Thank you, Elizabeth! I very much appreciate your honest appraisal of this book. I like Dr. Lennox's work, but at times he seems to get the right answer for very problematic reasons, and I'll save the money I might have spent on this book for something else. Have a blessed day. ❤
Once again, thank you for this Elisabeth. I like your very nuanced evaluation of Professor Lennox book. While I understand that you didn't particularly like this book I also hope that it doesn't put you off reading (and reviewing) some of his other books. May God continue to bless you in what you do! 😄🙏
Another fantastic video Elisabeth! I really appreciate all the effort you go through to make these videos and I appreciate you too. Youre the best God bless you!
Every time someone has an ideal of how the world SHOULD be rather than just what it is, it seems to me that they're saying nature has some kind of intent that somehow got off track. And when nature has intent, guess what that implies.
I grew up atheist and with all the access to every kind of science and have studied philosophy of science for years and I was baptized last year. Like you said, “why” questions can’t be answered so easily, and as Meister Eckhart implied, and Keiji Nishitani once elaborated, God is what we experience when we’re emptied and encounter nothingness in the face of matter. God fills that void in a life-affirming way. Even an encounter with the sheer scale and size of the universe makes all human questions and interests turn to nothing, in a beautiful way I think. Ultimately, if more Christians understood science and faith are not in contradiction and we do not like in the 19th century anymore, we could avoid a lot of senseless fights. Thanks for the great reviews!
Great breakdown of his arguments, I enjoyed how clearly you presented that. However, I disagree with a bit of what you said about middle chapters. I haven't read the whole book, so just the beginning of his breakdown on evolution (i.e. talking about the fossil record - gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium). So I'm open to correction. Firstly, I agree that science in its essence does not contradict God's existence (God as designer, science as a tool for explaining His design). It is also risky that Lennox decided to write on evolution. But I think that this is ok, but to be clear, we must assess his reasoning, not his lack of qualification (bad reasoning in given area will reflect bad qualification). I don't think Lennox claims all science does not contradict God. Further, macro-evolution specifically seems to be in conflict with Genesis to many believers (including myself). I'll make a brief case of why I think that is. If we take the Genesis account of creation literally, Adam is literally made from dust and Eve out of Adam's rib. Therefore, humans did not evolve from a single ancestor. But macro-evolution postulates (or states as a 'fact') that human beings were derived from a single-celled common ancestor, and recently (in the evolutionary timeframe) from a common ancestor to apes/monkeys. If we take the Genesis account to be non-literal and a more of an aesthetic song (as argued by old earth creationists), we can reason that God simply guided macroevolution to create human beings and all other organisms, over seven days that really meant seven long (billions of years?) periods of time. Hence, this would explain the existence of apparently "transitional forms" in evolution, 95% similarity of DNA between humans and chimpanzees and a whole host of other evolutionary evidences. But these evidences require natural selection, which requires death. But we know that in the beginning of the world, there was no death, because creation was good and death was horrifically and totally evil. So, natural selection could not occur over the period of time postulated above. So it contradicts evidences such as the fossil record. To me, these conflicts are inevitable. I think Lennox set out a case for how science does not inherently contradict God, and then went into the the largest (and perhaps only) scientific area which directly contradicted Biblical teachings to sort those out. It seems like a reasonable approach to me. But I stand to correction. Anyway, thanks for the video, I might check out some other videos you've made :)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I agree that we must assess his reasoning, not his lack of qualification. The problem is just that I am not a biologist (just like the vast majority of his target audience) so I am unqualified to judge his reasoning. I personally don’t see the necessity to take “death” in Genesis literally, it could mean that sin (=spiritual death) entered the world. Eg. in John 6:54 it says: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” and yet even Christians die (a natural death). So I don’t see an issue with reading Genesis non-literally for that reason.
@@BiblicalBookworm Thanks for taking the time to reply! I know all too well the feeling of not being in the field being discussed. Especially in evolutionary biology debates I have no idea how to evaluate how strong the arguments actually are. So fair enough. Your point about spiritual death is interesting, I never thought of it that way. Thinking through it a bit, I think it still runs into some problems. I might not be fully understanding your point about John 6:54. It seems to me that it is talking about spiritual life, but also physical life after judgement day. Because there will be a new Earth and new Jerusalem - so even though there is bad/evil physical death, there will be (after the dead are resurrected) an eternal spiritual and physical life. Some verses also make the spiritual death interpretation a bit difficult. For example Genesis 3:19 says, as part of Adam's punishment, he will have to work hard for food and then return to the ground and "to dust you will return". I think this is clearly talking about physical death and decomposition. It is then followed by Genesis 3:22 which says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Basically, if Adam eats from the tree of life next, he will "live forever" even though he has just sinned. So, life in this case cannot be spiritual, because he has just sinned, and living forever would indicate he is somehow righteous. So I think that it is spiritual death, followed by physical death. In essence, "good" creation in the beginning did not have spiritual or physical death. To me, this seems too strong a case for death to be occurring in the beginning of creation. That's where my thoughts have ended up so far (with some research of course, I'm not smart enough to come up with this myself)
Hi! Derya Little would be a great person for you to interview. She wrote “From Islam to Christ” a truly fascinating walk through her life in Turkey, to England and finally the US.
