I love how each one allows the other one to explain his point, pays attention, and allows the other one build their argument; that’s how respect looks like in a debate.
Which one of these men were directed by God, not science, to take the jab? Did God direct you to take the jab? No, he's given us direction for thousands of years in our immune system, not to! All biblical references tell us not to. In fact, it is there in black and white. Thank you, Lord!
I am amazed at how these gentlemen can just sit down and have a brilliant discussion with little to no moderation at all within each segment. They don't even accidentally fall over one another. The ability to do that not only requires one to be respectful and confident, but to have the trust that one's counterpart is also.
Jesus is a man made fairy tale figure that never existed in the real world.Jesus The imaginary god of the bible is a psychopathic mass murderer who hates humans. Humans are apes coming out of. Es live by rules because es are zoon politicon, animals who live in groups. The " love your neighbours " includes " hate the foreigners ". The bible says explicitly " kill non-believers ". The bible is a collection of immoral bullshit! .
This type of discussion is the only way forward,and I mean on all subjects no matter how controversial they are two each other.otherwise nothing gets sorted,and nobody becomes educated and tolerant to each other.But it seems that they are trying to not let it happen by making people to scared to even attempt it JMO
I loved the format, too often these debates become rather stale when each person speaks for 20 minutes and they are hardly allowed to discuss things with one another - the other lennox-dawkins debate was a lot more interactive but this was much better
I remember in the first debate, Dawkins lamented the fact that the debate was so heavily moderated and wanted it to be free-form. Looks like he got his wish this time around, and the results were unexpectedly good, especially considering political debates of recent years. This didn't seem like a debate at all; it seemed more like two friends having a civil, causal conversation. Maybe we should get a couple of Oxford professors to run for president🤷♂
I know Mr. Dawkins probably stays up at night wondering exactly how the mind could come from mere chance a create something that is productive. Mr. Lennox got him thinking for sure
@@aservant2287 Dawkins points out repeatedly his books that evolution by natural selection is NOT a "from mere chance" process. Yes, mutation is random. Natural selection, by definition, most certainly is not. Dawkins does not believe that the mind arose from "mere chance," and neither do other evolutionary biologists. It's a straw man and a false dichotomy.
@@Sneeky930 in natural selection what determines what will be selected? Only the strong survive and everything becomes extinct well can you explain why there are still apes and komodo dragons? Why hasn't humans evolved into flying people if things get more advanced. Truth is if there's an original coder than He's got rules and He'll expect you to live by them. Every came from nothing takes more faith than believing in God. Nobody will be able to say they didn't have a chance. All you see happening in the news is predicted in the bible. Believe what you want that's your choice.
@@Sneeky930It seems the process of natural selection is inherently intelligent, directional and purposeful. How can such a process materialise out of nowhere and all by itself?
Both Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Lennox are absolutely admirable in so many ways. An exemplary civilized way to have a productive, easy to listen dialogue. I hope they will continue this discussion for many years to come! Bravo!
To be fair, John Lennox is the only man I've ever seen/heard Richard Dawkins treat with some semblance of respect. I suspect it's because he understands how brilliant Lennox is. He belittles everyone else he debates on the subject.
What do you mean you disagree with Dawkins? You know that he is one of the world's leaders in his field? You'd have to know more than him about his topic of expertise for your disagreement to hold any weight. I think what you mean is what Dawkins says conflicts with your existing beliefs that you're unwilling to change.
@@dkruger9553 I could say the same for you, you hold beliefs you are unwilling to change.... I’ve read everyone of his books and have followed him many years. Yes he is considered an expert in his field and yes I do believe he is wrong. Gravely wrong. In his worldview this means nothing you’re no different than an ant that is stepped on.
@@mrt9689 I think you've misunderstood his world-view. We are unable to show the amount of empathy for the ant as we are able to show for other humans. It also sounds like you don't like his world-view because it's comfortable, which says nothing about how truthful it is.
This is a very emotional subject. The atheist even said as much. Yet these two men kept emotions in check and held each other accountable without criticizing one another. Impressive debate.
I'm sorry your wrong Dawkins hurled many insults at lennoxs not only beliefs but at john himself it's was shady behavior but John(the Christian)handled it with a smile.
The atheist? Which one? Dr Lennox is an atheist when it comes to every god but the Abrahamic one. Dr Dawkins is an atheist when it comes to every god, including the Abrahamic one.
@Rekaert My point being there is Only 1 true God the rest are just Satan and his angels Masquerading as gods. Lucifer for ex. Goes by many aliases you would find in all the biggest relgions
Beautiful and honest debate. I like they could go back and forth in a profound and respectful manner without much interruption by the moderator. Thank you for posting.
@@hannibalbarca8521 nice.. so someone showing appreciation to both debaters and gratitude to the one who post the video, and your immediate response is profound insult??
Sorry we have a true rational man, Dawkins, and an old believer in fairy tales!! No evidence of God my friend Johnny!! Poor old man is hopelessly deluded bullshitting away!!
@@fatezero1919 ...Lennox did seem to be welding the whiphand...a spanking is something Dawkins usually doesn't get from the lame and limp wrist liberal clergy he normally debates...but the tastiest morsel was Lennox force feeding Dawkins a full reversal on the existence of Jesus...talk about your "historical" HAThEist backpedals...In the Academy, Lennox has philosophical and scientific gravitas and Dawkins had to acknowledge it...
not really, people who worship gods that drown babies and write an entire book about how to kill people, while forgiving them for being despicable themselves, needs to be debunked. the god of christian mythology is one of the sickest characters imaginable, and thepeople who worship him are just a sickminded.
Probably the best "debate" I've ever seen on the topic of God and atheism. Not least because they both used good arguments but also because it was more a discussion than a debate, although it was obviously a debate with very different viewpoints. Thanks for this great piece of content!!
You actually think RD thinks. RD believes we got the universe by "literally nothing." The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block According to L. Krauss, the universe consists of zero energy. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, the universe did not come about form "nothing", but zero energy. That is where creationists have it all wrong. They do not understand physics or even try to. I think that how the universe was created is less important than what we should do about it. How does believing in a god help mankind?
For me it’s a flawed debate because I think the two gentlemen exist in different sorts of worlds. Dawkins is a scientist not a philosopher, and Lennox is clearly more involved in the philosophical side of religion. It leads to a sort of problem whereby both sides struggle with an opposite side of the debate. Lennox couldn’t comprehend some of Dawkins scientific points and that’s a shame as it slows down the debate a lot. Dawkins was right when he labelled it an argument from personal incredulity. Similarly Dawkins struggled more with the philosophical side, about meaning and morality imo. Nice debate still, friendly and respectable.
@@2fast2block RD doesn’t know how the universe came to be, and he’d rather hedge his bets with the side that has generally been on the ‘winning’ side in terms of explaining what we understand of the world. To say he believes anything else is strawmanning him
It's because this debate takes place in the UK where people are trying to listen to ideas rather than trying to take sides and listen to two people "tOtAlLy OwN" each other.
@illyapopov5636: it seems that what you really enjoy is debates that end with neither side having won, and nothing is accomplished. "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins.
@@Merlinever I don't see it that way, you have a debate between two differing views and you are allowed to decide for yourself which side of the argument you agree with. While watching this I was constantly thinking back to the Presidential "debates" between Trump and Biden and my amazement (fear, actually) that one of the two was going to be the leader of the western world.
@@davidtuer5825: "I don't see it that way, you have a debate between two differing views and you are allowed to decide for yourself which side of the argument you agree with." The side I agree with is the one with the argument backed up by reason, logic, and verifiable facts of reality (please see my original comment above). "While watching this I was constantly thinking back to the Presidential "debates" between Trump and Biden and my amazement (fear, actually) that one of the two was going to be the leader of the western world." I admit that i had the very same fear; for at least the last four or five decades the choice we've been given when choosing the next president hasn't been between a good candidate and a better one, but between a horrible candidate and a slightly (hopefully) less horrible one; when Trump was elected, we got the slightly less horrible one; during his presidential campaign, Trump made a number of promises on very important issues - promises that got him' elected. But after having been elected, he did a 180 degree flip of most if not all of those promises or simply ignored them. For example, he had promised that if elected he would bring home all of our troops and stop fighting all of these endless, extremely expensive, useless foreign wars. Then, shortly after being elected, he issued a statement saying that he would bring home some unspecified number of our troops at some future, unspecified date. Later, he greed to send an ADDITIONAL 20,000 of our troops to Afghanistan. I can think of a long list of such betrayals, but it will take me some time to gather them along with the appropriate links for verification. The bottom line: Trump is far from the great savior that most people have deluded themselves into believing he is.
@@Merlinever Well, to be clear, my thought was, were these two the best you could find out of 360million? I chose to mention that debate to illustrate what a debate wasn't, I supported neither. But then I'm South African/ British and you might say I have no right to express a view on your country's choice of leader but your country is now the leader of the free world, your leader is our leader. But to revert to the origin of our correspondence, there could be no winner there, neither proposition is provable so you go with the one which seems most likely, or, like me you may find that even after such an articulate exchange of views by two brilliant minds I could not decide whether one was right and one was wrong. But I was left with a clearer idea of what the the issues were.
I agree, often with the more structured debates each side will make three or four points at varying levels, and then the opposite side will also make three or four points. Then it’s a matter of one side trying to unpack the entirety of the 4 points made while also defending their own 4 points from attack, so on and so forth. Often the finer detail gets lost in such debates, and it’s sort of more about who can pump out more arguments than it is about understanding the strength of the singular main argument. This debate was excellent at this, neither side ever really made more than one or two points before the other had a chance to come back and debate this position. It was more of a discussion than a debate in this regard, and it’s much nicer to listen to and much easier to understand.
To me it is remarkable that this planet is populated on one hand by individuals as well-spoken as these two and on the other hand by people whose vocabulary consists of about 150 words.
