Oxford Mathematician STUMPS Dawkins (With Argument From LOVE)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 май 2024
- In this video, Richard Dawkins and John Lennox discuss the relationship between Faith & Science and in the process an interesting debate arises around the topic of Love. I hope you enjoy!
FULL DEBATE HERE: • Richard Dawkins vs Joh...
MY DOCUMENTARY FILM: vimeo.com/ondemand/miningforgod
INSTAGRAM: / the_daily_dose_of_wisdom
FACEBOOK: / dailydoseofwisdomofficial
Religion and philosophy explain "Why". Science tries to explain "How". People like Dawkins thinks that science not only explains "How", but it also explains "Why". He's wrong because Dawkins views faith as belief instead of trust.
I dont think that religion at all does that 💀 even a agnostic could have taken him down in the first argument of his , Even look at Hinduism , They used science to pray 😭 niggahs they discovered the Trigonometric functions way back just to pray 😭 , they had logical debates about everything and the existence itself , they had debates about what exists and what is not matter but exists . They talk about the self , the cosmology , plastic surgery , yoga , Theory of Time is dynamic and multiverse with using the exact words “Bubble” in their texts 😭 hell nah people that ancient could look at the sky and interpret that and its their belief that led them to it , they even discovered Pi and the Pythagorus theorem to make a perfect shape in which they pray the fire . Same with Christianity the many scientists and science long ago came back from Christianity 😂 and the christians who brought this all , sure there were hazards when the topic of Flat earth used to come up, but this proves that religion isnt a stopper to knowledge seeking .
Islam was also ahead in things like Slavery , Pedophilia and copying others and releasing it as their own science discoveries😂
Religion doesn’t actually explain why tho.
@@DM-dk7js Religion and philosophy is the best explanation for WHY!
Exactly! Most atheists don't even know
Well said. Science can only tell you what *is* or will be, but cannot tell you the *why* or what ought to be!
Hahaha man I love that brother in Christ such elegance, love, and intelligence we need more like him!
What is the most elegant and or intelligent thing Lennox said to you in that video?
He’s a ridiculous, pompous, lying buffoon at this stage.
Move on and raise your standards
PLEASE PRAY FOR ALLEN HE'S IN THE HOSPITAL 🏥. THANK YOU FRIENDS.
Dang is it serious? I mean I know he is an old man now but he isn't in danger is he?
As an Atheist I hope he becomes better soon.
The Dr's are not hopeful. Said they don't believe he'll come home again. But, I know Jesus Christ can heal, anyone. No matter how ill they become.
@@darthbane2669 AGE, 77.
Is god punishing him?
" with ❤CHRISTIANITY we feel HOME " - RICHARD DAWKINS
Which means: "Even though we don't believe it, we're used to it." It is so comical there's 49 thumbs up for a comment none of you understand. But, it is clear, delusion causes you all to be equal in your lack of comprehension.
@@Lightbearer616 Glad we have the rational atheism then, that cannot even tell us why we are here.
You don't believe in God? How can you say those who do are delusional.
You can't even prove you yourself are not delusional so why should we listen to someone like you.
@fn-fc8oy how about all of humanity having more overlap in morality than different? And if you don't think that's the case you're ignorant by choice.
@fn-fc8oyLook under a microscope. Or through a telescope. Or at your thumb.
@fn-fc8oy The same evidence that tells me a car has been made by a factory and did not just grow out the ground.
To believe this universe was created from nothing would be the same as saying your car evolved over time to become what it is today. That is what i would call "delusion".
Have you ever looked at the code written in dna? How can you BELIEVE something as complex as that code could be written on accident?
Science observes God's creation 💯
And if we find it was created, and then WHICH GOD created it the whole world would be forever changed.
@@hhh-et2vithe thing that which is created isn't outside of the creation to observe any part of the how. its delusional at worst. at best, low iq
@@hhh-et2vi Other Gods don't claim to be the almighty creator. That is a very old atheism argument answered numerous times, seems like you guys never do a deep research.
We believe other gods, they are mentioned in the bible, we just rather worship the Almighty One. Their own tales doesn't describe them as a God like ours and it is described with numerous flaws.
@@sophiacristinabut you can’t actually demonstrate which god. That’s his point. You didn’t actually answer the question.
@@DM-dk7js I'm Sophia, but got paused.
It is demonstrated, none of those other Gods are the Almighty creator. So it is pretty obvious which God.
Thanks! I love educated Christians like John Lennox and Hugh Ross. They are great warriors for Christ.
Why do you use the violent imagery of "Warriors"?
Are they graduates of the barracks, or the siege workshop?
Ahh yes educated Christians, like catholics, jehovas and mormons. Then we have to talk about other believers like Islam and Judaism and what about Hindus.😅😅
Because the Bible does?
@noelpucarua2843 why does warrior have a negative tone? Is a warrior not used in par of defender?
Science is the study of God's creation
Ebyam
No
@@kos-mos1127 Yes it is. Before the Big Bang, there was literally nothing. Space, Time and Matter where literally created with the Big Bang, therefore creating the natural universe as we see it. The cause of the Big Bang had to be eternal, while also being spaceless, timeless and immaterial, also extremely powerful and also extremely intelligent considering the fine tuning and literally logic itself. It would take more faith to believe in the scientific impossibility of something popping out from nothing than the obvious evidence of an eternal being outside of Space, Time and Matter to bring something out of nothing
If that is so, then why didn't god leave some evidence behind that he created it?
@@nathancook2852 what do you consider evidence? Why does everything in this world have a purpose and place. Why are things useful when they are alive and also serve a purpose when they die? In my eyes this world is too perfect a cycle to not have been created... Just my thoughts. I'm not opposed to other ideas.
John Lennox is amazing
Yes. I like John Lennox's explanation of evidence-based faith rather than blind faith.
It is faith-based, if there were evidence it would have been presented long ago, and it would be the go to winning argument every time, no other argument would ever be necessary.
@@hhh-et2vi Yes they have evidence that they never produce but always claim.
@@hhh-et2vi Atoms took 1800 years to be proved, i bet in the year 1799 after the concept a guy said the same as you.
@@sophiacristina That has nothing to do with the God claim, and if the god claim was proven it would be accepted by everyone including me.
Love the grind you're on man, keep spreading the word, Brother!
Like a virus.
Love these debates…old or new. God bless 🙏💕
👍👍It's refreshing to hear John Lennox use the analogy of spousal love in defense of religious, specifically Christian, faith. It's an argument that crossed my mind years ago as I debated the belief of a higher power in my head.
Has divorce ever crossed your mind?
Yet I can dose a person up with the right series of drugs and induce love and trust. So I guess I have the same power as god.
@@deviouskris3012And you would categorize that as love, huh?
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue1922 love is a series of chemical reactions in the brain. This is why we see people lose what love they have for their families, as a result of serious brain injury. If love wasn’t an internal chemical reaction, that wouldn’t be possible.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue1922 Like believe in me or spend an eternity being tortured oozes of love.
Thanks!
Not so. The person desides whether or not the depth of interest of study. Ross the Physist delved into science and found himself deep into God. Dawkins inability to find God is his blindness to all avenues of study.
Blindness due to pride.
@@ReapingTheHarvestit’s not pride it’s just how you look at evidence can vary
Hugh Ross is not a physicist. He got a masters degree on astrophysics and went into ministry then became an apologetist. He did not delve deep into anything. He just got fat on credentials and wrote a bunch of Christian Apologetics books..
@@SonnyVakildoes this mean if Dawkins doesn’t change he’ll go to hell? I feel like he’s misguided but still is a man that is of good character and would contribute to gods will if he had a nudge in the right direction.
@@GN-dp7ej I think the one thing you have to come in terms with is that not everybody’s going to believe what you believe you know I think hell is created when people try to impose their beliefs on others through any force necessary that’s a good definition of hell would you agree?
Keep up the great work for God! Love God, love others.
I dont think that religion at all does that 💀 even a agnostic could have taken him down in the first argument of his , Even look at Hinduism , They used science to pray 😭 niggahs they discovered the Trigonometric functions way back just to pray 😭 , they had logical debates about everything and the existence itself , they had debates about what exists and what is not matter but exists . They talk about the self , the cosmology , plastic surgery , yoga , Theory of Time is dynamic and multiverse with using the exact words “Bubble” in their texts 😭 hell nah people that ancient could look at the sky and interpret that and its their belief that led them to it , they even discovered Pi and the Pythagorus theorem to make a perfect shape in which they pray the fire . Same with Christianity the many scientists and science long ago came back from Christianity 😂 and the christians who brought this all , sure there were hazards when the topic of Flat earth used to come up, but this proves that religion isnt a stopper to knowledge seeking .
Islam was also ahead in things like Slavery , Pedophilia and copying others and releasing it as their own science discoveries😂
Seth McFarland would be ashamed. Use your brain while it’s still there!
That's why sacremental marriage is so important to draw us both closer to God.
Dawkins is SO DECEIVED.😢
PRIDE is the stumbling block.