I agree that there will probably be things we can never understand. But it would be a mistake to explain these things away by inventing simple-minded answers, just to makes us feel good.
@@marvalice3455 I understand that "answer" all too well. It is the simplest of all possible answers. It is a cop-out. It requires no thinking and even discourages thinking.
I'm not religious, but the reason that I don't think science can debunk God's existence is because God would exist outside the the universe which science is bound to with rules it explains in language. In other words, God would exist outside the science jurisdiction and therefore can't be judged according to rules that we see within that sphere. As a matter of fact, we're limited to what's called the "Observable Universe" because we currently don't have the technological means to see how consistently the laws of Physics we've discovered in our current bubble will apply further out, let alone what may be outside the universe altogether. My personal scepticisms regarding God's existence I would say is based more on high level observations rather than deeply technical ones or those as abstract as the theorems of Mathematics. The main dilemma for me has been around free will and my doubts of such a possibility. In my experience throughout my soon-28 years of life so far, I have the impression that we are simply limited to our brains which make all the decisions including those which will serve as factors toward one's fate in the afterlife. I struggle to imagine a way in which a person can make a wide selection of choices if the brain only locks in on one of them and you can't tell your brain to stop because you are the very brain that will make its decision. If this made any sense? I'm basically leaning a bit on determinism when it comes to the brain until I can find better alternatives and so far I feel like this one wouldn't be consistent with the idea that life is a test and that we can make it. That then rules out a belief in an all-knowing deity for me. I do appreciate that there is an earlier video which discusses about how despite the high level of probability for a human it is to face hell in the afterlife, God is still good. One the otherhand, I feel like it mostly covered how we don't know the ratio of good against evil in our universe because we only look from Earth's perspective, I still don't feel like I could find any information about how one can reconcile with the idea that as humans we have been created in such a way that our infinite damnation for our finite sins is promising for the majority of us even if that be through free will which could serve as an allergy against God's grace as well as a steer into his arms. I'm sure this reasoning behind my doubts regarding God's existence would have been thought about in both Christian and other religious circles and addressed, I just haven't so far encountered any answers that would clear these concerns. Regardless of my current position on God and his existence, I'm entertained by differing views considering also that Christianity has played a key part in modern day life that we all nowadays benefit from, hence I still feel indebted the benefit of the doubt. I've therefore been watching your videos with fascination and am subscribed. Good luck onwards 🙂
Well, it is of course possible to be a good scientist who doesn't believe in God. However, the assumption that the universe is intelligible is an unconscious derivative from theism.
That’s a pure assertion without any evidentiary basis. As there is no reliable evidence for god, yet science is a methodology that can both refute or substantiate itself as long as reality acts in a predictable manner. Science actually becomes UNtenable and UNreliable if god interferes with reality, because then reality becomes unpredictable any time god decides to intervene.
Demonic evil exists without a doubt. So God must exist too. Because there are still good people in this world. For argument's sake, let's say that one earns credit points for enduring evil. The more evil one endures, the more credit points he earns. For one to become God, he needs a ton of credit points and therefore, he would need to endure a ton of evil. Of course, it's more complicated than that and there are other ways to earn credit points than just enduring evil but that is the general idea. In addition, if you are not looking at the right chain of events in the universe, the existence of God will never make sense. Not that everyone will have a chance to do so.
I don't think science can comment on god, Just as religion can't say much about science. They're two totally different things, which can't assign qualities to the other, but can only exist in context and/or contrast with the other.
People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics. #1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral? #2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child? #3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
@@BiblicalBookworm I highly recommend answering the questions. These are not trolley questions that are difficult moral dilemmas, these should be very simple to answer.
