In May 2007, Kirk Cameron took to national television, aiming to achieve something that, surprisingly, 2,000 years of Christian doctrine hadn’t managed: to demonstrate God’s existence “100%, absolutely, without needing faith.”
Cameron, who had moved on from “Growing Pains” to become an evangelical apologist, was on ABC’s “Nightline” alongside evangelist Ray Comfort. They were up against Brian Sapient and a woman named Kelly, representatives of the Rational Response Squad, a well-known atheist group that promotes the creation of videos to refute the Holy Spirit.
“Proving the existence of God is actually a lot easier than you think,” Cameron proclaimed, exuding the confidence of someone about to unveil a hidden treasure.
Debates between Christians and non-believers have been happening since the days of Paul, who once preached so long that a listener fell asleep and plummeted three stories. That just goes to show the outcomes can be, well, unpredictable.
Such inconsistencies don’t inherently validate atheism or suggest that the atheist presented a stronger argument. It’s possible for a Christian to defend a true belief yet still lose a debate — whether through over-promising, miscalculating their opponent, losing their cool, misrepresenting the other person’s beliefs, or demanding proof that surpasses what can realistically be shown.
Here are five notable examples to consider.
1. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort: Avoid overpromising
Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort certainly couldn’t be accused of dimming their light — although a bit more preparation might have helped.
After hearing an ABC report about the Rational Response Squad, Comfort reached out to “Nightline” to initiate a public debate. He asserted, “We can not only prove that God exists, but we can also disprove the atheist’s position.”
By the time Cameron gave his opening remarks, their goal had expanded even further. “We want to demonstrate that we can prove God’s existence 100%, without needing faith.”
Cameron escalated things, claiming he’d reveal evolution as merely a “fairy tale for grownups.”
Even if they had successfully debunked Darwinian evolution during that hour and a half, that alone wouldn’t mean that God’s existence naturally followed. And compelling a case for a Creator still leaves a gap between “something caused the universe” and “Jesus Christ rose from the dead.”
Comfort employed familiar arguments from his evangelistic endeavors: the presence of a painting suggests a painter; a building requires a builder; likewise, creation indicates a Creator.
These arguments are certainly open to discussion. However, there was no feasible way for Comfort to provide what Cameron had promised: absolute scientific proof of God without reliance on faith. At least, unless labeling assertions as “100%, absolutely” qualifies as scientific backing.
The Christian community’s response afterward was mixed. Many felt Cameron and Comfort had arrived unprepared. Pastor Marty Duren succinctly assessed it, stating that they had been “completely shellacked.”
At least they didn’t bring an irrelevant distraction like a banana.
2. Dinesh D’Souza: Choose your opponent wisely
When Dinesh D’Souza debated New Testament expert Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina in 2009, he had crafted a solid strategy for engaging with “New Atheists” like Christopher Hitchens.
But therein lay the issue: Ehrman wasn’t Hitchens or Richard Dawkins at all. To put it simply, he identified more as agnostic, having previously been an evangelical Christian who had gradually lost his faith, with the problem of suffering being a significant factor in that shift.
Jason Staples, an attending Christian biblical scholar, described the outcome as a “beatdown.”
D’Souza appeared to be relying on material meant for a debate with a straightforward atheist like Hitchens and was seemingly oblivious to the perspective Ehrman was bringing. After a decent start, D’Souza was floundering during the questioning, while Ehrman remained focused on the arguments he was there to make.
This disparity led to some awkward exchanges. D’Souza critiqued atheists’ views on morality and treated Ehrman as though he was affirming God’s non-existence.
At one point, Ehrman reminded him, “You keep referring to atheists, but I consider myself to be agnostic,” as D’Souza’s set responses failed to engage with Ehrman’s keen points regarding the vast suffering prevalent in the world.
3. William Lane Craig: Prove your premises first
Unlike Kirk Cameron, William Lane Craig is a seasoned debater. The philosopher and Christian apologist has spent decades navigating debates with noted atheists, earning a reputation as a formidable opponent, even among rivals.
His encounter in 2009 with Yale philosopher Shelly Kagan was particularly intriguing.