LET NO MAN DECEIVE YOU. ❤
Totally respect LENNOX and really appreciate his wisdom and knowledge.
Texas Nana
For the love of money…. Mon-eye is Dawkins’ religion… worships the mon-eye.
Yet, we must correctly answer Dawkins' questions about God because many others share his doubts.
@@mike7gerald The real question is about the supremacy of Agape - pure love from a pure heart that disadvantages no other person for personal gain. This is the characteristic that gives God His Value.
If God were a triggered narcissist, there would be no value in God, just torment.
How is the world working out with the Money Power Allodials rigging everything against tour interests because they only care about themselves and beating down all of us?
They believe themselves to be fit and us not so, and ONLY the fit survive.
If you are slow on the uptake, things are about to get much, much, much worse.
Agape is the only solution - nothing else humans have tried has ever worked.
The Creator God IS Agape and its Source for us.
Now choose. But when you reject it, you will reap what you sow, as will the collective. Agape God is not mocked.
Carefully answer Dawkins questions? Dawkins is just a guy with his own individual thoughts. And pride is a stumbling block? it's the pride of a Christian unable to admit they might be wrong.
@@mike7geraldas a basic answer I would agree by saying it is a semantic issue.
His objection is that he says faith means belief without evidence. And Christians have faith in God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
If the word did mean that, then Christians wouldn’t use the word because it isn’t a faith without evidence.
Christianity defines faith differently.
Dawkins is saying that Christians have faith in the way he means it, but Christians have faith in the way they mean.
He doesn’t actually have any critique (save maybe that Christians should translate pistis differently), it’s a semantic difference.
Long story short:
Dawkins says faith is without evidence therefore it’s wrong.
Christians say faith has evidence.
If Dawkins were to continue to critique on this basis he isn’t listening.
Lennox is similar to Chesterton, if Chesterton was capable of finding his way home in a city wherein he had lived his entire life.
I just think when people speak about evidence I would simply say. When people in the old days didn’t understand about virus and bacteria etc. just because there were no evidence they existed at the time it didn’t mean that it didn’t exist. I think we are naive to think we understand the whole universe and creation as I believe that things live outside what our sense can even perceive. We can only hear and see within a certain part of the frequency spectrum and we only have 5 senses. Our tiny minds can’t even comprehend what god actually is so we must have faith that god is the creator of all we know and understand…. And probably much more than that. Apologies of anyone thinks I am speaking out of turn I have literally been wrestling with the idea of Christianity and literally only been opening my heart to Jesus Christ over the past couple of weeks so my interpretation of the holy is still so green. But peace be upon you all ❤
But logically you ought reject claims that lack evidence. And if our brains are too tiny to decipher or decode god, that sounds like a logical reason not to believe in him.
@@DM-dk7js In this video, John Lennox explains that there is evidence to believe in God.
There's a bridge over a river. On this side, there's a foundation, upon which the bridge is built. I can see that on the other side, there is another foundation. But the span over the river itself, has not one support underneath it. Should I conclude that it is unsupported? Because I see no evidence of support underneath it . . . if one refuses to acknowledge the foundations on either side, holding it up.
But I might just reason that the way to determine if it's supported is to look really closely at the support underneath it, and ignore the supports on either side. That will allow me to both deny the support for the bridge, and I can also feel like a real demanding hard___, because I am so demanding of the space underneath the bridge span. When in doubt, just hone in and look closer. I'm a cosmonaut; it's 1957; I'm out here in space, and I do not see evidence for God.
If we are talking about the evidence, if any, for the Bible's God, we ought to be correct in thinking that if the Bible's God exists, He will behave as the Bible says He behaves. So if Jesus affirms that God reveals His reality and nature to the babies, those who are willing to believe in Him, and hides His truth from those wise-in-their-own-eyes ones who believe they are too good to believe in Him, I would likely be right to assume that if I want Him to reveal Himself to me, then anticipating that He does reveal Himself to those who want to know Him, would be the most likely way to have Him reveal Himself to me. That, and being unashamed of His way to reveal Himself to us will help, too. But sure, I can see that this puts me in an impossible place, if I'm trying to convince those wise and prudent people, who do not want to know Him or believe that He exists. I have already heard the objections they will have, many times. I dread them. I can decide that the only way to talk to them is by their rules, and only what is visible on the formica lab table they have reduced the world to, is admissible, but I know that God has not given me any of that kind of evidence-none that is undeniable by those who will want to deny it, anyway.
But, returning to the "do you trust your wife" argument, where it is deemed important that the object being examined is a Person, not just a set of propositions to be proven, I seem to remember that the Bible says (in John 1) that Jesus is "the Light that lightest every man who comes into the world". This intrigues me, even though I can't win any debates with a troll that way. Because I have noticed, that when I sense the presence of God, He is recognizable. I might think an impulse or feeling is the voice of God, even hope that it is, but the Bible instructs us to test the spirits to see if they are of God. Most such unsure experiences do not pass the test. But there is something about the times that I recognize His presence, and it occurs to me: what if Jesus revealed His light to me when I was very little, maybe still in the womb, so that when I hear His spiritual voice, I can recognize it? That would be true of everyone who comes into the world, although it is obvious that many people do not want such a thing to be true, and might suppress that voice until they can't spiritually 'hear" it anymore. Still, it would explain what we who believe have in common: exactly what Jesus said, thar the Father has revealed His truth to us. This is sadly a doctrine thst is despised by the debating saints, but they shouldn't despise what Jesus told us, even if it gets us nowhere in these day-and-night, rude, online debates. In fact, it's possible that we say more, even to the people scoffing at us, by telling it the way Jesus did, than if we appeal to the way the atheists demand, tbc
@@mike7geraldhe’s wrong tho. There is not. Feel free to provide that evidence tho.
That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not you have evidence to justify a rational belief. Something can be true and yet we don’t have sufficient evidence for it. If I went back in time and told people that germs are these microorganisms that make people sick, I would be telling the truth, but they would be perfectly reasonable in rejecting my claims, if I didn’t provide evidence. Until god is demonstrate to exist, rejecting the claim is the only rational position one can take, even if it ends up being true.
Great content!!
Just as you were talking I said out loud “God is love” and you said it at the same time. This was profound for me! Thanks 😊
Wow, I'm sure that two people have never said the same thing at the same time before (especially a trope used by a certain group of people very often) . And his logic is flawed. When has god ever performed a verifiable action for you that could be used as evidence he loves you? Key word - verifiable. Can't use any miracles from the bible, can't claim healing, he found me my soulmate, got me a job, or any of that nonsense. Faith that someone loves you is built upon actions they have performed, faith in a god is not the same. Two completely different things. The argument is invalid.
The mustache of this man is a gift from The Lord. Like dude save some stache for the rest of us. Great video and channel I enjoy it
AMEN!!!
That looks like a porn stash.
Amen! My faith in Jesus Christ is of faith, not delusion. 🙏
Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth
It’s of pure ignorance! You just cherry pick the nice parts. Nobody is really a Christian, just the PR version.
@Adam-gl1qv yes it is. Not blind faith
@@jasonpage8600you don't understand what a Christian is
No it is of delusion AND faith. It’s a collective pretend groupthink falsity.
Love you videos. They have brought a lot of life to me in the last few months. - but I will say, I like the videos without the music behind them at the beginning better. My opinion but just thought Id share.
Glad you like them! And thanks for the feedback!
This debate took place just a few miles from my house at the time. I still kick myself for not being there.
Considering that the greatest advances in Science have been from men that believed in God and just wanted to know him better. They were not stalled in searching for answers because they knew of God. It was quite the contrary.
I don't know the institutional church history, if the actually used that frase: God did it and hindered science, but I know modern day scientist which are Christians and never use that excuse and keep researching and doing great things in their field...
Religion actively works to prevent scientific progress. Threatening those who’s evidence based reasoning has disputed terrible religious answers.
@@deviouskris3012 you are talking from an echo chamber or did you check it out?
@@Jerry-ft5lo Years of checking it out and seeing the oppostion that theism has made to every scientific advance. Religion outright fights progress and then attempts to co-op it once it is accepted fact. Look at ID. That is the result of religion being forced to acept genesis was BS and evolution is real. Kicking the can down the road and claiming god is the reason for that which they actively fought for over a century to disprove.
@@deviouskris3012Not today at all. That's a statement without any facts
Faith in the God of Christianity isn't blind. You can define faith however you want, that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about!
So what makes it not “blind”? Are you saying you have actual evidence?? If you have evidence, then why say you have faith?
@@johnnybgood7442 You also have faith. Faith is not a state of belief. I guess you don't know what FAITH is.
@@raphaelfeneje486 well, seeing as how words are descriptive and NOT prescriptive, why don’t you tell me your definition of “faith”? And then explain why I have it as well.
@@johnnybgood7442 Faith simply means trusting in what you have good evidence for. If you say blind faith, it means trusting in something without evidence. You have faith because there are things you trust in even though you can't proof it.