we live in a natural world...the praying class choose a hybrid world where celestial beings involve themselves from time to time in the affairs of humans.. which is more likely...amen
Of course, science will not explain itself because it's a field of philosophy called epistemology that describes what is science and what is not. So it has nothing to do with religion. Science and religion are two complete things. You can hava a religion and accept science, but most people nowadays end up looking for pseudoscience such as creationism and intelligent design. Professor lenox for example, was already debunked and even did things that are considered disonest for some atheist and science channels. I disagree for intense, that's not god of the gaps, saying what characteristics this first cause has by deducing philosophically is not only a scientific investigation, but also if he claims without showing evidences that the first cause hypothesis has all those characteristics and it's a god, it's the same thing. It's the fallacy of the false premise, if lennox just claims without showing the reasons behind. He says the other explanation is unscientific and does the same thing with his own. As for the analogy of a ford car, we have evidences that it was created by humans, but the universe and life, we have zero. We can't just conclude that by the argument the it appears to have a creator, it is one. lenox forgets that science is based on empirical evidences. I agree that the hypothesis god can be discussed philosophically and there are good philosophical discussions and arguments despite not agreeing with them, but scientifically speaking doesn't make any sense for me. He basically says that because science can't define itself, it needs philosophy, but ignores that philosophy will only do that and help us define what is science, it's irrational thinking just because of that, god is scientifically. He should have learned that one thing has nothing to do with the other. Yes, the argument science doesn't need god to explain nature doesn't prove god doesn't exist, but It shows it's not necessary to explain. In other words, believe if you have faith, i don't know why some christians get offended with just faith. They say: no! I will prove god exists with science. Nature obeys laws, i'd say natural laws, the laws of nature is a way created to describe how things work. It's an approximation, it's not because the name law is used, it doesn't mean that it was a god ruler who created those laws, doctor lenox has failed a lot and so far he didn't show any supernatural laws explaining reality. He just tries in a desperate way cherry picking things to use in his arguments, and ignores what doesn't fit in. No, it has nothing to do with mediaval theology, they didn't get those ideas by reading the bible. The right answer we could say here is: some mediaval thinkers contributed to science. Like Guilherme ockham, who was a christian and defended that science and religion are two separate things. But this one, lenox so far didn't mention, as you progress the video talking about his arguments. See how some intelectual christians only show what they want? Lewis was a believer, that sentence is just his opinion. Kepler was also giving his personal opinion, when he disagreed with the church, he was treated differently. Science can't bury god. i agree and i'd say that's not even the goal of science. For me the most convincing explanation i 've heard is this: Science can't bury god because of misinformation, god is really important for politics, influential religious leaders, people are taught since children that life only pays off with having a god. The promise of an afterlife in an eternal paradise. Science can't do anything against that. As for evolution, the majority of scientists, even religious accept evolution, lenox even distorted richard dawkins about natural selection, that was exposed in one of jon perry's channel. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense in a book conciling science and religion, he denying evolution.
Religion and science are based on different principles, therefore they can't exclude each other. Pure natural science e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, is based on true that is discovered and confirmed by performing specific scientific experiments in a laboratory or somewhere in the universe. On the other hand religion is based on the logical and philosophical reasoning performed in the course of mind experiments. Therefore, they do not intersects and can coexist in harmony. The same way existence of God can not be proved or disproved by science. God can not be used as object for scientific experiment. We can't take picture of God. Science by studying and explaining the nature and purpose of our reality will help to discover God but does not prove his existence. The final conclusion of God existence always requires faith. Searching for a pure scientific proof of God existence is an effort in vain. The part of the problem in confusion of science with religion is that majority of people doesn't understand what science and religion can and can’t do, where are the proper boundaries between them. Science can explain law of nature very precisely but can not explain why they looks as they are, why they can’t be a little different. Why there is rather something that nothing, what is the purpose of whole universe or purpose of life. To discuss these issue one needs to reach for philosophical reasoning. Scientific truth is based on empirical experiment, on the other hand philosophical truth is based on logical proof. Scientific truth doesn't depends on the state of the experimentalist mind but philosophical truth because is based on mind experiment, therefore depends on the state of his mind. Mathematician Godel discovered that not every truth in mathematics can be proved. This was the big shock for the scientific community when he proposed his finding. The same things is in philosophy. Not every truth can be proved, therefore we have a variety of different philosophical views and because absence of empirical proof, faith plays important role. Seems to be that this is a nature of our reality in which we are existing. Everyone needs to search for truth on his own and make his own decision.
Well in that same regard, you cannot rule out the existence of God through scientific means, as science by its very nature, can only measure things that are tangible, and cannot account for the metaphysical.
I know 3 truths: 1. God created all...with no doubt. 2. Most (scientific) aethiests that sought out to prove otherwise, ended up a believer. 3. This woman is beautiful!! 😁
@@BiblicalBookworm am sorry but it has to, at least the creation of Adam has to. You know why? Because that's gonna mess up the genealogy of Christ. What else were you thinking?