@@shirleymason7697Perhaps, but there is a vast difference between using the same appropriate words often when discussing a particular topic and having a limited vocabulary which causes few words and often the wrong ones to be used during all discussions on all topics.
@@Apokalypsiis What are you going on about? Others were mocking the vocabulary used here. I pointed out that they may have used a limited vocabulary here, but that it was appropriate.
and yall fools like to overcomplicate language to fulfill your own personified inquiries lmaooo their is no need to talk like this in basic conversation. simplicity is beautiful
Me too. I really love this debate. The pursuit and purpose of debate should be focused on the truth only, not trying to justify one's opinion. Of course, when you debate you need to defend your position to persuade that your position is right and the other one is wrong, but you shouldn't be trying to win an argument just because you want to win in a debate. The purpose of debate is to investigate and test the truth, not the other way around. I'm just 16 minutes in with this video and I really like their attitude.
@@namgan93 GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) SO, THE EARTH (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form/manifestation in accordance with the universal fact that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is why the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
@@hansenbee123 Dawkins got schooled as he admitted Jesus Christs existed and is looking at Lennox like a student learning something. So I don't get what you mean by religious donkey with his legs tied?
Regardless to agree or disagree with what they said ,l accept and agree with many who believe that their presentation of ideas and patience to hear and tolerate the difference of opinion Is really surprising and worth appreciation .
As a Christian it was refreshing to see Richard Dawkins’ humility in this conversation. You can tell it by the way he would listen, answer every question, be honest in his beliefs. I really enjoy listening to him. He’s different than other atheist IMO
Many athiests run out of patience after hearing the same claims year after year. I guess that's the main difference between "many athiests" and Dawkins. Dawkins is in it to educate people.
@@Dennis19901 True. Now to be fair.. atheist say the same things over and over again too. I’m impressed however with Dawkins ability to stay calm and collected.
@@jared3235 "| atheist say the same things over and over again too. " Most of them, yes. But when someone makes the same arguments after another (many theists get their arguments from apologetic sites), the response to such an argument is going to be the same. If you hear the god of the gaps argument (a favorite one among believers) 100 times, how are you going to respond differently 100 times? This is an honest question by the way. I'm not excusing anyone getting arrogant or annoyed in responses.
@@Dennis19901 Good point. This is why I listen to these debate over and over again. These individuals are so smart and it’s a blessing to have them share their reasoning with us. It amazes me how much time people spend thinking about this subject.
@@jared3235 "This is why I listen to these debate over and over again." Same for me. I'm in it more for the reasoning they often use. I think some of those "famous athiests" for a lack of better term, use very beautiful reasoning
@@thelawless1523 His valid assessment ticks you off, eh? What I take away from this debate is the huge difference between mere intelligence and intelligence coupled with wisdom!
TV; I admire nobody such as this person no matter what his intellect that tries and attempts to discredit God. I consider such enemies of God a disgrace and do not honor such men at all.
I am so impressed with John Lennox. The intelligence and candour in his replies was great. Continuously challenged Dawkins’ thoughts and I also commend Dawkins for his cadence and points which were fair. I believe John won this debate with excellence and pure genius. Frankly I understood every point he has made so far, half way through the vid.
Really great discussion. I love both these speakers and the points they have made .I don’t mean to disrespect Any speaker but as an Agnostic I like the points which Professor Lennox made than that of Professor Dawkins . No disrespect to both these speakers .
One is right and one is wrong. There is nothing disrespectful about choosing which debater you think is correct. For my part I cannot imagine how anyone watching honestly and objectively could think Lennox won, or even had an intelligible argument.
@@billscannell93 He spoke a lot and people would conclude the one who spoke the most won. As I said on another comment, I felt as eloquent of arguments that were made by Dr. Lennox, I felt his conclusions were not correct. He arguments were the seeming there is a God or therefore this must be God. The God of the gaps argument was quite apparent.
@@CAMM-CynthiaM I don't think that was the case at all. In fact, I don't see how you can call Lennox's arguments eloquent when they held no meaning. He kept insisting on diverting the topic of conversation from the scientific view of the universe to magical resurrections, virgin births and other strange and wonderful (frightening?) things that never happened, would never happen, could never happen. Religion scares me. It scares me to hear an obviously bright man insist on insane things.
Before I get crucified, pardon the pun, I'm agnostic, so I have no bias. I just want to know one thing, why is it that that Richard Dawkins always looks angry and bitter but Prof Lennox looks happy bubbly and cuddly (I just wanna pinch his cheeks!) lol I would love to talk to Professor Lennox ONLY because I just feel like if, for example, I made a scientific mistake, Richard Dawkins would be pissed off and call me an idiot rather correct me, and then finish off by telling me I'm petty 😂😂😂😂😂
Well even if you believe Lennox is delusional, he does have a hope beyond this life; whereas Dawkins has a nihilistic, ultimately purposeless viewpoint that often leads to despair... cheers!
Socrates probably also felt a bit bitter when he was forced to drink poison for impiety. Victorious lynch mobs and their faith-based leaders tend to be a happy bunch when they're given free reign to con, coerce, and control others. If you were sent back in time with the mission of convincing primitive people that no, the phenomenon of lightning and thunder aren't indicative of the gods' anger, they're natural things explicable through a more refined understanding of meteorology and careful observation, you might start to feel a twinge or two of bitterness as well, especially if "corrupting the minds of young people" was among the charges brought against you. People even in 2020 continue to make the very old error of anthropomorphization, attributing human-like characteristics to non-human forces or things. The idea that whatever forces created the universe would share in common with humans things like jealousy, hate, or love, is on its face ridiculous as much as thinking earthquakes or floods happen because your country allows gay people in the military. People believe this shit by the hundreds of millions. Is it any wonder materialists are often a sullen bunch?
@@marianskodowski8337 Do you mean Dawkins has something hide? Well, if you do then it is usually the case with Atheism. Christianity allows a person to come into the light because God is light!!
This is definitely the best and most respectful debate between atheist and Christian … both men are adorable ❤ I can listen to them talking forever. Still I pray Richard will one day come to the truth. I pray for that 🙏
As a Christian I'm gonna say the truth, Richard admits that nothing will convince him of god jesus can comeback on judgement day he'll still not believe and the stars could write his name and he still won't believe
@@tomsmith2181 now I totally agree with you 😐 when I first watched the debates, I thought he was respectful and then I watched a few videos where he called all his debating opponents “fools”, I realized that he was just a liar
Dawkins is bitter than he's a failed scientist and takes it out on religion, gives him something to make money off and become a celebrity. If it wasn't for him angrily railing against religion, nobody would know who he is.
I agree, even if you completely take away the topic of conversation, the language and words used were much more offensive, patronising, he worked hard to degrade the other argument, Lennox didn't try to degrade the other argument he just gave his beliefs respectfully.
When it first showed the narrator, I was like "holy crap, it's Tom Green", then they showed him again and I realized it wasn't him. I was simultaneously disappointed and relieved.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 You can only make that point if you haven't similarly simply grown up in atheistic household. Not saying you did, but if you did not it is hypocritical.
You know it's a good debate when you're telling yourself "That's a good Point" "whoa that's a good point too" "Whoaaa that's another good point" "Whoaaaaaaaaa..."
@@rmr5044 Dawkins only makes good points if your willing to listen. Willful and intentional ignorance is a very real thing, you can't know or believe what you don't want to know or believe. Ignorance is not just what you don't know, it is also what you won't know. ~ AronRa To believe in god requires a very narrow mind and anything that contradicts your belief must be intentionally disregarded in order to maintain the belief. Christians believe the planet is 6000 years old when reality has proven the world is billions of years old, this is an extreme example of willful ignorance at it's best. If Kakashi wants to know what real philosophical fallacies are they should try reading the bible. Kakashi didn't hear any good points from Dawkins because he/she didn't want to hear anything that would contradict what they believe. Kakashi's ignorance is willful, therefore you might as well be talking to a wall or a rock.
@@rmr5044 To believe in atheism requires a very narrow mind and anything that contradicts your belief must be intentionally disregarded in order to maintain the belief. Carbon dating is proven many times flawed and it is built upon an assumption that the conditions on Earth were always the same. Your religion of Atheism is nothing more than a bunch of assumptions and whenever there is something contradicting, you call it anomaly.
@@rmr5044 You are blind believer of your religion of nothing, cant see the hypocrisy and errors of your sharatan speaker/"scientist" . Dont all that science of assumption on what were the conditions on Earth before go to your head. All the fathers of science were religios, they must be stupid also..... You know nothing, NOT one good argument, all based on blind faith.
This is so comforting to listen to two giants making productive conversation in such an aesthetic way; who wins over another appears to be a secondary consideration. If you ask me, GOD needs no one to speak for the recognition is distinctive veracity in the university they are in the verbal row. The signs are everywhere; if you don't want to see them, then this is not about forcing and compelling. No compulsion is in the religion. These debates must continue to open the minds of people in order to comprehend the notions - alien to you - so that you could see what is wrong and true. What matters is the verisimilitude, eventually -- and both sides believe in that. Period.
The first debate video about God's existence that I understood from start to finish. These two are very clear in their words that even a person like me with no background of what they are talking about can understand clearly.
Believe me the only reason Dawkins is being respectful is that he knows he has a strong opponent. You should check out some videos of him at atheist conventions where he shows pictures of a crucifix and mocks to applause from his army of slaves.
I think the arguments in part were fuelled by emotion in places but there were sections on the final 3rd of this debate where I think Lennox was guided by the Holy spirit and articulated very well. Great discussion.
I'm not sure. One thing I do know is we are in a constant battle with our own flesh. That includes allowing our own ego and carnal wisdom to overcloud the quiet voice within...namely The Holy Spirit.
@@Superpowerless1 it’s a shame the Holy Spirit felt the need to guide a man in a useless debate as opposed to guiding millions of starving children to clean drinking water and food.