@@raphaelfeneje486 that’s what your not understanding. It’s pure word games. If someone asks you why you believe in god, why wouldn’t you just say, it’s because I have evidence? Why bring the word “faith” into the equation when we already have a non-confusing word called evidence? And when theists get pressed on their “evidence”, why do so many of them resort to ‘well it just takes faith’? Does that mean it just takes evidence??
Great!
Have watched a few of your videos lately. Good stuff. God bless you
Thank you!
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Awesome videos Brandon dude 😎. Mathematics Professor John Lennox out here making modern Atheists like Richard Dawkins look silly and speaking FACTS 🔥. I was raised Christian but I became an agnostic and atheist at 17-19 years old until I started studying religious beliefs, Christianity and Apologetics Happy Pentecost season brothers, sisters and everyone else He's Alive forevermore AMEN 🙏 ❤️ 👏. This has nothing and everything to do with the video but please listen if you want to otherwise leave it alone and ignore it. Hello my name is Justin and I'm a fellow Christian and Apologist but I'm also a college graduate. I'm not a closed minded Theist as I have nothing against Atheists or unbelievers as I speak to them often to understand their reasons for unbelief but we as Christians are convinced of God's Existence due to many real factors). I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince anyone to become Christians as that's The Holy Spirit's job to help people believe but only explain why I believe in Jesus Christ. There's actually evidence of God's Existence in Christianity. First of all there's proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed in history since the writings of Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the younger and other historical documents prove that He was living two thousand years ago that even scholars both religious and Atheists agree with historically speaking but not that He's The Divine Son of God because obviously they don't.
I'm going to give you historical and archeological evidence for God's Existence as The Scriptures have prophecies that predate the events recorded in them by several millennia including Matthew, Hosea and Zechariah which prophesy accurately of the people of Israel becoming a nation again after over 1900 years of being scattered around the nations since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. spoken of by Christ in Matthew 23:29-24:3 and returning to their homeland after The Holocaust with Jerusalem as their capital in 1948 exactly as Jesus The Christ said. The prophets including Daniel spoke of the time where several world empires would arise and fall including the Babylonian kingdom, Medes and Persians, Roman Empire, and Saladin and the Muslims which went in consecutive order for the past few millennia. The people of Israel becoming a nation after The Holocaust in 1948 (ironically the melting point of gold as God compares Israel to gold that's tested in fire in Zechariah 13:8 and Jeremiah 16:15) exactly how Jesus The Christ said would happen since God us everything to come in The Scriptures and not just because people were working towards as Atheists claim which are impossible for any regular man to predict.
Just before anyone says Christianity is a white man's religion made to oppress blacks during slavery you obviously aren't aware that the first Christians were Jews in The Middle East and that Christianity just like any religion can be used by evil and corrupt people to oppress others but you forget that the first Abolitionists/Civil Rights activists were Christians who sought to abolish slavery, racism, segregation, injustice and prejudice throughout American history. Jesus The Christ loves you enough not to give you what we all deserve which is God's Wrath by His Own Blood. Charles Darwin didn't originally come up with The Theory of Evolution over 200 years ago as it is mentioned in the writings of Ancient Greeks who believed in Demons that gave knowledge to philosophers.
Evolution makes no sense when nothing has evolved after thousands of years of human history and supposedly the first creature came from primordial sludge several millions of years
ago funny how they won't believe that God an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being created us from the Earth) which came from a supermassive expansion of matter at high temperature that inexplicably created everything in the known universe that supposedly came from nothing billions of years ago. How did the organs evolve before there were bones, skin, substance and how did any creatures see before eyes evolved? I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" and I'm not convinced of macro Evolutionary biology whereas I accept micro Evolution like speciation and adaptation but not macro Evolution because there's no evidence of it nor clear observable examples of it where living creatures evolve into other kinds of species plus the fact that fossils don't show evidence of evolution and genetic entropy rules out evolution. The question begs how did two genders evolve from a common ancestor with a perfectly hospitable and sustainable environment with breathable oxygen and resources to survive on inexplicably? Atheists have the burden of proof to explain how everything came to be and why our existence is possible without the Existence of God from an godless perspective just as Christians have to provide evidence of God's Existence and the validity of His Word.
Evolution requires life to already exist in order to take any effect in living organisms so it doesn't account for the existence of Life and reality. Also evolution is impossible because it goes against The Law of entropy and the second Law of thermodynamics because evolution makes things better whereas nothing continues to get better but decays and turns to absolute destruction in the end. Mark Ridley an Evolutionist said "No evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of The Theory of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to special Creation". God's Existence is made perfectly known and observable in the universe as demonstrated in His Handiwork in the intelligently designed manner that Creation was made, human consciences and consciousness historical and archaeological evidence of God's Word being valid history, fulfillment of Bible Prophecies God in His Holiness and Righteousness could give us what we deserve in Hell for our since but He's merciful to give us free will to choose to accept or reject His gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus. I don't mean this is any condescending manner but if you'd like to discuss The Scriptures with me or have me listen to your view on anything my instagram account is Savage Christian Kombatant
Believers in the Bible stories: "Let me prove that God exists by turning this piece of wood into a snake"
Believers today: "I can feel it, man. And I also have arguments"
It's a shame many Christians today aren't well-equipped to defend their faith 😞
Christians have always had sound reasonings and supernatural events as lines of evidences. It is for Christians to know how to access and apply them.
Now, would the Skeptics accept those or explain all away??
@@timothytakang5407 how can I differentiate what you say from an excuse?
Honestly, do you really think that the sun stopped at the sky for 3 days? A guy had super strength because he didn't cut his hair?
I'm not trying to be mean or so, I just look back to the time I was a believer and see that most of what I believed can be way better explained as one more myth between all the others. We just happened to born in a social context which that myth was present.
@@bloqueadoBut why are you thinking of him as an old man in the sky? He isn’t that.
@@bloqueado An excuse?? Yep, explaining away time.
Naturalism is false (all isn't just the physical and miracles are real).
When I see a car, I know there was someone designed it, created it's parts, assembled all those parts together in such a way that the car can function perfectly. The issue of whether I want to study how that car was made and how it works have nothing to do with this one truth: "Someone made this car". God did it was not the excuse to not study His creations. I know firstly God did it, He did all of it, now studying His creations is my issue.
When you see a cloud, do you think it came off an assembly line?
People really still use this argument? The watchmaker argument has been debunked so many times, I almost don’t think you’re being serious.
@Btwixed 😂 atheism is the rejection of theist claims… that’s it. Atheism doesn’t have anything to do with morality, (and neither does blanket theism) so why would you expect it to? Most atheists I know are secular humanists, and THAT is potentially where their morality comes from.
@@johnnybgood7442 but theist claims do involve morality. Science changes over time, when people understand further. Something can only be fact when it can be proven e.g we need oxygen to live and one evidence is oxygen tanks for the divers. But telling me all this complexity came about by itself and stamping a long period of time between that time and now is not scientific, as it can't be observed. Where are the transitional forms between species? How can DNA code itself ? What about male and female, I mean in humans at least they had to come up around the same time for a pregnancy to happen. You see all these issues and that's just a couple among a trillion?
@Btwixed Simple. Morality is subjective.Theists will insist it is objective to try and trick you into thinking a higher power is required. It isn't.
You and I agree we don't want to be murdered. Society agrees the same (mostly). We collectively agree to declare it immoral and make an agreement/law not to kill each other for our mutual benefit.
Same for theft, rape and anything else, Boom, a moral framework has been created. No god required - it's pretty simple mate.
Interesting debate
Absolutely great video. We get or definition of the word faith from the Greek and Hebrew understandings. It is essential trust, we trust our wife or husband loves us because of (blank) evidence. So the proper use of the word faith is defined by proper use of the word trust or even love.
You know you can give verifiable proof and interact with your wife's existence, right?
I doubt you can do the same with your god
The problem with these modern atheists is that their arguments against religion are so basic. Old atheists used to at least give religion the nod of respect but the new atheists have such little understanding of what it is they're even arguing against
The argument for atheism is that previously theists have not (and have never shown) any verifiable evidence to support their claim (that their god exists).
So, do you have any evidence to share?
Evolutionary biologist stumped when mathematician uses appeal to emotion fallacy.
Brandon, in your view are the words faith and confidence 1:1 synonyms? If not, what do you think the difference between them is?
I think colloquially we use the interchangeably quite often, but I think the bible defines faith different than how we define confidence in the English language.
The word “confidence” comes from the Latin “con fide”, meaning “with faith” or “with trust”. Same roots.
@@StaceyMcDonald Lots of words share roots but diverge in meaning, and appealing to the root word as the sole source of meaning is known as an etymological fallacy. I’m asking because faith is one of the slipperiest words I know. An hour ago a Christian told me they believe it had two meanings, one of which was belief without evidence. This is something a lot of Christian’s would reject, and other would accept. Hebrews seems to support it also based on some interpretations.
