ABC.com to air debate on God online

Surely Ray can't totally prove that God exists? I've seen his arguments and some are good, but they don't prove that God exists.

Certainly opening up the law before all America could be a good thing.

Jesus have all Your way with every word of this debate. Use it to pierce hearts, to change hearts. Turn America over with Your own hands for Your glory. I pray in Your holy, precious name. Amen

Surely Ray can't totally prove that God exists? I've seen his arguments and some are good, but they don't prove that God exists.

I agree, it's extremely difficult to prove the obvious. It's like trying to prove 1+1=2 or that the sun exists. ;-)

This is an excellent chance for the Gospel to be preached to millions of people. They probably won't show it on Nightline, but at least those who will watch it online will get to hear it.

What a sad form of apologetics. You can't prove the existence of God through scientific inquiry. It takes nothing less than revelation.

Good quote:

"Natural religion has no name for God which can bring any hope or comfort to frail, mortal man; nor could man by his own wisdom and searching have attained to the knowledge of any name for the infinite Creator of all things... The Name has to be revealed..."

~ David Baron "Israel in the Plan of God"

Is there any way to "tape" this live recording? I will be take finals in school when it's aired (2pm eastern) and I really don't want to be stuck with the edited, watered down version thats gonna be rebroadcasted on nightline. Any help?

THanks

it opens more doors for people to "seek" and "grope" after the living God

Certainly Ray knows a thing or two about sharing Christ with skeptics. It is true that the Gospel is recieved by grace...yet this does not mean it is irrational and outside of the realm of reasonable thinking. Many people's sketpicism is poorly reasoned or even just a thin excuse, and perhaps once they are patiently shown at least the rational plausibility of a Creator, their hearts would be more prepped for faith.

Still, knowing how important the grace of God was to us who believed...we pray that Jesus will be seen not merely as a side in an intellectual contest, but as alive through the conduct of two witnesses demonstrating the power and truth of the Holy Spirit.

...the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, we have conducted ourselves in the world...

Blessings,

MC

KingJimmy wrote:
What a sad form of apologetics. You can't prove the existence of God through scientific inquiry. It takes nothing less than revelation.

They already have [b]a[/b] revelation of God through scientific(observable) inquiry.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I'm assured you already know these verses. It's not 'sad' to point out what men already know. For if it was, it would be 'sad' for Paul to have written those verses. Wouldn't it?

Of course, that knowledge alone will never save them from sin.

Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

KingJimmy wrote:
What a sad form of apologetics. You can't prove the existence of God through scientific inquiry. It takes nothing less than revelation.

I think that you are missing the point here, Jimmy. Ray will do almost anything to get an opportunity to preach the gospel. In his book, "The Way of the Master", Ray mentions how he had began going to college campuses to debate atheists about the existence of God. He said that he pays professors for their time, and they in turn try to prove that God doesn't exist, take their money, and run. He then is left with a room full of "atheists", who have just heard his point of how the "Human conscience is evidence of the existence of God", where he takes them through the Law, and points them to the Saviour.

The point isn't the apologetics, but to utilise such a tool to create an opportunity to warn sinners of judgement, and preach the gospel. Come now, when did you last see a faithful gospel presentation in prime time? Surely you can see the genius of this approach?

KingJimmy wrote:
Good quote:

"Natural religion has no name for God which can bring any hope or comfort to frail, mortal man; nor could man by his own wisdom and searching have attained to the knowledge of any name for the infinite Creator of all things... The Name has to be revealed..."

~ David Baron "Israel in the Plan of God"

I agree, that's a good quote.

We should bathe this thing in prayer. Let the word of God be heard!

In Christ,

Ron

They already have a revelation of God through scientific(observable) inquiry.

General revelation is a true thing, but it is not something you can prove through scientific inquiry. General revelation is something that people more-so naturally intuit as human beings created in the image of God than through interpreting data recorded in an objective manner.

The point isn't the apologetics, but to utilise such a tool to create an opportunity to warn sinners of judgement, and preach the gospel. Come now, when did you last see a faithful gospel presentation in prime time? Surely you can see the genius of this approach?

I understand and am truly sympathetic with such an approach. However, so far as I understand, they are only going on the air to prove through the scientific method that there is a God in a debate with atheists.

K_Day,

I agree with the argument that is made. Such is simply the good ol' "first cause" argument, which has existed for many years now. However, do understand that such an argument, as strong as it is, isn't without a degree of assumption. For the argument of first cause, can only prove that there was some sort of first cause. The argument cannot in and of itself prove what that first cause is. It is our assumption as believers the first cause was God.

However, to the atheist, their assumption is that it was some sort of physical thing. Both are assumptions on our part, and neither is any more "provable" than the other. The logic can only show us that there was a first cause, but not show what that cause was.

Given what atheists believe about the big bang, however, this proved "first cause" would have to exist apart from time and physical matter (since they believe the big bang created both). These two things characterize God, and not anything else I can think of.

Well, not necessarily. The assumption of the atheists is that there has always been something. Thus, the big bang wasn't something out of nothing. They would say that this something, in essence, was always around-- in essence, eternal.

When the argument was presented to me, that made the assumption that the cause is God a lot easier to accept than anything else.

I agree.