@@Superpowerless1 so what part of our job involves preventing earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, disease and all the other natural disasters of the natural world that humans couldn’t possibly influence. I guess all those millions of dead babies were just part of God‘s plan.
Nobody knows a god even exists, so you can't just say he's bigger than humans. You can't even say a god exists. (Which is why "bury god" is silly from the atheist side too: to bury something it'd need to first exist and be alive.) Until someone presents strong, logical evidence of a god, the entire conversation is just one group irrationally believing while the other group wishes the first would care about truth.
@@majm9309- How about the 4th dimension , that does it for me ! If the past is eternal then how could the present be here OR if not then how can nothing be something! There's an EMANATOR needed asat ! 👁️🎱🌈😹
@@johnbyrnes7912 Remind me: what did your "emanator" come from? Nothing. Because I once heard someone ask "how can nothing be something?" Basically either (a) everything or (b) not everything has a cause. If A, an uncaused god cannot exist. If B, a god isn't needed (any given thing might be uncaused). So the fact remains that we just don't know. In fact the same sort of logic you're using (if past is eternal, how could present be here?) which indicates that impossibility _also suggests uncaused things magically existing forever_ would be impossible, yeah? Either way our expectations break if we learned the actual truth. And that should be obvious, given you *retreated immediately* from the topic of "god" and ended up with an "emanator". You seem to already admit you don't know to some degree, I just think you should be honest and back up to where the evidence actually gets us, which is basically nowhere.
Very true and also very ironic. For it is molecular biology (the extension of microbiology) that is starting to shed light on exposing his false theories on selfish genes and blind watchmakers. References: see Dawkins Vs. Dennis Nobel at IAI and the origin of life lectures by Prof. James Tour.
Actually, molecular biology is not an extension of microbiology, it's a subset of it. And it certainly does not contradict the explanation of the selfish gene theory.
I am in awe of these two great minds. I have been following Dawkins for some time and have been impressed by his views and analysis. I have been far less familiar with Lennox, but this debate gave a powerful insight into his grasp of the issues and his wealth of knowledge. If I was to call it, I would give the debate to Lennox, who was calm and effortless in putting across his points. There is almost an inverse relationship between the strength of an argument and one's humility. Without embellishment or ornamentation, the quality of the argument speaks for itself. Dawkins was extremely eloquent but seemed at times defensive and even conceded that historians over the centuries have recognized the existence to Jesus (dialing back on his earlier point). To me, I will keep an open mind and will continue to imbibe more knowledge from such civilized, open exchange of views.
I am Christian but to claim Lennox won because she was calm and Dawkins agreed that Jesus could have been real is more than stupid. Most atheists agreed that Jesus is real. They rather only disagree with the spiritual aspects and morality behind religion. If you are open minded you should pick side only based on points made. And I don’t think u are doing any of that.
Lennox made a desperate impression in this debate, to put it bluntly. His only argument is a huge and drawn-out ‘what if’. The only reason why Dawkins might have been on the back-foot was because he was talking to a brick wall and probably concerned about Lennox’s - and at times his own - sanity. That’s my impression at least. I have no idea what Lennox’s background is, but he should look into academic theology, that might be an eye-opener.
Lennox is dogmatic. Dawkins is open minded. The reason why thinking is the most difficult job, is that you got to set feelings aside, your opinions aside, and face the objective facts. Just imagine hurting your own feelings?
It's not arrogant, it's true. The view Christianity provides, I can only describe as petty and small-minded. It doesn't do justice to the grandeur of life and the intricacies of the universe to suggest that human life's nothing more than a game to see whether you worship Jesus for eternity or roast in hell after you're dead.
jmcsquared also the fact that you think that when you don’t follow Jesus is eternal punishment is astounding. Scripture says that after we return to the new earth that the wicked will be like ashes under your feet. Meaning you shouldn’t just fear a god that can destroy your body and not your soul. But fear one that destroys both. So no he’ll isn’t eternal. It’s the annihilation of sin and the souls of sinners where they cease to exist. Basically what Dawkins thinks happens after death will really happen but in the process they will feel temporary pain and suffering of the ripping of their souls. Which will entail the end of the wicked and satan’s existence. I guess atheists like Christopher Hitchens win in that aspect because they will have full separation from god.
@@jmcsquared18 In 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, Paul writes that God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the “wise”, emphasizing that true wisdom comes from God, not human understanding….
You can't use rationality to get someone out of a position if they haven't used rationality to get themselves in that position. Belief in gods is irrational, thus rationality has no bearing on their belief. It is true, according to them, no matter how useless the 'evidence' is.
Such a wonderful debate between the two. John Lennox is the best christian apologist. "In the beginning there was a Word the Word was with God and the Word was God" . John 1:1.
As a Christian and scientist, I appreciate both men for talking around difficult points in our human thoughts. May God bless them, especially Dr. Lennox. May the good news of Jesus continue be shared through his teachings 🙏
Such a good debate. From 40 mins in you could tell they were really listening to each other's points. Wish Lennox asked the omnipotent question better though at 1:02:50
The answer to the omnipotence question is that the brokennesss and sin we see around us is not actually a deficiency in our design but the cause of free will in our design. So God being omnipotent didnt create a faulty product but endowed us with free will. We then chose to use this free will to destroy oursleves.
@@nathanvarghese. but he didn't answer the question in our design. If there is faults on people design if they are mentally or physically disabled or born with conditions...why? Why did God do this?
36:57 is my favorite part. I wish more people approached conversations like this. (context, pettiness was referring to what richard said about God/the idea of a divine Being; not attacking richard as being petty in case people skipped over that part)
39:45 I believe that Dawkins cannot imagine that a God so great would bother with our mundane thoughts is because Dawkins cannot fathom the idea of being so great yet being so bothered by someone of less greatness. I believe that somewhere in there, there is desire to believe but I pray that the pride within him cracks enough to let the light of God in. Nonetheless, the debate was lovely to listen to. I appreciate both men and have gratitude for both, more so John, who has helped me transform my own beliefs.
These are very weird assumptions about the thoughts of another. And they don't fit Dawkins at all. His argument there is based not on an emotional stance but on a logical one. He takes the observation that a Human wouldnt give any thoughts of looking out for every ant of an very specific ant Hill and being mad when the ants don't do as he wants them to and expands that to the relationship between god and humans. in the great scheme of things the lives of people dont matter at all compared to the universe. even much less than an ant Hill does compared to earth. Now I would also make an assumption about you, which is that you just Interpret his Character in such a way because your own Standpoint on that subject is very clear and in your mind undoubtetely set in stone. And as Dawkins thinks the complete opposite, you infer into his thinking that deep down he is on your side. That way your side wins after all. If you dont agree with me here at all, thats how your comment feels. If I might give you another analogue example of how that Sounds, your comment is exactly the same like an atheist telling theists that deep down they know there is something wrong with the believe in a god and that they know he is not real and actually they only tell others about their secure belief to cope with their doubts. I do not think that is Something you would agree with or like. It very much implies that your opponent thinks of you as a less sophisticated person like a parent of a child telling you "well, he just doesnt know better"
Watching this after I watched Dr. Tour vs Dropout Dave. Gotta give it to these two for keeping the debate civilized. I can sense the mutual respect they have for each other.
Right when Dawkins said "so what," I would have said, "well, if you go to your car afterwards and it is smashed up because someone was looking to steal your possessions and you call the cops. You then say "someone broke into my car and they reply with 'so what,' and you accept that, then you will have known your concept has been applied on you. Can you live with it the way you casually dismissed with "so what" in your own words?" You can play games with justice until injustice happens to you, then all of a sudden a person will appeal to justice. Lennox messed up there.
I came here to watch this debate after struggling with God on a huge personal issue if suffering. I’m not struggling with suffering in general - theoretically. No! I personally am suffering and have been for a long time going through trials and tribulations as a Christian woman who’s serving God faithfully every day and lives a single and celibate life dedicated to Jesus for more than 5 years. The fact that my suffering has been repeatedly ordained by God is incomprehensible to me, yet that’s what the book of Job demonstrates: God ordains suffering for His faithful followers. I’ve seen this PREACHED from the puppet, and it’s extremely theoretical and not personable. John is the best minister. John, how you deconstructed Christianity and explained EVERYTHING difficult so brilliantly is so profound. What can I say? I’m leaving this debate a STRONGER believer, and you, John, are God’s glory on display, indeed! Thank you.
I appreciate that the two of them can be professional and intelligent and respectful but part of me wonders if anyone is ever persuaded to change their preexisting point of view from one of these. Listening to the interviews of the audience members at the end made me think that maybe these really do have value to those who are still questioning. I'm glad John Lennox and Richard Dawkins have a good enough rapport that these debates can happen. More power to them.
@@francoisona For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18
@@stephenpeppin5537 Substituting verses for thoughts - The paragon of Christians' reasoning skills. Stephen, I know this indoctrination is not something you can grow out of easily. Been there but learn to think for yourself. Ok let's try this. Gita is a hindu charity worker. She spends every breathing moment of her life helping others spending any little money she earns alleviating suffering, helping the poor with no care for herself and what she wants. When you ask her why she says: ' it makes me happy to see people happy'. She does not accept Jesus into her heart. She accepts Vishnu and other gods. Question for you: does Gita deserve eternal suffering/ be abandoned by god? 'No one goes to the kingdom of my father but through me' sorta thing. Is the fate that according to your faith awaits her fair?
@@francoisona For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. Romans 2:13-15 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. 1 Corinthians 4:4,5
@@stephenpeppin5537 That’s not clever, Stephen. That’s intellectual cowardice. Pure and simple. You hide behind verses so as not to express a view. I think that’s all very pathetic really. The single most important pillar of your faith is that you must accept your hippy Jesus as your personal saviour. Isnt that the deal. I die and you telll me how great I am to have died (never mind that I came back to life)? If the word salad above is to be construed as an exception to that, it means that your bible contains lies and your christianity counts for nothing. One can live not believing in your lord and still get to have eternal life. This is what your religion has reduced you to Stephen, staying silent and hiding behind meaningless waffle so as not to engage what you clearly saw as an injustice to Gita. I guess I should say well done for not throwing her under the bus but it costs you your intellectual integrity in the process. Like I said; Quite pathetic. Really. Dont respond if you’re going to quote more word salad to masquerade your ineptitude to think for yourself as some kind of selective erudition.