So in a conversation it’s good to let someone define how they see the word in order to better understand what they mean when they use it.
So are you telling me that you think the words are 1:1 synonyms? Or are there any differences between them?
Donkins sets up a false dichotomy from the very start. His logical fallacies are legendary !!!
dawkins has tried, and failed, to take hitchens' place after he died. just two different personalities and two very different intellects.
@recoveringknowitall1534: “Dawkins has tried, and failed, to take Hitchens' place after he died.”
Bullshit, Dawkins predates Hitch.
Dawkins wrote his book “The Selfish Gene” in 1976 that popularised the gene-centred view of evolution.
In 2007 at the dawn of the new atheist movement, the thinkers who became known as “the four horsemen,” the heralds of religion's unravelling-Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett.
Yes, I'm also married to an invisible woman which I can't see, or hear, or touch. I love her and I know she loves me back. Because...why not.
But that’s not the kind of relationship God is looking for
@@24t44ynOf course not. He's looking for a relationship based on pressure, fear, punishment, master and servant, as people did in the old days. But spoken and processed through third people. Praise the lord!
@@theamalgamut8871 I think you don't know God at all
@@24t44yn And you do?😂
Quite an ingenious thing to use in this argument, "love" especially concerning the wife. If you are married you may know, or at least come to know, that your spouse is A source of salvation, not necessarily The source, but A source. Richard was entering unfamiliar territory concerning the power of love.
I'm surprised you're not getting copyright
I'd say the average person doesn't really think of "faith" as being "evidence-based," the word is mostly attributed to blind/meaningless/unfounded faith, which is why many non-believers get caught on that word, and many believers are willing to be lazy and allow "faith" to replace reason.
What verifiable action has a god done for you that provides evidence? Again, verifiable. No "miracles" from the Bible, none that "He healed me!" nonsense. Verifiable. Science has mountains of verifiable evidence. You have none. Belief in a god is blind faith. Belief someone loves you is based on many encounters with them and meaningful, verifiable evidence that their love is true. Those are two completely different kinds of faith.
@@nathancook2852But at the end of the day, Science and scientific evidence can’t answer why everything functions the way it does, only how it works. Your entire argument completely proved his point that your understanding of faith is flawed because you base all your assumptions on scientific evidence that is inevitably limited.
@bullmoosevelt4495 bro you're saying things would be different if they were different. What the hell? Like bro imagine a machine that randomly generates a number of hundred. When you get 68 you're just saying because I got 68 out of the hundred, god exists. Like using your non-existent brain for once. it's Bound to be something.
I actually mostly like Dawkins. I can see how God would love him dearly. Yes he's foolish and sometimes a little full of himself, and he has stumbled and tripped on his own words and logic many times when trying to refute the existence of God, and yet he remains stubborn. But somehow that is strangely endearing. I think he will see God one day, I really do. God love him.
Love without evidence is just stalking. Tim Minchin
GOD is truth. If we believe in Him, we will never be looking for an easy solution. That is why I love science.
If you watch the full discussion, it’s pretty clear Dawkins came out on top.
He didn’t stump Dawkins. They just had a difference in semantics and definitions. If you have evidence, you can have confidence, and be convinced of something . You don’t need faith. Faith is only needed when you don’t have good evidence.
Yes - totally agree with you - so show me the evidence for nothing...you know, that stuff that the universe expands into? Or how about the evidence of how life "evolved" into a cell?
The bottom line is atheists also need faith to believe in atheism
As a kid, you had faith that your parents would pick you up from school every day because they continued to demonstrate to you that they would. Although they could've easily just one day decided not to pick you up anymore, you believed they would show up again based on the evidence you had. You wouldn't have that same faith in a stranger, for that would then be blind faith. The type of faith I described is what true Christians have in the God of the Bible.
Jesus didn't come into the world and just say "I am the Son of Man! Believe in Me". He was an evidentualist that time and time again gave people proof of His divinity, whether if it was by performing miracles or predicting the future
@@nathanielpotts2556 Don't confuse faith and confidence.
Are you saying that Christians have blind faith? If so, I am agreeing with you.
@@BARKERPRODUCTION no im saying the exact opposite. You gain faith in something because the evidence is compelling and, through this, gain confidence.
I am not a Christian because of a hunch and blind faith . I am a Christian because the evidence and proof described in the Bible I believe is the most historically accurate and believable. I am a Christian because I have personal experiences that have strengthened my faith in Jesus.
Also, Christianity answers the three most important questions we ask ourselves about our existence: how did we get here, why is it so messed up and evil, and how do we fix it?
What is your evidence that there is no god at all?
@@nathanielpotts2556 SO in your view what is the difference between faith and confidence? My understanding was that Christian feel their belief is special because it's based on faith not on data or proof.
My position is not that "there is no god". My position is I don't believe that any gods exist because I have not encountered any good evidence or convincing arguments for a god. I am open to the possibility of a god, and have searched and observed and discussed for decades.
I am not convinced by the Christian books or by a Christian claiming to have had a spiritual experience. If that were enough, I would have to believe in dozens of religions, because they all have books and people who claim to have had divine experiences.
Faith is a belief without evidence or reason coincidentally that is also the definition of delusion (Richard Dawkins)
You mean axioms.
I agree. But faith in Christ is evidence based
@@juanperaza5471 But there is no evidence for christ if you can't prove god then you can't prove son of god. so there might have been a Jewish Rabbi named Jesus but then they might not have been there are historians now saying it was a myth.
@@truthgiver8286 Thank you for getting back to me. :) here are a few pieces of evidence I have found supporting Christianity.
Prophecy: I've dedicated over 20 years to studying the Bible, particularly its prophecies. Every prophecy in the Bible has come true, except for the last one. The Bible even foretold Christ's coming over 400 years before it happened. You'd be amazed to learn all these things if only you were open to it.
Demonology: You might want to read about Dr. Richard Gallagher. He's a renowned psychiatrist who explains the existence of demonic entities. Interestingly, he wasn't a Christian before delving into this field. He explains how these evil spirits are cast out when using Jesus name.
Fine-Tuning of the Universe: This concept argues for the existence of a creator based on the precise conditions necessary for life in our universe.
The Moral Argument: This highlights the existence of objective moral values and argues that they point towards a moral lawgiver, namely God.
The Big Bang Theory and the Beginning of the Universe: Understanding the origins of the universe, particularly through scientific theories like the Big Bang, can also lead one to consider the existence of a creator.
@@truthgiver8286 :
Thank you for reaching out. I'm going to share a few pieces of evidence supporting Christianity.
Prophecy: I've dedicated over 20 years to studying the Bible, particularly its prophecies. Every prophecy in the Bible has come true, except for the last one. The Bible even foretold Christ's coming over 400 years before it happened. You'd be amazed to learn all these things if only you were open to it.
Demonology: You might want to read about Dr. Richard Gallagher. He's a renowned psychiatrist who explains the existence of demonic entities. Interestingly, he wasn't a Christian before delving into this field.
Fine-Tuning of the Universe: This concept argues for the existence of a creator based on the precise conditions necessary for life in our universe.
The Moral Argument: This highlights the existence of objective moral values and argues that they point towards a moral lawgiver, namely God.
The Big Bang Theory and the Beginning of the Universe: Understanding the origins of the universe, particularly through scientific theories like the Big Bang, can also lead one to consider the existence of a creator. These are only a few pieces of evidence I can think of. I am only an expert in one of them (prophecy) however, numerous articles have been written by other Christians regarding those other points.
Religion is what man does for God
Theology is what God does for man , ✝️❤️
6:35
Lennox argues that "the sophistication" of mechanisms is "evidence" of god....
That is to say, the theory of relativity, which is complex and sophisticated, is "evidence" of the existence of God?
what a crap !
So what about the physicists, doctors, engineers, biologists, chemists, computer scientists, mathematicians, etc... Who are also Christians... Bible believing Christians. And what about the very nature of scientific endeavor that was brought into being by the ancient Christian monks.... Rolling up their sleeves and trying to work it out?
So what do you do with the fact that a lot of non-Christians are also physicists, doctors, engineers biologists, chemists, computer scientists, mathematicians etc...
China and India are full of them.
And, you forgot to mention the Christians who make and sell weapons.
John Lennox is the GOAT
There is only one who is great, that is the father in heaven.
Your contents are always superb... Thank you for sharing all the profound debates of great people... ❤
I think your beard is hiding your great smile... ;) ❤❤❤
Would love to see you without the beard. You are probably more handsome... ;)❤❤❤
We are so blessed that John Lennox is so passionate about the glory of God. He is articulate, intelligent, genteel, and wise. In some ways, I’m grateful for Richard Dawkins too as these debates give a platform for the believing and unbelieving world to witness. I pray that Dawkins repents and places his faith in Christ Jesus.
