We all admit we don't know what happens after we die. We can't know. In the history of the world, no god has ever spoken a single syllable! Jesus Rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees. Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist. All religions say they are the TRUE religion. All religions are man made. All religions are all lies. Yes. All religions were formed by humans. There is some evidence that even early hominids had some form of religion, as evidenced by how they buried people. It wasn't until the dawn of civilization that religion really flourished. Even the Sumerians had a form of religion. Religion really took off with Judaism. It was then, for the most part, that the monotheism had it's beginning. Religion diverged into different branches (different beliefs) based on geographical dispersion. The Jews had their god, the Hindus had there god, so forth and so on. Those religions branched out as well. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. Even today new religions pop up. Christianity has diverged (ex. Protestants, Catholics). In the 20th century you have Mormonism and Scientology, to name just a couple. Religions will continue to be created, but most will have their roots in existing religions. Religion is like a virus. It mutates and adapts to the social expectations of the time. The major religions of the world were brought into existence through LIES. beyondallreligion.net/2012/03/20/religion-based-on-a-bedrock-of-lies/
Atheism is unpopular in the world, only about 16% are atheists, in 2100 there will be 9% atheists cause of low birthrates and few converts. Atheists = white male with a high salery. www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/22/the-worlds-most-committed-christians-live-in-africa-latin-america-and-the-u-s/ news.osu.edu/one-thing-youll-find-in-the-obits-of-many-long-living-people/ www.bluezones.com/2017/07/religion-may-reduce-stress-increase-longevity/ blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scientism/ What Is Your WHY - Team Fearless m.ruclips.net/video/56Qu3MY5EnU/видео.html Fearless Motivation Instrumentals - Good Morning m.ruclips.net/video/Ynuq1kGZjiY/видео.html
The only diferent is that one tells the truth and the other tells lies one is getting rich tax free and the other is teaching sciece with proof. and evvedents
How does this debate not have a billion views by now? This was epic. This might be my new favorite debate. Both sides had top notch arguments, each thoughtfully responded to the other's arguments and rebuttals, and each was very humble and respectful of one another. I was utterly amazed, actually, with how quickly these speakers came up with pertinent and relevant responses to each other--complete with quotes that the Australian audience could also relate to--in such a short period of time. My mind is blown right now. These are the kinds of discussions we all should be having with one another. The only reason I come down on the side of John Lennox is because I have discovered Christ due to evidence and experience before seeing this debate; if I had not, and came to see this debate with no belief one way or the other, I might call this a draw (but for the way that Lennox somewhat threw off Singer by his question regarding his atheist faith based on his heritage, and Singer's answer for the child's question was very telling and highly depressing), and would be very interested in conducting further research to see where it led. Great debate, awesome moderation, and wonderful civility by everyone. Thank you for hosting and sharing this amazing talk, Fixed Point Foundation.
megalopolis2015 I don't think Singer committed a genetic fallacy. That would require that Singer discredit Lennox's beliefs solely due to their origin, namely his cultural experience growing up in a Christian household. What Singer did well was point to the fact that religious belief has a close correlation to prevailing culture. This is observable across the world with various geographic regions having a predominant religion.
Gym: There is a certain pattern that correlates religious viewpoint to familial and cultural upbringing. It is usually easy to tell when someone is just saying things because their parents believed in them, rather than having reasons of their own. One example is that those young people would merely parrot the Bible, rather than actually defend their faith. Another is them changing their beliefs once their circumstances change, such as going to a secular university. However, there are many multitudes of examples of how people changed their beliefs not to impress others, but because they learned what they knew to be true. Some will even die for those beliefs--without killing anyone in return. Some people have had dreams of Jesus without knowing who His is, or of Bible verses they were never exposed to. I, myself, am a much less dramatic but still significant example of how I went against my upbringing, not to rebel, but because I discovered Christ and opened myself to having relationship with Him. In case you were wondering, it was not peer pressure, as prayer partners and church came much later.
is god real .. is a black or white question .. there is nothing in between. so how can you say that singer had ANY good point? havent you yourself said that you came to god through science? so singer is obviously ignorant .. not smart enough or a liar! there is no room for him having good points! singer is a sad proof of how dumb humans can be! if someone calls himself a scientist and is older than 50 and still havent found god through science .. what doest it tell you about him? “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you” - heisenberg
As an atheist, let me acknowledge, with the highest possible praise, John Lennox vocalizes cogent hypotheses and objections every atheist should hear. Though I believe many of them are unfalsifiable, they are some of the best examples of reasonable critiques of non-belief.
Yeah, he's better than ray comfort, but he still talks a lot of shit. Many of the flaws are quite subtle though and takes a careful analysis to identify them.
Singer really did the "Who created God?" objection! Tell me you dont understand the cosmological argument without telling me you dont understand the argument.
Everybody is nihilist until enemy dies, after that life is just smiles. Cosmological argument is tuned by brainless wisdom of halfbred theologians. It has logical sequence of no-brainer, because one has to be idealist or purist to consider it as science defying. Its logical for atheist or unbelievers to say who made watchmaker, because point made was so simplistic and burden of proof is on cosmos. Who claims it has any relevancy in theoretical physics? Nobody cares about theology or 'natural' order of things when learning about history, why claim scientific nature is any different? One set of rules for each phenomena is how world abruptly ends when our new reactor type blows us into future for example. We have little actual applied science beyond making wheels so that horses can carry more weight. Our stoic friends would comprehend our world with little pain of lost accomplishments, as they would see problematic approaches and holes in our rational approaches we are not understanding, as world we see is all we see. Complaining about somebody adding new accomplishment to true god standing behind christian god is just boring. How about we discuss like atheists do. Comprehend questions as questions, not arguments that have to be applied to ancient 'wisdom'. Please provide your variant of your best attempt to replicate dofus from evangelical era and make points without referencing natural order of things.
Apologies in advance, this ended up longer than expected. Why is this a problem? the cosmological argument is based on fallacious premises. There are many variants, but at their base they go something like this: 1. every effect had a cause, 2. the universe is an effect 3. therefore the universe has a cause and then it is argued that therefore the universe requires an uncaused cause (god). it must have had a cause, Here are some of the problems with this argument: Cause effect relationship is rooted in time (cause before effect) and we can only observe them within our space time experience. Thus if the universe did have a beginning (which we do not know, the big bang does not claim that before there was nothing and science assumes the law of the conservation of energy and matter), time also has a beginning, thus temporal cause and effect breaks down without time. Therefore premise 1 only applies to effects within time and does not apply to premise 2. William Lane Craig added to this argument another set of premises that an actual infinite cannot exist so the universe must have had a beginning. Again, this is fallacious as 1. we do not know if an actual infinity can exist or not, and believing in god normally implies belief in an eternal heaven / hell, so it is hypocriticial of someone who preaches an eternal (i.e. infinite) reward or punishment to claim that an infinity cannot exist, 2. this would apply strictly to time in this case as the next premises are that the universe cannot be infinite so must have a beginning, i.e. temporal events, but them this would also apply to time itself (i.e. time itself must have a beginning since infinity cannot exist so time itself cannot exist for infinity), and we cannot be so pretentious as to claim to know how things work in the absence of time. Finally, even if this argument is sound, it only gives you an impersonal creator, something that kicked everything off. So this still leaves 2 gaping holes. 1. why must the cause of the universe be uncaused, cannot there be an infinite regress of creators? (this is what I think you objected to) and 2. how does this bring you any closer to a specific religion's god, which intervenes (inspires scripture, performs miracles, answers prayers, etc.)?
@@brianvellyou’re completely missing the point here. You can raise objections to the cosmological argumente, but dude is arguing correctly that the “why god doesn’t need a begining” is a silly one (and it is!). That’s all.
Yekkt these stories can be confirmed in the real world. Seeing Hindu gods or anything of the sort cannot be confirmed in the real world. Be careful discounting these.
Yekkt what’s a Christian NDE? Any NDE at all that can be confirmed Is what we are interested in. For example, the lady having an out of body experience and seeing a blue shoe on the roof of the hospital and then reporting that to the doctors.
1:18:29 "Let's try and look at the logic of it. If Jesus actually was God, the question that I'm faced with is: _what was God doing on a cross?_ And I can begin to see here that if this is true then God has not remained distant from the problem of suffering and evil but has himself become part of it."
Yes. He doesn't ask us to do anything he wouldn't do himself and he came in the flesh like us and overcame the world. His yolk is easy and his burden is light.
Je suis The Gift of Language In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," [6] says the Lord.
Just because the evolution of the human mind was not directed toward truth but toward survival doesn’t necessarily imply that the human mind cannot arrive at truth.
Love listening to John Lennox. And I am happy seeing some sensible civilized debates such as these rather than looking into the crap I find in twitter and RUclips comments by irrational thugs.
You of all people, who represent yourself with an image of a crusader, have the nerve to talk about "irrational thugs" in the You Tube comments section?! Presumably, if you are that invested in your faith, you are the epitome of an irrational thug in the You Tube comments section, and would be willing to slay innocent people because they don't worship the invisible man in the sky that you do and because they challenge your irrational and illogical beliefs. Remember what Pope Clement II said about the slaughter of the Christian jihads(the crusades): "god wills it".
@@justin10292000 they are quite prepared to debate everything else about how this god operates why won't they discuss why god designed us to defecate, break wind, and soil our pants . You have answered the question, you state ask god yourself, do he did design us to defecate dirty filthy substances,to break wind and stink,to crap our pants by accident, and you call it an intelligent design!
Theism and atheism and christianity and islam and gnostic and agnostic are not the truth . The truth is the unity in impartiality principle . Yes unselfishness . Yes mindfulness training . Meditation . Copy that . Magnificent obsession . Maturity .
Dds You have to wonder at Lennoxs ability to reason. He asserts that Hitler and Stalin were both brutal dictators and atheists. To illustrate the flaw in his logic it was pointed out that they both had mustaches too - to which he replied ''I dont see what mustaches have to do with it!
Lennox spent much of his time on the benefits of being a Christian and that he would not like to live in a world without a Christian god, but that’s obviously not evidence that there is one, so it’s irrelevant to the subject of the debate. I appreciate that both debaters were respectful, sincere, and more focused on seeking truth than scoring points with their fans.
I agree. He's quite entertaining, but in the end offers very little substance to his claims. His closing statements always seem to expose him: He can't emotionally accept a world without a god, so he doesn't. He's a mathematician not a biologist, but that doesn't excuse his lack of understanding about the basic concepts of emergent properties, synergy, etc.. To argue that rationality can only come from rationality is just silly. He didn't address suffering except to say, sadly, he has no answer, and his counter to the observation that people are mostly of the same religion as their parents, was to suggest there's no 'genetic' connection..? He's usually not so obvious with his strawmen, but that was also pretty silly. His most compelling points are emotional, there has to be justice, there has to be an ultimate purpose and someone up there loving and guiding us to an afterlife, so there is.
@@markoshun "To argue that rationality can only come from rationality is silly." Can you tell me where rationality come from?? "His closing statement always seems to expose him: He can't emotionally accept a world where there is no God, so he doesn't." This just shows your lack of comprehension on your part. I guess you should read Albert Camus and Friedrich Nietzsche and see what your worldview entails if you are to live it consistently. All his argument are sound and logical. Please address his argument instead of attacking strawman and ad hominems. You atheists are basically dishonest. "He didn't address suffering....." That's not the topic of the debate. And in fact, classical Atheists has stopped using that argument because it's weak and incoherent. If they claim that there's suffering, they'll have to prove that an all powerful God isn't morally obliged to permit suffering. And they'll have to prove that suffering is evil, which already contradicts your worldview. Please you atheists should learn an argument before engaging. To say that people are Christians because they were raised in a Christian home is a genetic fallacy. This has been debunked times and times again. Only irrational atheists(New atheists) brings this up. It's like saying there are only Muslims in a Muslim country when there are in fact atheists. That automatically collapses that argument. You're literally saying there's no free will, yet implying freely that there is no free will. Y'all atheists should try to be logical for once. Everytime I see your comments, you always appeal to emotions 🥱
And that's all you took away from the entire talk? How sad! It's not your mind that has a problem with this: it's your heart. Not your intellect, but your morals.
@@markoshunyou also need to account for suffering, and youi can't. You can't even say who made you! You're an accident, you say. What utter nonsense! You are not a biologist either - so you don't get a say - you can't rationalise? You have the temerity to claim that Lennox can't provide validity because he's a mathetician? So only biologists eh? Not astrophysicists or applied mathematicians, or geologists? You have decided who gets to speak? You think you're very clever, but your comments are extremely foolish. You're not as smart as you think you are, my friend. You just expose your bias - your problem is not intellectual, it's moral! You can listen, yet never hear, learn but never reach wisdom! Deeply sad.
Wonderful watch. In his opening statement he mentions that "if God needs no first cause we out to be able to say the universe needs no first cause." But wouldn't that help prove God? that he has no first cause, and he gave everything its first cause. The watch has first cause because it was created. The universe and us have first cause because we were created. God Bless all of us!
it would be boring I have no idea how atkins became a doctor, ive listened to him , he is crazy and i just watched this debate and singer just doesnt have enough information on religion as lennox showed.
What does evidence mean? Evidence doesn't include the absolute belief in something, it only gives rise to it. As a Christian I can say there is compelling evidence for evolution, however bring up origin of life and it's dead in the water. So depending on how stiff necked you want to be, does that then destroy all of evolution? Of course not, however it offers a sizeable problem to the honest person who will not resort to a God of the gaps argument, or in this case a science of the gaps. Now with regarding evidence, there's an entire field of archeology to look at, to which many secularist archeologists will say supports the Bibles historic narrative. I'll go a step further and say it's become a general consensus that the events of the Bible is historical, given all of the various bits and pieces they have dug up over the last 4 years. The field of apologetics can also offer bits and pieces of historical evidence, as the topic itself strictly regards giving an answer to problematic questions. Lastly, Christian eschatology should be the cherry on top. As someone so learned in theology as you are I assume by your attitude, you would know that the Bibles narrative is God gave man 6000 years before Jesus Christ returns to rule for 1000 years, the signs of the time of the Lords coming is prevalently told throughout various texts of the Bible. Signs of the times are playing out and setting up in front of our eyes. We are almost 2000 years after Christ died. We have the agenda 2030 timeline, but we also have Gods agenda coming to tear it down. Wormwood in the book of Revelations is coming. Apophis is coming around in 2029, while all the elites are building deep underground bunkers. The signs of the times indicates we are in the last 10-20 years of the Bible timeline. Now is not the time to be an atheist, when the evidence in support of the Bible is overwhelming. But the Bible said, the hearts will grow cold, and as were the days of Noah, so will be when the son of man returns. Jesus said himself, will he find faith when he returns? The atheistic worldview is increasing, just as the Bible said it would. Now you can continue on your way, or you can give God another go. Perhaps you will be a tribulation saint, you'll wake up when Gods wrath is poured upon the earth for the sake of the wicked, and fire and brimstone will rain down just like Sodom and Gomorrah (evidence for that too). If you know what the Bible says, maybe you will recognise it when it happens, and though you don't believe it now, you open yourself up to be corrected in the future. The evidence in support of the Bible is incredible. Even the notorious Bart Erhman who specialises in the New Testament who is atheist, believes 100% that every author believed 100% in what they were saying. It's not made up, but based on events that actually happened. It's the supernatural events that cause people to stumble, yet the biggest importance of the Bible is believing that Jesus was raised from the dead. Believing is the fundamental principle, yet here you are on the other side of the fence, cast out from eternal life unless you repent in your heart and come to the Bible. The gift is free, yet you are too stubborn to see it's plausibility because you have your own definition and standard for evidence.
Maybe listen again with an open mind. If you go in thinking everything you think has to be true, you'll never give a second thought to what's being presented. The evidence is creation itself. The intelligibility of the universe, the Bible backed by Jesus and Jesus backed by His resurrection, which is backed by multiple eyewitness testimonies and the conversion of thousands of God's chosen people to Christianity. If the resurrection didn't happen, neither would the conversion of those Jews who already believed they were God's chosen people. There of course is plenty more that points to an intelligent creator of the universe, such as logic itself being immaterial, and outside of time and space, like God, yet I'd wager you still believe logic exists.
John Lennox puts his fellow Protestants to shame. He talks about things that other Protestants do not want to think about, such as an honest view of history.
That's because he is a high Anglican. high Anglicans are more like Catholics than protestants, although still heretics in our view. People like C.S. Lewis and John Lennox are much more challenging to the new atheists because unlike someone like William Lane Craig, you are right, there are places Lennox will go where Craig simply won't. His thoughts on the divine nature, transcendence, and the rational/logical intelligibility of the universe are topics most protestants either don't wish to or don't bother to explore.