Beside why Universe exists, science also can not explain: 1. Why universe exists the way it is? 2. Why natural law exists, in another word, why universe appears to follow certain patterns? 3. Why human can understand universe, or in another word, why science itself exists and why science is so successful? 4. Why math is so successful in explaining nature. Physicist Eugene Wagner actually wrote a paper questioning “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural science”
No,science can't hurt God,because He is real,if He were made up then it would be a problem that wouldn't matter.Butvno,science is part of God's plan also,to sort out the wheat from the tares.Godchasvmade Himself appear invisible for a reason.ato expose nonbelievers,and reveal His children.Sciencecexplainscwhat God does,yet they claim credit,just by observing His works.Like big bang foolishness,or protoplasm realizing it has to turn into trillions of different species to be happy..Which of course it having no objectives exceptcsurvivingctovreplicate,has no thought of reaching the point of shoes ,socks underwear pants and a shirt,or makeup,or ear rings ,none of that would be a normal stage of evolving,it would just be complicating it's existence.So basically Godcisclaughing at the self proclaimed smart ants.( That's us).So when God has determined the proper time,He just removes all the obstacles to His Son's coming kingdom.Andvmives on never missing a step.Ascwecday No biggie.
@@Ssuepctyour comment displays that most atheists aren't actually interested in the truth. Had they been interested in pursuing the truth (as the philosophers of the Roman world), they wouldn't ask a question which is very obviously phrased to be a "gotcha question."
@@BiblicalBookworm logical proof is stronger than evidence? Wow, that’s an ‘interesting’ epistemology. If repeatable, verifiable evidence directly contradicts your logic, you would deny the evidence in favor of logic? Does that mean you deny quantum mechanics, which certainly defies conventional perceptions of logic? We do actually have evidence for love though; it’s a neurochemical called oxytocin. Whether math “exists” independently of humans or not is, I believe, not certain. It is possible that math is nothing more than the description our human minds use to describe our perception of reality.
The belief in God as the cause of everything is extremely helpful and useful, perhaps it is even the greatest trick that has come about in the course of evolution - even if it is most likely based on a deep error.
God exists. The question becomes who or what is God? For who, there is only a singular positive claim, and that is the Abrahamic God, He who claims "I AM THAT I AM" For what, there is no positive claim. Thus, we are left with either faith in the Great I AM, or with faith in a naturalistic unknown.
@@BiblicalBookworm The belief in a personal god is an invention made by the human (not any other animals) mind, which itself came to existence through evolution. This invention has turned out to be helpful in many ways and has therefore prevailed. Now of course this does not mean that a personal god doesnt exist but i would count myself to those people that say the existence of a personal god (not even speaking of the christian attributes) is unlikely.
@@BiblicalBookwormLike the basic Problem with all These metaphysical Claims is that they have (outside of the positive aspects for example the potential of making a Person or a group feel well) No value. Throughout History every metaphysical claim imaginable was made for example "god is everything" "We are thoughts of god" "god Is the the perfect good" and so on. I mean you can make that kind of Statement where you just make something Up but the main Problem with all of these is that they are not evidence based. And im not saying here that "evidence based" means something is true or that scientific method will be able to find out everything in the future. What i am saying is if we take the evidence and scientific based approach there is no evidence for a personal god or even a Christian god. The problem or the great thing (whatever you wanna choose) with Religion is that its lets people believe that they have the answer for why they and the universe and the laws of physis exist. Whereas what i am saying is "i dont know the answer to the question why is there something rather then noting"
Thanks! Jesus.
Thank you for your support! 😊
Congrats for the great video and channel. I really liked it and that's why I subscribed.
Thank you, Elizabeth! I very much appreciate your honest appraisal of this book. I like Dr. Lennox's work, but at times he seems to get the right answer for very problematic reasons, and I'll save the money I might have spent on this book for something else. Have a blessed day. ❤
Have a blessed day too! 😊
Once again, thank you for this Elisabeth. I like your very nuanced evaluation of Professor Lennox book. While I understand that you didn't particularly like this book I also hope that it doesn't put you off reading (and reviewing) some of his other books. May God continue to bless you in what you do! 😄🙏
As I said, I won't throw out the baby with the bathwater 😊
Another fantastic video Elisabeth! I really appreciate all the effort you go through to make these videos and I appreciate you too. Youre the best God bless you!
Thank you! God bless you too!
Excellent, thank you, Elizabeth!
This is pretty good. Amazing in fact.
"Mr. Ford" 😂
Every time someone has an ideal of how the world SHOULD be rather than just what it is, it seems to me that they're saying nature has some kind of intent that somehow got off track. And when nature has intent, guess what that implies.
Maybe you can do a book review of Frijit Capra's book The Tao Of Physics?
thank you for the recommendation!
I read that book in graduate school. Very fascinating.
Amazing book!
I grew up atheist and with all the access to every kind of science and have studied philosophy of science for years and I was baptized last year. Like you said, “why” questions can’t be answered so easily, and as Meister Eckhart implied, and Keiji Nishitani once elaborated, God is what we experience when we’re emptied and encounter nothingness in the face of matter. God fills that void in a life-affirming way. Even an encounter with the sheer scale and size of the universe makes all human questions and interests turn to nothing, in a beautiful way I think. Ultimately, if more Christians understood science and faith are not in contradiction and we do not like in the 19th century anymore, we could avoid a lot of senseless fights. Thanks for the great reviews!