How is this stumped? lol 😂
I have faith my wife loves me because for 1 year she’s been amazing day in day out, she stays optimistic even when it’s tuff, she cooks for me when I’m hungry and i do the same , she’s transparent and always present, she tells me when I’m wrong and she acknowledges me when I do something thoughtful, she literally has told me everything she does is because she loves me
Having Faith in a man in the sky because a Jewish man following his Jewish religion thinking he was the chosen one for his JEWISH people got snitched on and got killed doesn’t make any type of sense or is there any evidence to have faith in that
Sounds like your wife is having an affair...best you check up on that
They don’t see the false equivalence, unfortunately.
Wait until something goes wrong in your marriage, and then you'll really come to see your true faith in her.
@@bestill365 correct I will SEE it.
Unlike an imaginary friend
dawkins evidence for his wife thing is less evidence now. people out here cheating and still give all that
You don't get it, do you?
@@raphaelfeneje486 get what?
@@conspiracy1914I agree with you. Even Judas kissed Jesus, but it was a sign to the soldiers who they were suppose to take. One more thing is that people are not only cheating on their spouse, but as we see on Dateline they actually take their life for any number of reasons. There is no way to know what someone's reason is for their behavior, thus it makes faith in a flawed human erroneous. Since Jesus died and rose again we can have faith in His deity and commitment to mankind. God bless you
There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. It is just people making up claims.
No, I wouldn’t say love is metaphysical.
Love has a definition. It “exists” when you act in accordance with that definition and/or meet its tenets.
For example, sacrifice and commitment might be acts of love.
Selfishness and disloyalty are not acts that are in accordance with what we perceive love to be.
So, to prove you love someone? Easy, act accordingly.
Dogs chasing eachothers tails, on and on.
1 Corinthians 13:1-13, explains what true love is.
This is how must poeple are nowadays.
Romans 1:18-32.
2 Peter 3:3-13. And more,
They don't even realize they are fullfilling Bible prophecies, and they call us
(the christians) stupid.
Yes, but if we did not believe we'd still be like that... they need prayer.
@@ljupconewman9357 Amen 🙏🏼✝️🕊
The host said we measure love by physical mechanisms. Yep. That’s true. That’s how we know someone loves us (usually). Show me how god plays out in physical mechanisms. When has god kissed you or got you flowers or took you out for dinner? He hasn’t. Never happens. That’s why faith in god is not the same as trusting that someone loves you based on physical interactions.
John Lennox is a treasure!
Amen.
Dawkins is such a smart guy, why does he attempt to make this point with massive ahistorical holes in it?
He’s a sophist spewing well-paid propaganda.
The Money Power Allodials are VERY religious and believe those atheists are NPCs in the eyes of God and unfit.
Only the fit survive, Dawkins.
Bottom line to me from watching so many of these debates is that he doesn’t like the idea of answering to a higher authority. He wants to be his own god at the end of the day. Sad state to be in, therefore let us pray that the Lord knock the scales from Dawkins’ eyes and save him just as He did for us who are awaiting our Heavenly home to worship and Praise the Lord Jesus for all eternity 🙏🏻 ❤️
Maybe he’s not as smart as his pushed reputation suggests.
Maybe he is ignorant of history?
No he’s not
No smart person contends that it’s possible that everything just poofed into existence from nothingness
That isn’t smart
That’s dummm
Then Lennox goes on to make the argument that finding something complicated is evidence for god. How?! That doesn't follow at all. Why are we to assume that a god would make complicated things? He doesn't support this at all.
Your incoherent. He said science was advanced by the philosophy that God made laws for how things worked. And Newton was amazed at God's work with gravity. Christians advanced science,pretty much made modern science
@@paulerlingheuser8453
_"Your incoherent. "_
Nope. You're just confused.
_"He said science was advanced by the philosophy"_
He literally says that 'religion was the driving force behind science'.
_"And Newton was amazed at God's work with gravity. "_
.....and?
_"Christians advanced science,pretty much made modern science"_
Back then everyone was Christian so they did everything. That doesn't mean that religion is the driving force behind science which was his claim.
You didn't even address my post.
Try again.
As someone who has studied industrial product design, i could not agree more.
I wonder what would happen when my teachers ask me to design a machine to peel banana's and i brought them something with more than 5 parts.
Let alone something as complex as life.
I would immediately fail my class.
Complexity is a sign of really poor design.
Either life is not designed or it is very very very poorly designed.
Both do not describe the christian god.
So, if a robot can imitate the behavior of human love, then does that mean a robot loves you? Because the evidence is in all those "little signs and gestures". It's actually a profound question, still I wonder if that's what the word faith actually means.
You know your faith has turned blind when you're literally resorting to any argument, no matter how dull or stupid, to cling to your own self-deception.
Honestly, it is a matter of what is your philosophical assertion. "science is all there is, so anything not physical is debunked by default:
which of course is a position that needs justification but most atheists dont like to take a position they have to justify
Since you partially used quotation(s), I assume you’re trying to quote someone right? So who says that “science is all there is”?
I can speak for myself when I say something like ‘the natural world is all we have evidence for, so I won’t accept a supernatural claim until it has been demonstrated to exist’. What’s wrong with that, exactly?
@@johnnybgood7442 Apologies, I meant to say "nature is all there is"
I have heard many naturalists/materialists say that. There is nothing wrong with claiming that nature is all there is, but that is a position that requires justification just like anything else. Furthermore, I believe there is plenty of evidence for the supernatural, the problem is most atheists/materialists only accept physical phenomena as evidence so they by definition rule out the supernatural as possible because they take an untenable philosophical stance.
Does that make sense?
If what you say is "we cant believe things without evidence" then my response would be that we believe TONS of things without undeniable proof everyday.
Can you prove to me that you exist right now?
The metaphysical and immaterial needs justification because we have never observe anything purely metaphysical. The Cosmos does not need justification because the Cosmos is the whole physical reality.
When people hear the term physical they unconsciously associate with it being real. When people here the term metaphysical they unconsciously associate it with being purely phycological.
@@kos-mos1127 My replies keep being removed for some reason. The physical also needs justification.
My main point is, even the philosophical assertion "nature is all there is and we shouldnt assume otherwise" is an assertion that cannot be verified by the physical.
Prove to me that the universe wasnt created last Thursday with an appearance of age.
Prove to me that there are other minds besides my own.
Prove to me that mathematical and logical truths apply to the universe.
ALL of these suppositions that we hold are NON physical. They are all META physical and yet we are happy to accept them. Do you see my point. Hopefully this comment isnt removed.
@@josephtattum6365 The physical does not need justification. The physical mean force or interaction. The metaphysical is a description of the physical and descriptions require justification because they have an element of arbitrariness. We can always ask why this description vs that description.
The statement that “Nature is all that is” is an apriori assumption. The counter factual claim that Nature is not all there is cannot be demonstrated even in principle.
You wil never be able to show that the universe was created on last Thursday so no one will take that claim seriously.
You will never be able to show that there are no other minds besides yours which means the claim is irrelevant.
Mathematical and logical truths do not apply to the universe. Mathematical and logic are based on the assumptions that are chosen so the math and or logic follows from that. Mathematics and logic always has to confront the universe in order to be relevant. String Theoy is an example of this. The mathematics and logic is sound but it does not apply to the universe.
There is a diffence between a metaphysical assumption and a philosophical assumption. A metaphysical assumption is the definition of reality and our understanding or reality. Philosophical assumptions is ontology and the relationship between things as well as epistemology.
Love without evidence is stalking.
That's why we are called to know God so we could love Him, not just speculate or know about Him 😊 God doesn't ask for the impossible.
@@the0s0ph1st I've read the Bible, I know that god and I have no intention of sacrificing my humanity and morality on the alter of a deity that amongst other terrible and depraved things slaughters the innocent. Real or otherwise I could never "love" a deity that demands love on pain of extreme eternal violence.
@@downenout8705When I read the Bible, I see a pathetic, even evil, nation who doesn't deserve the love of a benevolent God, and yet they were loved with a "tough" love.
I sometimes have to laugh at atheists who complain that a totally benevolent God wouldn't let evil exist. If God really did let all evil vanish on Earth, would you and I remain? Would your "morality" and "humanity" be enough to let God pass over you?
@@downenout8705 When I read the Bible, I see a nation who doesn't deserve the love of a benevolent God, and yet they were loved with a "tough" love.
When I hear atheists who complain that a totally benevolent God wouldn't let evil exist I have to ask: if God really did let all evil vanish on Earth, would you and I remain? Would your "morality" and "humanity" be enough to let God pass over you?
@@the0s0ph1st If you want to define your god as something less than omnibelevonant, then my post isn't directed at you. You might be content worshipping a deity that grants the gift of virtual immunity from cancer to the naked mole rat whilst simultaneously standing idly by watching A die in agony from the decease, I am not.
If you add a drop of sewage to a glass of pure water, you have a glass of sewage water.
A babies
As an aside I have no interest in answering hypothetical questions as my answer has zero impact on the reality of your god.
One needs go no further than St Thomas Aquinas to find the power of rationality begetting great faith.
Dawkins refutal was like: let’s not talk about it.