- "There are but two possibilities: (1) Life originated from undirected processes; or (2) Life originated from directed processes. Scenario (1) is impossible for the reasons stated below. Whenever you have two possibilities if, you prove one to be impossible then you have necessarily proved the other to be *certain*. Atheists often accuse Christians of adhering to a “god of the gaps” fallacy; that we adhere to an argument from incredulity. However, nothing could be further from the truth. We do not argue that we do not understand how undirected life origination happens and therefore God. We affirmatively state and prove that undirected life origination is absolutely impossible. Why is it impossible for life to arise from undirected processes? To begin with, it is statistically impossible. It is generally accepted that odds greater than 1:10^50 are so remote as to be impossible. Assuming arguendo that it is even possible for molecules to assemble themselves into cell membranes and to cooperate to develop life processes, and further that they could posit and develop the ACTG(u) language carried in DNA, it must be noted that the simplest moneran known to man has a DNA sequence that is a little over 218,000 letters long. Let’s round it down and also discount the (U) in the DNA coding. Bending over backwards in favor of the atheist, the odds of assembling the sequence of DNA needed to govern the operation and reproduction of the simplest moneran are 1:4^218000. Rephrased to base-10, we are at 1:1.607*10^217060. Also, let's assume arguendo that the “consensus” age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. That works out to 4.35*10^15 seconds. Let’s also assume that the “consensus” of subatomic particles in the known universe is correct at 10^86. That is 4.35*10^103 particle-seconds from the beginning of the universe to this day. Every subatomic particle in the universe would have to engage in 3.69*10^216957 *ordered experiments* (where no two experiments were identical) *per second* from the beginning of the universe to *now* to find the DNA sequence of the simplest moneran. As you add to those odds by raising them to the power of the odds of: (a) DNA itself forming; (b) within a cell membrane since water is caustic to it; (c) the cell membrane itself forming; (d) with the correct mix of left-handed amino acids [and none right-handed]; (e) in such a manner as to have the correct food to metabolize; (f) with the correct temperature; (g) with the correct pH; one can clearly see that the odds rapidly exceed a number of one in ten raised to the power of a number of zeroes in it that exceed the number of subatomic particles in this universe. Impossible. To an absurd degree. The impossibility of unintelligent chemicals positing and implementing the DNA language cannot be stated numerically; the odds are one in **infinity**. Chemicals are unintelligent. It is ipso facto impossible for them to cooperate. If you wish to make chemicals reflect intelligence, then external intelligence must be applied. DNA itself is the irrefutable calling card of God. That said, let’s proceed to other things that make undirected life origins impossible. Each and every action whereby an element, molecule or life form proceeds from the simple to the complex requires the application of external intelligence. Physical laws make this an absolute. Matter within a system proceeds from the complex to the simple, and not the other way around. This physical law can be suspended - but only by the application of external intelligence; e.g., heat soda ash, silica and lime to 1200 degrees Celsius for a measured period of time and you produce glass. Blow air into the center of a blob of glass and cool it in a controlled fashion, and you produce a bottle. However, this law cannot be suspended by undirected processes. Therefore, intelligence is a requirement for taking the simple and fashioning it into the complex. While this law appears easily suspended in such thing as nuclear fusion, no actual suspension of physical force absent the application of external intelligence has ever been observed. Physical laws are much less easily suspended as complexity grows. In other words, the more complex the outcome becomes, the more intelligence is needed to effectuate the complexity. This is most truthful in progressive evolutionary speciation - one species adapting to some outside factor to become a more complex species. There is a reason that this we have never observed this: It’s impossible. How does a creature go from being sightless to having eyes? How would an organism know that it needed this adaptation? How would an organism know how to implement such an adaptation? It would not. Therefore we are assuming a serendipitous random mutation to something vastly more complex. However, virtually all observed mutations are harmful or even fatal. A serendipitous mutation to a higher species has never been observed. Has evolutionary speciation ceased? “Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate” - William of Ockham. Creation adheres to Ockham’s Razor because it requires the creative intelligence to intervene a limited number of times to originate the universe and life and populate the Earth. Abiogenesis and progressive evolutionary speciation both require an infinite number of serendipitous, sequential and progressively more complex suspensions of physical laws, all without any intelligence to guide them, to accomplish its goal. The more simple explanation is likely the correct one. The doubts as to Creation are unreasonable, and are usually accompanied by an attempt to burden-shift from proving one’s assertion of abiogenesis (and the denial of God's existence is implicitly an assertion of abiogenesis) to forcing the Christian to prove creation in order to rebut a presumption of abiogenesis. However, every time we take up the mantle and do so, the evidence is usually rejected without any consideration, much less serious consideration. This notwithstanding the fact that any doubts of its veracity or of the conclusions reached are certainly unreasonable. While Christians are tarred with the “god of the gaps” fallacy, it is more apropos to say that atheists are in reality adhering to a “godless of the gaps” fallacy, whereby it is held that “I don’t understand how God can exist, therefore not-God.” Or, perhaps more appropriately, “I don’t like the idea of God or how He runs His universe, therefore not-God.” Faith to the Christian has nothing to do with merely conceding His existence. It has to do with trusting His veracity and His goodness and His Word and acting on that trust. I could give the arguments that God - the Living God as depicted in the Bible - is the only possible Creator and that Jesus is exactly who He claims, but this post is very long as it is. Thank you." - John F. Tamburo
Kasper You sound like an unintelligent person who has nothing else to say but hate. You know what you call those people? Haters. You know what else they are? Losers...
KobeFan12452 Stop melting, snowflake. It was a joke. Given some very recent infamous incidents that do not reflect very well on the Christian faith, Team Jesus does sound like a gang of octogenarian pedophiles.
Kasper Your just full of childish statements aren’t you? I’m assuming your still a child as with every other Atheist. Mind you I don’t mean age, no no, I mean mental intelligence. Anyways, your making a very good case of sounding like a fool.
As with every other apologist I have listened to, Lennox has done an anemic job of trying to explain the unexplainable, the greatest problem Christianity faces, that of suffering. The usual themes:suffering is a test; the crucified Jesus suffers with us; suffering is our penance for original sin; we suffer but with it comes hope - suffering here will be made up for in the next life of heavenly bliss - all challenge believability. Interestingly, I have heard at least one apologist say there is suffering in heaven as well. Does it ever strike the Christian as ludicrous to assert these things? If god exists, he is nothing short of a cruel game player, enjoying the suffering which he alone could assuage, much as a misguided boy delights in pulling the wings off living insects. Why this stupendous level of suffering - wouldn’t a fraction of what we endure be sufficient for his reasons? Lennox speaks about the comfort of hope people have, but does he not see what an exclusive club that is? Where is the hope for non- Christians as they suffer terribly under the same god’s action/ inaction? Since modern man emerged from Africa approximately 100,000 years ago, untold numbers of humans have suffered and died without even knowing the God-of-the-bible existed. It boggles the mind that Christians convince themselves to believe, no matter what.
Suffering and a way of perseverance, learning and growing and a dream for reaching perfection is still a much better explanation than suffering has no point or purpose at all.... at least it's an answer and a hopeful one at that while Atheism doesn't have an answer for it at all....
@@StallionFernando A reason for suffering (from the non- Christian perspective) is not required. It just is. It is part of the randomness- and that’s fine. Our job, as self-aware human beings, is to ameliorate as much suffering as we can- for ourselves, and other living things (including the planet). Christians, who declare there is an omnipotent, loving god interested in personal relationships with his creation, have an uphill battle in defending why others should believe in a being who ultimately causes the immense suffering he watches every moment of every day. Plenty of nonsense are the reasons Christians parrot. On one hand Christians say they can’t know the mind of god, while on the other they are very certain in asserting that God has a definite, as well as good, reason for suffering. Atheists don’t pretend to have *the* answer to the greatest question there will ever be- how did this reality come to be? We will, imo, never know. It’s exciting to live with the mystery. Each day we live is to be lived with appreciation because it’s the only one we are certain exists. You live for the next world, this is only a way-station to a ‘better’ existence. How sad.
Suffering becomes much easier to understand once you realize this is a reality of duality and what that means along with free will. Here's a question I ask not sarcastically: You say it boggles your mind that Christians can convince themselves to believe no matter what. You also say humans walked out of caves 100,000 years ago in Africa. Why do you believe that? Is that an independently verifiable belief? Does it require blind faith in what you've read in books? Kind of similar to what Christians do with their Bible? The idea we evolved from single cell organisms over time and eventually from primates and then eventually walked out of Africa 100,000 years ago relies on the process of Macro-evolution being true. Yet, no one has ever observed this process. No scientist even claims to have observed it. So why do you believe this process can happen first of all, and then certainly happened countless times in the past to result in single cell organisms evolving into the various complex life forms we see on Earth today, including ourselves? Do you even really *know* that Earth is 100,000 years old in the first place? The dating methods used by mainstream academia are very debatable... and there are 12 different methods they could use. Some support the idea Earth is billions of years old, while some support the idea it's only a few thousand years old. For what reason do you accept the methods that indicate it's billions of years old? I mean, other than the fact it's the mainstream consensus to do so which isn't really a valid reason for believing something... as it would just be a bandwagon fallacy. I ask because most people who criticize Christians for believing the words written in a book written by men they haven't even met... do the same thing with a different book, without awareness of it. Sure, the books you believe may say "SCIENCE" on the cover, but does this really mean it represents what the scientific method shows in real life when applied honestly, objectively, and without bias? At least Christians are aware of their faith. They don't falsely conflate their faith with science like Scientism Dogmatists do. If you don't know what a Scientism Dogmatist is, its someone who blindly believes the current academic consensus on faith alone, without the need/ability to independently verify. Dogmatic Scientism is completely antithetical to science. Yet, most people conflate them in their minds and don't realize how to differentiate between the two. The end result is most people end up thinking "science" means blind faith in academia. In reality, science is just a method of discovery requiring no faith... including no blind faith in academia.
@@lightbeforethetunnel There is far greater likelihood that scientists’ current theories about our world are correct, than the belief held by Christians that supernatural (anything) exists - for which there is zero evidence. It is an unfalsifiable myth. Casting doubt onto the dependability of scientific observations and data (from various fields of science), as well as trying to equate the anonymous, at times fanciful, biblical writings with the contents of science tomes, is a desperate attempt to suggest that you have a ball in the game. There is no comparison. Scientists would be the first to say they know nothing with 100% certainty. There is no final answer. Current theories are added to, or scrapped entirely based on new findings. This does not mean ‘well then, god’.
@@jennifer97363 I actually haven't said anything about my beliefs. I haven't said whether I believe the Bible or not... or anything about my beliefs because it's irrelevant to my point. I'm also not arguing the Bible is true just because you seem to be a Scientism Dogmatist. Nothing you've said has refuted my argument that Scientism Dogmatists are doing exactly what Christians do... both groups blindly believe what others have written in books on faith alone. You also haven't refuted my point that doing so is dogmatic, not scientific. Science is about doing everything you can to prove yourself wrong, not defend your pre-existing beliefs no matter what. How much have you done to determine if your pre-existing beliefs in the current consensus are wrong? Any? Or do you just blindly believe it because it's the consensus? That would be Dogmatic Scientism. There's nothing wrong with being a Scientism Dogmatist but it's good to be aware of it. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. I explained how dogmatism and science are completely antithetical to each other and you haven't refuted that either. All you did was confirm my point by explaining WHY you trust the claims of scientists and how they would know things... along with your assumption that scientists would be the first to admit when they don't know something, etc. It's very typical of Scientism Dogmatists to claim "scientists would be honest, wouldn't be corrupt, wouldn't be biased, etc..." Scientism is not unaware of the limitations of the scientific method (such as corruption, bias, false presuppositions, etc). Real science is aware these things can apply to any consensus and it could therefore be wrong. It's circular reasoning. I'm sure Christians likely think those who wrote the Bible would be more likely to be right, as they'd commit the same circular reasoning to confirm their own bias too. This is how all forms of dogmatism work. Anyhow, you seem to want to be turning this around on me and my beliefs... when I haven't even mentioned them... or you want to make your dogmatic beliefs seem more reasonable than Christian's Dogmatic beliefs. When my view is that all forms of dogmatism and blind belief are bad and antithetical to real science.
During the big bang, science states that to have such compression of the matter to cause such an explosion would have a Temperature of trillions of degree's, I'm wondering what could have servived that awesome temperature ? When only a few hundred degrees kill's all living organisms. ??????????
Singer: “I’m not arguing that the existence of a universe is strictly incompatible with a creator… I’m simply arguing we have no need to believe in such a creator” 46:45 Exactly… you feel like you don’t need God, which is why you don’t believe. Not because you think he can’t be real. lol
I don't believe in God, but I know by experience that religious people tend to be less selfish, more caring. For example religious people contribute to charity more than non-religious people, a lot more. Religious commit less crime than non-religious people, a lot less.
@@seanleith5312 Sean I have 2 questions if you don't mind answering. Why do you think religious people are less selfish & more caring? And why don't you believe in God?
@@mkmason2002 To your first question, the conclusion is from both personal experience and publicly available statistics. As to why, I am not sure. If I have to guess, that's because caring for others is part of their religious believe. To your second question, I don't believe in God because I was born and grew up in secular environment for most of part of my life. However, from an observer's point of view, l would say, if I have a choice for a society, I choose religious people over non-religious people.
@@seanleith5312 I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. At 16, I realized it was more of a business than a faith based on the Bible. The opulence of the Vatican and Pope, as the world was full of poverty and the worship of one man, {pope} seemed evil to me and I left the church. I didn't sense God there, only to follow rules and rituals. I decided God wasn't real. I became an agnostic and later worked in the Communist party, an atheist org. 3 yrs later I met 2 Christians and they answered all my questions directly from the Bible and I then realized that God did exist and that He died to pay for my sins so that He could forgive me and give me eternal life should I place my faith in His work on the cross and I became a Christian. We all have different roads to find God. God knows your heart and He knows what it will take to undo the wrong information that you have been given. If you truly want the truth, let me encourage you to sincerely ask God to reveal Himself to you. I PROMISE He will. He did for me. peace
@@lepidoptera9337 But you and they are not really thinking deep enough.You are a created “I Am”. “THE GREAT I AM” is not created.He IS and has always been.He was not created but everything that is was created by him.
So, Lennox only was able to explain that there COULD be a god, and Singer explained how the universe can exist without need for a god. Fact is, we can't know for sure if there is some intelligent source that set things in motion.
I know, if I thought I was going to spend eternity in heaven, it would be hell. Eternity is one hell of a long time. I don't want it. Also, I was millions of years dead before I was born and it didn't bother me then.
While it is true there was a time you didn't exist, the idea of you existing gave someone incomprehensible, unimaginable, unconditional love. And that they would want that for eternity.
@@justinmann9440 What makes you think that? Sounds like you have constructed your own religion and afterlife from your own feelings and wishes, loosely based on cultural indoctrination. Have you got a hell too?
Clement Singh His profound love and compassion for animals is only matched by his lack of compassion for humans. You're right atheism is truly amazing!
Faith =/= belief. Faith usually means unconditional trust, belief and devotion in something bordering on the irrational but perhaps not quite. When you say "i have faith in x" you are saying that, despite how unlikely it may seem that x is going to turn out to be true, you believe it will out of some sense of devotion to x. Example: "I have faith my buisness will succeed" "I am confident my buisness will succeed at some point in the future even though it might not seem that way now" It can also mean being strongly confident in something, though you might have reasons to think otherwise. Example: "The soldier had faith his battalion would survive even though they were outnumbered by the enemy"
@@dogsdomain8458 No, there's a complete difference. When you have faith in a buisness working you don't just sit back and watch it fail, you will do something about it. You will make the effort to make it work and with a soldier, he's not going to stand out in front of bullets saying they can't hurt him now, is he? Wake up.
@@toni4729 EVERY SINGLE WORLDVIEW in existence is based on faith, basic a priori beliefs accepted without proof. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. The entire scientific enterprise itself is based on faith presuppositions which cannot be "proved."
Dr Singer has a good point. Why does God: If He Is God, Allow Evil, War, Disease, Famine & Natural Destruction Take Place? Dr Singer is an example of the age old biblical debate. Is man allowed free choice? Obviously, if we read Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and to keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. This is the original proposition. God gave man-Adam a garden/paradise. All had to do was believe God was telling the truth. But he was free not to believe God aka (call him a Liar.) Do what you will and choose death and do evil. But Adam and Eve (created later after God told Adam the law) Exercised free will to ignore God and reject his guidance and law. We listened to a Liar. By listening to the Liar aka Devil/Satan he became our Father and We Became our own gods. If you look at all the religions? Manlike beings are the idols & gods. That we worship. Genesis3:4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” As God said: JPS Tanakh 1917 Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever!” So we and Devil are the gods of this world. Dr Singer you are a Modern Adam! God is a Liar. He does not exist or is not your Atheistic god. God can not blamed for the awful world you testify too. I have son that is severely bipolar. I have shown him nothing but love. Sent him to Ivy-league colleges. He has everything money can buy. But he says he hates me and my wife. He will never come to our house again. But he does when he is desperate. But still blames us for i suspect giving him an unhappy illness. You Dr Singer are like my son. You hold God responsible for all the evil men do. Romans 1:29 They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, and malice. They gossip Romans 1:30and speak evil of one another; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud, and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; 31they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. 32They know that God's law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them. Don’t blame God for man /Adam exercising his Free Choice! Man chose to be god of this world. Just like you Dr Singer chose to believe what you believe. If you hate this world? Man made this bed. Let him lie in it! Like Hamlet said to Horatio: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
The assumption here is that if there is a God then God would not allow evil to occur in any form or at any time. The problem with this assumption is that we cannot say that evil exists unless there is something that is good. If there is something that is good then there is something that is best. If there is a real "best" then there must be a God. So, whether you believe there is an ultimate purpose for evil or not, just to say there is evil one must assume there is a God. So, evil points toward God, not away from it.
This is Epicurean Paradox , “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?" This is not the debate that Judaism is familiar with. They view the debate that it is argued by a supreme prosecutor Satan. If you read Job. The case of being argued by Satan Job 2: 1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. 2And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.” 3Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” 4So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. 5But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” 6And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.” 7So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes. 9Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!” 10But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips. The argue is not whether good triumph vs evil or what is good? Satan knows what good is. God is good. The case the prosecutor Satan argues is the same case he argued against Christ when he tested Christ for 40 days in the wilderness. God created mankind and it’s impossible for mankind to not disobey and to not do evil. The case against humans is we are a flawed creation. As Epicurus Paradox stated God is not omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient. God made a mistake creating mankind and he is the same mistake God made creating Satan. In other words if God makes mistakes it proves Satan’s case against man a most of God’s creation. Angels also rebelled and disobey God like the original father Adam. God is our savior but he was obligated to save mankind through his Son Christ. Christ’s test and temptation had to prove 1 human could obey God without his hedge of protection. Why does God permits evil? Why does God permit good? It is illogical for there to be good and not the opposite evil. Simple Newtonian Law of Physics. Like gravity: What goes up must come down. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. A physician can not heal unless there is a disease. You can not know what love is if you don’t know the opposite is hate. If you give life, the opposite is take life away. Is one better than the other? If we do not know murder is good or evil then why have a debate of good vs evil at all? The Ten Commandments are they worthy of death? God decided they were. Since He is the Law Giver they are the primary laws. Love God and Worship only God is the most important? Because the Devil advocate in Garden of Evil did what? Satan succeeded in deceiving man and getting man to disobey God, call God a liar and this process Satan got man to obey and worship him. By obeying or believing Satan? Mankind became Satan’s seed or children. Genesis 3: 14And the LORD God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; on your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life: 15And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and (between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.) Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Jesus said some here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God. Shortly thereafter when Jesus rose from the dead we read in Matthew about the Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appeared to Peter, James, and John. They were given a vision of the Kingdom of God. When Jesus rose from the dead, His Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven was then established.
I wish someone would let Lennox know that talking in an incredulous tone of voice with a supercilious smile on your face doesn't constitute making an argument.
I also wish someone would inform the audience of the same thing. He is charismatic and so when he says something witty, the audience falls into the trap of thinking that he has won the point despite not presenting an unchallengeable claim.
I'm not rejecting religion. I'm fine with it. I just simply do not believe in a or any God. This doesn't make me a bad person, I enjoy helping others. I have my own personal morals. I just don't believe in God.