20:45 - He says that the more sophisticated a mechanism is, the more likely it is to point towards an agent instead of a complex mechanism, but doesn't really explain the relationship between sophistication and the need for an agent.
He later has an analogy, the watch is blind and automatic but it was design by something, it doesn’t exist just like that, there must be an intelligent mind designing all of this and fine tuning…
@@PaulHattle To believe in the God of the Bible makes it easier because He gives you all assurance about eternal life & He gives you true peace. The hard thing is to follow Christ is to be hated in this world. And in the end you have to be ready to die for your faith. (When persecution will grow) ”“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” John 15:18-19
@Carlow Ancelotti How did you arrive at that conclusion that people that believe in God don't have any evidence? Do you have any scientific evidence to support that statement?
@Carlow Ancelotti DNA contains information that is copied, read, translated, corrected for errors, by nano machines which are irreducibly comple. The ATP Synthase Motor which spins at 7,000 RPM and is 99% efficient, makes half your body weight everyday in ATP, the energy currency of the cell, without which you would die. Where you have information, you have a non-physical mind, only the Mind of God could've programmed our DNA as the information is not a property of the molecule itself as it contains specified complexity. The information stored on the DNA molecule is not a property of the molecule itself. Do you know of any computer program that originally didn't have a Programmer?
@Carlow Ancelotti I was expecting that response, you sound like Matt Dilahunty, 'If God exists then He would know what evidence I would accept', just an argument from personal incredulity.
Dawkins is head knowledge, whereas Lennox is head knowledge & heart knowledge. To know God, a person has to have a heart conversation. 🙏 for Mr Dawkins to have a heart conversion. ❤️
@@jsar5409Actually when christians talk about heart they are talking about the soul. Its not actually emotions but the soul open to the possibility of love who leads to an attitude as of Lennox.
Everything enters through the mind (or head, as you say), but some things eventually must sink down to the heart in order to reveal their true meaning. We can only 'see' the one true God by learning to use the space between our mind and heart. If something is all mind, it remains just cold hard fact (much like scientific fact) and God dies (or is killed) in such an environment. Such things and facts can be written down on paper, contained in a test tube or recorded in some physical shape or firm. On the other hand, if something is all heart it is like romantic love (or evangelical Christians), totally irrational. The knowledge of an objective good and evil is discovered only in the space between mind and heart and this freedom of knowing has been granted to the human race alone. No other species in the universe can or will have such ability. The freedom to question ones own existence is truly a gift. It is in itself the ultimate act of love granted us by the one true God. Without it we can never truly love Him (or anyone else).
Going with RD, you're NOT rational. RD believes we got the universe by "literally nothing." To a tiny brain like yours, you're fine with that. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
The majority of John Lennox arguments boils down to personal incredulity. I'm so glad he's not in charge of science curriculum in schools. "I believe god did it" would be the beginning and ending of every chapter.
How so? He isn’t straw manning Dawkin’s scientific explanations and understanding of the universe because he’s a mathematician. They both seems come to a mutual understanding that science gives room for evidence that the universe was created.... but how or by whom is the question. Both of them are using evidences based off of science, personal experience, logic, and reason but are coming to two very different conclusions. Of course Lennox has his own ideas about creation... but science has its own set of beliefs too.
@@brookemoore8369 "science has its own set of beliefs too". No, that is not how science is done. If it can't be proven, then the 'belief' (hypothesis) is tossed out. If it can be proven, why call it a belief?
Oren Arieli Because they both come to the same conclusion.... The universe was created. Science gives way towards understanding how it was created by evidence, but it does not know right now how it was created because the evidence for that isn’t available. Therefore, science “believes” or “has faith” that one day it will have the evidence. Of course, based upon facts, logic, and reasoning.
All the great scientists, the philosophers, theologians are painstakingly climbing up the unsurmoutable mountain of the real truth , and when the time they reached the apex they are greeted there with Christians and offer them a cup of coffee.😊 ❤
@@johnnycharisma162 one mans success really took you so low that you resulted in being insulting and childish?🤣🤣🤣! I am praying that you are no older than twelve.....! Sad and sorry indeed!
Man must always be left in doubt. Otherwise he would have no Free Will to choose. To believe or not to believe. He is shown enough, but not too much. He is left free to disbelieve.
Romans 9:18-21 would disagree with you. Belief or disbelief for each individual is dictated by God. The Bible mentions this consistently throughout. If anyone is right about Christianity, it is the Calvinists. Free will is nothing but an illusion if God is omniscient.
@@loganleatherman7647 Clavin? You mean the chap who wrote "that man has choice and that it is self-determined" and that his actions stem from "his own voluntary choosing."
i firmly believe that God is the author of science, because the mystery of the nature explain there's SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING INVISIBLE who created it by proving through scientific study to answer it
As far as I know folks, neither the Buddha or Gandhi walked on water or turned water into wine and both those men changed the world as well, yes? YES. There ya go.
Very nice debate I have ever listened to,The resource persons were very pleasant decent and meritorious. The audience also paid their attention very attentively. Thank you all.
@adharmawardhana7328: Only an audience of mindless sheep pays "their attention very attentively" without ultimately siding with one of the people in the debate over the other. Otherwise, what's the point of having the debate? If nothing is decided, noting is gained.
@@lepidoptera9337 Really you don’t think John Lennox is intelligent? A professor of mathematics at oxford, published and successful author, and a well regarded philosopher. And you’re a line cook at Burger King. Talk about the dunning Kruger effect…
@@Ace-pb8iu John Lennox is mostly a self-serving Christian apologetic. He hasn't published anything of importance in mathematics. Somebody hired him for some unknown reason on a lifetime position and now they are stuck with a worthless professor at Oxford. :-)
I can't help wondering who taught Lennox about God and when, because if he'd never been taught about God would he be able to argue these points as this subject wouldn't even occur to him.
Arthur Francis D. Murphy: Why should an opponent in a debate not be attacked for speaking in approval and promotion of systems of belief that treat lies as truth, myths as reality, and encourage delusional behavior?
22:38 I dont understand how DNA could have come from matter back then, why cant it do it now? Information could only be created from information. I cant see it any other way.
It is not possible to generate DNA with its full functionality just from the atoms of CHON, because there are introns and exons, that have very sophisticated splicing and what not functions.
the name of what you just said is "argument of personal incredulity" it can't do it now, because it requires a slow and gradual process called evolution, which takes millions and billions of years
Kelvin Domingos hopefully you don’t believe in some sort of chemical soup that created the first life. I never said that you said that, I’m just curious what you believe about the first life.
24:00 - Would it really be impossible to believe that the cells were evolved and generated by natural forces, if you also assume that's the way God intended it to be?
@@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot Yeah but the question was about belief, not scientific proof. There are loads of things we can believe without evidence, but instead based on personal and/or logical rationalizations. But I do agree with you, but only because there is no credible or authoritive consensus on the definition of God.
@@IsakAidee I believe in many things without evidence. If you tell me you own a dog, I would be inclined to believe you as many people own dogs. If you said you owned a fire-breathing dragon, I would require evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot Lack of evidence is not an evidence either. That is the whole point. The point of Dawkins is, there will NEVER be an evidence, which is quite radical but it is his beliefe rather than fact. We are not talking about dragons or dogs. We are talking about ultimate cause, is there a logos or not. And there is no answer, it is all about belief based on the knowledge gathered, including science and history and that is the point Lennox is puting forward, Christianity has evidence and it is up to you to believe it or not.
It never ceases to amaze me when naturalistic atheists claim "truth" for their metaphysical statements. This raises Pilate's question: what is "truth" for a naturalistic atheist? Augustine's "eternal truths" come to my mind, which - originally going back to Plato - were taken up by Leibniz as an argument for the existence of God. Leibniz argues that spaceless and timeless immaterial truths, such as the laws of logic or the theorems of mathematics, apply independently of any real world and can therefore only be grounded in the Logos of God. According to Leibniz, there must be something that this non-material reality is based on. Following Leibniz, that something is God 'as the ultimate basis of the being or nature of things that are possible and necessary - or of eternal truths: 'If there were no eternal substance, there could be no eternal truths'. God is seen as the root of what is possible, for his spirit is the realm of ideas or truths.« [ Maria Rosa Antognazza, »Leibniz, a very short introduction«]. As a mathematician, I find this line of reasoning interesting. There is a certain irony in the fact that materialistic atheists, for whom brain processes are (as they themselves explain) mere reflexes, claim "truth" (an obviously immaterial category) for their supposed 'knowledge'. And if they think that, using logic and mathematics, they can establish a naturalistic materialism in which neither actually exists (or are ultimately just 'reflexes'...).
This debate was great. Dawkins and Hitchens are both personal heroes of mine and incredible debaters and Lennox seems to be an amazing match. Hes probably the most elegant speaker I've seen in a debate with those two. Much respect.
@@c.h.7580 Many of my personal heroes are dead, some for a long time. I don't see what that has to do with anything. I love how Christian's lash out when they realize they've been backed onto a corner. You know what you believe is bullsh&%.... admit you've been duped and grow up. Willful ignorance is as low as low can get and you seem proud of it.
@@andrewdarlington7115 I have heroes who are dead as well, but none of them were athiests. If you are going to let athiests inspire your entire world view and guide your intellect, you might want to find some that dont die just to find out they wasted their entire life being stupid. If Hitchens and Dawkins are wrong (and they are), they will have both died only to find out they were intellectually inferior to even a plumber who believes in Christ. Lol.. And thats going to be hard for their fragile egos. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
Respect to both on their conduct but I am disappointed in Prof Lennoxs arguments. He seemed out of touch and not well informed. So many of his objections and questions were very easy to answer and explain. I really feel that I could have sat in Prof Dawkins chair and argued the exact same points as he did. His responses were clear, rational, to-the-point and logical. I think Prof Dawkins had an easy debate against weak opposition.