When has a god taken you out to dinner? Bought you a gift? Provided any sort of verifiable evidence that he/she loves you? Never. Comparing faith that someone loves you after it has been demonstrated time and time again to having faith in a god for which no verifiable evidence exists is two different things. The argument is irrational.
I'm halfway through and Lennox hasn't really said anything of substance yet.
We get to this - 'people became scientific because they expected law in nature and a lawgiver' ...therefore he claims that it's religion that drove science.
That isn't what is driving people in science the though. What drives them is a desire to find the answers. We expected stability in the laws because that's what we observe. Oh sure you can credit that with a magical being but this belief isn't what is driving the desire to explain things. So to give religion the credit for science is nonsense.
The analogy is nonsensical. Faith in your wife/love? You can see the person who loves you. Actually you need to see, feel and have physical evidence of someone in order to love them. No one feels love from someone they’ve never seen, heard, touched, interacted with or know nothing about.
You see your wife. Other people can corroborate it.
What a poor analogy. It’s semantics play.
Lennox does this the whole time. He is always so smug thinking he's just delivered a "gotcha" blow, but the reality is that he just always delivers flawed statements and demonstrates very feeble thinking.
@@mchooksis yep. And the interviewer goes along, for obvious reasons. They’re not interested in truth, they’re interested in convincing people their faith based opinion is the truth.
Love is the opposite of slavery. Love is the gift of freewill, that freedom God gave us to test us with.
Should you exercise your freewill to deny another theirs then you express love as hate, freedom as prison.
Therefore circumcision of the flesh unto an inchoate baby is...? Is of the letter, not of the spirit, of interpretation not of intention.
Even if Dawkins realized he was wrong he'd have a very hard time admitting it after all the arguing against God.. so I doubt he'd even admit it 🤷🏼♂️
What.... science doesn't roll up their sleeves and work on it.. they work on what they believe and they're bery biased and political, and assumptious
I will never stop recognizing Richard Dawkins honestly in the debate...
A true honest person,
Unlike hitchens who was a hateful bitter poor human being...
If his wife treated him like God treats us, I doubt he'd have faith that she loved him.
How does God treat us, exactly?
@@spideycomic_15 Ok picture this: you have cancer. God has the power to take it away. You say please take it away? God says no. Don't wanna. But maybe you'll get a little comfort if there is any positive news at all, and you are free to praise him as if that's his doing, but there is going to be plenty of bad news for no reason just cuz he's smarter than you. See if your wife did that, I would say, get away from that lady, she doesn't actually care about you.
@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr -
Okay. So you are basically saying that if God doesn't answer every prayer with a yes, he doesn't exist, correct?
If God doesn't fix all our earthly problems, does that mean he doesn't love us?
@@spideycomic_15 If he lets people suffer for NO REASON and has the power to stop it, then yeah that's someone that doesn't love you. How do you define love? Suffering for no reason? Suffering to prove that you love someone that doesn't love you and that's why you have to suffer? That's a toxic relationship.
@@spideycomic_15 "answer every prayer" He'll help you find your socks, praise God! But won't save a child with cancer or who gets abused every day for their entire childhood. He's got the randomness and care of not existing. You can't say well we let our children suffer a little to learn lessons and then say it makes sense the extent of evil in the world. Christians do this with contradictions in the bible too. Well SOME contradictions are only apparent, so none of them are true contradictions. This does not logically follow. Some contradictions are not because of different emphases, point of view, or a lack of context and understanding. You can hand wave away SOME of this, but not all of it and that is a serious problem.
Recently Dawkins said he prefers a Christian based culture because it is rational. 🤔 So he must have some faith to base his preference. How else does he account for it?
When and where did he say that? I know he said he preferred a Christian system over an Islamic system, but that isn’t the same thing.
@@johnnybgood7442 uh that's what I said about what Dawkins said. Are you reading impaired?
Even if he said that, which I am skeptical of, it’s a statement that can easily be based on evidence and onservatuon, and doesn’t need faith.
@@BARKERPRODUCTION so Christianity is evidence based then? 🤔Faith is trusting in things unseen which by itself is unseen only observed in part.
@@briancasey4917no not at all. He can look at the effect that different religious belief systems have on various cultures and draw conclusions from that. It doesn’t require faith.
From the videos I've seen so far, this channel seems to traffic in "bad faith spins" of these videos. For goodness sake, Lennox didn't "stump" Dawkins. Dawkins only hesitated because he realized that answering the question specifically about his wife would get in to personal information he didn't care to delve in to - and the audience laughingly understood this. Instead this video host spins this as Dawkins being "stumped." (And Lennox, sophist and disingenuous apologist that he is, constantly tells stories of "stumping" atheists). Lennox was spouting all sorts of dubious mush, and Dawkins was the one with actual incisive thought and commentary. When it came to "love," Lennox asked if Dawkins could explain why he had "faith" in his wife. As Dawkins clarified, he thinks "faith" is the wrong word, and that one can have a justified belief - not merely "faith" - that your spouse loves you. As Dawkins points out, it's based on evidence! The evidence of how your spouse acts towards you which suggests she loves you, and Richard gives a couple examples (of which could be many). So as Richard says, he doesn't need the term "faith." And all Lennox does in return is simply ASSERT "that's FAITH." That's no counter argument to Dawkins. If you think it is, you are hallucinating.
Then the video host goes on to simply assert that love is metaphysical...with NO evidence for this claim! Whereas all the evidence we have is that we are fully physical beings, our minds fully dependant on our brains, and we actually do know some things about what type of chemical reactions and brain changes are associated with feelings of "love." To this all theists have are hand-waving claims of the supernatural.
Lennox is one of the worst of the Christian apologists: he's a gussied up salesman whose shtick is to (most often) defend Christianity as compatible with science. He uses so much semantic and conceptual sleight of hand that he has to know he's being sophistic. In this one he uses the hoary old claim that science arose only insofar as people believed in a law-like regularity to nature because they believed in a law giver. But NOBODY had to believe in a God to notice regularities in nature!!! People noticed the sun traced the same path in the sky, that certain plants regularly grew in certain places, that seasons reliably came and went, that things always fell "down" etc. People were already availing themselves of the observed regularity of nature, and so further trying to predict it made sense.
Lennox also argues, in his typical sophistic "Science Is Good With God" fashion, that when Newton arrived at the equations of motion Newton didn't abandon God. But Lennox conveniently doesn't mention that Newton notoriously spent as much time trying to find relevant scientific information in the bible, as well as elucidating theology, and utterly failed. What does it say that when a man as brilliant puts his mind to science he can produce knowledge that is reliable and benefits the entire world for centuries afterwards, but when that same mighty intellect is turned to uncovering reliable or fruitful information from The Bible, it amounts to pablum relegated to the dustbin of history? There's no "there" there. Lennox is a charlatan.
Anything that is complex and has purpose must have been designed.
God is complex and has purpose.
Therefore
God must have been designed.
Ah! But who designed God? another God?
@@spideycomic_15 Nah let me use the special pleading fallacy to get out of this conundrum:
God is the only thing in existence that is not designed (but nothing else can). How do we know this? The bible says so!
If people have faith that they are loved, without any actual evidence, they tend to become stalkers.
"You have faith in your wife" clearly shows Lennox can't differentiate between faith and abductive reasoning.
The wife comparison is facile. Firstly Dawkins' wife can actually be demonstrated to exist unlike God. Her behaviour and emotions towards Richard can also be demonstrated to actually exist unlike God. This is evidence for love, not faith.
1.) DNA represents semiotic information. 2.) Every instance of semiotic information is always the result of an intellect. 3.) There is no known natural phenomenon or mechanism that could compose semiotic information. 4.) DNA is therefore the product of an intellect. 5.) The discovery of DNA and its semiotic nature is irrefutable proof of the existence of at least one supreme intellect before life began (as we know it) on earth.
@@m0x910I’m no expert but this is poorly thought out:
We have seen mutation and natural selection change organisms to survive. Adding new information to their DNA through random chance. (Think antibiotic resistant bacteria or the various strains of COVID)
Richard believes that through entropy, very basic proteins have replicated more and more complexly over billions of years which eventually resulted in the complex life we have today.
Believe and love for God is not something that is found through science deduction. The word of God pierces the heart and either choose to follow him or we choose to live however we want.
@m0x910 No idea how that relates to my post. It is just a load of unsupported assertions. Even if it were true it wouldn't get you anywhere near a god, let alone your god (if you have one).
@@garret8787 The point I made: DNA is empirical evidence for a supreme intellect before life on earth. Regardless antibiotics act by being absorbed by bacteria, then enzymes in the bacteria coverts the antibiotic into a “poison” which kills the bacteria. Mutations in the genes for the enzyme reduce/prevent the enzyme formation, thus the bacteria becomes resistant. This is loss/corruption of pre-existing genetic information, not a gain of new information. Macro evolution cannot occur with this mechanism. Micro-evolution/adaptation can.