Great breakdown of his arguments, I enjoyed how clearly you presented that. However, I disagree with a bit of what you said about middle chapters. I haven't read the whole book, so just the beginning of his breakdown on evolution (i.e. talking about the fossil record - gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium). So I'm open to correction.
Firstly, I agree that science in its essence does not contradict God's existence (God as designer, science as a tool for explaining His design).
It is also risky that Lennox decided to write on evolution. But I think that this is ok, but to be clear, we must assess his reasoning, not his lack of qualification (bad reasoning in given area will reflect bad qualification).
I don't think Lennox claims all science does not contradict God. Further, macro-evolution specifically seems to be in conflict with Genesis to many believers (including myself). I'll make a brief case of why I think that is. If we take the Genesis account of creation literally, Adam is literally made from dust and Eve out of Adam's rib. Therefore, humans did not evolve from a single ancestor. But macro-evolution postulates (or states as a 'fact') that human beings were derived from a single-celled common ancestor, and recently (in the evolutionary timeframe) from a common ancestor to apes/monkeys.
If we take the Genesis account to be non-literal and a more of an aesthetic song (as argued by old earth creationists), we can reason that God simply guided macroevolution to create human beings and all other organisms, over seven days that really meant seven long (billions of years?) periods of time. Hence, this would explain the existence of apparently "transitional forms" in evolution, 95% similarity of DNA between humans and chimpanzees and a whole host of other evolutionary evidences. But these evidences require natural selection, which requires death. But we know that in the beginning of the world, there was no death, because creation was good and death was horrifically and totally evil. So, natural selection could not occur over the period of time postulated above. So it contradicts evidences such as the fossil record.
To me, these conflicts are inevitable. I think Lennox set out a case for how science does not inherently contradict God, and then went into the the largest (and perhaps only) scientific area which directly contradicted Biblical teachings to sort those out. It seems like a reasonable approach to me. But I stand to correction.
Anyway, thanks for the video, I might check out some other videos you've made :)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I agree that we must assess his reasoning, not his lack of qualification. The problem is just that I am not a biologist (just like the vast majority of his target audience) so I am unqualified to judge his reasoning.
I personally don’t see the necessity to take “death” in Genesis literally, it could mean that sin (=spiritual death) entered the world. Eg. in John 6:54 it says: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” and yet even Christians die (a natural death). So I don’t see an issue with reading Genesis non-literally for that reason.
@@BiblicalBookworm Thanks for taking the time to reply! I know all too well the feeling of not being in the field being discussed. Especially in evolutionary biology debates I have no idea how to evaluate how strong the arguments actually are. So fair enough.
Your point about spiritual death is interesting, I never thought of it that way. Thinking through it a bit, I think it still runs into some problems. I might not be fully understanding your point about John 6:54. It seems to me that it is talking about spiritual life, but also physical life after judgement day. Because there will be a new Earth and new Jerusalem - so even though there is bad/evil physical death, there will be (after the dead are resurrected) an eternal spiritual and physical life.
Some verses also make the spiritual death interpretation a bit difficult. For example Genesis 3:19 says, as part of Adam's punishment, he will have to work hard for food and then return to the ground and "to dust you will return". I think this is clearly talking about physical death and decomposition.
It is then followed by Genesis 3:22 which says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
Basically, if Adam eats from the tree of life next, he will "live forever" even though he has just sinned. So, life in this case cannot be spiritual, because he has just sinned, and living forever would indicate he is somehow righteous.
So I think that it is spiritual death, followed by physical death. In essence, "good" creation in the beginning did not have spiritual or physical death. To me, this seems too strong a case for death to be occurring in the beginning of creation. That's where my thoughts have ended up so far (with some research of course, I'm not smart enough to come up with this myself)
Hi! Derya Little would be a great person for you to interview. She wrote “From Islam to Christ” a truly fascinating walk through her life in Turkey, to England and finally the US.
Thank you for the recommendation!
I agree that there will probably be things we can never understand. But it would be a mistake to explain these things away by inventing simple-minded answers, just to makes us feel good.
Well asserting an answer you don't understand is simple minded is a pretty big self condemnation.
@@marvalice3455 I understand that "answer" all too well. It is the simplest of all possible answers. It is a cop-out. It requires no thinking and even discourages thinking.
Thank you for your summaries, Dr John Lennox is wonderful and the more people can listen to him the better,
I'm not religious, but the reason that I don't think science can debunk God's existence is because God would exist outside the the universe which science is bound to with rules it explains in language. In other words, God would exist outside the science jurisdiction and therefore can't be judged according to rules that we see within that sphere. As a matter of fact, we're limited to what's called the "Observable Universe" because we currently don't have the technological means to see how consistently the laws of Physics we've discovered in our current bubble will apply further out, let alone what may be outside the universe altogether.