Lol. That only shows you understood nothing about Lennox's rebuttals. Dawkins position is quite flimsy as it lacks philosophical sophistication and analytical rigour. No wonder he became the laughingstock of all popular atheists.
I usually find myself looking through comments on the debates I watch and it's always sadly the same one or two good sports who show respect to both debaters respect and appreciation and then we got the rest who invade those good sports messages in the reply and call them idiots and pick childish fights instead of having a civil kind respectful debate.
Dawkins seems to be on the level but Lennox uses psychological jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility. and how do you tell when someone is lying?
@@lutkedog1 My point wasn't who was right or not although that's very important. My point was instead of screaming haha Sky daddy, Why not explain your points like an adult? That's all. I was only pointing out what I typically end up seeing in the comments. But I suppose some atheists might think well God doesn't exist nor do his presuppositions so what obligates me objectively besides preference. The answer their would be if your statement was true well absolutely nothing.
"God of the gaps" If it is unexplained, then it's god's work. If science figures it out, it becomes science and god got disproven again. Then all those god believers either start to twist words in order not to looks stupid, or they move on to something else and claim that to be god's work.
@Alex McAuliff 1: Slavery was a completely different back then and it's definition was different. 2: Killing people who worship Molac and were putting babies on stoves and slowly burning them alive while they melted - while drummers pounded so loudly that the parents couldn't hear their baby's scream should be put to death 100% of the time. 3: Read the Bible and see why God actually does the things that He does. You'll find out - God is killing people for evil actions such as raping, child ritual abuse, and more. People condemn God for not killing evil people. "HUR DUR, WHY DOESN'T GOD JUST STOP ALL EVIL?!" And when He does kill people for their evil deeds and give us a moral code to live by. "GOD IS INTOLERANT."
@Alex McAuliff You don't understand the bible. You need to spend a lot of time on some theology sites. God is not moral, but amoral. We are moral because we are guilty before God and so are constantly presented with our consciences. (This is why the word "moral" is etymologically linked to "mortal" and "mortified": it speaks to death.) But God is love, which transcends knowledge.
@Alex McAuliff We don't preach Christ because of any book. We preach Him because we have a personal relationship with Him through the 3rd person of God, the Holy Spirit. The bible has only been around for about 500 years, yet Christians have been around for 2000 years. Christianity, in particular the born again experience, is indeed a very real experience. It is spiritual, not emotional, not intellectual, and not superstition. Only the Lord Himself can reveal this to you, and I pray He does in His good time. And be very very sure, when He does, you will know that you know that He is real.
Man do I love Lennox. I used to be an atheist and would have seen the is debate so very differently. But now as a Christian I cannot be more on Lennox’s side. He’s so brilliant in the way he shows the blind spots of the atheist worldview. What a blessing this guy is.
@@gzoro8645 Richard actually already revealed his argument on this topic in THIS debate. He said: “I don’t care!” That’s Richard’s argument. Is it scientific, historical, philosophical? No. It’s EMOTIONAL and arrogant and ignorant. And it only reveals just how much Richard is OBSESSED with God but angry at God for the fact that God is concerned with Richard’s sin. Так же как мы выросли в СССР, где нас убеждали: у нас в стране Бога нет… Почему? Потому что коммунисты боялись Бога.
One of them(Dawkins) was talking about god. Lennox was too busy building Straw Man arguments and other logical fallacies so he never got around to proving any gods exist. That’s how religious apologists have been failing for thousands of years.😏
@@FourDeuce01 Proving or disproving God wasn't the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate was the relationship between science and belief in God. So many of Lennox's topics and questions dealt with the a philosophy of science and how Dawkin and Lennox have different philosophies of their science but not so much difference science. Again the question is Has Science Buried God? Not has science proven God or has science disproven God?
@@timsmith9503 Until somebody proves any gods exist, there is no relationship between science and belief in god. BTW, science doesn’t need to prove or disprove any gods. The burden of proof for gods is on the people claiming they exist.
@@FourDeuce01 I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. I think what I mean is, a person needs to think about what scientific study can and can't do, that's what I mean by philosophy of science. Now I grew up learning through school that the question does God exist is not a scientific question. But again, this debate isn't about does a God exist or not, it's has science buried God? I agree that there is no relationship between science and belief in God, which is why I think the answer to the debate question is no. Because to answer yes to question is to then say there is a relationship between science and belief in God. My position is to say that science doesn't even have the ability to study the topic of God, let alone proof, disprove, or bury. Which is why what I like about what Lennox has to say here is that it, to me, comes across as what science studies has no relationship to belief in God because they are unrelated. That's a problem for Christians and Atheist who claim that they can somehow defend their position using scientific method.
@Tim Smith “this debate isn’t about does a god exist or not.” Au contraire. If nobody can prove any gods exist, there’s no point in debating whether science has buried god. Atheists don’t need to defend their position. Theists need to prove any gods exist.
You don't need intrinsic meaning or purpose to use logic. He even addresses this in the debate, i.e., he points out that the ability to engage the world in factual, logical terms would likely be selected for since it helps organisms survive. God, in this context, just strikes me as a superfluous explanation: doesn't mean there isn't one, but our ability to construct and evaluate truth statements doesn't seem to require a supernatural explanation. Organisms incapable of doing this didn't get a chance to reproduce.
24:45 about when Lennox says the logos didn't come from anywhere and Dawkins responds "well, then in what sense is it an explanation" That is actually a really great question but Lennox's response does at the same time point to the premise of the question is based on presuppositions about what the 'explanation' is supposed to include the first place. Great minds. Great debate.
starting at about 32:00 Dawkins's protest to the Christ narrative, how it is petty in comparison to the grander idea of a cosmic creator; it once again based solely on his presumptions and and expectations about how such a creator 'should' be behaving according to Dawkins. That is a bias that causes him to have serious blinders. The explanation, imo, of why a cosmic creator would need the Christ narrative (the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection) is simple; maybe that is simply how God allows himself to communicate with the only other conscious creatures in the universe. If you take away assumptions about how such a creator ought to behave most of these protests simply vanish. that doesn't mean the stories are true but it is interesting to think that does the resurrection story need to have actually happened for the story itself to be the way the creator would communicate with his creation? For anyone that has the ability to hear and understand the story.
about 40:00, I keep harping on Dawkins even though I really respect him and agree with him more than I disagree with him on most topics; but so many of his arguments here and protests are all based on his presumptions on how a god ought to behave within his expectations. So here at 40:00 he is saying that the "medieval god" is "preoccupied with sin". once again maybe that is because God allowed us to be formed with enough intelligence that we could figure out most other things on our own; but he focused on helping us with the one thing we cannot help ourselves with (namely our fallibility). such a god would not have need or interest to address the other topics because we could figure them out on our own (Dante metaphorically describes this with the character Virgil who is a representation of human reason) Human reason can take us a long way all the way through the inferno and even through purgatory but it can't get us to paradise (I mean these places as a metaphorical sense not physically real places btw).
I love how each one allows the other one to explain his point, pays attention, and allows the other one build their argument; that’s how respect looks like in a debate.
Me too! It's a respectful debate.
totally agree, and it's essential for meaningful debate where everyone (listeners) benefit.
What's your personal stance on the matter?
Yes today's society could learn a lot from how these two men discuss and engage with one another.
Which one of these men were directed by God, not science, to take the jab? Did God direct you to take the jab? No, he's given us direction for thousands of years in our immune system, not to! All biblical references tell us not to. In fact, it is there in black and white. Thank you, Lord!
I really want to thanks these people who didn’t clap & just listened silently
British audience.
I clapped. Lol
@@ENFPerspectives oòoòòo
I really want to thanks these people who didn't clap & just listened silently...
🙏😎🙏
British audience...
🙏😎🙏
I am amazed at how these gentlemen can just sit down and have a brilliant discussion with little to no moderation at all within each segment. They don't even accidentally fall over one another. The ability to do that not only requires one to be respectful and confident, but to have the trust that one's counterpart is also.
Jesus is a man made fairy tale figure that never existed in the real world.Jesus
The imaginary god of the bible is a psychopathic mass murderer who hates humans.
Humans are apes coming out of.
Es live by rules because es are zoon politicon, animals who live in groups.
The " love your neighbours " includes " hate the foreigners ".
The bible says explicitly " kill non-believers ".
The bible is a collection of immoral bullshit!
.
This type of discussion is the only way forward,and I mean on all subjects no matter how controversial they are two each other.otherwise nothing gets sorted,and nobody becomes educated and tolerant to each other.But it seems that they are trying to not let it happen by making people to scared to even attempt it JMO
They're also very learned, it comes with civility
Even Jesus, The Nailed, knows faith is worthless if you can't move mountains by voice-command.
I loved the format, too often these debates become rather stale when each person speaks for 20 minutes and they are hardly allowed to discuss things with one another - the other lennox-dawkins debate was a lot more interactive but this was much better
I remember in the first debate, Dawkins lamented the fact that the debate was so heavily moderated and wanted it to be free-form. Looks like he got his wish this time around, and the results were unexpectedly good, especially considering political debates of recent years. This didn't seem like a debate at all; it seemed more like two friends having a civil, causal conversation. Maybe we should get a couple of Oxford professors to run for president🤷♂
I know Mr. Dawkins probably stays up at night wondering exactly how the mind could come from mere chance a create something that is productive. Mr. Lennox got him thinking for sure
I like this form much better than most formal debates with allotted times to speak and what not. I think this is much more productive.
