can say it must have had a creator.” While this may be true, you can say something that is an effect had to have had a cause.

Moreover, you can also say something cannot pop into existence out of nothing.

And finally, you can in fact say that whatever brought time, energy, space and matter into existence had to, by necessity, transend all four if it is to  have existed before the universe came into being which, being the cause of the universe, it must have.

About eight minutes in, Matt says that “existence doesn’t necessarily require the Creator that you claim it does.” Perhaps not, but I submit that the God of the Bible is nonetheless the best explanation for existence.

God is spirit, so he transends matter, energy, space and time. He is eternal, so He existed before the universe came into being. In that God is all-powerfull, he is a more than sufficienc cause for the effect we know as the universe.