True Ignorance
Ray Comfort is at it again. After a short period of trying to act serious and humble, he’s right back to insulting the intellects of atheists everywhere, while still claiming that he has good reason to believe what he believes.
Let’s dissect his statement:
I also love science.
No, he doesn’t. He probably doesn’t even know what the word means.
In case you didn’t know, “science” is God allowing man to discover the secret workings of His incredible creation.
As usual, simply assuming that the world is created is more than enough evidence to prove that it is. Ray Comfort loves science, but doesn’t understand the first thing about it.
Einstein (a theist who didn’t believe in a personal God) rightly said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
Ah, here we go with Einstein again. You would think a Christian would show some respect for the dead, but not our dear Ray. Einstein was not a theist, at the very most he was a deist, but even that is up for discussion since he hints at having a definition of a god that isn’t really a god at all. It’s more of a term simply to describe the wonders of the world itself, and not an intelligent force, whether personal or not. I’ve quoted him before, but I’ll do it again:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Back to Ray.
But [atheist scientists] also intellectually disqualify themselves from speaking on behalf of science, because their basic worldview of “nothing created everything” is a scientific impossibility.
He holds on to his most beloved strawman as it he’d die without it. Metaphorically speaking, he probably would. Without his delusion that atheism somehow implies any stance on creation whatsoever, he would wither up and crumble. It’s his only weapon, and all it does is irritate and annoy. Regardless, if he maintains that it’s true that atheists believe “nothing created everything“, then it’s equally true that all Christians firmly believe that “nothing created God“. However, as soon as you mention that, Ray and his followers will start screaming that “God has always existed, he’s outside time” as if that answers all the questions. But, if believing that our universe didn’t have a creator is “intellectually dishonest”, why is it reasonable to believe that God didn’t have a creator as well? I’ve never understood this, nor have I ever gotten an honest answer out of any Christians whom I’ve asked.
Einstein said, “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” If you also want to know God’s thoughts, read your Bible.
This, of course, right after Ray himself said that the god of Einstein wasn’t the personal, theistic God of Abrahamic religion. Ray doesn’t care if his logic is flawed. In fact, he flaunts his errors in order to troll for more insulted atheists to hang around his honey pot blog.
You love creation. I love the Creator and will escape His terrible swift sword, because I trust in His mercy.
I have no feelings whatsoever towards the creation of the universe. Why would I? It’s an impersonal event billions of years in the past. How do you have feelings towards a giant cosmic expansion-event?
It’s my earnest prayer that you would also trust Jesus for your own eternal salvation today. He doesn’t promise you tomorrow.
He doesn’t promise anything, because he isn’t real.
A couple of valid points have been raised. I’d like to offer alternatives.
One, “science is the study of God’s creation” might be a better way of stating the Christian world view. While it could be stated that Christians embrace a presupposition regarding the existence of God, we also see all truth as revelation that such a presupposition is true. And some would claim that this is circular reasoning. There is a sense in which this is true and I offer no apology. Every world view embraces circular reasoning at some point. Mine rests on the wisdom of the Creator, God almighty. Others’ rests on the wisdom of the creature.
“But, if believing that our universe didn’t have a creator is “intellectually dishonest”, why is it reasonable to believe that God didn’t have a creator as well? I’ve never understood this, nor have I ever gotten an honest answer out of any Christians whom I’ve asked.”
I’ll provide an “honest answer,” but that doesn’t mean you’ll accept it. Actually, the answer is in your question. If “god” has a creator then he isn’t God. The very definition of God is the original originator. If He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then there can’t be anyone greater. Perhaps the philosophical definition of God would be helpful here, “A being than which none greater can be though.”
Suppose we accepted that the one who made our universe is not original. Still, somehwere along the line, there has to be a first or original Creator; one who made the first thing that was ever made. This is God. Whether you accept that He is the God of the Bible is another matter. But this is the God of the Bible that we who are Christians worship.
Finally, I’ll address your final statement. “He doesn’t promise anything, because he isn’t real.” Well, let me say I’ll address a perceived error, for I’m not sure of the nuance of this statement. First, however, I will state that such an authoritative statement, regardless of the motive or nuance perceived, is unprovable. It’s an assertion with no substance. Second, if speaking of the historical person who walked the earth 2000 years ago, then it’s more easily provable than anyone who lived up until His time. There is far less historical evidence for the existence of any single person up until the first few centuries. If one questions whether or not Jesus lived then they must question the existence of every Greek philosopher and even Alexander the Great simply on the bsis that the written account reflecting the existence of Jesus dwarfs the account of any other man by many multiples. Virtually no credible historians deny that Jesus did walk the earth.