@@aservant2287 Dawkins points out repeatedly his books that evolution by natural selection is NOT a "from mere chance" process. Yes, mutation is random. Natural selection, by definition, most certainly is not. Dawkins does not believe that the mind arose from "mere chance," and neither do other evolutionary biologists. It's a straw man and a false dichotomy.
@@Sneeky930 in natural selection what determines what will be selected? Only the strong survive and everything becomes extinct well can you explain why there are still apes and komodo dragons? Why hasn't humans evolved into flying people if things get more advanced. Truth is if there's an original coder than He's got rules and He'll expect you to live by them. Every came from nothing takes more faith than believing in God. Nobody will be able to say they didn't have a chance. All you see happening in the news is predicted in the bible. Believe what you want that's your choice.
@@Sneeky930It seems the process of natural selection is inherently intelligent, directional and purposeful. How can such a process materialise out of nowhere and all by itself?
Both Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Lennox are absolutely admirable in so many ways. An exemplary civilized way to have a productive, easy to listen dialogue. I hope they will continue this discussion for many years to come! Bravo!
@ReynerNatahamidjaja
Lennox is too stupid to understand science!
Lennox is unable to distinguish between reality and fairy tales!
.
Lol
Debate starts at 5:36.
Many thanks
Thanks 😁
Amazing 🔥
Although I disagree with Richard, I wish every christian / atheist could have dialogue like this. Love watching these two debate.
To be fair, John Lennox is the only man I've ever seen/heard Richard Dawkins treat with some semblance of respect. I suspect it's because he understands how brilliant Lennox is. He belittles everyone else he debates on the subject.
@@kalehorvath agree kale
What do you mean you disagree with Dawkins? You know that he is one of the world's leaders in his field? You'd have to know more than him about his topic of expertise for your disagreement to hold any weight. I think what you mean is what Dawkins says conflicts with your existing beliefs that you're unwilling to change.
@@dkruger9553 I could say the same for you, you hold beliefs you are unwilling to change.... I’ve read everyone of his books and have followed him many years. Yes he is considered an expert in his field and yes I do believe he is wrong. Gravely wrong. In his worldview this means nothing you’re no different than an ant that is stepped on.
@@mrt9689 I think you've misunderstood his world-view. We are unable to show the amount of empathy for the ant as we are able to show for other humans. It also sounds like you don't like his world-view because it's comfortable, which says nothing about how truthful it is.
This is a very emotional subject. The atheist even said as much. Yet these two men kept emotions in check and held each other accountable without criticizing one another. Impressive debate.
I'm sorry your wrong Dawkins hurled many insults at lennoxs not only beliefs but at john himself it's was shady behavior but John(the Christian)handled it with a smile.
The atheist? Which one?
Dr Lennox is an atheist when it comes to every god but the Abrahamic one. Dr Dawkins is an atheist when it comes to every god, including the Abrahamic one.
@@Rekaert Dude there is only 1 God
@@joshuabrzezinski2828 Not if you're a pantheist. Then there are many, no?
@Rekaert My point being there is Only 1 true God the rest are just Satan and his angels Masquerading as gods. Lucifer for ex. Goes by many aliases you would find in all the biggest relgions
Beautiful and honest debate. I like they could go back and forth in a profound and respectful manner without much interruption by the moderator. Thank you for posting.
Santiago Garcia-Balcarce that’s because you’re shallow asshole
@@hannibalbarca8521 What lol? That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
@@hannibalbarca8521 hahahahahah
@@Luke-ih1oc lol
@@hannibalbarca8521 nice.. so someone showing appreciation to both debaters and gratitude to the one who post the video, and your immediate response is profound insult??
What a day and age we live in where people like me can see a debate like this from Oxford.
As compared to being burned at the steak
@@lutkedog1 I’d have my steak medium rare thanks.
@@Released_Sausage
Sorry there is going to be a little blood :)
@@lutkedog1 can I have it raw?
@@cygnus-x
Nope just burnt at the steak.
with the Irish and English accents its like two wizards talking about life
If people in the world can talk and agree to disagree like this the world would be a better place
I could watch these two debate ALL DAY. Not a lot of ego, tons of substance and great points.
It was a good debate. I remain an atheist, and happily so.
Sorry we have a true rational man, Dawkins, and an old believer in fairy tales!! No evidence of God my friend Johnny!! Poor old man is hopelessly deluded bullshitting away!!
Dawkins no ego?
There is zero substance in what Dawkins says, he's pro pedophilia and cannibalism. Anti science top to bottom.
How can you think they both made great points?
Two very different people with very different views, still sound like old mates at the pub
but with hundreds of other folks and blokes eavesdropping on very word...
Lennox owned dawkins tho
@@fatezero1919 ...Lennox did seem to be welding the whiphand...a spanking is something Dawkins usually doesn't get from the lame and limp wrist liberal clergy he normally debates...but the tastiest morsel was Lennox force feeding Dawkins a full reversal on the existence of Jesus...talk about your "historical" HAThEist backpedals...In the Academy, Lennox has philosophical and scientific gravitas and Dawkins had to acknowledge it...
@@fatezero1919 he really didn't
@@fatezero1919 how tho?
This is how every debate should be carried on.
Polite, respectful and intelligent.
Thank you for posting this.
@ANDY LUMEH © I bring you Gold. Post is for writing thoughts and opinion about the video, NOT for preaching. Please go to church for this.
Also, a debate in which they've both actually READ EACH OTHERS' BOOKS.
not really, people who worship gods that drown babies and write an entire book about how to kill people, while forgiving them for being despicable themselves, needs to be debunked. the god of christian mythology is one of the sickest characters imaginable, and thepeople who worship him are just a sickminded.
@@HarryNicNicholas You have a darkness in you.
I have to take issue with the use of the term intelligent here
Probably the best "debate" I've ever seen on the topic of God and atheism. Not least because they both used good arguments but also because it was more a discussion than a debate, although it was obviously a debate with very different viewpoints. Thanks for this great piece of content!!
You actually think RD thinks. RD believes we got the universe by "literally nothing."
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block According to L. Krauss, the universe consists of zero energy. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, the universe did not come about form "nothing", but zero energy. That is where creationists have it all wrong. They do not understand physics or even try to. I think that how the universe was created is less important than what we should do about it. How does believing in a god help mankind?
@@cynic150 @2fast2block is having an internal crisis. He can’t accept getting fooled.
For me it’s a flawed debate because I think the two gentlemen exist in different sorts of worlds.
Dawkins is a scientist not a philosopher, and Lennox is clearly more involved in the philosophical side of religion. It leads to a sort of problem whereby both sides struggle with an opposite side of the debate.
Lennox couldn’t comprehend some of Dawkins scientific points and that’s a shame as it slows down the debate a lot. Dawkins was right when he labelled it an argument from personal incredulity.
Similarly Dawkins struggled more with the philosophical side, about meaning and morality imo.
Nice debate still, friendly and respectable.
@@2fast2block RD doesn’t know how the universe came to be, and he’d rather hedge his bets with the side that has generally been on the ‘winning’ side in terms of explaining what we understand of the world.
To say he believes anything else is strawmanning him
I really like that they don't interrupt each other
That's English gentleman-ness
Me too
@@englishenglish444 gddeededse. V
Very refreshing
@@englishenglish444 att
I have apreciated a lot that none clapped hands
It's because this debate takes place in the UK where people are trying to listen to ideas rather than trying to take sides and listen to two people "tOtAlLy OwN" each other.
John Lennox.Wipe that smirk of your face and try to give an intelligent answer
Who maje your head bold
@@orlandoalmeida1161 His intelligence is matched with wisdom. Ticks you off, doesn't it?
Yeah, these are the kind of debates that I enjoy, unstructured, and a simple back-and-forth discussion.
@illyapopov5636: it seems that what you really enjoy is debates that end with neither side having won, and nothing is accomplished.
"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins.
@@Merlinever I don't see it that way, you have a debate between two differing views and you are allowed to decide for yourself which side of the argument you agree with. While watching this I was constantly thinking back to the Presidential "debates" between Trump and Biden and my amazement (fear, actually) that one of the two was going to be the leader of the western world.
@@davidtuer5825: "I don't see it that way, you have a debate between two differing views and you are allowed to decide for yourself which side of the argument you agree with."
The side I agree with is the one with the argument backed up by reason, logic, and verifiable facts of reality (please see my original comment above).
"While watching this I was constantly thinking back to the Presidential "debates" between Trump and Biden and my amazement (fear, actually) that one of the two was going to be the leader of the western world."
I admit that i had the very same fear; for at least the last four or five decades the choice we've been given when choosing the next president hasn't been between a good candidate and a better one, but between a horrible candidate and a slightly (hopefully) less horrible one; when Trump was elected, we got the slightly less horrible one; during his presidential campaign, Trump made a number of promises on very important issues - promises that got him' elected. But after having been elected, he did a 180 degree flip of most if not all of those promises or simply ignored them. For example, he had promised that if elected he would bring home all of our troops and stop fighting all of these endless, extremely expensive, useless foreign wars. Then, shortly after being elected, he issued a statement saying that he would bring home some unspecified number of our troops at some future, unspecified date. Later, he greed to send an ADDITIONAL 20,000 of our troops to Afghanistan.
I can think of a long list of such betrayals, but it will take me some time to gather them along with the appropriate links for verification.
The bottom line: Trump is far from the great savior that most people have deluded themselves into believing he is.
@@Merlinever Well, to be clear, my thought was, were these two the best you could find out of 360million? I chose to mention that debate to illustrate what a debate wasn't, I supported neither. But then I'm South African/ British and you might say I have no right to express a view on your country's choice of leader but your country is now the leader of the free world, your leader is our leader. But to revert to the origin of our correspondence, there could be no winner there, neither proposition is provable so you go with the one which seems most likely, or, like me you may find that even after such an articulate exchange of views by two brilliant minds I could not decide whether one was right and one was wrong. But I was left with a clearer idea of what the the issues were.