My personal scepticisms regarding God's existence I would say is based more on high level observations rather than deeply technical ones or those as abstract as the theorems of Mathematics. The main dilemma for me has been around free will and my doubts of such a possibility. In my experience throughout my soon-28 years of life so far, I have the impression that we are simply limited to our brains which make all the decisions including those which will serve as factors toward one's fate in the afterlife. I struggle to imagine a way in which a person can make a wide selection of choices if the brain only locks in on one of them and you can't tell your brain to stop because you are the very brain that will make its decision. If this made any sense? I'm basically leaning a bit on determinism when it comes to the brain until I can find better alternatives and so far I feel like this one wouldn't be consistent with the idea that life is a test and that we can make it. That then rules out a belief in an all-knowing deity for me.
I do appreciate that there is an earlier video which discusses about how despite the high level of probability for a human it is to face hell in the afterlife, God is still good. One the otherhand, I feel like it mostly covered how we don't know the ratio of good against evil in our universe because we only look from Earth's perspective, I still don't feel like I could find any information about how one can reconcile with the idea that as humans we have been created in such a way that our infinite damnation for our finite sins is promising for the majority of us even if that be through free will which could serve as an allergy against God's grace as well as a steer into his arms.
I'm sure this reasoning behind my doubts regarding God's existence would have been thought about in both Christian and other religious circles and addressed, I just haven't so far encountered any answers that would clear these concerns.
Regardless of my current position on God and his existence, I'm entertained by differing views considering also that Christianity has played a key part in modern day life that we all nowadays benefit from, hence I still feel indebted the benefit of the doubt. I've therefore been watching your videos with fascination and am subscribed. Good luck onwards 🙂
Science is not even possible in a worldview without God.
Well, it is of course possible to be a good scientist who doesn't believe in God. However, the assumption that the universe is intelligible is an unconscious derivative from theism.
I beg to differ
What baseless nonsense.
It certainly is.
That’s a pure assertion without any evidentiary basis. As there is no reliable evidence for god, yet science is a methodology that can both refute or substantiate itself as long as reality acts in a predictable manner.
Science actually becomes UNtenable and UNreliable if god interferes with reality, because then reality becomes unpredictable any time god decides to intervene.
Demonic evil exists without a doubt. So God must exist too. Because there are still good people in this world. For argument's sake, let's say that one earns credit points for enduring evil. The more evil one endures, the more credit points he earns. For one to become God, he needs a ton of credit points and therefore, he would need to endure a ton of evil. Of course, it's more complicated than that and there are other ways to earn credit points than just enduring evil but that is the general idea. In addition, if you are not looking at the right chain of events in the universe, the existence of God will never make sense. Not that everyone will have a chance to do so.
I don't think science can comment on god, Just as religion can't say much about science. They're two totally different things, which can't assign qualities to the other, but can only exist in context and/or contrast with the other.
But scientific statements contradict bible.
@@SuperMrAndersen the bible is not god.
@@peter5.056
You mean bible has nothing to do with god?
People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
Silly questions - there is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong' - only the actions you decide are best, based on your own feelings.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Does it look honest when politicians avoid questions?
On that topic, I highly recommend my new video: ruclips.net/video/Z_OXlENzwEw/видео.html
@@BiblicalBookworm I highly recommend answering the questions. These are not trolley questions that are difficult moral dilemmas, these should be very simple to answer.
God as an explanation IS unnesessary however I've got an air Fryer and, although it is unnesessary, it exists.
interesting view
@@BiblicalBookworm I think anyone claiming science disproves God is over-reaching.
we live in a natural world...the praying class choose a hybrid world where celestial beings involve themselves from time to time in the affairs of humans.. which is more likely...amen
Based on your description this question cannot be answered.
Of course, science will not explain itself because it's a field of philosophy called epistemology that describes what is science and what is not. So it has nothing to do with religion.