You're right. The Bible doesn't say that unchristian people are bad indeed. I know some people that tell other that they're all evil, but it's not true, even for Christians
@@risingsun3545 the statement in God's Word is very clear and doesn't differentiate between believer and unbeliever. Romans 3 : 9What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. 10As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. 11There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”c 13“Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.”d “The venom of vipers is on their lips.”e 14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”f 15“Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16ruin and misery lie in their wake, 17and the way of peace they have not known.”g 18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”h 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin.
Thanks for your ministry guys! I’m learning a lot.. You are such a blessing. Hope your channel grows more and reach more people. To the ends of the earth..
Depending on the religion, my comfort doesn't come from my religion but from my personal relationship with God. And not I think it's the other way considering the bible states that most people are indeed going to Hell. What make's me so special that I should get too go to heaven? Specially looking back at my life and what I've done and been. I'd rather die and cease too exist than know there's a horrid place called eternal Hell and knowing that most people are going there, that greatly increases my chances of going there lol.
@StallionFernando Mindfully, I don't fear Hell but a permanent disconnect from God. It is the absence of His glory that is far worse than eternal damnation. His love is what gives me peace and that is what I want (moreso need) eternally.
@@StallionFernando What do you people mean by ''personal relationship''? How can it be personal if there are so many others that say the same thing. How sill is that , like saying my wife is my personal lover but so are the rest of my girlfriends
@@StallionFernando As a child I once had an imaginary friend. Your relationship with your God is the same. Where knowledge ends, faith begins. You can decide for yourself how limited your understanding should be. Basically, belief in a God prevents you from asking questions. If everyone acted like that, you wouldn't be living in a globalized world today.
Rather poor debate. For Lennox to say "the resurrection is proven, like some scientific theories" is complete and utter nonsense. There is zero proof of the resurrection. All we have is a book written decades after the supposed event just saying that this "thing" happened. For an extraordinary claim like that, i'm going to need solid evidence.
I don't have all the answers (as anyone doesn't actually have them), but I'm certain that what you mean by "a book" written some years after the presupposed resurrection is not a book: there are 4 books about Jesus, and more than 20 letters to other churches. However, those 4 books, the Gospels, were written by 4 different people with some years of difference. For example, Mark was the first to write about Jesus, and then you have different views of the same story of Jesus in the other three Gospels. Sometimes people try to accuser Christianity by saying "they say different things". And it's half true: no one really wrote a complete biography of Jesus' life, but they still talk about the same person, with the same key events, for example his resurrection. I don't know how much help can I give you by saying that not only the Gospels talk about Jesus' life. If you may have questions, or you think I'm talking gibberish, I'm all ears.
@@risingsun3545 Sure, the 4 books, or even more (the Gnostic gospels). Understand that the synoptic gospels (mark,luke,matthew) are all thought to be from the same source. And also, that it is theorized that the church suppressed certain accounts (eg, the gnostic gospels) in order to put forth a particular story. But whatever, this is mere quibbling. My main point is the N books don't give any solid evidence of the extraordinary claims presented (resurrection, virgin birth, etc). Not even close to how we judge the standard of evidence for scientific theories. And for Lennox to say that there *is*, is really egregious intellectual dishonesty.
@mtman2 Yeah, i'm not going to bother reading a book by some christian apologist that goes into contortions to try and prove something that can't be proven. I've never seen anything come close to proving something like the "resurrection". But if you have some specific proof in mind, please cite it and we can discuss.
@mtman2 Oh no worries, feelings aren't hurt. But do understand that i've been studying and thinking about this stuff for *decades*. I've listened to the arguments of many of the apologists: Dinesh D'Souza, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Frank Turek, William Dembski, etc, etc. I spent my K-12 education in Catholic school, i've read the Bible backwards and forwards. And the Koran, and the Vedas, and the Sutras,.. So to say that all i have to do is read some book and i'll be convinced? When i've read N w/o success? Reading N+1 is likely to fail. Understand the notion of "precedence". I have many books on my reading list, and not very much time; i'm not going to waste it on the contortions of some other poor, deluded soul. But again, for the umpteenth time, if you have some *specific* proof you want to give me that Christianity is *true*, a paragraph or two that you can post here, i'd be happy to take a look. And again, it's not that i'm lazy or spoiled, it's that my time is limited, i can only read so much.
@mtman2 Oh brother where art thou! Dude, you just went off the deep end. Your ramblings are now certifiable. Do you think the Earth is flat? And who *really* shot JFK? But seriously, you're not buying this "2nd coming July 2020" are you? Please don't do anything stupid, like sell your house, or worse...
At 86 I consider our mysterious God as a silent friend that has helped me when asked and sometimes, when not asked. I find entertaining, almost comic to see, two well scholastic prepared men, dispute the existence or not of God. We are eternal, through the quantic presence of God in us and the universe. Over 50 years ago I composed a little poem that reflects the reality of our eternal existence. It goes like this: Eternity, I have been the sky and I have been the sea, I have been the wind and I have been the tree. For this I know that I was, that I am and that when I die, I will become part of million elements for billion of years. This is life and this is dead. We should enjoy our presence on earth, considering that all that we do good is under the influence of God in us. When our will prevails, then we have war and misery. God is the most obvious reality in this world and in the universe. Religions and sacred books are all creation of men with different purposes.
When will Lennox get his mathematical brain to accept that atheism is not a faith-based position. It is the rejection of a claim that a god or gods exist. It is not a "belief", nor a "world view". He gets challenged on this in every debate I've seen him take part in but continues to promulgate this incorrect assertion.
@@toni4729 the amazing thing is, belief in God is not a wishful thinking. It is evidenced based. Believing in an invisible onion wouldn't be a problem if it can be proven.
@@TheGospelAssociates But an invisible onion can't be proven anymore than God. Simple as that. Neither exist. You can't say they do. Proving it is utterly impossible. It's like saying nourishing your brain after it's dead is going to keep it alive so you can contact your dead friends and see JC. Your body may burn or rot away but how are you going to nourish your brain. You can't even run a computer or phone without some sort of power but you expect to be about to chat with your old relatives after your dead. How?Where's the power going to come from?
I'd love to see Lennox debate Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, or Dan Barker on Biblical morality. And, I'd like to see Lennox debate Bart Ehrmann on the contradictions in the Bible. Or debate David Fitzgerald, Richard Carrier, or Bob Price about the existence of Jesus.
Matt Dillahunty is not really a nice person to debate - He gets pretty aggressive, Bart Ehrman is a textual critic and Lennox is not - that would not be a fair debate and finally, Richard Carrier is laughed at in the academic community and is a Jesus mythicist, a theory that is widely disputed by both secular and christian scholars alike.
@@traildude7538 Amen. Ehrman himself admits that he and Metzger basically agreed on everything when it comes to textual criticism, yet at least Metzger is much more nuanced and less click-baity when it comes to his works.
@@elanordeal2457 DIllahunty is only really aggressive on the Atheist Experience, not so much in his formal debates. The current hosts of AXP Forrest & Paul are the best hosts the show has ever had IMOP. Richard Carrier is a perfectly respectable academic and Jesus mythicism has come more to the forefront recently, because the evidence for any single event in Jesus life is very sketchy. Outside of academia it is sort of irrelevant anyway, rather the question for most people isn't whether some apocalyptic prophet was hanging around 2K years ago, but whether someone who was the instantiation of god was around at that time. And there is absolutely no sensible reason to believe that.
@@roqsteady5290 Richard carrier is certainly not deemed a respectable academic. If a scholar has to fight for relevancy by being the guest on athiest mythvision channels or informal online debates, it often says a lot about the value of their work as they lack interaction with real and respected academics in peer-reviewed journals. The only people who praise Carrier are those who benefit from his agenda and love mythicism. You’re in your own right to believe in Jesus’ mythicism, but Carrier is not your token man if you want any real respect. He is often criticised for using out-dated sources and he even blew up and sent trolls after another blog site when Tim O’Neill (a literal *atheist* btw) called out his poor work. If a “scholar” like Carrier finds little to no interactions within academic footnotes or journals, it’s usually a big indication that their work offers no value and is not even bothered to be interacted with in any formal and respectable academia.
The first statement from Singer (about Laplace) is a strawman fallacy. God being a first Cause prevents Him from being part of a causal model making of Him an uneffective scientific variable. That was Laplace's point. Gosh atheist arguments only sound impressive to atheists (and naïve believers). Thanks for playing Pr Singer.
Donald Nadeau Not sure I'm getting your point, but like 99% of people you don't know how to read the bible. 1) We humans can only process time/space information. 2) bible relate to humans. It is a message from God TO humans. 3) whatever God was outside this frame (universe) doesn't relate to us. 4) the bible starts at THAT point in that whatever was between 0 and 1 can't be expressed through words. You can find a hint to that idea in the fact that the bible starts with the letter "bet" which is also the number 2. One (or oneness or dimensionless) is super natural (it is what is before genesis). Information starts with differentiation (binary systems can describe the whole universe) PS: In the original hebrew you don't need editing to go from sky to heaven. It is the exact same word to this day in modern state of Israel.
Donald Nadeau Ok, excluding latin and greek my baggage includes hebrew, french, english and portugese (fluent in all of them) and a little bit of talmudic aramaic, besides a Masters degree in applied mathematics. The problem with the academic kind like you is that you're not adressing the theology's CLAIM. What's Laplace's context? Who is he adressing? Laplace's reasoning presuposes a certain notion of God. To make sense of a claim, you must clarify it's internal grammar. Historical contextualization is just a bunch of hypotheses which are unrelated to the internal context. What's the text's INTENTION (in the minds of those whom Laplace is adressing). What is the theologies' claim? The facts I described agree with (without being limited by) Aristotle's unmoved mover (which all abrahamic religions accept as a first grounding for God). This in turn renders this notion of God completely detatched from causality relations. And as such totaly out of context in a scientific reasoning. Which in turn makes Singer's claim an ignorant one.
Donald Nadeau Nope, not supersticious theology. Just theology. Don't use a term if you don't know its meaning. The complete context of the bible is irrelevant anyway. There is some common groung to all (even conflicting) theologies, and that's all we need. God is the necessary uncaused cause to all existence. As such He cannot be predicated. In other words, what Singer claims is his reason for not believing, is actually something that most theologians with some knowlege ALSO hold. Thank you Pr Singer, I too don't invoke God as a scientific variable. Glad we agree.
Very convenient to basically place god outside the realm of knowledge or evidence. All an atheist is saying is they are unconvinced that god exists. Your position does nothing to convince. Besides, your claim that god is a first cause is just an assertion, whether it is from you or the bible. Assertions are meaningless without evidence to back up the claim, but you have placed your god outside that evidence. Therefore, the atheists position is reasonable.
Of course, there's a GREAT SOMEONE who created everything, seen and unseen, things that cannot be explain even by science it's because of GOD THE GREAT CREATOR and not the CREATURE!
Isn't it a mistake to reason that everything for which you have no explanation MUST be explained by the existence a Great Someone, rather than just saying "Yeah, we don't know yet"? Why would we think that the rest of our questions would not be answered by science, given enough time?
Any thinking person sees how weak Lennox’s points are. He repeatedly tries to equate what ought to be with what is. God is a desired entity, not an observed one.
And because something is desired doesn't mean it's beyond the realm of existence. As Collins put it, if the desire can't be met in this world, then its fulfilment must be transcendent
@@cyrusademola1326There's an infinite amount of things that are desired and not beyond the realm of possibility. To assert that one in particular exists is a logical fallacy.
I have known several atheist. And the closer they came to the end of their lives, the more irritable, nervous, unconsolable, seemingly knowing they have no further hope for anything. If atheist would put has much effort in studying the proofs for Gods existence has they do for trying to discredit his existence, there would be less atheist. I know God exists, and i believe in jesus Christ (my lord and savior) people cannot come to jesus unless God brings them. People will keep denying God and there hearts will be hardened to the point they can never comprehend the concept of God. To have no hope of eternal life through jesus Christ, is the saddest thing i could ever imagine. May God grant every atheist a Damascus Road transformation.
Studies show that hard athiests and extreme believers fear death the least. So believe the fairy tale all the way or understand it's all total nonsense, take your pick. My head and my heart think this religion is wrong, just wrong on many levels. Why would I want to believe such a thing? And I don't want an afterlife, this was a huge disappointment, I have had enough.
Singer misses a big point: it doesn't matter whether it's God or the universe, either way there has to be something that wasn't created, that has always existed and is essentially 'self-generating'. The only question is "What is it that has always existed?" Some these days will answer "the multiverse", but that's a hypothesis for which we have no evidence.
Robert Paulson Jesus Christ is the truth and the way. I’ll guarantee you if you pray and ask him with an open heart he will answer your prayers. It maybe today, tomorrow or in 10 years. He has done the same for me.. and there was no other explanation but Jesus answering them.
@@toni4729 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ Professor of Mathematics, Bioethics at Oxford University (emeritus), internationally renowned speaker and author of several books on the interface of science, philosophy and religion. what did you do remarkable?
@Toni if you truly believe you will become very knowledgeable, by research. You will continually build up knowledge of what ever one believes in. Otherwise one is not truly a believer.
I certainly believe in the scientific method which allows for modification in theory based on new evidence rather than theology which digs its heels in on dogma rather than relying on evidence, old or new. What could make more sense?
at 26:00 Singer says that *_any honest_* physicist maintains that " any statement about what happ..... any situation before the big bang are not scientific statements, they are statements , perhaps of religious faith or belief" *EXACTLY* ! Any claim they make is as ungrounded in the scientific method as a claim that was God, it is refreshing to finally hear a person on the other side of this admit this! Then he says "so it may well be that the universe has been constantly oscillating forever"........ except that THAT statement is also beyond science AND violates everything that we think we know about how the universe behaves. ( Yeah, I know, quanta pop into and out of existence, *_supposedly_* , we dont know that they are coming into existence from non existence or what exactly is happening. What we know is that we can't detect them then we can.) Right now it is beyond contestation that the universe is expanding, it is also beyond contestation that that expansion is accelerating. Newton's law states,The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. sooooo. expansion is happening....... expansion is increasing in speed, AANNNNNDDDDD the gravitational force that would act to decelerate or stop this is weakening as the distance between massive objects and objects that make a contribution to the stress energy tensor, and therefore to the curvature of space could not slow, stop then reverse that expansion. So unless there is another force we don't know about *( see dark energy density decreases and matter density increases)* which while possible seems unlikely everything we see would indicate that the "rubber band" universe isnt what the data indicates.
the only thing that is beyond contestation is that our todays "universe" come straight from the kabala! but to people who still live in the bubble .. made for them by the worlds leading institutions .. will never realize the lie they are living! and i know .. everybody loves space! so i am a heretic for even daring to call your space claims BS! you really do believe that the rulers of this world would share anything major with you? wake up brother!
" Any claim they make is as ungrounded in the scientific method as a claim that was God, " Yes, but when God is a term for the inexplicable or supernatural, it cannot be an explanation at all. It´s just a questionmark, which implifies pseudo answeres that aren´t really answers at all. You can say "god did it" but this isn´t a valuable statment, it means "I can´t explain it, and imagine something what I actually not really can´t imagine, because it is out of this world, which is the cause for the universe." The term God is just a dishonest term, because it disguises the admission of not knowing with a nice sounding answer. So please say "We cannot explain it." instead of "There is a God who did it."
to john lennox: so you call yourself a "mathematician" ehh. here's a proof by contradiction that god doesnt exist: proof by definition, god is almighty & lovin'. there are sufferin's all over the world & throughout history, such as earthquakes, floods, droughts, volcano eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes, diseases, illnesses, murders, accidents, killin's, genocides, wars, etc etc. if god existed then bcoz he's almighty & lovin' he would eliminate all of these sufferin's & so they wouldnt exist. but they exist. this is a contradiction. thus god doesnt exist. end-of-proof also, if some1 doesnt believe in the christian god then he'll send them 2 eternal hell. is this what you call "love"?? he has the power 2 make them believe in him but he doesnt do so but instead he sends them 2 eternal hell. is this what you call "love"?? mathematics is based on logic & rationality, while christianism is completely illogical & completely irrational. how do you reconcile the 2?? 1 of the thousands of examples of the illogicality & irrationality of christianism is that you were born a sinner. if your grand-parents committed a murder even b4 you were born, then you're automatically also guilty right at the moment when you were born. is this your logic & rationality?? you're as weak-minded as any illiterate christian. your fear of death, fear of the unknown, & weak-mindedness has led you 2 believe in somethin' that's completely illogical, completely irrational, & completely superstitious.
"which while possible seems unlikely everything we see would indicate that the "rubber band" universe isnt what the data indicates" Beyond the big bang we do not know anything. We have no grounds to talk about the likeliness of what came before. As Peter Singer said, claims about what came before the big bang are not based off of science.
@mtman2 what about all of the billions who have sought God and found another diety, and believe with all their hearts and souls in them in the same way as Christians? What about all the people who have sought God and never felt the touch of divine providence? Has God failed to give them grace?
@@victorteodor641 I was being flippant. I'm not sure he's wrong - but unlike him, I'm not so foolish as to make a claim such as, "There is a god" or, "There is no god" without good evidence.
There's plenty of evidence as far as I'm concerned. But either way, I would encourage you to decide one or the other and not sit on the fence in perpetuity 🙂
Is there a God? Is the God of the Bible really God? These are two very different questions. It seems to me the title of the debate is a bait and switch. An excellent discussion notwithstanding.
No way to know if there is a God unless a person receives personal revelation (a sacred spiritual experience) that confirms the existence of God, a Creator, and a Plan for us, a Purpose in Life leading to Eternity. All the logic and reasoning of the world will never bring the certain knowledge that there is a God. Such supreme and "real" truth comes by the Spirit. Those who shut and shield their hearts in unbelief to such experiences are doomed to walk in spiritual blindness all their lives, without ever knowing that "YES" there is GOD. Best wishes to true seekers of truth with an open heart and mind.
So the only way to truly know God is to be the lucky receptacle of divine providence? Augustine himself wrote much about the deterministic reality of this statement, that the knowledge and love of God comes through the grace he gives, and how much of an issue it creates as it essentially puts the responsibility of belief on God.
A personal revelation similar to the one that the apostol Paul had on his way to Damascus. Those are rare, most of the time, I say about 99.9999% of the time God expects you to believe on faith alone. If you had a personal revelation as such I would like to hear it or read about it here on the comments. Remember if you lie , you will go to HELL!!