I agree, often with the more structured debates each side will make three or four points at varying levels, and then the opposite side will also make three or four points.
Then it’s a matter of one side trying to unpack the entirety of the 4 points made while also defending their own 4 points from attack, so on and so forth.
Often the finer detail gets lost in such debates, and it’s sort of more about who can pump out more arguments than it is about understanding the strength of the singular main argument.
This debate was excellent at this, neither side ever really made more than one or two points before the other had a chance to come back and debate this position. It was more of a discussion than a debate in this regard, and it’s much nicer to listen to and much easier to understand.
To me it is remarkable that this planet is populated on one hand by individuals as well-spoken as these two and on the other hand by people whose vocabulary consists of about 150 words.
If you bothered, you might find that on average … these two mostly used 150 words.
@@shirleymason7697Perhaps, but there is a vast difference between using the same appropriate words often when discussing a particular topic and having a limited vocabulary which causes few words and often the wrong ones to be used during all discussions on all topics.
@@Apokalypsiis What are you going on about? Others were mocking the vocabulary used here. I pointed out that they may have used a limited vocabulary here, but that it was appropriate.
@@just_me2797 ah, my bad. Replied to you instead of the creator of this thread.
and yall fools like to overcomplicate language to fulfill your own personified inquiries lmaooo their is no need to talk like this in basic conversation. simplicity is beautiful
How great would be if we could watch the 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate, or other great minds from earlier centuries here on RUclips.
One of the best debates I have ever heard! Civility and mutual respect combined to produce a wonderful experience.
Me too. I really love this debate. The pursuit and purpose of debate should be focused on the truth only, not trying to justify one's opinion. Of course, when you debate you need to defend your position to persuade that your position is right and the other one is wrong, but you shouldn't be trying to win an argument just because you want to win in a debate. The purpose of debate is to investigate and test the truth, not the other way around. I'm just 16 minutes in with this video and I really like their attitude.
Because for a second Lennox makes believe that believing in talking snakes isn't stupid. Newsflash : it is.
@@francoisona he doesn't say believing in talking snakes is reasonable, but in God. If God is reasonable, then anything can be possible - logic.
@@namgan93 GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) SO, THE EARTH (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form/manifestation in accordance with the universal fact that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is why the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 Yeah but can you stick out your tongue and touch your eyebrow?
I LOVE watching these two spar. It's very much almost like watching a UFC or any sort of combat sport, but on an intellectual level
Yeah, almost 😳
if one fighter was connor mcgregor and the other a drunk religious donkey with its legs tied up yes.
@@hansenbee123 Haha I was going to say Dawkins is kind of the Iron Mike of this one, then.
@@hansenbee123 Dawkins got schooled as he admitted Jesus Christs existed and is looking at Lennox like a student learning something. So I don't get what you mean by religious donkey with his legs tied?
@@billscannell93 More like paper Mike cause he got ripped up.
Regardless to agree or disagree with what they said ,l accept and agree with many who believe that their presentation of ideas and patience to hear and tolerate the difference of opinion Is really surprising and worth appreciation .
Debates must be conducted in this manner . Wow highly appreciated.
As a Christian it was refreshing to see Richard Dawkins’ humility in this conversation. You can tell it by the way he would listen, answer every question, be honest in his beliefs. I really enjoy listening to him. He’s different than other atheist IMO
Many athiests run out of patience after hearing the same claims year after year.
I guess that's the main difference between "many athiests" and Dawkins. Dawkins is in it to educate people.
@@Dennis19901 True. Now to be fair.. atheist say the same things over and over again too. I’m impressed however with Dawkins ability to stay calm and collected.
@@jared3235 "| atheist say the same things over and over again too. "
Most of them, yes.
But when someone makes the same arguments after another (many theists get their arguments from apologetic sites), the response to such an argument is going to be the same.
If you hear the god of the gaps argument (a favorite one among believers) 100 times, how are you going to respond differently 100 times?
This is an honest question by the way. I'm not excusing anyone getting arrogant or annoyed in responses.
@@Dennis19901 Good point. This is why I listen to these debate over and over again. These individuals are so smart and it’s a blessing to have them share their reasoning with us.
It amazes me how much time people spend thinking about this subject.
@@jared3235 "This is why I listen to these debate over and over again."
Same for me. I'm in it more for the reasoning they often use. I think some of those "famous athiests" for a lack of better term, use very beautiful reasoning
I admire both of these men, the way they present themselves, the way they speak, thought.
is that what u taking home? "these men are so nice"
ikr
@@thelawless1523 His valid assessment ticks you off, eh? What I take away from this debate is the huge difference between mere intelligence and intelligence coupled with wisdom!
TV; I admire nobody such as this person no matter what his intellect that tries and attempts to discredit God. I consider such enemies of God a disgrace and do not honor such men at all.
I hear Dawkins expressing a bitter notion about who God is and since he feels this, it is easier for him to dismiss God all together.
I am so impressed with John Lennox. The intelligence and candour in his replies was great. Continuously challenged Dawkins’ thoughts and I also commend Dawkins for his cadence and points which were fair. I believe John won this debate with excellence and pure genius. Frankly I understood every point he has made so far, half way through the vid.
I really don't understand how this silly child called lennox can even be included in the league of freethinkers. ?
Grow up.@@thepalebluedot4171
This is one of the greatest back-and-forth discussions I have ever heard.
You must be a Christian for thinking this was a good debate
@@francoisona yeah. I think it was kinda boring. I hoped for more
@@francoisona And why do you say that? Why do you think it was NOT a good debate?
@@francoisona NAAA SURELY AN IDIOT
@@MrDaiseymay 🤭
every debate is 1 or 1.30 hour long , can't they extend it to 3 ???
That's what I'm saying, they could talk for literal hours, so let them.
Yet they still wouldn't establish the whole 'God' thing because it is beyond our understanding, this is what dawkins fails to acknowledge or realise.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 hi objectified ignorance...
How are you babes..?
Look at what they sit, who the heck would be able to sit for a couple of hours.
Really great discussion. I love both these speakers and the points they have made .I don’t mean to disrespect Any speaker but as an Agnostic I like the points which Professor Lennox made than that of Professor Dawkins . No disrespect to both these speakers .
The Philosopher MMA you miserable idiot
One is right and one is wrong. There is nothing disrespectful about choosing which debater you think is correct. For my part I cannot imagine how anyone watching honestly and objectively could think Lennox won, or even had an intelligible argument.
@@TrickyArmyMan Maybe because it's a debate and there's an expectation that Dawkins won't simply scoff and ignore him?
@@billscannell93 He spoke a lot and people would conclude the one who spoke the most won. As I said on another comment, I felt as eloquent of arguments that were made by Dr. Lennox, I felt his conclusions were not correct. He arguments were the seeming there is a God or therefore this must be God. The God of the gaps argument was quite apparent.
@@CAMM-CynthiaM I don't think that was the case at all. In fact, I don't see how you can call Lennox's arguments eloquent when they held no meaning. He kept insisting on diverting the topic of conversation from the scientific view of the universe to magical resurrections, virgin births and other strange and wonderful (frightening?) things that never happened, would never happen, could never happen. Religion scares me. It scares me to hear an obviously bright man insist on insane things.
Such a respectful and great conversation between great minds!
Before I get crucified, pardon the pun, I'm agnostic, so I have no bias.
I just want to know one thing, why is it that that Richard Dawkins always looks angry and bitter but Prof Lennox looks happy bubbly and cuddly (I just wanna pinch his cheeks!) lol
I would love to talk to Professor Lennox ONLY because I just feel like if, for example, I made a scientific mistake, Richard Dawkins would be pissed off and call me an idiot rather correct me, and then finish off by telling me I'm petty 😂😂😂😂😂
Well even if you believe Lennox is delusional, he does have a hope beyond this life; whereas Dawkins has a nihilistic, ultimately purposeless viewpoint that often leads to despair... cheers!
Haha yeah😂
Socrates probably also felt a bit bitter when he was forced to drink poison for impiety. Victorious lynch mobs and their faith-based leaders tend to be a happy bunch when they're given free reign to con, coerce, and control others. If you were sent back in time with the mission of convincing primitive people that no, the phenomenon of lightning and thunder aren't indicative of the gods' anger, they're natural things explicable through a more refined understanding of meteorology and careful observation, you might start to feel a twinge or two of bitterness as well, especially if "corrupting the minds of young people" was among the charges brought against you.
People even in 2020 continue to make the very old error of anthropomorphization, attributing human-like characteristics to non-human forces or things. The idea that whatever forces created the universe would share in common with humans things like jealousy, hate, or love, is on its face ridiculous as much as thinking earthquakes or floods happen because your country allows gay people in the military. People believe this shit by the hundreds of millions. Is it any wonder materialists are often a sullen bunch?
He's got something to hide
@@marianskodowski8337 Do you mean Dawkins has something hide? Well, if you do then it is usually the case with Atheism. Christianity allows a person to come into the light because God is light!!
This was an excellent discussion!
I salute John Lennox. What a wonderful person you are. May God continue to bless you with wisdom. We need more man of God like you.
He made no sense whatsoever. Completely irrational and spoke in theories.
he's a sophisticated idiot
@joeturner9219 No, that’s a fact. If Lennox had any evidence for any god, he failed to show any.
How about natural selection? he says it's a "mechanical, blind force". seems like a theory to me @@Knightley79
@FourDeuce01 same for Dawkins and his atheistic view
This is definitely the best and most respectful debate between atheist and Christian … both men are adorable ❤ I can listen to them talking forever. Still I pray Richard will one day come to the truth. I pray for that 🙏
As a Christian I'm gonna say the truth, Richard admits that nothing will convince him of god jesus can comeback on judgement day he'll still not believe and the stars could write his name and he still won't believe
Not sure I would regard Dawkins as "adorable" (Lennox on the other hand I can sort of see).