The debate centered on whether God is essential for morality. Craig began with an assertion many Christians find intuitively appealing: If God doesn’t exist, then what underpins the objectivity of moral values and duties? Essentially, why is child torture wrong instead of just disliked?
An easier opponent might have taken on defending moral relativism. Kagan, however, dismissed the need to do so and merely stated that atheism doesn’t necessitate the rejection of objective morality. Perhaps objective morality could exist based on universally agreed-upon rational principles, Kagan posited. He refused to concede that the absence of God eliminated moral objectivity.
This forced Craig to pivot quickly, as he couldn’t spend his time outlining the issues stemming from relativism.
Kagan further challenged Craig’s other assertion: that without God, our actions ultimately lack significance. Just because humanity vanishes and the universe fades away, it doesn’t mean relationships lack meaning. His analogy regarding his marriage highlighted that a relationship can mean something without being eternal.
Even Catholic apologist Trent Horn remarked that Kagan was a notably tough opponent, acknowledging his thorough preparation and efficacy in pinning Craig down.
Later, Craig attempted to downplay his loss, maintaining that the dialogue had been intended to be amicable rather than confrontational, while still rejecting Kagan’s moral foundations.
Sure, but he allowed Kagan to highlight a common pitfall for seasoned debaters: becoming so adept at dismantling known positions that you overlook when the other party doesn’t hold them at all.
4. Jonathan McLatchie: Don’t let frustration derail you
In 2020, Christian apologist Jonathan McLatchie faced off against renowned atheist Matt Dillahunty regarding evidence for Jesus’s resurrection. Unfortunately, he struggled to maintain the composure necessary to deal with Dillahunty’s aggressive tactics.
Dillahunty is known for his confrontational style, often interrupting and pushing boundaries, which left McLatchie visibly agitated as Dillahunty dismissed evidence he deemed worthy of serious discussion.
Eventually, McLatchie’s frustration peaked. “If you’re just going to keep rejecting the evidence, then I’m done,” he declared, only to leave the conversation entirely.
Dillahunty seemed taken aback. “Oh, did he just leave?” he remarked.
McLatchie eventually returned, apologizing for exiting due to his irritation over Dillahunty’s interruptions. Catholic apologist Trent Horn later highlighted this incident as a teaching moment for Christians contemplating public debates, noting that leaving a discussion due to anger rarely reflects well.
Interestingly, McLatchie didn’t necessarily falter on substance. Some reviewers from his side felt Dillahunty’s behavior was poor and believed McLatchie presented stronger arguments. But once he left the debate, that sentiment held little weight.
5. William Lane Craig: Don’t demand too much from evidence
William Lane Craig’s 2014 discussion with Sean Carroll was a far more significant encounter.
The topic focused on “The Existence of God in Light of Contemporary Cosmology.” Carroll wasn’t just some casual skeptic; he was an esteemed theoretical physicist from Caltech.
Craig was well-aware of Carroll’s stature, and unlike Cameron and Comfort, he was adept in the intellectual materials. He had long cited modern physics in support of the Kalam cosmological argument: everything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe must have a cause.
During the debate, Craig brought up the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which discusses the limitations of certain expanding space-time models.
However, Carroll countered by asserting that Craig was placing undue emphasis on this theorem. While Craig viewed it as significant evidence supporting the universe’s beginning, Carroll pointed out that the theorem is based on specific assumptions and doesn’t definitively prove that all physical reality emerged at a singular moment.
Physicist Aron Wall later examined the debate thoroughly and noted that while Craig utilized Wall’s own work in his arguments, Wall sided with Carroll’s interpretation regarding the theorem’s limitations.
According to Wall, the theorem’s assumptions are not universally applicable in all cosmological models, allowing for scenarios that contract prior to expanding anew. His conclusion was clear: the BGV theorem “is not, by itself, particularly strong evidence for a beginning.”
Craig’s loss didn’t stem from a lack of knowledge about cosmology; the issue was more straightforward. A theorem can be accurate yet still prove less than one hopes.
Believers hold that truth is sacred, not merely useful. Thus, we should avoid stretching our arguments to fit preferred outcomes.
If an atheist catches us doing this, they haven’t disproven God’s existence — they’ve actually done us a service.