Throughout the debate, Lennox makes statements that begin with the words "I believe ...." Never once, however, does he tell us why we should in any way care about what he believes; why what he believes is relevant in the search for a better understanding of the universe and our place in it; why anyone should pay the slightest attention to what he believes. The reality is that there is no reason why anyone should have any interest whatsoever in what he-or anyone else for that matter-believes. Rather, the focus should be on what is known to be true and what can be demonstrated to be true. Lennox does not seem to be interested in that, preferring instead to list in various ways all the things he has chosen to believe. Is it really worth spending an hour or more of one's life finding out what Lennox believes?
And I should care what you believe, why? Or what Singer believes? Truth can only be determined through assessing information and deciding to believe it. Lennox made plenty of arguments from evidence, which substantiate his beliefs, but in the end this is a debate of normative claims. Trying to displace truth from belief is something we always want to do, but it’s never that easy.
You completely missed the point of him saying “I believe”, it was to emphasize that every single one of us holds a belief system, and Lennox’s is based on evidence.
@@lyricalmike7162 anyone can argue that their belief system is based on evidence. The real question is, is it good or bad evidence? Personally I'm not convinced Lennox has good evidence.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Christian faith is both substance and evidence and can be experienced and studied by any who act in faith by taking a step toward receiving the promises that are given. My faith has both substance and evidence, its effects being very real and transformative.
bg81973 I have had the misfortune to see two atheists that were Doctors that adopted two sisters. The step father molested the two daughters. He rationalized that they had low life parentage and were not his flesh and blood anyway. So it was like having an affair. The wife when she found out, did another rationalization; her flesh and blood would not have behave in such an immoral way. So the two adopted teenagers were blamed for the act of molestation. After all the adopted parents had given them such a wonderful wealthy life, since they were human garbage any way and had such low parentage. They were responsible for tempting their step father. You see: If there is no God anything is permissible. When you have no moral compass you can rationalize and justify any perverse act. This Woman stayed married to this fiends because they enjoy the wealthy lifestyle. These Atheists pretend that they are exposing Christianity as a base fraud and you have to be an idiot the believe in an imaginary friend-God. Do they say this about Socrates? Socrates wrote nothing? All we know about Socrates is what his disciples Plato & other students said he said. Plato’s worst critic was Diogenes the Cynic. Diogenes has little of his words preserved. But they all treat Greek philosophers as fathers of scientific method like Aristotle. It was Aristotle that influenced Thomas Aquinas in to adopting the Earth is the center of the universe. Added 1 week later: Interesting if you vilify Atheist History Communist Countries That Are Marxist Atheist that murder 200 million people that is untrue and unfair debate facts. But Atheists mention Crusaders, Spanish Inquisitions, Murder of Indigenous Peoples, Call out pedofile priests? What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander?
Tiger Pisces, if they only thing telling you to be a good person is your fear of hell, or “because someone told you to”, then you are not truly a good person. You’re just an obedient Slave. I am not religious, but I know right from wrong because I am compassionate, and I am empathetic, and I do not enjoy the suffering of others. None of which relates to religion or god
Let's talk about some of the contradictions in the bible. 1.)Can God be seen? Yes God can be seen "And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." Exodus 33:11 No God cannot be seen "There shall no man see me, and live." Exodus 33:20 "No man hath seen God at any time." John 1:18, 1 John 4:12 This is a contradiction. God of the bible does not exist. 2.) From what were the animals created? From water "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." Genesis 1:20 From out of the ground "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." Genesis 2:19 This is a contradiction. Your god does not exist. You can take a look at more contradictions here: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html To anyone reading this, you can live a good moral life without a god. Live your life like it is the only life you will have. We atheists believe that human experience and rational thinking provide the only source of both knowledge and a moral code to live by. We reject the idea of knowledge 'revealed' to human beings by gods, or in special books filled with contradictions. "Humanity has believed in 4000 different gods throughout our history. Your religion says 3999 of those gods don't exist. Atheists believe 4000 of those gods don't exist."
Again, the fact that there may have other religions/sect who claim on an event similar to the resurrection of Jesus, this does not mean that the resurrection of Jesus could not have possibly happened or that all these similar resurrection claims are equally supported. The amount of evidence required by atheists for them to believe in the resurrection are either unreasonable (like Jesus appears to all people) or would negate that the resurrection is miraculous (by requiring that there has to be a natural explanation).
Even if Christians can prove that Jesus was resurrected, so what? His resurrection does not make any claims made by him or about him true. Lazarus was supposedly resurrected and so were all the dead in Jerusalem. Jesus's resurrection is as irrelevant as his mother's virginity.
As an atheist I will never stiop asking the obvious question. If God made the universe..... Who or what made God? God had to be much bigger and far more powerful than the universe so something bigger than God had to have been there to make God.
@@toni4729 But then you would be implying that everything, simply because they exist, needs something larger to create them. It would create an infinite line of creator after creator
Listening to Peter Singer a well known accomplished philosopher, not understand why the universe can not be past eternal both scientifically and philosophically boggles my mind. Such a simple thing to understand.
The universe being past eternal can not be ruled out. There is as of yet no sufficient empirical data to conclude whether the universe is eternal or not.
I don’t think scientists assume that the universe is comprehensible to the human mind. After several years of physics and chemistry seeing that one can make sense of things, one has the understanding.
Prayer is always objectively less powerful than action, and yet people all over the globe insist it has a clear effect in their lives. This is not to say that anyone is lying, but could sometimes be mistaken. Say you pray for a friend to get well - they could immediately get sicker before getting a little better. I guess prayer might have a delay. Maybe they get better and then die in a car accident - well the prayer was still fulfilled I guess. Say they die from the illness - well clearly it wasn’t in God’s plan. But hold on, in all of these cases your friend hasn’t actually gotten any better while it still appears like your prayer worked. Okok, maybe he immediately got better - surely that’s proof that prayer works, right? It’s not as if humans naturally heal or this has anything to do with the regular doses of antibiotics your friend has just started taking... Interestingly, the only benefit of prayer that can properly be pinned down is the placebo effect. Placebos can and do make people recover faster, feel more motivated and feel more confident with themselves. Aside from remembering positive outcomes and ignoring negative ones, this is probably a major reason you feel prayer has such a strong effect in your life. But prayer isn’t unique here; just about anything can be used as a placebo, and placebos can even work when the patient _knows_ that they’re taking sugar pills.
Singer's main issue is suffering. But, great though Lennox is, he doesn't really give the full account of how the BIble responds to this issue. Christ is of course of central importance in that response, and Lennox recognises that, but the Biblical explanation begins right from the beginning in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 where we read that God originally intended a Universe without suffering, yet 1) with free will and 2) the stewardship of creation under humanity and 3) the exercise of that free will to be independent from God then 4) we find ourselves in the plight we are in now. Yet 5) God Himself decides to trigger a set of events, right from the beginning in Genesis 3, that leads to a resolution of this mess. It culminates in Christ of course (that's where the whole Old Testament narratives heads towards), and following Christ we learn that the resolution begins from the inside out- i.e. human hearts are changed, and that has a knock on effect, which will continue until the End.
@@asmallfarmhomestead3657 yes we do. And as the great David Hume said "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" I continue to challenge theists for evidence...and any good reasons to believe
@@lawrenceeason8007, the fact that you're still asking for evidence further proves that you don't want there to be a God. Up to you, but don't whine about going to Hell. The choice was yours.
@@dazedmaestro1223 not really asking. Although if someone ever submitted actual, solid evidence for a god that would be revelatory. It's more of a challenge to theists...that there isn't any really GOOD reason to believe in such a thing
Jesus Himself said "I have come to set people against each other". Religious debate certainly does that. Is that but one more piece of proof of Jesus' Deity ?
All ideologues comes with that message though, don't they? And the conflict includes, but is not limited to, debate. Jesus says one's own relatives and household will become *enemies* because of the spiritual fight between Christ's followers and enemies. Jesus' rash apocalyptism is yet more proof of the irrational roots of Judeo-Christian faith, not of its mature universality. It took centuries upon centuries of painful darkness to mould this deeply superstitious tradition into the decent, free society of the West.
There is no such thing as morality and ethics demands reason, which is supporting atheism. Lennox tried to trap Singer by forcing him to admit that Atheism is a belief, which of course everyone knows, it is not.
God allows natural suffering to give mortals who are eternal souls experience with both good and evil. Then in eternity they can understand and empathize with the billions of souls who still experience it. Also, those who have suffered, died, and been resurrected will profoundly appreciate the blessings of now having a perfect, pain-free body. No being can fully appreciate a tremendous blessing without having first experienced the lack of that blessing.
God is truth, to John's point the numerical values of the universe give true explaination of how it works by way of sceince... Numbers don't lie... Creation is the absolute truth of the existence of God. Numbers cannot create... But are the result of creation, and a reflection of God's character of Truth....
Numbers don't HAVE to create. They simply describe. There is no need for a creator. The principles of maths would still exist without any mind to describe them. One unit added to another unit would still equal two units. The actual words used to describe maths require a mind, but the truths that they describe do not.
This is the third debate I’ve seen with John Lennox. He seems to be reading from the same script, quoting the same people, same allegories, nearly word for word and in nearly the same order. The first time I thought he did a fair job for the Christians, but after the third time it’s redundant. You are doing fellow Christians a disservice.
The problem with Dr Lennox is that he asserts his views and expects the opponent and viewers to accept it as fact. There is no evidence of a resurrection, no-one has witnessed a resurrection, not then nor anytime thereafter. Why is that, because it didn't happen and will not occur.
And you never will, because even if adequate refutations were given, you would not hear them, for you have rejected them already before they ever enter your ears.
Steve Scott Hey Steve, if a world existed in which there were no evil, I believe that we would not be in it. As humans, we have the ability to choose, therefore it would be a world of robots. Yes there is evil in this world, and some things might seem unfair, but there is a marvelous creator working behind the scenes of it all and that gives me great hope.
Shouting things into the void doesnt make them true. The univers is telling you all you need to know, and while it CAN shout them through your earplugs, it wont! Taking them out is on you. You meet God halfway along the way. If you turn your back and go the other way He wont stop you.
As an objective person who doesn't know what to think about a "God" it really bothers me when religious people refer to "God" as "He".... it doesn't make sense 😕
I like what C. S. Lewis said about that: that God is most certainly not male, but neither is He female; so we ought to take the word "he" in reference to God as indicating two things -- first, that God is a person rather than a thing; and second, that whatever God is comes closer to be masculine than any other concept we have. This reminds us that human language and human comprehension are limited -- so we do the best we can.
Acts 14:22 [22]strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
Philosophical atheists can be moral, but when the populace refuses to believe in a God who gives rewards and punishments, they tend to feel no guilt about being immoral, especially in a sexual way..
God’s existence (or not) does not depend on who did the best in this debate. I believe God answered the question Himself by actually revealing Himself on earth in the person of Jesus Christ - the same one who we count years by, and which billions of people in the world in all countries (before anyone tries to use the argument : not in developed countries) believe and find their joy in .
Bwahahahahhaa -what a crock you do talk. God revealed himself? - sounds like a flasher. Jesus existed because we count years by? that is hilarious. Google Thailand and find out the year there for example - currently its AD 2561 duhhhhhhh
Hitchens coined it when he said christians will believe practically anything. All those miracles all those years ago yet none today - I think monty pythons life of brian comes close to the ''truth''. If David Copperfield turned water into wine on tv no one would bat an eyelid - yet jesus did it all those years ago and we re supposed to be in awe.
How can someone say the universe has no creator and its got no cause. How can someone suggest that there is no God. One only has to consider the beauty, rationality and sophistry of nature....just look around you and you'll see that God exists. To suggest that God doesn't exist is like looking at a beautiful car and suggesting that it created itself.
How can someone look at our complete lack of evidence of any gods and just believe in a completely terrible idea? * Theism is _actually_ theists looking at reality and reaching a faulty, irrational belief like that. * Atheism _does not_ involve claiming "the universe has no creator". The majority of atheists admit we don't know how the universe was caused or if it has a cause. But...do you even care? _I_ care about truth. Yet constantly as I talk with theists it's so hard to get them to address these problems -- that makes it seem like they just don't care about truth at all. When something I believe is criticized, and especially when someone has evidence it's wrong, I listen. I care. But when someone says they believe in something and they themselves know they can't prove it (which you've shown: by distracting off topic instead of proving a god exists with evidence) then that mostly just convinces me that they've been misled by a horrible idea that nobody should believe.
John Lennon: "Imagine no religion."
John Lennox: "No."
John Lennon: "Imagine no religion."
John Lennox: "Imagine no atheism"
Peter Stringer: "Imagine no resurrection too".
Lennon "Imagine no possesion"
his bank account: "nope"
@@curiousgeorge555
Imagine no atheism.
No Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin.
Imagine this all came from nothing, it's easy if you're clueless like Lennon was.
It's so refreshing to see two gentleman have a civil debate and discussion on this topic.
We all admit we don't know what happens after we die. We can't know.
In the history of the world, no god has ever spoken a single syllable!
Jesus Rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees.
Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist.
All religions say they are the TRUE religion.
All religions are man made.
All religions are all lies.
Yes. All religions were formed by humans. There is some evidence that even early hominids had some form of religion, as evidenced by how they buried people. It wasn't until the dawn of civilization that religion really flourished. Even the Sumerians had a form of religion. Religion really took off with Judaism. It was then, for the most part, that the monotheism had it's beginning. Religion diverged into different branches (different beliefs) based on geographical dispersion. The Jews had their god, the Hindus had there god, so forth and so on. Those religions branched out as well. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. Even today new religions pop up. Christianity has diverged (ex. Protestants, Catholics). In the 20th century you have Mormonism and Scientology, to name just a couple. Religions will continue to be created, but most will have their roots in existing religions. Religion is like a virus. It mutates and adapts to the social expectations of the time.
The major religions of the world were brought into existence through LIES.
beyondallreligion.net/2012/03/20/religion-based-on-a-bedrock-of-lies/
@@donaldlaxner8212 nothing happens after death , when u die it's over the end
Great faith!
Atheism is unpopular in the world, only about 16% are atheists, in 2100 there will be 9% atheists cause of low birthrates and few converts. Atheists = white male with a high salery.
www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/22/the-worlds-most-committed-christians-live-in-africa-latin-america-and-the-u-s/
news.osu.edu/one-thing-youll-find-in-the-obits-of-many-long-living-people/
www.bluezones.com/2017/07/religion-may-reduce-stress-increase-longevity/
blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scientism/
What Is Your WHY - Team Fearless
m.ruclips.net/video/56Qu3MY5EnU/видео.html
Fearless Motivation Instrumentals - Good Morning
m.ruclips.net/video/Ynuq1kGZjiY/видео.html
The only diferent is that one tells the truth and the other tells lies one is getting rich tax free and the other is teaching sciece with proof. and evvedents
Excellent debate. As always I admire Dr. Lennox’s sharp wit, thick Irish brogue and kind manners. The love of God truly shines through this man.
How does this debate not have a billion views by now? This was epic. This might be my new favorite debate. Both sides had top notch arguments, each thoughtfully responded to the other's arguments and rebuttals, and each was very humble and respectful of one another. I was utterly amazed, actually, with how quickly these speakers came up with pertinent and relevant responses to each other--complete with quotes that the Australian audience could also relate to--in such a short period of time. My mind is blown right now. These are the kinds of discussions we all should be having with one another. The only reason I come down on the side of John Lennox is because I have discovered Christ due to evidence and experience before seeing this debate; if I had not, and came to see this debate with no belief one way or the other, I might call this a draw (but for the way that Lennox somewhat threw off Singer by his question regarding his atheist faith based on his heritage, and Singer's answer for the child's question was very telling and highly depressing), and would be very interested in conducting further research to see where it led. Great debate, awesome moderation, and wonderful civility by everyone. Thank you for hosting and sharing this amazing talk, Fixed Point Foundation.
megalopolis2015 I don't think Singer committed a genetic fallacy. That would require that Singer discredit Lennox's beliefs solely due to their origin, namely his cultural experience growing up in a Christian household. What Singer did well was point to the fact that religious belief has a close correlation to prevailing culture. This is observable across the world with various geographic regions having a predominant religion.
Gym: There is a certain pattern that correlates religious viewpoint to familial and cultural upbringing. It is usually easy to tell when someone is just saying things because their parents believed in them, rather than having reasons of their own. One example is that those young people would merely parrot the Bible, rather than actually defend their faith. Another is them changing their beliefs once their circumstances change, such as going to a secular university. However, there are many multitudes of examples of how people changed their beliefs not to impress others, but because they learned what they knew to be true. Some will even die for those beliefs--without killing anyone in return. Some people have had dreams of Jesus without knowing who His is, or of Bible verses they were never exposed to. I, myself, am a much less dramatic but still significant example of how I went against my upbringing, not to rebel, but because I discovered Christ and opened myself to having relationship with Him. In case you were wondering, it was not peer pressure, as prayer partners and church came much later.
nope😂
is god real .. is a black or white question .. there is nothing in between. so how can you say that singer had ANY good point? havent you yourself said that you came to god through science? so singer is obviously ignorant .. not smart enough or a liar! there is no room for him having good points!
singer is a sad proof of how dumb humans can be! if someone calls himself a scientist and is older than 50 and still havent found god through science .. what doest it tell you about him?
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you” - heisenberg
hey! it's not that important debate! people are tired of seeing such debates lately that is all the same,no good conclusion!
John Lennox could be a commentator in movies of nature. very pleasant voice. It's like he is from the LOTR-world.
too bad he is steeped bull shite
Rob Darling . Kinda like your mama.
Maybe he is from that world, in which case he should be arguing for the literal truth of Tolkien's books. Logically, he might as well.
Movies of nature? Lol. Dweeb
He sounds like a cartoon
I like John Lennox a lot, the clarity of his exposition. Always a pleasure to hear.
If he has had a wet fart in public he will become an atheist, that is he will not believe in a supernatural intelligent designer
As an atheist, let me acknowledge, with the highest possible praise, John Lennox vocalizes cogent hypotheses and objections every atheist should hear. Though I believe many of them are unfalsifiable, they are some of the best examples of reasonable critiques of non-belief.
You are not an atheist. Just a man looking for fate 🙂
@@Johnnyquid20 you’re not a theist. Just another man, fearful of death, caught in a daydream.
@@flameless4644 I fear nothing my friend 😉
@@Johnnyquid20 I fear god
Yeah, he's better than ray comfort, but he still talks a lot of shit. Many of the flaws are quite subtle though and takes a careful analysis to identify them.
Singer really did the "Who created God?" objection! Tell me you dont understand the cosmological argument without telling me you dont understand the argument.