If, on the other hand, the claim is that Jeuss does not exist today, again, it’s a speculative assertion with no foundation to sustain it. But, I will offer this. Without the exitence of Christ there is no hope. There is no reason for existing. We are all accidents and have no reason for living outside of our own puny existence.
The reality is that Christ is exactly who He claims to be. And all men will bow before Him one day. You may deny Him today, just as He said men would. But you will not deny Him to His face. If you persist in denying Him until death, then you will tremble before Him afterward as he denies you to the heavenly Father. May He open your eyes to this truth before it is too late.
Respectfully,
Hi Joe, nice to see people still find this place :)
You make some points yourself (although, honestly, I hesitate to call them valid), so here is my rebuttal:
No, it really wouldn’t, because the blind assumption that it is “God’s creation” we’re studying is directly unscientific. What you said is a complete contradiction. Christians might be studying what they believe to be God’s creation, and that’s fine, but pretending that it’s science is, in my mind, dishonest. Ignoring contradictory evidence and ignoring the lack of evidence are both, again, directly unscientific.
I agree, but I must point out that this is the Christian error: the failure to see this reasoning through to the end. Science isn’t just about stating that something happened, it needs to explain how it happened, and show how it relates to the rest of the universe. Simply claiming “God is, period” doesn’t explain anything whatsoever, it is not backed up by any evidence, and there is simply no reason at all to assume it to be truth.
Either you’re worshiping a false god, or God cannot logically and reasonably exist because his existence is predicated on an impossibility.
Again, I agree, but this is not what you and other Christians believe. You don’t worship whatever god was the first god, and who spawned all later gods. No, you believe specifically in the Abrahamic God, and you ascribe him the status of “first” regardless of whether or not there are other gods before him. Again, entirely unscientific, because you haven’t even tried to find out whether or not your God is the True God. You merely assume it as fact.
It absolutely is, and I’m glad you picked up on it. Now, please say the exact same thing about your claim that your God is the “first” god, that this is all God’s “creation” and that God exists at all. If you do that, then I will gladly refrain from stating that God does not, in fact, exist.
And what makes you think that isn’t exactly what we’re doing? Remember, that is the scientific way, to question even the claims we want to believe as much as we question those that are irrelevant to us.
This statement is a bit disingenuous, because I know of no historians that confirm that your Jesus walked the earth. That is, the Jesus that performed miracles, raised the dead, walked on water and came back from the dead. Historians will confirm that a person most probably existed, that may have had that precise name and may have been punished in the same way. This doesn’t actually confirm anything Christians believe.
L. Ron Hubbard most definitely existed. He is quite real. Yet his religion, what he wrote about as truth, is not.
Joseph Smith was probably just as real. No one doubts his entire existence. Yet no one can confirm that he actually was visited by Jesus and given a new Bible to translate.
Why does Jesus have to be everything you believe he was, even though there is NO evidence to support it, when you aren’t willing to extend the same beliefs to all other, similar figures in history? In other words, why should I disbelieve all other similar figures in history the exact same way you do, yet mindlessly accept that your favorite figure was everything you claim he was?
You keep telling yourself that, if that’s what you need to do to rationalize your own irrational beliefs.
Atheists all around the world live joyous, fulfilling lives, filled with love from relatives and friends, and they all have every reason to continue living. Your claim is so ridiculously thin that it takes nothing more than looking around you to disprove entirely. Open your eyes, Joe. Stop telling yourself what to believe, and actually look at the world instead. Do you see atheists being without hope? Without a will to live? Do we behave like “accidents” to you?
These are the kind of arrogant, disrespectful comments that make many people despise Christians. You don’t want to love your fellow man at all. You just want everyone to know how much better you are, and how much happier they’d all be if only they shared the same delusions you do.
And there the open-minded, pro-scientific charade comes crashing down. Baseless claim after baseless claim. Threat after threat. Arrogance after arrogance.
I won’t end my comment with “respectfully” because, quite honestly, I have no respect for you. You lost it all by making all the mistakes you chastised me for making, and acting as if you had the superiority to be allowed to do so.