Science and religion are two complete things. You can hava a religion and accept science, but most people nowadays end up looking for pseudoscience such as creationism and intelligent design. Professor lenox for example, was already debunked and even did things that are considered disonest for some atheist and science channels. I disagree for intense, that's not god of the gaps, saying what characteristics this first cause has by deducing philosophically is not only a scientific investigation, but also if he claims without showing evidences that the first cause hypothesis has all those characteristics and it's a god, it's the same thing. It's the fallacy of the false premise, if lennox just claims without showing the reasons behind. He says the other explanation is unscientific and does the same thing with his own. As for the analogy of a ford car, we have evidences that it was created by humans, but the universe and life, we have zero. We can't just conclude that by the argument the it appears to have a creator, it is one. lenox forgets that science is based on empirical evidences. I agree that the hypothesis god can be discussed philosophically and there are good philosophical discussions and arguments despite not agreeing with them, but scientifically speaking doesn't make any sense for me. He basically says that because science can't define itself, it needs philosophy, but ignores that philosophy will only do that and help us define what is science, it's irrational thinking just because of that, god is scientifically. He should have learned that one thing has nothing to do with the other. Yes, the argument science doesn't need god to explain nature doesn't prove god doesn't exist, but It shows it's not necessary to explain. In other words, believe if you have faith, i don't know why some christians get offended with just faith. They say: no! I will prove god exists with science. Nature obeys laws, i'd say natural laws, the laws of nature is a way created to describe how things work. It's an approximation, it's not because the name law is used, it doesn't mean that it was a god ruler who created those laws, doctor lenox has failed a lot and so far he didn't show any supernatural laws explaining reality. He just tries in a desperate way cherry picking things to use in his arguments, and ignores what doesn't fit in. No, it has nothing to do with mediaval theology, they didn't get those ideas by reading the bible. The right answer we could say here is: some mediaval thinkers contributed to science. Like Guilherme ockham, who was a christian and defended that science and religion are two separate things. But this one, lenox so far didn't mention, as you progress the video talking about his arguments. See how some intelectual christians only show what they want? Lewis was a believer, that sentence is just his opinion. Kepler was also giving his personal opinion, when he disagreed with the church, he was treated differently. Science can't bury god. i agree and i'd say that's not even the goal of science. For me the most convincing explanation i 've heard is this: Science can't bury god because of misinformation, god is really important for politics, influential religious leaders, people are taught since children that life only pays off with having a god. The promise of an afterlife in an eternal paradise. Science can't do anything against that. As for evolution, the majority of scientists, even religious accept evolution, lenox even distorted richard dawkins about natural selection, that was exposed in one of jon perry's channel. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense in a book conciling science and religion, he denying evolution.
Religion and science are based on different principles, therefore they can't exclude each other. Pure natural science e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, is based on true that is discovered and confirmed by performing specific scientific experiments in a laboratory or somewhere in the universe. On the other hand religion is based on the logical and philosophical reasoning performed in the course of mind experiments. Therefore, they do not intersects and can coexist in harmony. The same way existence of God can not be proved or disproved by science. God can not be used as object for scientific experiment. We can't take picture of God. Science by studying and explaining the nature and purpose of our reality will help to discover God but does not prove his existence. The final conclusion of God existence always requires faith. Searching for a pure scientific proof of God existence is an effort in vain.
The part of the problem in confusion of science with religion is that majority of people doesn't understand what science and religion can and can’t do, where are the proper boundaries between them. Science can explain law of nature very precisely but can not explain why they looks as they are, why they can’t be a little different. Why there is rather something that nothing, what is the purpose of whole universe or purpose of life. To discuss these issue one needs to reach for philosophical reasoning. Scientific truth is based on empirical experiment, on the other hand philosophical truth is based on logical proof. Scientific truth doesn't depends on the state of the experimentalist mind but philosophical truth because is based on mind experiment, therefore depends on the state of his mind. Mathematician Godel discovered that not every truth in mathematics can be proved. This was the big shock for the scientific community when he proposed his finding. The same things is in philosophy. Not every truth can be proved, therefore we have a variety of different philosophical views and because absence of empirical proof, faith plays important role. Seems to be that this is a nature of our reality in which we are existing. Everyone needs to search for truth on his own and make his own decision.
I'm a biologist and Lennox really needs to stay in his lane. His arguments don't hold water to me.
can you please elaborate?
thanks!
@@DavidJohn-ig4sy of course he won't elaborate. Because his issues are entirely emotional.
Well in that same regard, you cannot rule out the existence of God through scientific means, as science by its very nature, can only measure things that are tangible, and cannot account for the metaphysical.
I know 3 truths:
1. God created all...with no doubt.
2. Most (scientific) aethiests that sought out to prove otherwise, ended up a believer.
3. This woman is beautiful!! 😁
1) Wishful thinking.
2) Completely made up.
3) Cringe.
do you have a source for 2)?
Wait, do you believe in evolution?? How is that compatible with Genesis?
Genesis doesn't have to be understood literally
@@BiblicalBookworm am sorry but it has to, at least the creation of Adam has to. You know why? Because that's gonna mess up the genealogy of Christ. What else were you thinking?
@@BiblicalBookworm why is that if I may ask?
You can criticise Evolution as a Mathematician using Probability argument. So Prof Lennox should have taken that route.