Everybody is nihilist until enemy dies, after that life is just smiles.
Cosmological argument is tuned by brainless wisdom of halfbred theologians. It has logical sequence of no-brainer, because one has to be idealist or purist to consider it as science defying. Its logical for atheist or unbelievers to say who made watchmaker, because point made was so simplistic and burden of proof is on cosmos. Who claims it has any relevancy in theoretical physics?
Nobody cares about theology or 'natural' order of things when learning about history, why claim scientific nature is any different?
One set of rules for each phenomena is how world abruptly ends when our new reactor type blows us into future for example. We have little actual applied science beyond making wheels so that horses can carry more weight.
Our stoic friends would comprehend our world with little pain of lost accomplishments, as they would see problematic approaches and holes in our rational approaches we are not understanding, as world we see is all we see.
Complaining about somebody adding new accomplishment to true god standing behind christian god is just boring. How about we discuss like atheists do. Comprehend questions as questions, not arguments that have to be applied to ancient 'wisdom'.
Please provide your variant of your best attempt to replicate dofus from evangelical era and make points without referencing natural order of things.
Apologies in advance, this ended up longer than expected.
Why is this a problem? the cosmological argument is based on fallacious premises. There are many variants, but at their base they go something like this: 1. every effect had a cause, 2. the universe is an effect 3. therefore the universe has a cause and then it is argued that therefore the universe requires an uncaused cause (god). it must have had a cause, Here are some of the problems with this argument:
Cause effect relationship is rooted in time (cause before effect) and we can only observe them within our space time experience. Thus if the universe did have a beginning (which we do not know, the big bang does not claim that before there was nothing and science assumes the law of the conservation of energy and matter), time also has a beginning, thus temporal cause and effect breaks down without time. Therefore premise 1 only applies to effects within time and does not apply to premise 2.
William Lane Craig added to this argument another set of premises that an actual infinite cannot exist so the universe must have had a beginning. Again, this is fallacious as 1. we do not know if an actual infinity can exist or not, and believing in god normally implies belief in an eternal heaven / hell, so it is hypocriticial of someone who preaches an eternal (i.e. infinite) reward or punishment to claim that an infinity cannot exist, 2. this would apply strictly to time in this case as the next premises are that the universe cannot be infinite so must have a beginning, i.e. temporal events, but them this would also apply to time itself (i.e. time itself must have a beginning since infinity cannot exist so time itself cannot exist for infinity), and we cannot be so pretentious as to claim to know how things work in the absence of time.
Finally, even if this argument is sound, it only gives you an impersonal creator, something that kicked everything off. So this still leaves 2 gaping holes. 1. why must the cause of the universe be uncaused, cannot there be an infinite regress of creators? (this is what I think you objected to) and 2. how does this bring you any closer to a specific religion's god, which intervenes (inspires scripture, performs miracles, answers prayers, etc.)?
@@brianvell Bro do you go outside LMAO. All you had to say was who created god's mind.
@@brianvellyou’re completely missing the point here. You can raise objections to the cosmological argumente, but dude is arguing correctly that the “why god doesn’t need a begining” is a silly one (and it is!). That’s all.
@@NoxAlbelCan’t tell who you are agreeing with.
It is deeply refreshing to hear this topic discussed without rancor, talking over one another or cheap jokes.
What an amazing discussion. One of my favourite debates so far.
Yekkt how about the fact that matter cannot create rational intelligibility? Lol
@Yekkt sucks to be you lol
Yekkt ruclips.net/video/ac9pF32gRxU/видео.html
Here is some empirical evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
Yekkt these stories can be confirmed in the real world. Seeing Hindu gods or anything of the sort cannot be confirmed in the real world. Be careful discounting these.
Yekkt what’s a Christian NDE? Any NDE at all that can be confirmed Is what we are interested in. For example, the lady having an out of body experience and seeing a blue shoe on the roof of the hospital and then reporting that to the doctors.
1:18:29 "Let's try and look at the logic of it. If Jesus actually was God, the question that I'm faced with is: _what was God doing on a cross?_ And I can begin to see here that if this is true then God has not remained distant from the problem of suffering and evil but has himself become part of it."
Yes. He doesn't ask us to do anything he wouldn't do himself and he came in the flesh like us and overcame the world. His yolk is easy and his burden is light.
@@meta4zs
Immoral nonsense
:Indeed. "A God all merciful would be an unjust God."
Je suis
The Gift of Language
In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," [6] says the Lord.
God had a way out.
We don't.
Just because the evolution of the human mind was not directed toward truth but toward survival doesn’t necessarily imply that the human mind cannot arrive at truth.
Love listening to John Lennox. And I am happy seeing some sensible civilized debates such as these rather than looking into the crap I find in twitter and RUclips comments by irrational thugs.
You of all people, who represent yourself with an image of a crusader, have the nerve to talk about "irrational thugs" in the You Tube comments section?! Presumably, if you are that invested in your faith, you are the epitome of an irrational thug in the You Tube comments section, and would be willing to slay innocent people because they don't worship the invisible man in the sky that you do and because they challenge your irrational and illogical beliefs. Remember what Pope Clement II said about the slaughter of the Christian jihads(the crusades): "god wills it".
But how does Lennox explain the reason we can have wet farts? Is he
claiming god the intelligent designer designed us to have wet farts?!
@@DrMontagueAsk God that on Judgment Day!
@@justin10292000 they are quite prepared to debate everything else about how this god operates why won't they discuss why god designed us to defecate, break wind, and soil our pants . You have answered the question, you state ask god yourself, do he did design us to defecate dirty filthy substances,to break wind and stink,to crap our pants by accident, and you call it an intelligent design!
@@DrMontague yeah if Adam and Eve didn't eat the apple, we wouldn't have stuff like that
Excellent and thought-provoking
Singer in this debate flounders
Professor Singer! So much courage it takes to be so honest with yourself and in the debate. Thank you sir.
Theism and atheism and christianity and islam and gnostic and agnostic are not the truth . The truth is the unity in impartiality principle . Yes unselfishness . Yes mindfulness training . Meditation . Copy that . Magnificent obsession . Maturity .
@@alainmaitre2069 Correction: JESUS THE CHRIST is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE Life. Repent and believe before it's too late!
John Lennox is a true man of God
A true man of something that doesn't exist?
Public Intellectual what doesn't exist? Nothing? Like you believe lol
wadgy Lennox is a true man of God - or morons as theyre sometimes known
Dds You have to wonder at Lennoxs ability to reason. He asserts that Hitler and Stalin were both brutal dictators and atheists.
To illustrate the flaw in his logic it was pointed out that they both had mustaches too - to which he replied ''I dont see what mustaches have to do with it!
wagdy12
Agreed! Great stuff. God Bless you all.
Lennox spent much of his time on the benefits of being a Christian and that he would not like to live in a world without a Christian god, but that’s obviously not evidence that there is one, so it’s irrelevant to the subject of the debate. I appreciate that both debaters were respectful, sincere, and more focused on seeking truth than scoring points with their fans.
Did you watch the debate though?😕
I agree. He's quite entertaining, but in the end offers very little substance to his claims. His closing statements always seem to expose him: He can't emotionally accept a world without a god, so he doesn't.
He's a mathematician not a biologist, but that doesn't excuse his lack of understanding about the basic concepts of emergent properties, synergy, etc.. To argue that rationality can only come from rationality is just silly.
He didn't address suffering except to say, sadly, he has no answer, and his counter to the observation that people are mostly of the same religion as their parents, was to suggest there's no 'genetic' connection..? He's usually not so obvious with his strawmen, but that was also pretty silly.
His most compelling points are emotional, there has to be justice, there has to be an ultimate purpose and someone up there loving and guiding us to an afterlife, so there is.
@@markoshun "To argue that rationality can only come from rationality is silly."
Can you tell me where rationality come from??
"His closing statement always seems to expose him: He can't emotionally accept a world where there is no God, so he doesn't."
This just shows your lack of comprehension on your part. I guess you should read Albert Camus and Friedrich Nietzsche and see what your worldview entails if you are to live it consistently. All his argument are sound and logical. Please address his argument instead of attacking strawman and ad hominems. You atheists are basically dishonest.
"He didn't address suffering....." That's not the topic of the debate. And in fact, classical Atheists has stopped using that argument because it's weak and incoherent. If they claim that there's suffering, they'll have to prove that an all powerful God isn't morally obliged to permit suffering. And they'll have to prove that suffering is evil, which already contradicts your worldview. Please you atheists should learn an argument before engaging.
To say that people are Christians because they were raised in a Christian home is a genetic fallacy. This has been debunked times and times again. Only irrational atheists(New atheists) brings this up. It's like saying there are only Muslims in a Muslim country when there are in fact atheists. That automatically collapses that argument. You're literally saying there's no free will, yet implying freely that there is no free will. Y'all atheists should try to be logical for once. Everytime I see your comments, you always appeal to emotions 🥱
And that's all you took away from the entire talk? How sad! It's not your mind that has a problem with this: it's your heart. Not your intellect, but your morals.
@@markoshunyou also need to account for suffering, and youi can't. You can't even say who made you! You're an accident, you say. What utter nonsense! You are not a biologist either - so you don't get a say - you can't rationalise? You have the temerity to claim that Lennox can't provide validity because he's a mathetician? So only biologists eh? Not astrophysicists or applied mathematicians, or geologists? You have decided who gets to speak? You think you're very clever, but your comments are extremely foolish. You're not as smart as you think you are, my friend. You just expose your bias - your problem is not intellectual, it's moral! You can listen, yet never hear, learn but never reach wisdom! Deeply sad.
Wonderful watch. In his opening statement he mentions that "if God needs no first cause we out to be able to say the universe needs no first cause." But wouldn't that help prove God? that he has no first cause, and he gave everything its first cause. The watch has first cause because it was created. The universe and us have first cause because we were created. God Bless all of us!
disappointed at Singer's simply declaring a position without putting forward any explanation, much less proof.
Difficult to prove a negative.
Can you give us any evidence of a god? It doesn't look like it.
No god. And no amount of mental gymnastics is going to produce one. Spiritual space is empty, vacant, unoccupied. Hello! Anyone there? ...... Nope.
You’ll be going to a bad place for that sentence structure though.
Science, the Universe, The God Question
I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. Ravi Zacharias debate Peter Singer & Dr. Peter Atkins at Cornell University
Libertarian Prince what about Dr. William Lane Craig and Frank Turek or even Lee Strobel?
@Timothy Mostad how did you come to that conclusion and what is your proof?
it would be boring I have no idea how atkins became a doctor, ive listened to him , he is crazy and i just watched this debate and singer just doesnt have enough information on religion as lennox showed.
Atkins can't hold these guys coats.
@Timothy Mostad Sorry, I don't feed trolls. Bye Bye.
I still haven't heard any evidence.
What does evidence mean? Evidence doesn't include the absolute belief in something, it only gives rise to it.
As a Christian I can say there is compelling evidence for evolution, however bring up origin of life and it's dead in the water. So depending on how stiff necked you want to be, does that then destroy all of evolution? Of course not, however it offers a sizeable problem to the honest person who will not resort to a God of the gaps argument, or in this case a science of the gaps.
Now with regarding evidence, there's an entire field of archeology to look at, to which many secularist archeologists will say supports the Bibles historic narrative. I'll go a step further and say it's become a general consensus that the events of the Bible is historical, given all of the various bits and pieces they have dug up over the last 4 years.
The field of apologetics can also offer bits and pieces of historical evidence, as the topic itself strictly regards giving an answer to problematic questions.
Lastly, Christian eschatology should be the cherry on top. As someone so learned in theology as you are I assume by your attitude, you would know that the Bibles narrative is God gave man 6000 years before Jesus Christ returns to rule for 1000 years, the signs of the time of the Lords coming is prevalently told throughout various texts of the Bible. Signs of the times are playing out and setting up in front of our eyes. We are almost 2000 years after Christ died. We have the agenda 2030 timeline, but we also have Gods agenda coming to tear it down. Wormwood in the book of Revelations is coming. Apophis is coming around in 2029, while all the elites are building deep underground bunkers.
The signs of the times indicates we are in the last 10-20 years of the Bible timeline. Now is not the time to be an atheist, when the evidence in support of the Bible is overwhelming. But the Bible said, the hearts will grow cold, and as were the days of Noah, so will be when the son of man returns. Jesus said himself, will he find faith when he returns? The atheistic worldview is increasing, just as the Bible said it would.
Now you can continue on your way, or you can give God another go. Perhaps you will be a tribulation saint, you'll wake up when Gods wrath is poured upon the earth for the sake of the wicked, and fire and brimstone will rain down just like Sodom and Gomorrah (evidence for that too). If you know what the Bible says, maybe you will recognise it when it happens, and though you don't believe it now, you open yourself up to be corrected in the future.
The evidence in support of the Bible is incredible. Even the notorious Bart Erhman who specialises in the New Testament who is atheist, believes 100% that every author believed 100% in what they were saying. It's not made up, but based on events that actually happened.
It's the supernatural events that cause people to stumble, yet the biggest importance of the Bible is believing that Jesus was raised from the dead. Believing is the fundamental principle, yet here you are on the other side of the fence, cast out from eternal life unless you repent in your heart and come to the Bible.
The gift is free, yet you are too stubborn to see it's plausibility because you have your own definition and standard for evidence.
Maybe listen again with an open mind.
If you go in thinking everything you think has to be true, you'll never give a second thought to what's being presented.
The evidence is creation itself. The intelligibility of the universe, the Bible backed by Jesus and Jesus backed by His resurrection, which is backed by multiple eyewitness testimonies and the conversion of thousands of God's chosen people to Christianity.
If the resurrection didn't happen, neither would the conversion of those Jews who already believed they were God's chosen people.
There of course is plenty more that points to an intelligent creator of the universe, such as logic itself being immaterial, and outside of time and space, like God, yet I'd wager you still believe logic exists.
John Lennox puts his fellow Protestants to shame. He talks about things that other Protestants do not want to think about, such as an honest view of history.
That's because he is a high Anglican. high Anglicans are more like Catholics than protestants, although still heretics in our view. People like C.S. Lewis and John Lennox are much more challenging to the new atheists because unlike someone like William Lane Craig, you are right, there are places Lennox will go where Craig simply won't. His thoughts on the divine nature, transcendence, and the rational/logical intelligibility of the universe are topics most protestants either don't wish to or don't bother to explore.
- "There are but two possibilities: (1) Life originated from undirected processes; or (2) Life originated from directed processes. Scenario (1) is impossible for the reasons stated below. Whenever you have two possibilities if, you prove one to be impossible then you have necessarily proved the other to be *certain*.
Atheists often accuse Christians of adhering to a “god of the gaps” fallacy; that we adhere to an argument from incredulity. However, nothing could be further from the truth. We do not argue that we do not understand how undirected life origination happens and therefore God. We affirmatively state and prove that undirected life origination is absolutely impossible.
Why is it impossible for life to arise from undirected processes? To begin with, it is statistically impossible. It is generally accepted that odds greater than 1:10^50 are so remote as to be impossible. Assuming arguendo that it is even possible for molecules to assemble themselves into cell membranes and to cooperate to develop life processes, and further that they could posit and develop the ACTG(u) language carried in DNA, it must be noted that the simplest moneran known to man has a DNA sequence that is a little over 218,000 letters long. Let’s round it down and also discount the (U) in the DNA coding. Bending over backwards in favor of the atheist, the odds of assembling the sequence of DNA needed to govern the operation and reproduction of the simplest moneran are 1:4^218000. Rephrased to base-10, we are at 1:1.607*10^217060.
Also, let's assume arguendo that the “consensus” age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. That works out to 4.35*10^15 seconds. Let’s also assume that the “consensus” of subatomic particles in the known universe is correct at 10^86. That is 4.35*10^103 particle-seconds from the beginning of the universe to this day. Every subatomic particle in the universe would have to engage in 3.69*10^216957 *ordered experiments* (where no two experiments were identical) *per second* from the beginning of the universe to *now* to find the DNA sequence of the simplest moneran.
As you add to those odds by raising them to the power of the odds of: (a) DNA itself forming; (b) within a cell membrane since water is caustic to it; (c) the cell membrane itself forming; (d) with the correct mix of left-handed amino acids [and none right-handed]; (e) in such a manner as to have the correct food to metabolize; (f) with the correct temperature; (g) with the correct pH; one can clearly see that the odds rapidly exceed a number of one in ten raised to the power of a number of zeroes in it that exceed the number of subatomic particles in this universe. Impossible. To an absurd degree.
The impossibility of unintelligent chemicals positing and implementing the DNA language cannot be stated numerically; the odds are one in **infinity**. Chemicals are unintelligent. It is ipso facto impossible for them to cooperate. If you wish to make chemicals reflect intelligence, then external intelligence must be applied. DNA itself is the irrefutable calling card of God.
That said, let’s proceed to other things that make undirected life origins impossible. Each and every action whereby an element, molecule or life form proceeds from the simple to the complex requires the application of external intelligence. Physical laws make this an absolute. Matter within a system proceeds from the complex to the simple, and not the other way around. This physical law can be suspended - but only by the application of external intelligence; e.g., heat soda ash, silica and lime to 1200 degrees Celsius for a measured period of time and you produce glass. Blow air into the center of a blob of glass and cool it in a controlled fashion, and you produce a bottle. However, this law cannot be suspended by undirected processes. Therefore, intelligence is a requirement for taking the simple and fashioning it into the complex.
While this law appears easily suspended in such thing as nuclear fusion, no actual suspension of physical force absent the application of external intelligence has ever been observed. Physical laws are much less easily suspended as complexity grows. In other words, the more complex the outcome becomes, the more intelligence is needed to effectuate the complexity. This is most truthful in progressive evolutionary speciation - one species adapting to some outside factor to become a more complex species. There is a reason that this we have never observed this: It’s impossible.
How does a creature go from being sightless to having eyes? How would an organism know that it needed this adaptation? How would an organism know how to implement such an adaptation? It would not. Therefore we are assuming a serendipitous random mutation to something vastly more complex. However, virtually all observed mutations are harmful or even fatal. A serendipitous mutation to a higher species has never been observed. Has evolutionary speciation ceased?
“Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate” - William of Ockham. Creation adheres to Ockham’s Razor because it requires the creative intelligence to intervene a limited number of times to originate the universe and life and populate the Earth. Abiogenesis and progressive evolutionary speciation both require an infinite number of serendipitous, sequential and progressively more complex suspensions of physical laws, all without any intelligence to guide them, to accomplish its goal. The more simple explanation is likely the correct one.