@@jannenreuben7398 My claims are supported by the whole scientific field of Biosemiotics. I assert that DNA is evidence that demonstrates the existence of a supreme intellect before life on earth. “Who/what was/is this supreme intellect?” is a more reasonable response and less defensive. We have various options: undetectable alien overlord(s), undetectable artificial intelligence(s), undetectable supernatural being(s)…you have other suggestions?
Ok I’ll bite. So what’s your excuse? 😂
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.
...just like dark matter.
When I began to study the bible, I did so contentiously. I was only trying to disprove the existence of any God. Having extensively researched the history of many religions, and noting their overt similarities to what I believed Christianity to be, I decided that I needed to be factual and objective to give my arguments any kind of credence. I acknowledged that I don't know everything, and so humbled myself to listen to the counterarguments from people with faith. Most of these professed Christians left me with more questions than I had in the first place, and not one answer to any of my original questions. I decided to read the bible myself to see what it was really saying.
I began to write a book documenting all my findings. I recorded all the similarities Christianity appeared to have with pagan religions and pagan gods. I also looked at some of the major problems in this world such as world finances, wars, poverty, crime etc etc etc, and so on and so forth.
I couldn't understand why, if every single human being on Earth wants peace and happiness, why oh why we can never achieve it? I thought that even if each person has a different idea as to how to achieve peace, surely we had more intelligence than to exercise hatred, disharmony, fighting, and war. I subscribed to the lie that all war is caused by religion so my thought was that if we could disprove the existence of any God, we could dismantle religion in its entirety and go forth with healing the world and see humanity's true potential.
In making my argument objective and factual I decided to look into the universe scientifically to dispel the notion that it was the purpose of a higher intelligence. I came to the realisation that the universe did have a beginning and that there are no scientists worth their salt who disagree with this fact. Many of them, though, shy away from the question as to what the cause was.
I still couldn't see any difference between religion and a belief in God. Now though, I can see that anything done religiously is done out of habit, tradition and by rote in spite of any contradictory evidence. For example, I’m a fan of James Bond films and every time a new Bond film is released I spend extra money to see it at the IMAX screen at the cinema. Even if it has had poor reviews and trusted friends have told me it’s a particularly bad film in the series, I will still see it in IMAX. Quantum of Solace is the worst Bond film, in my opinion, in the whole series. When I went to see it I was really disappointed by it. Instead of reasoning on my disappointment and acknowledging that it was a terrible film, I doubted myself and thought I had missed something crucial to the plot. I went to see it again. Actually I saw it in the cinema 3 or 4 times. When it came out on DVD I bought it and watched it time and time again convinced that there was something that I was simply not understanding. Suffice to say I was being religious about it. Because I so wanted this film to be good, I would rather doubt myself than the film. I was being religious about the film. This is the same principal as people who might acknowledge the flaws and contradictions in what their religion teaches, and rather doubt themselves than the teachings that may have brought them great comfort in the past. this is what the bible refers to as having ones “ears tickled”.
2 Timothy 4:3 - For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.
There is a vast gap between religion and science, but there is no gap between truth and science. Science is merely the process by which we find truth, so finding the truth about God must use a scientific process for any findings to have any credence.
The scriptures encourage people not to be "religious" about building ones faith, but to actually be "scientific" about it.
1 John 4:1 - Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 Thessalonians 5:6 - So, then, let us not sleep on as the rest do, but let us stay awake and keep our senses.
Proverbs 3:21 - My son, do not lose sight of them. Safeguard practical wisdom and thinking ability;
But, at the time, I didn't know that the scriptures said this.
When I read 'Quantum' by Jim Al-Kalili I learned that absolutely everything in the known universe can be divided into two categories. The existence of the Atom was one denied by many, then it was discovered to exist and was considered to be the smallest building block of anything and everything. Rutherford then split the atom at Cambridge to discover it was made of smaller counterparts yet; protons, neutrons, and electrons. More recently we have discovered that the proton is made of even smaller parts known as Quarks, Leptons, Up and Down particles, Photons, Gluons, Gravitons and many many more. We have managed to whittle things down to the point that we can see that the smallest bit of anything, known as a quanta, exists in one of two forms. They are Fermions and Bosons. Where fermions are what make up everything physical, bosons are what make up everything in the form of energy. Gravity, for example, is made of Gravitons which are Bosons. Bosons are also known as the force carrying particle.
It was this that gave me the realisation that we, as human beings, are an agglomeration of fermions (physical particles) all constructed in such a specific way that we have brains, consciousness, and minds with thoughts, feelings, and emotions which we can convert into actions using our physical body. So, what's to say that out there in this vastness of the unknown universe, or even beyond in another dimension perhaps, there isn't a massive collection of Bosons (energy or force carrying particles) constructed in a similar fashion that it also has a consciousness with thoughts and feelings that it can convert into actions using its energy? A vastness of dynamic energy, if you will.
Isaiah 40:26 - “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.”
It was when I made this realisation, that there is a logical and scientific explanation for the possibility of a God as a force of energy, that lead me onto the next question; If God exists, and I can see what he might be, who might he be? As soon as I acknowledged the possibility of his existence, and I began asking genuine questions while searching for the answers without contentiousness, everything fell into place.
I'm not suggesting that God exists within this universe, but the reasonable possibility of it adds plausibility to the notion that he exists within another dimension, or that he is another dimension.
We know that this universe had a beginning, but the scriptures tell us that God is eternal. He had no beginning and has no end.
Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were bornOr you brought forth the earth and the productive land, from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.
God's energy is used within this universe, but he himself is in another dimension that the bible calls heaven, but I hadn't yet connected what I had learnt from Jim Al-Kalili's 'Quantum' to Jehovah because I didn't know Jehovah yet.
There is no scientist worth that salt who say the universe has a beginning. No scientist believe the universe had a beginning. They may be sloppy with language but no scientist believe there was nothing then God magically created the universe from nothing. The Big Bang Theory is not a creation theory or cosmonogy. The Big Bang Theory states that 13.8 billion years ago our universe expanded from a dense state to the less dense state we have today. The Big Bang Theory starts with the present state of the Cosmos and use the theory of general theory of relativity to reconstruct our universe’s history. There is no reason to assume that the theory is 100% accurate.
My wife actually exists tho, John Lennox can’t compare an immaterial, invisible, being that lives outside of space and time, with someone you can go talk to.
Can you offer any evidence that your wife exists?
its a logical conclusion or atleast being consistent with the logic. like particles or raw elements are inanimate. you would assume them just assembling is not natural and does not happen. athiests have to disregard that and accept that things just assemble on its own. as theists just keep that observation of not seeing it and come to the conclusion that, then there has to be a creator outside of our limits. an eternal. uncreated one.
i have heard dawkins say that life has perfectly natural process of happening. the problem is even he doesnt know it. he believes there is a way that inanimate particles joined and kept joining until it became a cell. once it was fully complete it came alive. thats faith. we just dont think there is a way because we dont observe and assume there has to be a creator.
that actualy takes less faith as you get to keep the base observations we make
John 20:29 "Blessed are those, who do not see, yet believe."
God existed in the material realm as Jesus and proved with His life God's claims of love and salvation for humanity. It's the greatest and most significant proof of love in history.
@@GwladYrHaf call her. Try calling your god and see who picks up. Lol
Oxford Mathematician STUMPS Dawkins (With Argument From DUNNING-KRUGER)
I think one of the things that has happened in the internet age is a return to and greater understanding of philosophy and religion. The appropriate understanding of philosophy is what makes Dawkins and the other horsemen of new atheism seem hollow or generously put, severely lacking in explanatory power.
"You've been too influenced by Kamt" love this cultured Christian
So you refute the ‘is/aught’ fallacy?
Most of the atheists have the problem of accepting that there are things beyond their understanding. We will never as humans come to understand not even 1% of what God created, it is our limitation. In the end that is the primordial sin about: trying to be like God.
In your ignorant biased opinion. You’ve clearly never met an atheist. Let alone actually tried to understand one. Only someone who prefers slandering their opposition rather than talking to them would say that.
Most Christian’s have a problem with saying they do not know. Saying God created it is not an explanation it is an admission of ignorance.
Speaking as an atheist, we have no problem whatsoever with the idea that there might be things beyond human comprehension; our problem is when other people seem to think that we can nevertheless understand these things. The theist idea of a divine entity is not merely a claim that there’s ’something more’, it’s an attempt to define that thing and to set it out in terms of properties. Put simply, atheists reject the idea that we can understand something which is believed to be beyond our understanding. Atheism rejects the existence of a divine being because the properties of such a being are entirely unknown.
@@thefuturist8864 Thank you for sharing this, it's always a breath of fresh air to be able to communicate in a civilised manner on sensitive topics. I guess we are all seekers of the Truth in the end.
So another Daily Dose of Dishonesty. Nowhere is Dawkins stumped here. He pauses for laughter and addresses Lennox's weak argument.
Dawkins makes it clear they are talking about 2 different uses of the word. Lennox tries to say that they aren't.