He actually did. But he also used biological arguments
It's impossible to use Probability for evolution
Beside why Universe exists, science also can not explain:
1. Why universe exists the way it is?
2. Why natural law exists, in another word, why universe appears to follow certain patterns?
3. Why human can understand universe, or in another word, why science itself exists and why science is so successful?
4. Why math is so successful in explaining nature. Physicist Eugene Wagner actually wrote a paper questioning “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural science”
Ignorance and incredulity are not proof of gods.
god or any celestial being is welcome..providing hard proof of the exitance can be demonstrated.Check with NASA (space agency) first..amen
God is love. NASA can't prove the existence of love scientifically
Lennox telling Tory and Trumper Christians exactly what they want to hear.
No,science can't hurt God,because He is real,if He were made up then it would be a problem that wouldn't matter.Butvno,science is part of God's plan also,to sort out the wheat from the tares.Godchasvmade Himself appear invisible for a reason.ato expose nonbelievers,and reveal His children.Sciencecexplainscwhat God does,yet they claim credit,just by observing His works.Like big bang foolishness,or protoplasm realizing it has to turn into trillions of different species to be happy..Which of course it having no objectives exceptcsurvivingctovreplicate,has no thought of reaching the point of shoes ,socks underwear pants and a shirt,or makeup,or ear rings ,none of that would be a normal stage of evolving,it would just be complicating it's existence.So basically Godcisclaughing at the self proclaimed smart ants.( That's us).So when God has determined the proper time,He just removes all the obstacles to His Son's coming kingdom.Andvmives on never missing a step.Ascwecday No biggie.
Prof. Lennox writes in one of his books that science describes things, it doesn't explain anything 🙃
Can you proove your god with logic and arguments?
Yes, I recommend the book "How reason can lead to God" which I'll review soon
@@BiblicalBookworm ok madam tell me is god omnipotent? Is he above all the rules? Can he doing everything?
@@Ssuepctyour comment displays that most atheists aren't actually interested in the truth. Had they been interested in pursuing the truth (as the philosophers of the Roman world), they wouldn't ask a question which is very obviously phrased to be a "gotcha question."
No. Humanity is dead, not G-d.
I hope that not all of humanity is dead 😅
Fascinating how theists always have to fall back on logic & philosophy to support their belief, because they can never provide any actual EVIDENCE.
Logical proof is stronger than evidence. Also, not everything that exists has scientific evidence eg. the existence of love or the existence of math
@@BiblicalBookworm logical proof is stronger than evidence? Wow, that’s an ‘interesting’ epistemology. If repeatable, verifiable evidence directly contradicts your logic, you would deny the evidence in favor of logic? Does that mean you deny quantum mechanics, which certainly defies conventional perceptions of logic?
We do actually have evidence for love though; it’s a neurochemical called oxytocin.
Whether math “exists” independently of humans or not is, I believe, not certain. It is possible that math is nothing more than the description our human minds use to describe our perception of reality.
@@BiblicalBookworm do you have to approve all comments? I’m pretty sure there wasn’t anything in my reply that would trigger a block.
@@CharlesPayet no, I only see this one reply
@@BiblicalBookworm that’s weird. I do not understand YT’s filters at all. I’ll try again in a little bit.
The belief in God as the cause of everything is extremely helpful and useful, perhaps it is even the greatest trick that has come about in the course of evolution - even if it is most likely based on a deep error.
God exists. The question becomes who or what is God?
For who, there is only a singular positive claim, and that is the Abrahamic God, He who claims "I AM THAT I AM"
For what, there is no positive claim.
Thus, we are left with either faith in the Great I AM, or with faith in a naturalistic unknown.
Please corraborate your assertion that it is based on deep error
@@BiblicalBookworm The belief in a personal god is an invention made by the human (not any other animals) mind, which itself came to existence through evolution. This invention has turned out to be helpful in many ways and has therefore prevailed. Now of course this does not mean that a personal god doesnt exist but i would count myself to those people that say the existence of a personal god (not even speaking of the christian attributes) is unlikely.
Some monkeys have religious rituals.
@@BiblicalBookwormLike the basic Problem with all These metaphysical Claims is that they have (outside of the positive aspects for example the potential of making a Person or a group feel well) No value. Throughout History every metaphysical claim imaginable was made for example "god is everything" "We are thoughts of god" "god Is the the perfect good" and so on. I mean you can make that kind of Statement where you just make something Up but the main Problem with all of these is that they are not evidence based. And im not saying here that "evidence based" means something is true or that scientific method will be able to find out everything in the future. What i am saying is if we take the evidence and scientific based approach there is no evidence for a personal god or even a Christian god.
The problem or the great thing (whatever you wanna choose) with Religion is that its lets people believe that they have the answer for why they and the universe and the laws of physis exist. Whereas what i am saying is "i dont know the answer to the question why is there something rather then noting"
Are you single ? 😁
Don't be cheeky