The doubts as to Creation are unreasonable, and are usually accompanied by an attempt to burden-shift from proving one’s assertion of abiogenesis (and the denial of God's existence is implicitly an assertion of abiogenesis) to forcing the Christian to prove creation in order to rebut a presumption of abiogenesis. However, every time we take up the mantle and do so, the evidence is usually rejected without any consideration, much less serious consideration. This notwithstanding the fact that any doubts of its veracity or of the conclusions reached are certainly unreasonable.
While Christians are tarred with the “god of the gaps” fallacy, it is more apropos to say that atheists are in reality adhering to a “godless of the gaps” fallacy, whereby it is held that “I don’t understand how God can exist, therefore not-God.” Or, perhaps more appropriately, “I don’t like the idea of God or how He runs His universe, therefore not-God.”
Faith to the Christian has nothing to do with merely conceding His existence. It has to do with trusting His veracity and His goodness and His Word and acting on that trust. I could give the arguments that God - the Living God as depicted in the Bible - is the only possible Creator and that Jesus is exactly who He claims, but this post is very long as it is.
Thank you." - John F. Tamburo
Noone can mess with Prof. Lennox. He's too clever. He and Ravi should team up together. That would be a lethal duo for Team Jesus!
His_ Redeemed Team Jesus sounds like a gang of octogenarian pedophiles.
Kasper You sound like an unintelligent person who has nothing else to say but hate. You know what you call those people? Haters. You know what else they are? Losers...
KobeFan12452 Stop melting, snowflake. It was a joke. Given some very recent infamous incidents that do not reflect very well on the Christian faith, Team Jesus does sound like a gang of octogenarian pedophiles.
KobeFan12452 And it is my great pleasure to inform you that you sound like the second coming of Einstein.
Kasper Your just full of childish statements aren’t you? I’m assuming your still a child as with every other Atheist. Mind you I don’t mean age, no no, I mean mental intelligence. Anyways, your making a very good case of sounding like a fool.
As with every other apologist I have listened to, Lennox has done an anemic job of trying to explain the unexplainable, the greatest problem Christianity faces, that of suffering.
The usual themes:suffering is a test; the crucified Jesus suffers with us; suffering is our penance for original sin; we suffer but with it comes hope - suffering here will be made up for in the next life of heavenly bliss - all challenge believability.
Interestingly, I have heard at least one apologist say there is suffering in heaven as well. Does it ever strike the Christian as ludicrous to assert these things?
If god exists, he is nothing short of a cruel game player, enjoying the suffering which he alone could assuage, much as a misguided boy delights in pulling the wings off living insects.
Why this stupendous level of suffering - wouldn’t a fraction of what we endure be sufficient for his reasons?
Lennox speaks about the comfort of hope people have, but does he not see what an exclusive club that is? Where is the hope for non- Christians as they suffer terribly under the same god’s action/ inaction?
Since modern man emerged from Africa approximately 100,000 years ago, untold numbers of humans have suffered and died without even knowing the God-of-the-bible existed.
It boggles the mind that Christians convince themselves to believe, no matter what.
Suffering and a way of perseverance, learning and growing and a dream for reaching perfection is still a much better explanation than suffering has no point or purpose at all.... at least it's an answer and a hopeful one at that while Atheism doesn't have an answer for it at all....
@@StallionFernando A reason for suffering (from the non- Christian perspective) is not required. It just is. It is part of the randomness- and that’s fine. Our job, as self-aware human beings, is to ameliorate as much suffering as we can- for ourselves, and other living things (including the planet).
Christians, who declare there is an omnipotent, loving god interested in personal relationships with his creation, have an uphill battle in defending why others should believe in a being who ultimately causes the immense suffering he watches every moment of every day.
Plenty of nonsense are the reasons Christians parrot.
On one hand Christians say they can’t know the mind of god, while on the other they are very certain in asserting that God has a definite, as well as good, reason for suffering.
Atheists don’t pretend to have *the* answer to the greatest question there will ever be- how did this reality come to be? We will, imo, never know. It’s exciting to live with the mystery. Each day we live is to be lived with appreciation because it’s the only one we are certain exists. You live for the next world, this is only a way-station to a ‘better’ existence. How sad.
Suffering becomes much easier to understand once you realize this is a reality of duality and what that means along with free will.
Here's a question I ask not sarcastically: You say it boggles your mind that Christians can convince themselves to believe no matter what. You also say humans walked out of caves 100,000 years ago in Africa. Why do you believe that? Is that an independently verifiable belief? Does it require blind faith in what you've read in books? Kind of similar to what Christians do with their Bible?
The idea we evolved from single cell organisms over time and eventually from primates and then eventually walked out of Africa 100,000 years ago relies on the process of Macro-evolution being true. Yet, no one has ever observed this process. No scientist even claims to have observed it. So why do you believe this process can happen first of all, and then certainly happened countless times in the past to result in single cell organisms evolving into the various complex life forms we see on Earth today, including ourselves?
Do you even really *know* that Earth is 100,000 years old in the first place? The dating methods used by mainstream academia are very debatable... and there are 12 different methods they could use. Some support the idea Earth is billions of years old, while some support the idea it's only a few thousand years old.
For what reason do you accept the methods that indicate it's billions of years old? I mean, other than the fact it's the mainstream consensus to do so which isn't really a valid reason for believing something... as it would just be a bandwagon fallacy.
I ask because most people who criticize Christians for believing the words written in a book written by men they haven't even met... do the same thing with a different book, without awareness of it.
Sure, the books you believe may say "SCIENCE" on the cover, but does this really mean it represents what the scientific method shows in real life when applied honestly, objectively, and without bias?
At least Christians are aware of their faith. They don't falsely conflate their faith with science like Scientism Dogmatists do.
If you don't know what a Scientism Dogmatist is, its someone who blindly believes the current academic consensus on faith alone, without the need/ability to independently verify.
Dogmatic Scientism is completely antithetical to science. Yet, most people conflate them in their minds and don't realize how to differentiate between the two. The end result is most people end up thinking "science" means blind faith in academia.
In reality, science is just a method of discovery requiring no faith... including no blind faith in academia.
@@lightbeforethetunnel There is far greater likelihood that scientists’ current theories about our world are correct, than the belief held by Christians that supernatural (anything) exists - for which there is zero evidence. It is an unfalsifiable myth.
Casting doubt onto the dependability of scientific observations and data (from various fields of science), as well as trying to equate the anonymous, at times fanciful, biblical writings with the contents of science tomes, is a desperate attempt to suggest that you have a ball in the game. There is no comparison.
Scientists would be the first to say they know nothing with 100% certainty. There is no final answer. Current theories are added to, or scrapped entirely based on new findings. This does not mean ‘well then, god’.
@@jennifer97363 I actually haven't said anything about my beliefs. I haven't said whether I believe the Bible or not... or anything about my beliefs because it's irrelevant to my point. I'm also not arguing the Bible is true just because you seem to be a Scientism Dogmatist.
Nothing you've said has refuted my argument that Scientism Dogmatists are doing exactly what Christians do... both groups blindly believe what others have written in books on faith alone.
You also haven't refuted my point that doing so is dogmatic, not scientific. Science is about doing everything you can to prove yourself wrong, not defend your pre-existing beliefs no matter what.
How much have you done to determine if your pre-existing beliefs in the current consensus are wrong? Any? Or do you just blindly believe it because it's the consensus? That would be Dogmatic Scientism. There's nothing wrong with being a Scientism Dogmatist but it's good to be aware of it. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care.
I explained how dogmatism and science are completely antithetical to each other and you haven't refuted that either.
All you did was confirm my point by explaining WHY you trust the claims of scientists and how they would know things... along with your assumption that scientists would be the first to admit when they don't know something, etc.
It's very typical of Scientism Dogmatists to claim "scientists would be honest, wouldn't be corrupt, wouldn't be biased, etc..." Scientism is not unaware of the limitations of the scientific method (such as corruption, bias, false presuppositions, etc). Real science is aware these things can apply to any consensus and it could therefore be wrong.
It's circular reasoning. I'm sure Christians likely think those who wrote the Bible would be more likely to be right, as they'd commit the same circular reasoning to confirm their own bias too. This is how all forms of dogmatism work.
Anyhow, you seem to want to be turning this around on me and my beliefs... when I haven't even mentioned them... or you want to make your dogmatic beliefs seem more reasonable than Christian's Dogmatic beliefs.
When my view is that all forms of dogmatism and blind belief are bad and antithetical to real science.
Peter Singer tore apart every fabric of Lennox threadbare arguments with surgical precision the whole while without breaking a sweat.
During the big bang, science states that to have such compression of the matter to cause such an explosion would have a Temperature of trillions of degree's, I'm wondering what could have servived that awesome temperature ? When only a few hundred degrees kill's all living organisms. ??????????
So do you agree with him about the origin, or lack thereof, of the universe?
he did a fantastic job, imo.
Singer: “I’m not arguing that the existence of a universe is strictly incompatible with a creator… I’m simply arguing we have no need to believe in such a creator” 46:45
Exactly… you feel like you don’t need God, which is why you don’t believe. Not because you think he can’t be real. lol
Thank you for this presentation and the work you've done to bring it.
I don't believe in God, but I know by experience that religious people tend to be less selfish, more caring. For example religious people contribute to charity more than non-religious people, a lot more. Religious commit less crime than non-religious people, a lot less.
@@seanleith5312 Sean I have 2 questions if you don't mind answering. Why do you think religious people are less selfish & more caring? And why don't you believe in God?
@@mkmason2002 To your first question, the conclusion is from both personal experience and publicly available statistics. As to why, I am not sure. If I have to guess, that's because caring for others is part of their religious believe. To your second question, I don't believe in God because I was born and grew up in secular environment for most of part of my life. However, from an observer's point of view, l would say, if I have a choice for a society, I choose religious people over non-religious people.
@@seanleith5312 I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. At 16, I realized it was more of a business than a faith based on the Bible. The opulence of the Vatican and Pope, as the world was full of poverty and the worship of one man, {pope} seemed evil to me and I left the church. I didn't sense God there, only to follow rules and rituals. I decided God wasn't real. I became an agnostic and later worked in the Communist party, an atheist org. 3 yrs later I met 2 Christians and they answered all my questions directly from the Bible and I then realized that God did exist and that He died to pay for my sins so that He could forgive me and give me eternal life should I place my faith in His work on the cross and I became a Christian. We all have different roads to find God. God knows your heart and He knows what it will take to undo the wrong information that you have been given. If you truly want the truth, let me encourage you to sincerely ask God to reveal Himself to you. I PROMISE He will. He did for me. peace
What did Peter Singer say at 57:58~58:01?
Big up Peter Singer 🤝🤝🤝... I think John Lennox Here is making some wishful claims & unfalsifiable claims... Wonderful debate......
I am so unimpressed with Singer and just assumes morality is a given, and how he doesnt understand why the universe cant be eternal.
Say who. The universe could easily be eternal nobody knows
"I AM THAT I AM". Works for me every time.
That's what I keep telling people who ask me who I am. Get's them every time.
@@lepidoptera9337 But you and they are not really thinking deep enough.You are a created “I Am”. “THE GREAT I AM” is not created.He IS and has always been.He was not created but everything that is was created by him.
@@larrywilliams5490 He was invented by us. I am at least real and me. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 I agree that we are real.
How did we come into existence or being?
@@larrywilliams5490 I was told that I was conceived on a lazy afternoon. Maybe you still need to have that talk with your Mom? :-)
So, Lennox only was able to explain that there COULD be a god, and Singer explained how the universe can exist without need for a god. Fact is, we can't know for sure if there is some intelligent source that set things in motion.
He explained why HE believes we don't need a god
I know, if I thought I was going to spend eternity in heaven, it would be hell. Eternity is one hell of a long time. I don't want it. Also, I was millions of years dead before I was born and it didn't bother me then.
I'm sure I could invent an interesting heaven, it is just that worshipping some pompous deity for eternity isn't that.
While it is true there was a time you didn't exist, the idea of you existing gave someone incomprehensible, unimaginable, unconditional love. And that they would want that for eternity.
@@roqsteady5290Don't go to heaven to worship the creator, there are others there that love you and wish to be with you for eternity.
@@justinmann9440 What people want and get are two different things.
@@justinmann9440 What makes you think that? Sounds like you have constructed your own religion and afterlife from your own feelings and wishes, loosely based on cultural indoctrination. Have you got a hell too?
Peter Singer profound love and compassion for animals would put any god to shame.
Clement Singh His profound love and compassion for animals is only matched by his lack of compassion for humans. You're right atheism is truly amazing!
People who loves animals also loves people, but people who hates animals also hates people. You are having a twisted sense of love!
You forgot the part where God created the animals, and the love that he is allowed to feel for them. Jesus Christ is the saviour. Bless you both.
ImAmJimJam Lawrence didn’t god flood the earth and destroy all animals except for two of each? Sounds like a lover of animals
@@clementsingh3700Thats a vast generalization. What would you say if I gave you examples and evidence of otherwise?
Peter: I don't have faith.
John: That is faith Peter, don't you believe it?
Peter: owh wel oh....
It is absolutely not a faith. John would have had faith shoved down his throat from the day he was born.
Faith =/= belief. Faith usually means unconditional trust, belief and devotion in something bordering on the irrational but perhaps not quite. When you say "i have faith in x" you are saying that, despite how unlikely it may seem that x is going to turn out to be true, you believe it will out of some sense of devotion to x.
Example:
"I have faith my buisness will succeed"
"I am confident my buisness will succeed at some point in the future even though it might not seem that way now"
It can also mean being strongly confident in something, though you might have reasons to think otherwise.
Example:
"The soldier had faith his battalion would survive even though they were outnumbered by the enemy"
'Owh wel oh...' is the sound you make when you're desperately trying not to be rude to someone who's just said something profoundly idiotic.
@@dogsdomain8458 No, there's a complete difference. When you have faith in a buisness working you don't just sit back and watch it fail, you will do something about it. You will make the effort to make it work and with a soldier, he's not going to stand out in front of bullets saying they can't hurt him now, is he? Wake up.
@@toni4729 EVERY SINGLE WORLDVIEW in existence is based on faith, basic a priori beliefs accepted without proof. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. The entire scientific enterprise itself is based on faith presuppositions which cannot be "proved."
Dr Singer has a good point. Why does God: If He Is God, Allow Evil, War, Disease, Famine & Natural Destruction Take Place? Dr Singer is an example of the age old biblical debate. Is man allowed free choice? Obviously, if we read Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and to keep it.
16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.
This is the original proposition. God gave man-Adam a garden/paradise. All had to do was believe God was telling the truth. But he was free not to believe God aka (call him a Liar.) Do what you will and choose death and do evil.
But Adam and Eve (created later after God told Adam the law) Exercised free will to ignore God and reject his guidance and law. We listened to a Liar. By listening to the Liar aka Devil/Satan he became our Father and We Became our own gods. If you look at all the religions? Manlike beings are the idols & gods. That we worship.
Genesis3:4 The serpent said to the
woman, “You surely will not die! 5“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
As God said: JPS Tanakh 1917
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever!” So we and Devil are the gods of this world. Dr Singer you are a Modern Adam! God is a Liar. He does not exist or is not your Atheistic god. God can not blamed for the awful world you testify too.
I have son that is severely bipolar. I have shown him nothing but love. Sent him to Ivy-league colleges. He has everything money can buy. But he says he hates me and my wife. He will never come to our house again. But he does when he is desperate. But still blames us for i suspect giving him an unhappy illness.
You Dr Singer are like my son. You hold God responsible for all the evil men do.
Romans 1:29 They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, and malice. They gossip
Romans 1:30and speak evil of one another; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud, and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; 31they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. 32They know that God's law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them.
Don’t blame God for man /Adam exercising his Free Choice! Man chose to be god of this world. Just like you Dr Singer chose to believe what you believe. If you hate this world? Man made this bed. Let him lie in it!
Like Hamlet said to Horatio: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
The assumption here is that if there is a God then God would not allow evil to occur in any form or at any time. The problem with this assumption is that we cannot say that evil exists unless there is something that is good. If there is something that is good then there is something that is best. If there is a real "best" then there must be a God. So, whether you believe there is an ultimate purpose for evil or not, just to say there is evil one must assume there is a God. So, evil points toward God, not away from it.
This is Epicurean Paradox , “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"
This is not the debate that Judaism is familiar with. They view the debate that it is argued by a supreme prosecutor Satan. If you read Job. The case of being argued by Satan
Job 2: 1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
2And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
3Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.”
4So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. 5But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”
6And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”
7So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes.
9Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!”
10But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
The argue is not whether good triumph vs evil or what is good?
Satan knows what good is. God is good. The case the prosecutor Satan argues is the same case he argued against Christ when he tested Christ for 40 days in the wilderness.
God created mankind and it’s impossible for mankind to not disobey and to not do evil. The case against humans is we are a flawed creation.
As Epicurus Paradox stated God is not omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient. God made a mistake creating mankind and he is the same mistake God made creating Satan. In other words if God makes mistakes it proves Satan’s case against man a most of God’s creation. Angels also rebelled and disobey God like the original father Adam.
God is our savior but he was obligated to save mankind through his Son Christ. Christ’s test and temptation had to prove 1 human could obey God without his hedge of protection. Why does God permits evil? Why does God permit good? It is illogical for there to be good and not the opposite evil. Simple Newtonian Law of Physics. Like gravity: What goes up must come down. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
A physician can not heal unless there is a disease. You can not know what love is if you don’t know the opposite is hate. If you give life, the opposite is take life away. Is one better than the other? If we do not know murder is good or evil then why have a debate of good vs evil at all? The Ten Commandments are they worthy of death? God decided they were. Since He is the Law Giver they are the primary laws. Love God and Worship only God is the most important? Because the Devil advocate in Garden of Evil did what? Satan succeeded in
deceiving man and getting man to disobey God, call God a liar and this process Satan got man to obey and worship him. By obeying or believing Satan? Mankind became Satan’s seed or children.
Genesis 3: 14And the LORD God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; on your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life:
15And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and (between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.)
Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
«أَنْتَ يَا رَبُّ فِي الْبَدْءِ أَسَّسْتَ الأَرْضَ، وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ هِيَ عَمَلُ يَدَيْكَ.