Dawkins is trying to talk about a belief without evidence and how the word is often used to mean that. Lennox is talking about an inference based on evidence. Dawkins addresses that.
I've still yet to see a good argument from John Lennox.....
If God is and is a person, then the analogy lines up exactly between a relationship between a man and woman and a relationship between humanity and God.
"Faith" in God is then also based on inferences you make based on evidence in experience.
If the problem is that they were using the word "faith" differently, maybe the moderator should have allowed them a moment to have the semantic conversation before interrupting.
@@ethanholmes7624
_"If God is and is a person, then the analogy lines up exactly between...."_
The issue here is determining whether this magical being exists first. Dawkins would have evidence that his wife exists.
_"If the problem is that they were using the word "faith" differently,"_
People certainly do and this is what Dawkins was focusing on. People (even many Christians) use faith to mean something like 'belief without the evidence'.
@markh1011 Fair enough.
I'll just address the first point for now: the issue, as you state it, assumes that by "God" a theist means something like the modern imagination's rendering of ancient gods--that is, super beings that live in the clouds above lesser beings, ruling over them like kings and queens.
That is not what all Christians mean (and certainly not what most ancient Christians meant).
The theology I know (and from listening to Lennox, I assume he's thinking along these lines as well) is more in line with an ancient philosophical discussion about the nature of Being Itself.
'Is Being Itself (or God) personal or impersonal' and further, if it is personal 'Can we know that Person.'
(This might be by some stretch analogous to imagining a cell in your body becoming self-aware and trying to get to know you.)
That question is relevant and worth discussing right up to this day within many philosophical and scientific discussions, particularly around questions of consciousness.
To state "the issue" in the shabby terms you have really doesn't do it any justice.
@@ethanholmes7624
_"That is not what all Christians mean "_
We are talking about a discussion between two people on a video. One of them used an analogy.
_"To state "the issue" in the shabby terms you have really doesn't do it any justice."_
lol... try again to point out where.
That people have different views of god, firstly undermines the whole religion, and secondly avoids the point.
In your next post, make a concise point.
@markh1011 People can have very different opinions about what the human person is (i.e. "a completely magical creature possessing an eternally preexisting soul" or "a complex machine that is nonetheless completely determined by mindless physical processes" or something in-between.)
The fact that people have different opinions about what a human is and whether it is "a person" doesn't void the whole tradition of inquiry into those questions.
I could say the same regarding differences in ideas and perspectives on God.
Cheaters give all sorts of signs, evidence and even believe they love the person they are cheating on. The quality of the love is discounted when the truth comes out about their actions but they may very well feel strongly about how they love the person they cheated on. Thag shows that evidence isnt enough especially if you truly respect subjectivity and a person's autonomy.
Faith in love isn't blind, it opens the heart, mind, and eyes.
“I don’t know a single Christian who would call faith blind.”
Of course not. All Christian’s are living in the same delusion. Of course they think their reasons for believing aren’t blind. But they are. Also, faith is not the same as trust. You have to build trust. Faith is believing without cause to do so
Probably no atheists also believe their faith is blind, even though they may have doubts
@@24t44ynatheists don’t have faith. So no. Category error.
@@DM-dk7jsAtheism is a belief
@@24t44yna belief of what? Lol? What’s their belief?
@@DM-dk7jsA belief that the entire natural world came into existence without God
Hahaha. Dawkins was never stumped. This guy is punching way above his weight.
keep coping bruh , you can clearly see how rattled dawksin got when asked for his love for his wife.
@@slemonmanall I see is Dawkins wearied by Lennox’s pathetic equivocation
@@mcmanustony he couldnt answer , he squabbled and tried to change the subject.
Dawkins your hero rattled by a pathetic equivocation? Wouldnt that make him look worse? thanks for proving my point tho.
@@slemonman you don’t have a point and neither does Lennox.
It’s pathetic word games. Lennox should know better.
There’s lots Lennox should know better
@@mcmanustony not wrong i dont have a point , lennox did and dawkins couldnt answer him. Keep coping bro eventually you will see the truth.
The only pathetic word games is coming from dawkins he doenst know what faith is.
And who are you to tell an oxford mathematician he should know better?
"But religion teaches us to be satisfied with not really understanding every one of these difficult questions that comes up". I thought that was the stated goal of New Atheism: "we can't know, so do what thou wilt" and "trust the scien(tism) (aka, Tradition of the Elders) when anyone opposes that principle."
You have a weird view of what new atheism is.
New atheism is 4 atheistic authors that simply published books on the same subject at roughly the same time.
Stated by Sam Harris himself, just last week on the podcast with Alex O'Connor.
@@aidanya1336 Sam Harris is very credible and consistent, too, never opportunistic or weasel-like in his claims: "It was a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency of Donald Trump. Absolutely it was. Absolutely. But I think it was warranted."
And by defending whatever defensive characterization Sam makes of his own past, you're supporting what I just said. New Atheism boils down to appealing to whatever your favorite designated authority states as a pretense for dismissing inconvenient facts.
@gunstar168 new atheism is a marketing trick most christians fell for. It isn't an actual thing among atheist. No atheist would identify themselves as a follower of new atheism (whatever that may mean).
dam I didn't know Mario was schizophrenic I'm not sure how you can confuse wisdom with schizophrenia. keep up the comedy my good Man.
Ugh, Lennox, the biggest bag of wind on the planet. There was no mic drop, Dawkins is right. If someone loves you, they will demonstrate that to you so that the evidence is clear. Could they be lying to you? Sure, but having a reasonable expectation based on an objective experience you have, and one that others can objectively see is not unreasonable. There is no such comparison with sky gods. Your supposed experience is totally subjective and nobody else can objectively see it. So, Lennox fails once again...
ATHEISM and RELIGIONS
Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
KNOW
that they unitedly fill the world with their LIES, deceits, and false claims that -
1. God and Gods don't exist
2. the Bible is just a worthless book of lies, myths, fictions, fantasies, and fairy tales
HONORING and RESPECTING the CREATOR and SUBMITTING to the AUTHORITY of JESUS CHRIST
Jesus Christ KNOWS
that the Creator is the One who should be honored and respected by all human beings as the Only True and Sovereign GOD
as written in Matthew 22: 37 and John 17: 3
Jesus Christ KNOWS
that he is the One given by the Creator all authority in heaven and on earth
as written in Matthew 28: 18
The Creator KNOWS
that the foolishness of Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
in filling the world with LIES, deceits, cruelties, hypocrisies, treacheries, and false claims
will
definitely result in their own dishonor, disgrace, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, worthless and useless dusts on earth forever
while
the
submissiveness of loving, kind, considerate, and respectful persons on earth to the authority of Jesus Christ
as written in Matthew 28: 18
and obedience to his teachings too about about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
written in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26
will
definitely bring them honor and his favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on Earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death
as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4
The Creator KNOWS
that all human beings will just return to dusts after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20
but
he knows too that the teaching of his Christ about the "RESURRECTION of the DEAD"
is
his guarantee that that he will not let all his loving, kind, considerate, and respectful Worshippers who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others to remain as worthless dusts on earth forever,
instead,
in the right and proper time,
he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom
and
fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, compassions, generosities, favors, and blessings for eternity
under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
The mic stayed in place upon his hand leaving it, like items float in the air after enabling that one Goldeneye glitch.
Daily dose of wisdom: “10:58 because God is love right God tells us that he is love”
How dishonest and deceitful can theists be?
The OT god never showed love, caring, or compassion.
He was constantly punishing, murdering and killing.
As a deranged narcissistic man-made deity, it is impossible to be a loving god.
Christians truly don’t know their god and their Bibles.
I've said it a thousand times before and I'll say it again:
God is infinitely loving AND infinitely just.
You can't expect him to just let all sin slide. Your actions have consequences and all the judgements God laid upon people in the past they often deserved.
@@spideycomic_15is he infinitely merciful? And how do you know he is infinitely or finitely anything?
The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
@@johnnybgood7442 - He is an infinite God so his attributes are infinite as well.
@@spideycomic_15 did you see the second part where I asked how you know god is any of these things?? You’re making lots of claims without demonstrating any of them.
If his is infinitely merciful, then he cannot be infinitely just. Justice is about getting what you deserve. Mercy is a suspension of justice. Those two things are contradictory, which is one of the reasons why an Omni-god is a contradictory as well.
Lennox is one of my favorites.
I sometimes feel Dawkins still argues the stance he holds because it is all he knows anymore. If he changes his mind, in his mind he 'loses'.
Dawkins has his stance because it is based on reliable evidence.
@@kos-mos1127Much of what Dawkins says is philosophy disguised as science.
@@bestill365 What does that makes Lennox? He is disguising religious claims as science.
I wouldn't mind the discussion opening to whether love exists. Surely there are good arguments that the word Love, like God or Faith, is a bit of a Rorschach test in terms of its inherent meaning, and is often uttered as an expediency for mysteries still to be explained better.
Those gaps which science closes are the easy gaps . Those science then opens are the faith filled gaps.