هِيَ تَبِيدُ وَلكِنْ أَنْتَ تَبْقَى، وَكُلُّهَا كَثَوْبٍ تَبْلَى، وَكَرِدَاءٍ تَطْوِيهَا فَتَتَغَيَّرُ. وَلكِنْ أَنْتَ أَنْتَ، وَسِنُوكَ لَنْ تَفْنَى »(عب 1: 10-12)
Jesus said some here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God. Shortly thereafter when Jesus rose from the dead we read in Matthew about the Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appeared to Peter, James, and John. They were given a vision of the Kingdom of God. When Jesus rose from the dead, His Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven was then established.
I wish someone would let Lennox know that talking in an incredulous tone of voice with a supercilious smile on your face doesn't constitute making an argument.
I also wish someone would inform the audience of the same thing. He is charismatic and so when he says something witty, the audience falls into the trap of thinking that he has won the point despite not presenting an unchallengeable claim.
What was Singers argument with an evidence or proof?
I'm not rejecting religion. I'm fine with it. I just simply do not believe in a or any God. This doesn't make me a bad person, I enjoy helping others. I have my own personal morals. I just don't believe in God.
Im a believer and No, that doesnt make you a Bad person..infact Nobody should be judge with regards to what they choose to believe or not to believe..
You're right. The Bible doesn't say that unchristian people are bad indeed. I know some people that tell other that they're all evil, but it's not true, even for Christians
@@risingsun3545 the statement in God's Word is very clear and doesn't differentiate between believer and unbeliever.
Romans 3 : 9What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous,
not even one.
11There is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”c
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”d
“The venom of vipers is on their lips.”e
14“Their mouths are full
of cursing and bitterness.”f
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery lie in their wake,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”g
18“There is no fear of God
before their eyes.”h
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin.
God clearly gives you a choice.
@@hahaimatree8343 excellent choice of words... Character.
Thanks for your ministry guys! I’m learning a lot.. You are such a blessing. Hope your channel grows more and reach more people. To the ends of the earth..
Ministry?
Great to see a civilized discussion with no name calling.
What is that poet John Lennox talked about at 1:27:40? I can’t find his name, the captions didn’t show his name.
He was talking about the Nobel prize winner in litterature, Polish poet Czesław Miłosz.
Religion gives people comfort in a world torn apart from religion.
Depending on the religion, my comfort doesn't come from my religion but from my personal relationship with God. And not I think it's the other way considering the bible states that most people are indeed going to Hell. What make's me so special that I should get too go to heaven? Specially looking back at my life and what I've done and been. I'd rather die and cease too exist than know there's a horrid place called eternal Hell and knowing that most people are going there, that greatly increases my chances of going there lol.
@StallionFernando Mindfully, I don't fear Hell but a permanent disconnect from God. It is the absence of His glory that is far worse than eternal damnation. His love is what gives me peace and that is what I want (moreso need) eternally.
@@StallionFernando What do you people mean by ''personal relationship''? How can it be personal if there are so many others that say the same thing. How sill is that , like saying my wife is my personal lover but so are the rest of my girlfriends
@@StallionFernando As a child I once had an imaginary friend. Your relationship with your God is the same. Where knowledge ends, faith begins. You can decide for yourself how limited your understanding should be. Basically, belief in a God prevents you from asking questions. If everyone acted like that, you wouldn't be living in a globalized world today.
You're AMAZING and intelligent MR. LENNOX and God bless you and your family 🙏😇💟
@Miguel Cisneros Yep, he sure did..... Atheists have no Foundation for the Truth but ONLY decieptions.
Miquel Cisneros stop declaring his wins. Its not true and u r simply lying in the name of your god.
Rather poor debate. For Lennox to say "the resurrection is proven, like some scientific theories" is complete and utter nonsense. There is zero proof of the resurrection. All we have is a book written decades after the supposed event just saying that this "thing" happened. For an extraordinary claim like that, i'm going to need solid evidence.
I don't have all the answers (as anyone doesn't actually have them), but I'm certain that what you mean by "a book" written some years after the presupposed resurrection is not a book: there are 4 books about Jesus, and more than 20 letters to other churches. However, those 4 books, the Gospels, were written by 4 different people with some years of difference. For example, Mark was the first to write about Jesus, and then you have different views of the same story of Jesus in the other three Gospels. Sometimes people try to accuser Christianity by saying "they say different things". And it's half true: no one really wrote a complete biography of Jesus' life, but they still talk about the same person, with the same key events, for example his resurrection. I don't know how much help can I give you by saying that not only the Gospels talk about Jesus' life. If you may have questions, or you think I'm talking gibberish, I'm all ears.
@@risingsun3545 Sure, the 4 books, or even more (the Gnostic gospels). Understand that the synoptic gospels (mark,luke,matthew) are all thought to be from the same source. And also, that it is theorized that the church suppressed certain accounts (eg, the gnostic gospels) in order to put forth a particular story. But whatever, this is mere quibbling. My main point is the N books don't give any solid evidence of the extraordinary claims presented (resurrection, virgin birth, etc). Not even close to how we judge the standard of evidence for scientific theories. And for Lennox to say that there *is*, is really egregious intellectual dishonesty.
@mtman2 Yeah, i'm not going to bother reading a book by some christian apologist that goes into contortions to try and prove something that can't be proven. I've never seen anything come close to proving something like the "resurrection". But if you have some specific proof in mind, please cite it and we can discuss.
@mtman2 Oh no worries, feelings aren't hurt. But do understand that i've been studying and thinking about this stuff for *decades*.
I've listened to the arguments of many of the apologists: Dinesh D'Souza, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Frank Turek, William Dembski, etc, etc. I spent my K-12 education in Catholic school, i've read the Bible backwards and forwards. And the Koran, and the Vedas, and the Sutras,.. So to say that all i have to do is read some book and i'll be convinced? When i've read N w/o success? Reading N+1 is likely to fail. Understand the notion of "precedence". I have many books on my reading list, and not very much time; i'm not going to waste it on the contortions of some other poor, deluded soul.
But again, for the umpteenth time, if you have some *specific* proof you want to give me that Christianity is *true*,
a paragraph or two that you can post here, i'd be happy to take a look. And again, it's not that i'm lazy or spoiled, it's that my
time is limited, i can only read so much.
@mtman2 Oh brother where art thou! Dude, you just went off the deep end. Your ramblings are now certifiable. Do you think the Earth is flat? And who *really* shot JFK? But seriously, you're not buying this "2nd coming July 2020" are you? Please don't do anything stupid, like sell your house, or worse...
At 86 I consider our mysterious God as a silent friend that has helped me when asked and sometimes, when not asked. I find entertaining, almost comic to see, two well scholastic prepared men, dispute the existence or not of God. We are eternal, through the quantic presence of God in us and the universe. Over 50 years ago I composed a little poem that reflects the reality of our eternal existence. It goes like this: Eternity, I have been the sky and I have been the sea, I have been the wind and I have been the tree. For this I know that I was, that I am and that when I die, I will become part of million elements for billion of years. This is life and this is dead. We should enjoy our presence on earth, considering that all that we do good is under the influence of God in us. When our will prevails, then we have war and misery. God is the most obvious reality in this world and in the universe. Religions and sacred books are all creation of men with different purposes.
Where is the evidence
When will Lennox get his mathematical brain to accept that atheism is not a faith-based position. It is the rejection of a claim that a god or gods exist. It is not a "belief", nor a "world view". He gets challenged on this in every debate I've seen him take part in but continues to promulgate this incorrect assertion.
Why do you reject a claim? Do you reject a claim in a vacuum?
He can't help himself.
@@TheGospelAssociates Why the hell don't you reject the claim. Do you think there are invisible onions. If I told you to believe in them, would you?
@@toni4729 the amazing thing is, belief in God is not a wishful thinking. It is evidenced based. Believing in an invisible onion wouldn't be a problem if it can be proven.
@@TheGospelAssociates But an invisible onion can't be proven anymore than God. Simple as that. Neither exist. You can't say they do. Proving it is utterly impossible.
It's like saying nourishing your brain after it's dead is going to keep it alive so you can contact your dead friends and see JC. Your body may burn or rot away but how are you going to nourish your brain. You can't even run a computer or phone without some sort of power but you expect to be about to chat with your old relatives after your dead. How?Where's the power going to come from?
I'd love to see Lennox debate Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, or Dan Barker on Biblical morality. And, I'd like to see Lennox debate Bart Ehrmann on the contradictions in the Bible. Or debate David Fitzgerald, Richard Carrier, or Bob Price about the existence of Jesus.
Matt Dillahunty is not really a nice person to debate - He gets pretty aggressive, Bart Ehrman is a textual critic and Lennox is not - that would not be a fair debate and finally, Richard Carrier is laughed at in the academic community and is a Jesus mythicist, a theory that is widely disputed by both secular and christian scholars alike.
@@elanordeal2457 Ehrman also deals in deliberate overstatement rather than objectivity. He's a disgrace to his mentor.
@@traildude7538 Amen. Ehrman himself admits that he and Metzger basically agreed on everything when it comes to textual criticism, yet at least Metzger is much more nuanced and less click-baity when it comes to his works.
@@elanordeal2457 DIllahunty is only really aggressive on the Atheist Experience, not so much in his formal debates. The current hosts of AXP Forrest & Paul are the best hosts the show has ever had IMOP.
Richard Carrier is a perfectly respectable academic and Jesus mythicism has come more to the forefront recently, because the evidence for any single event in Jesus life is very sketchy. Outside of academia it is sort of irrelevant anyway, rather the question for most people isn't whether some apocalyptic prophet was hanging around 2K years ago, but whether someone who was the instantiation of god was around at that time. And there is absolutely no sensible reason to believe that.
@@roqsteady5290 Richard carrier is certainly not deemed a respectable academic. If a scholar has to fight for relevancy by being the guest on athiest mythvision channels or informal online debates, it often says a lot about the value of their work as they lack interaction with real and respected academics in peer-reviewed journals. The only people who praise Carrier are those who benefit from his agenda and love mythicism. You’re in your own right to believe in Jesus’ mythicism, but Carrier is not your token man if you want any real respect. He is often criticised for using out-dated sources and he even blew up and sent trolls after another blog site when Tim O’Neill (a literal *atheist* btw) called out his poor work. If a “scholar” like Carrier finds little to no interactions within academic footnotes or journals, it’s usually a big indication that their work offers no value and is not even bothered to be interacted with in any formal and respectable academia.
The first statement from Singer (about Laplace) is a strawman fallacy. God being a first Cause prevents Him from being part of a causal model making of Him an uneffective scientific variable. That was Laplace's point. Gosh atheist arguments only sound impressive to atheists (and naïve believers). Thanks for playing Pr Singer.
Donald Nadeau You sound incoherent.
Donald Nadeau Not sure I'm getting your point, but like 99% of people you don't know how to read the bible.
1) We humans can only process time/space information.
2) bible relate to humans. It is a message from God TO humans.
3) whatever God was outside this frame (universe) doesn't relate to us.
4) the bible starts at THAT point in that whatever was between 0 and 1 can't be expressed through words.
You can find a hint to that idea in the fact that the bible starts with the letter "bet" which is also the number 2. One (or oneness or dimensionless) is super natural (it is what is before genesis). Information starts with differentiation (binary systems can describe the whole universe)
PS: In the original hebrew you don't need editing to go from sky to heaven. It is the exact same word to this day in modern state of Israel.
Donald Nadeau Ok, excluding latin and greek my baggage includes hebrew, french, english and portugese (fluent in all of them) and a little bit of talmudic aramaic, besides a Masters degree in applied mathematics.
The problem with the academic kind like you is that you're not adressing the theology's CLAIM. What's Laplace's context? Who is he adressing? Laplace's reasoning presuposes a certain notion of God. To make sense of a claim, you must clarify it's internal grammar. Historical contextualization is just a bunch of hypotheses which are unrelated to the internal context. What's the text's INTENTION (in the minds of those whom Laplace is adressing). What is the theologies' claim? The facts I described agree with (without being limited by) Aristotle's unmoved mover (which all abrahamic religions accept as a first grounding for God).
This in turn renders this notion of God completely detatched from causality relations. And as such totaly out of context in a scientific reasoning. Which in turn makes Singer's claim an ignorant one.
Donald Nadeau Nope, not supersticious theology. Just theology. Don't use a term if you don't know its meaning.
The complete context of the bible is irrelevant anyway. There is some common groung to all (even conflicting) theologies, and that's all we need. God is the necessary uncaused cause to all existence. As such He cannot be predicated.
In other words, what Singer claims is his reason for not believing, is actually something that most theologians with some knowlege ALSO hold. Thank you Pr Singer, I too don't invoke God as a scientific variable. Glad we agree.
Very convenient to basically place god outside the realm of knowledge or evidence. All an atheist is saying is they are unconvinced that god exists. Your position does nothing to convince.
Besides, your claim that god is a first cause is just an assertion, whether it is from you or the bible. Assertions are meaningless without evidence to back up the claim, but you have placed your god outside that evidence. Therefore, the atheists position is reasonable.
Of course, there's a GREAT SOMEONE who created everything, seen and unseen, things that cannot be explain even by science it's because of GOD THE GREAT CREATOR and not the CREATURE!
Isn't it a mistake to reason that everything for which you have no explanation MUST be explained by the existence a Great Someone, rather than just saying "Yeah, we don't know yet"?
Why would we think that the rest of our questions would not be answered by science, given enough time?
Yep yep and Amen 😇💟
I think john speak very smooth and warm voice, even though i dont agree with him.
Any thinking person sees how weak Lennox’s points are. He repeatedly tries to equate what ought to be with what is.
God is a desired entity, not an observed one.
Another of his major arguments is "I can't belief that evolution is random, thus GOD"
And because something is desired doesn't mean it's beyond the realm of existence. As Collins put it, if the desire can't be met in this world, then its fulfilment must be transcendent
@@cyrusademola1326There's an infinite amount of things that are desired and not beyond the realm of possibility. To assert that one in particular exists is a logical fallacy.
God can be both desired and observed.
Oouu man , this debate
Evidence evidence evidence ,
Fact fact fact
Plain simpel and beautiful and elegant
Much more beautiful and elegant then this comment
I can only imagine what reward awaits men of John Lennox's caliber who aren't ashamed to acknowledge God before men who choose instead to reject God.
I have known several atheist. And the closer they came to the end of their lives, the more irritable, nervous, unconsolable, seemingly knowing they have no further hope for anything. If atheist would put has much effort in studying the proofs for Gods existence has they do for trying to discredit his existence, there would be less atheist. I know God exists, and i believe in jesus Christ (my lord and savior) people cannot come to jesus unless God brings them. People will keep denying God and there hearts will be hardened to the point they can never comprehend the concept of God. To have no hope of eternal life through jesus Christ, is the saddest thing i could ever imagine. May God grant every atheist a Damascus Road transformation.
Whishing something is true does not make it true. And that incudes religion.
Studies show that hard athiests and extreme believers fear death the least. So believe the fairy tale all the way or understand it's all total nonsense, take your pick.
My head and my heart think this religion is wrong, just wrong on many levels. Why would I want to believe such a thing? And I don't want an afterlife, this was a huge disappointment, I have had enough.
Singer misses a big point: it doesn't matter whether it's God or the universe, either way there has to be something that wasn't created, that has always existed and is essentially 'self-generating'. The only question is "What is it that has always existed?" Some these days will answer "the multiverse", but that's a hypothesis for which we have no evidence.
Is there a god?
I don't know.
Watch, listen and Understand the truth, my friend.
Good answer.
@@Honestandtruth007 i can hear your chains from here.
@@Honestandtruth007 What truth? There wasn't much in this video. I've read the Bible. Not much in there either. Can you direct me to this truth?
Robert Paulson Jesus Christ is the truth and the way. I’ll guarantee you if you pray and ask him with an open heart he will answer your prayers. It maybe today, tomorrow or in 10 years. He has done the same for me.. and there was no other explanation but Jesus answering them.
John Lennox is very convincing, very knowledgeable.
Knowledgeable? Or believes.
@@toni4729 Both!
@@toni4729 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ Professor of Mathematics, Bioethics at Oxford University (emeritus), internationally renowned speaker and author of several books on the interface of science, philosophy and religion. what did you do remarkable?
😂😂😂😂
@Toni if you truly believe you will become very knowledgeable, by research. You will continually build up knowledge of what ever one believes in. Otherwise one is not truly a believer.
Again, the question answers the question.
Bad things happen because we have free will an live in a fallen world after the garden this is what the Bible teaches God bless!
If there is this God He sure is an EVIL entity. What good has He ever done for the awful human that He created?
I certainly believe in the scientific method which allows for modification in theory based on new evidence rather than theology which digs its heels in on dogma rather than relying on evidence, old or new. What could make more sense?
Scientism has its own dogma, don’t be ridiculous.
at 26:00 Singer says that *_any honest_* physicist maintains that " any statement about what happ..... any situation before the big bang are not scientific statements, they are statements , perhaps of religious faith or belief"
*EXACTLY* ! Any claim they make is as ungrounded in the scientific method as a claim that was God, it is refreshing to finally hear a person on the other side of this admit this!
Then he says "so it may well be that the universe has been constantly oscillating forever"........ except that THAT statement is also beyond science AND violates everything that we think we know about how the universe behaves. ( Yeah, I know, quanta pop into and out of existence, *_supposedly_* , we dont know that they are coming into existence from non existence or what exactly is happening. What we know is that we can't detect them then we can.)
Right now it is beyond contestation that the universe is expanding, it is also beyond contestation that that expansion is accelerating.
Newton's law states,The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. sooooo. expansion is happening....... expansion is increasing in speed, AANNNNNDDDDD the gravitational force that would act to decelerate or stop this is weakening as the distance between massive objects and objects that make a contribution to the stress energy tensor, and therefore to the curvature of space could not slow, stop then reverse that expansion. So unless there is another force we don't know about *( see dark energy density decreases and matter density increases)* which while possible seems unlikely everything we see would indicate that the "rubber band" universe isnt what the data indicates.
the only thing that is beyond contestation is that our todays "universe" come straight from the kabala! but to people who still live in the bubble .. made for them by the worlds leading institutions .. will never realize the lie they are living! and i know .. everybody loves space! so i am a heretic for even daring to call your space claims BS!
you really do believe that the rulers of this world would share anything major with you? wake up brother!
" Any claim they make is as ungrounded in the scientific method as a claim that was God, "
Yes, but when God is a term for the inexplicable or supernatural, it cannot be an explanation at all. It´s just a questionmark, which implifies pseudo answeres that aren´t really answers at all. You can say "god did it" but this isn´t a valuable statment, it means "I can´t explain it, and imagine something what I actually not really can´t imagine, because it is out of this world, which is the cause for the universe." The term God is just a dishonest term, because it disguises the admission of not knowing with a nice sounding answer. So please say "We cannot explain it." instead of "There is a God who did it."
to john lennox:
so you call yourself a "mathematician" ehh. here's a proof by contradiction that god doesnt exist:
proof
by definition, god is almighty & lovin'. there are sufferin's all over the world & throughout history, such as earthquakes, floods, droughts, volcano eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes, diseases, illnesses, murders, accidents, killin's, genocides, wars, etc etc. if god existed then bcoz he's almighty & lovin' he would eliminate all of these sufferin's & so they wouldnt exist. but they exist. this is a contradiction. thus god doesnt exist.
end-of-proof
also, if some1 doesnt believe in the christian god then he'll send them 2 eternal hell. is this what you call "love"?? he has the power 2 make them believe in him but he doesnt do so but instead he sends them 2 eternal hell. is this what you call "love"??
mathematics is based on logic & rationality, while christianism is completely illogical & completely irrational. how do you reconcile the 2?? 1 of the thousands of examples of the illogicality & irrationality of christianism is that you were born a sinner. if your grand-parents committed a murder even b4 you were born, then you're automatically also guilty right at the moment when you were born. is this your logic & rationality??
you're as weak-minded as any illiterate christian. your fear of death, fear of the unknown, & weak-mindedness has led you 2 believe in somethin' that's completely illogical, completely irrational, & completely superstitious.
"which while possible seems unlikely everything we see would indicate that the "rubber band" universe isnt what the data indicates"
Beyond the big bang we do not know anything. We have no grounds to talk about the likeliness of what came before. As Peter Singer said, claims about what came before the big bang are not based off of science.
@mtman2 what about all of the billions who have sought God and found another diety, and believe with all their hearts and souls in them in the same way as Christians? What about all the people who have sought God and never felt the touch of divine providence? Has God failed to give them grace?
John Lennox is the only Christian apologist I respect and enjoy watching. He's wrong of course, but he's wrong in such a likeable way.
I like how sure you are he's wrong. Nice to see someone who lived to see the creation of the Universe.
Marius Enache nice to see someone delusional
JokeR xxx atheist logic: I’ll call this guy delusional and pathetic which means I win the argument harhar.
Mega big brain. V
@@victorteodor641 I was being flippant. I'm not sure he's wrong - but unlike him, I'm not so foolish as to make a claim such as, "There is a god" or, "There is no god" without good evidence.
There's plenty of evidence as far as I'm concerned. But either way, I would encourage you to decide one or the other and not sit on the fence in perpetuity 🙂
Is there a God? Is the God of the Bible really God? These are two very different questions. It seems to me the title of the debate is a bait and switch. An excellent discussion notwithstanding.
25mins in...i notice the high priest of positive atheism.....is wearing a black dog collar...ok i'm stoned.
No way to know if there is a God unless a person receives personal revelation (a sacred spiritual experience) that confirms the existence of God, a Creator, and a Plan for us, a Purpose in Life leading to Eternity. All the logic and reasoning of the world will never bring the certain knowledge that there is a God. Such supreme and "real" truth comes by the Spirit. Those who shut and shield their hearts in unbelief to such experiences are doomed to walk in spiritual blindness all their lives, without ever knowing that "YES" there is GOD. Best wishes to true seekers of truth with an open heart and mind.
Unbelievably beautiful buddy
Absolutely agree. No one can come to the son unless the father leads him to the son. We know God by revelation. Full stop.
So the only way to truly know God is to be the lucky receptacle of divine providence? Augustine himself wrote much about the deterministic reality of this statement, that the knowledge and love of God comes through the grace he gives, and how much of an issue it creates as it essentially puts the responsibility of belief on God.
A personal revelation similar to the one that the apostol Paul had on his way to Damascus. Those are rare, most of the time, I say about 99.9999% of the time God expects you to believe on faith alone. If you had a personal revelation as such I would like to hear it or read about it here on the comments. Remember if you lie , you will go to HELL!!
Totally spot on.
Throughout the debate, Lennox makes statements that begin with the words "I believe ...." Never once, however, does he tell us why we should in any way care about what he believes; why what he believes is relevant in the search for a better understanding of the universe and our place in it; why anyone should pay the slightest attention to what he believes. The reality is that there is no reason why anyone should have any interest whatsoever in what he-or anyone else for that matter-believes. Rather, the focus should be on what is known to be true and what can be demonstrated to be true. Lennox does not seem to be interested in that, preferring instead to list in various ways all the things he has chosen to believe. Is it really worth spending an hour or more of one's life finding out what Lennox believes?
And I should care what you believe, why? Or what Singer believes? Truth can only be determined through assessing information and deciding to believe it. Lennox made plenty of arguments from evidence, which substantiate his beliefs, but in the end this is a debate of normative claims. Trying to displace truth from belief is something we always want to do, but it’s never that easy.
You completely missed the point of him saying “I believe”, it was to emphasize that every single one of us holds a belief system, and Lennox’s is based on evidence.
@@lyricalmike7162 anyone can argue that their belief system is based on evidence. The real question is, is it good or bad evidence? Personally I'm not convinced Lennox has good evidence.
@@calebsmith7179 I couldn’t care less what you think when reality says something different.
@@lyricalmike7162 you don't seem to understand what reality is.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Christian faith is both substance and evidence and can be experienced and studied by any who act in faith by taking a step toward receiving the promises that are given. My faith has both substance and evidence, its effects being very real and transformative.
bg81973 I have had the misfortune to see two atheists that were Doctors that adopted two sisters. The step father molested the two daughters. He rationalized that they had low life parentage and were not his flesh and blood anyway. So it was like having an affair.
The wife when she found out, did another rationalization; her flesh and blood would not have behave in such an immoral way. So the two adopted teenagers were blamed for the act of molestation. After all the adopted parents had given them such a wonderful wealthy life, since they were human garbage any way and had such low parentage. They were responsible for tempting their step father.
You see: If there is no God anything is permissible. When you have no moral compass you can rationalize and justify any perverse act. This Woman stayed married to this fiends because they enjoy the wealthy lifestyle. These Atheists pretend that they are exposing Christianity as a base fraud and you have to be an idiot the believe in an imaginary friend-God. Do they say this about Socrates? Socrates wrote nothing? All we know about Socrates is what his disciples Plato & other students said he said. Plato’s worst critic was Diogenes the Cynic. Diogenes has little of his words preserved. But they all treat Greek philosophers as fathers of scientific method like Aristotle. It was Aristotle that influenced Thomas Aquinas in to adopting the Earth is the center of the universe.
Added 1 week later: Interesting if you vilify Atheist History Communist Countries That Are Marxist Atheist that murder 200 million people that is untrue and unfair debate facts. But Atheists mention Crusaders, Spanish Inquisitions, Murder of Indigenous Peoples, Call out pedofile priests?
What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander?
If there is no valid evidence then yes faith is belief without evidence
Tiger Pisces that is completely untrue, clearly you haven’t seen enough debates to know that is false
Tiger Pisces, if they only thing telling you to be a good person is your fear of hell, or “because someone told you to”, then you are not truly a good person. You’re just an obedient Slave. I am not religious, but I know right from wrong because I am compassionate, and I am empathetic, and I do not enjoy the suffering of others. None of which relates to religion or god
Let's talk about some of the contradictions in the bible.
1.)Can God be seen?
Yes God can be seen
"And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." Exodus 33:11
No God cannot be seen
"There shall no man see me, and live." Exodus 33:20
"No man hath seen God at any time." John 1:18, 1 John 4:12
This is a contradiction. God of the bible does not exist.
2.) From what were the animals created?
From water
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." Genesis 1:20
From out of the ground
"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." Genesis 2:19
This is a contradiction. Your god does not exist.
You can take a look at more contradictions here:
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
To anyone reading this, you can live a good moral life without a god. Live your life like it is the only life you will have. We atheists believe that human experience and rational thinking provide the only source of both knowledge and a moral code to live by. We reject the idea of knowledge 'revealed' to human beings by gods, or in special books filled with contradictions.
"Humanity has believed in 4000 different gods throughout our history. Your religion says 3999 of those gods don't exist. Atheists believe 4000 of those gods don't exist."
God exists in the wishes of the fearful. It is what they need in order to live.
Based postmodernist VS pre-renaissance preacher
Big update
44:38
Again, the fact that there may have other religions/sect who claim on an event similar to the resurrection of Jesus, this does not mean that the resurrection of Jesus could not have possibly happened or that all these similar resurrection claims are equally supported. The amount of evidence required by atheists for them to believe in the resurrection are either unreasonable (like Jesus appears to all people) or would negate that the resurrection is miraculous (by requiring that there has to be a natural explanation).
Even if Christians can prove that Jesus was resurrected, so what? His resurrection does not make any claims made by him or about him true. Lazarus was supposedly resurrected and so were all the dead in Jerusalem. Jesus's resurrection is as irrelevant as his mother's virginity.
As a Christian, I am impressed with Peter Singer's respectful way of speaking.
As an atheist I will never stiop asking the obvious question. If God made the universe..... Who or what made God? God had to be much bigger and far more powerful than the universe so something bigger than God had to have been there to make God.
@@toni4729 But then you would be implying that everything, simply because they exist, needs something larger to create them. It would create an infinite line of creator after creator
@@arunmoses2197 That is exactly what I'm saying.
@@toni4729 Then what is your point?
@@arunmoses2197 Even God can't do it. I should have thought that was clear enough. That's like asking an ant to build a human being.
Listening to Peter Singer a well known accomplished philosopher, not understand why the universe can not be past eternal both scientifically and philosophically boggles my mind. Such a simple thing to understand.
The universe being past eternal can not be ruled out. There is as of yet no sufficient empirical data to conclude whether the universe is eternal or not.
@@johnchesterfield9726 if the universe has lasted forever, how did you get through forever to reach right now
@@ceceroxy2227 Well put. Or put another way, if time is eternal then every event that will ever occur has already occurred at least once.
@@ceceroxy2227 If not only the present exists for example.
@@johnchesterfield9726Your statement is philosophically and scientifically and rationally absurd.
I don’t think scientists assume that the universe is comprehensible to the human mind. After several years of physics and chemistry seeing that one can make sense of things, one has the understanding.
We found the great reality deep down within us. That’s in fact where God is. Prayer is real and works miracles in my life!
Ps I’m a former atheist.
Prayer is always objectively less powerful than action, and yet people all over the globe insist it has a clear effect in their lives. This is not to say that anyone is lying, but could sometimes be mistaken. Say you pray for a friend to get well - they could immediately get sicker before getting a little better. I guess prayer might have a delay. Maybe they get better and then die in a car accident - well the prayer was still fulfilled I guess. Say they die from the illness - well clearly it wasn’t in God’s plan. But hold on, in all of these cases your friend hasn’t actually gotten any better while it still appears like your prayer worked.
Okok, maybe he immediately got better - surely that’s proof that prayer works, right? It’s not as if humans naturally heal or this has anything to do with the regular doses of antibiotics your friend has just started taking...
Interestingly, the only benefit of prayer that can properly be pinned down is the placebo effect. Placebos can and do make people recover faster, feel more motivated and feel more confident with themselves. Aside from remembering positive outcomes and ignoring negative ones, this is probably a major reason you feel prayer has such a strong effect in your life. But prayer isn’t unique here; just about anything can be used as a placebo, and placebos can even work when the patient _knows_ that they’re taking sugar pills.
Singer's main issue is suffering. But, great though Lennox is, he doesn't really give the full account of how the BIble responds to this issue. Christ is of course of central importance in that response, and Lennox recognises that, but the Biblical explanation begins right from the beginning in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 where we read that God originally intended a Universe without suffering, yet 1) with free will and 2) the stewardship of creation under humanity and 3) the exercise of that free will to be independent from God then 4) we find ourselves in the plight we are in now. Yet 5) God Himself decides to trigger a set of events, right from the beginning in Genesis 3, that leads to a resolution of this mess. It culminates in Christ of course (that's where the whole Old Testament narratives heads towards), and following Christ we learn that the resolution begins from the inside out- i.e. human hearts are changed, and that has a knock on effect, which will continue until the End.
I am 62 years old...still waiting for evidence of a god(s)
Lawrence Eason you’ve been given evidence, you just don’t want to accept it. Just admit this and move on. We all have choices to make in this life.
@@asmallfarmhomestead3657 yes we do. And as the great David Hume said "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" I continue to challenge theists for evidence...and any good reasons to believe
@@lawrenceeason8007, the fact that you're still asking for evidence further proves that you don't want there to be a God.
Up to you, but don't whine about going to Hell. The choice was yours.
@@dazedmaestro1223 not really asking. Although if someone ever submitted actual, solid evidence for a god that would be revelatory. It's more of a challenge to theists...that there isn't any really GOOD reason to believe in such a thing
@@lawrenceeason8007, If I present you solid evidence, will you actually look at it and study it? I can tell you, it's irrefutable.
Jesus Himself said "I have come to set people against each other". Religious debate certainly does that. Is that but one more piece of proof of Jesus' Deity ?
All ideologues comes with that message though, don't they? And the conflict includes, but is not limited to, debate. Jesus says one's own relatives and household will become *enemies* because of the spiritual fight between Christ's followers and enemies.
Jesus' rash apocalyptism is yet more proof of the irrational roots of Judeo-Christian faith, not of its mature universality. It took centuries upon centuries of painful darkness to mould this deeply superstitious tradition into the decent, free society of the West.
There is no such thing as morality and ethics demands reason, which is supporting atheism. Lennox tried to trap Singer by forcing him to admit that Atheism is a belief, which of course everyone knows, it is not.
Off topic, but how lovely is Lennox? I bet he's a great Grandad.
He looks like santa! :)
God allows natural suffering to give mortals who are eternal souls experience with both good and evil. Then in eternity they can understand and empathize with the billions of souls who still experience it. Also, those who have suffered, died, and been resurrected will profoundly appreciate the blessings of now having a perfect, pain-free body. No being can fully appreciate a tremendous blessing without having first experienced the lack of that blessing.
Keep telling yourself that
God is truth, to John's point the numerical values of the universe give true explaination of how it works by way of sceince... Numbers don't lie... Creation is the absolute truth of the existence of God. Numbers cannot create... But are the result of creation, and a reflection of God's character of Truth....
Numbers don't HAVE to create. They simply describe. There is no need for a creator. The principles of maths would still exist without any mind to describe them. One unit added to another unit would still equal two units. The actual words used to describe maths require a mind, but the truths that they describe do not.
How to contact Fixed Point Foundation can anyone help.
This is the third debate I’ve seen with John Lennox. He seems to be reading from the same script, quoting the same people, same allegories, nearly word for word and in nearly the same order. The first time I thought he did a fair job for the Christians, but after the third time it’s redundant. You are doing fellow Christians a disservice.
The problem with Dr Lennox is that he asserts his views and expects the opponent and viewers to accept it as fact. There is no evidence of a resurrection, no-one has witnessed a resurrection, not then nor anytime thereafter. Why is that, because it didn't happen and will not occur.
ruclips.net/video/67uj2qvQi_k/видео.html
“ the mind is its own place , and in itself creates a heaven of hell and a hell of heaven “
John Milton Paradise lost
That was a good review by Singer of the reasons not to believe. I’ve never heard anyone give adequate refutations of them.
And you never will, because even if adequate refutations were given, you would not hear them, for you have rejected them already before they ever enter your ears.
Steve Scott Hey Steve, if a world existed in which there were no evil, I believe that we would not be in it. As humans, we have the ability to choose, therefore it would be a world of robots. Yes there is evil in this world, and some things might seem unfair, but there is a marvelous creator working behind the scenes of it all and that gives me great hope.
Shouting things into the void doesnt make them true. The univers is telling you all you need to know, and while it CAN shout them through your earplugs, it wont! Taking them out is on you. You meet God halfway along the way. If you turn your back and go the other way He wont stop you.
I have never heard singer make one cogent argument against God.
As an objective person who doesn't know what to think about a "God" it really bothers me when religious people refer to "God" as "He".... it doesn't make sense 😕
I like what C. S. Lewis said about that: that God is most certainly not male, but neither is He female; so we ought to take the word "he" in reference to God as indicating two things -- first, that God is a person rather than a thing; and second, that whatever God is comes closer to be masculine than any other concept we have. This reminds us that human language and human comprehension are limited -- so we do the best we can.
Acts 14:22
[22]strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”
Philosophical atheists can be moral, but when the populace refuses to believe in a God who gives rewards and punishments, they tend to feel no guilt about being immoral, especially in a sexual way..
You shouldn't make such baseless claims.
Starts 4:01
You're the real mvp
Thanks
God’s existence (or not) does not depend on who did the best in this debate. I believe God answered the question Himself by actually revealing Himself on earth in the person of Jesus Christ - the same one who we count years by, and which billions of people in the world in all countries (before anyone tries to use the argument : not in developed countries) believe and find their joy in .
Bwahahahahhaa -what a crock you do talk. God revealed himself? - sounds like a flasher. Jesus existed because we count years by? that is hilarious. Google Thailand and find out the year there for example - currently its AD 2561 duhhhhhhh
Hitchens coined it when he said christians will believe practically anything. All those miracles all those years ago yet none today - I think monty pythons life of brian comes close to the ''truth''.
If David Copperfield turned water into wine on tv no one would bat an eyelid - yet jesus did it all those years ago and we re supposed to be in awe.
How can someone say the universe has no creator and its got no cause. How can someone suggest that there is no God. One only has to consider the beauty, rationality and sophistry of nature....just look around you and you'll see that God exists. To suggest that God doesn't exist is like looking at a beautiful car and suggesting that it created itself.
No it's not
99.9999999% etc of the universe is inhospitable to humans. We inhabit a planet on the spiral arm of a typical galaxy, it really isn't about us
How can someone look at our complete lack of evidence of any gods and just believe in a completely terrible idea?
* Theism is _actually_ theists looking at reality and reaching a faulty, irrational belief like that.
* Atheism _does not_ involve claiming "the universe has no creator". The majority of atheists admit we don't know how the universe was caused or if it has a cause.
But...do you even care? _I_ care about truth. Yet constantly as I talk with theists it's so hard to get them to address these problems -- that makes it seem like they just don't care about truth at all. When something I believe is criticized, and especially when someone has evidence it's wrong, I listen. I care. But when someone says they believe in something and they themselves know they can't prove it (which you've shown: by distracting off topic instead of proving a god exists with evidence) then that mostly just convinces me that they've been misled by a horrible idea that nobody should believe.
Lennox in Australia wearing Richie Benaud's jacket.