@@tomsmith2181 now I totally agree with you 😐 when I first watched the debates, I thought he was respectful and then I watched a few videos where he called all his debating opponents “fools”, I realized that he was just a liar
The fact that this channel only has 14k subscribers shows that few people actually take their own beliefs seriously.
Lmao because everyone know evolution is made up
@@howtodoit4204 Yet you have never read a single academic paper on it.
Far fewer even bother to explore.
16 mins in and this has to be the best debate format i have ever seen in my life. OMG, i love this!
You hate it or do you love it?
@@newonebro5767 He loves it
I sense a lot of anger in Dawkins and peace in Lennox.
Dawkins is bitter than he's a failed scientist and takes it out on religion, gives him something to make money off and become a celebrity. If it wasn't for him angrily railing against religion, nobody would know who he is.
Lol, Richard is a Goat. I don’t see at all how he is angry. He is just getting annoyed at John for saying stupid things.
I agree, even if you completely take away the topic of conversation, the language and words used were much more offensive, patronising, he worked hard to degrade the other argument, Lennox didn't try to degrade the other argument he just gave his beliefs respectfully.
Because Dawkins lives in reality and Lennox lives in a fairytale
@@SagaciousFrankin what way is he a failed scientist? He literally held one of the most prestigious positions at Oxford?
The only reason we can do science is because of Gods never changing laws. Thank you Jesus💜💙❤️
When it first showed the narrator, I was like "holy crap, it's Tom Green", then they showed him again and I realized it wasn't him. I was simultaneously disappointed and relieved.
Wow John Lennox has made my belief in God grow to new heights. Thank you Sir!
But he kept changing the subject and making wooly points. You already had a belief so I doubt you were open minded.
This says a lot more about you than it does about John Lennox, Harry.
What? how? Lennox's arguments were weak and quite frankly astoundingly childish for a man of his intellect.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 You can only make that point if you haven't similarly simply grown up in atheistic household. Not saying you did, but if you did not it is hypocritical.
@@teks-kj1nj One must explain why that is; not simply say they were.
You know it's a good debate when you're telling yourself
"That's a good Point"
"whoa that's a good point too"
"Whoaaa that's another good point"
"Whoaaaaaaaaa..."
At what point did John Lennox made any good point?
@@rmr5044
Dawkins only makes good points if your willing to listen. Willful and intentional ignorance is a very real thing, you can't know or believe what you don't want to know or believe.
Ignorance is not just what you don't know, it is also what you won't know.
~ AronRa
To believe in god requires a very narrow mind and anything that contradicts your belief must be intentionally disregarded in order to maintain the belief. Christians believe the planet is 6000 years old when reality has proven the world is billions of years old, this is an extreme example of willful ignorance at it's best. If Kakashi wants to know what real philosophical fallacies are they should try reading the bible. Kakashi didn't hear any good points from Dawkins because he/she didn't want to hear anything that would contradict what they believe. Kakashi's ignorance is willful, therefore you might as well be talking to a wall or a rock.
@@rmr5044
Yes, I was agreeing with your comment to Kakashi. I just added to it lol. I know your on Dawkins's side.
@@rmr5044 To believe in atheism requires a very narrow mind and anything that contradicts your belief must be intentionally disregarded in order to maintain the belief. Carbon dating is proven many times flawed and it is built upon an assumption that the conditions on Earth were always the same. Your religion of Atheism is nothing more than a bunch of assumptions and whenever there is something contradicting, you call it anomaly.
@@rmr5044 You are blind believer of your religion of nothing, cant see the hypocrisy and errors of your sharatan speaker/"scientist" . Dont all that science of assumption on what were the conditions on Earth before go to your head. All the fathers of science were religios, they must be stupid also..... You know nothing, NOT one good argument, all based on blind faith.
This is so comforting to listen to two giants making productive conversation in such an aesthetic way; who wins over another appears to be a secondary consideration. If you ask me, GOD needs no one to speak for the recognition is distinctive veracity in the university they are in the verbal row. The signs are everywhere; if you don't want to see them, then this is not about forcing and compelling. No compulsion is in the religion. These debates must continue to open the minds of people in order to comprehend the notions - alien to you - so that you could see what is wrong and true. What matters is the verisimilitude, eventually -- and both sides believe in that. Period.
The first debate video about God's existence that I understood from start to finish. These two are very clear in their words that even a person like me with no background of what they are talking about can understand clearly.
They're British lol incredibly poignant
I could understand everything too, and English isn't even my first language.
Lennox is the nicest guy ever.
i am an atheist. but i have to say he is so niceeee.
Ameeen... ☺️ He is so honest debater...
But a fool
@@chrisbuesnell3428 lol why’s that
But definitely not the smartest guy ever.😂
I deeply respect these two very much. They were so respectful during the conversation. Serious truths stuffs about the big questions of life.
Believe me the only reason Dawkins is being respectful is that he knows he has a strong opponent.
You should check out some videos of him at atheist conventions where he shows pictures of a crucifix and mocks to applause from his army of slaves.
Exactly! Dawkins is a jerk.
@@bluegtturbo Post examples of this claim.
You clap because for a second Lennox made you believe that believing in talking snakes isn't stupid. Newsflash: it is.
@@francoisona It is a rare treat to read such an engaging and thoughtful refutation.
I think the arguments in part were fuelled by emotion in places but there were sections on the final 3rd of this debate where I think Lennox was guided by the Holy spirit and articulated very well. Great discussion.
Why tf didn't the holy spirit help him articulate earlier?
I'm not sure. One thing I do know is we are in a constant battle with our own flesh. That includes allowing our own ego and carnal wisdom to overcloud the quiet voice within...namely The Holy Spirit.
@@Superpowerless1 it’s a shame the Holy Spirit felt the need to guide a man in a useless debate as opposed to guiding millions of starving children to clean drinking water and food.
@@borbafatt that's our job
@@Superpowerless1 so what part of our job involves preventing earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, disease and all the other natural disasters of the natural world that humans couldn’t possibly influence. I guess all those millions of dead babies were just part of God‘s plan.
Science doesn’t have the ability to bury God. He is bigger than mere humans. He gives the choice to believe or not.
Nobody knows a god even exists, so you can't just say he's bigger than humans. You can't even say a god exists. (Which is why "bury god" is silly from the atheist side too: to bury something it'd need to first exist and be alive.) Until someone presents strong, logical evidence of a god, the entire conversation is just one group irrationally believing while the other group wishes the first would care about truth.
@majm9309 same for atheism
Logic roughly speaking doesn't represent whole of reality.
@@majm9309- How about the 4th dimension , that does it for me ! If the past is eternal then how could the present be here OR if not then how can nothing be something! There's an EMANATOR needed asat ! 👁️🎱🌈😹
@@johnbyrnes7912 Remind me: what did your "emanator" come from? Nothing. Because I once heard someone ask "how can nothing be something?"
Basically either (a) everything or (b) not everything has a cause. If A, an uncaused god cannot exist. If B, a god isn't needed (any given thing might be uncaused).
So the fact remains that we just don't know.
In fact the same sort of logic you're using (if past is eternal, how could present be here?) which indicates that impossibility _also suggests uncaused things magically existing forever_ would be impossible, yeah? Either way our expectations break if we learned the actual truth.
And that should be obvious, given you *retreated immediately* from the topic of "god" and ended up with an "emanator". You seem to already admit you don't know to some degree, I just think you should be honest and back up to where the evidence actually gets us, which is basically nowhere.
Best way to "debate", a real conversation.
*_"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him."_* - Louis Pasteur (Founder of microbiology and immunology)
Very true and also very ironic.
For it is molecular biology (the extension of microbiology) that is starting to shed light on exposing his false theories on selfish genes and blind watchmakers.
References: see Dawkins Vs. Dennis Nobel at IAI and the origin of life lectures by Prof. James Tour.
Actually, molecular biology is not an extension of microbiology, it's a subset of it. And it certainly does not contradict the explanation of the selfish gene theory.
I am in awe of these two great minds. I have been following Dawkins for some time and have been impressed by his views and analysis. I have been far less familiar with Lennox, but this debate gave a powerful insight into his grasp of the issues and his wealth of knowledge. If I was to call it, I would give the debate to Lennox, who was calm and effortless in putting across his points. There is almost an inverse relationship between the strength of an argument and one's humility. Without embellishment or ornamentation, the quality of the argument speaks for itself. Dawkins was extremely eloquent but seemed at times defensive and even conceded that historians over the centuries have recognized the existence to Jesus (dialing back on his earlier point). To me, I will keep an open mind and will continue to imbibe more knowledge from such civilized, open exchange of views.
I am Christian but to claim Lennox won because she was calm and Dawkins agreed that Jesus could have been real is more than stupid. Most atheists agreed that Jesus is real. They rather only disagree with the spiritual aspects and morality behind religion. If you are open minded you should pick side only based on points made. And I don’t think u are doing any of that.
Lennox made a desperate impression in this debate, to put it bluntly. His only argument is a huge and drawn-out ‘what if’. The only reason why Dawkins might have been on the back-foot was because he was talking to a brick wall and probably concerned about Lennox’s - and at times his own - sanity. That’s my impression at least.
I have no idea what Lennox’s background is, but he should look into academic theology, that might be an eye-opener.
Lennox is dogmatic. Dawkins is open minded. The reason why thinking is the most difficult job, is that you got to set feelings aside, your opinions aside, and face the objective facts. Just imagine hurting your own feelings?
@@gitaujeremiah1381 wow. very concise summary, thank you!
In human history, most people believed Earth was flat. The number of people believing in a nonsense is not a good argument.
Great debate, great minds. Lennox wins this one for me. One thing though is, Dawkins keep saying don't care and petty, a bit arrogance in my view.
It's not arrogant, it's true. The view Christianity provides, I can only describe as petty and small-minded. It doesn't do justice to the grandeur of life and the intricacies of the universe to suggest that human life's nothing more than a game to see whether you worship Jesus for eternity or roast in hell after you're dead.
@@jmcsquared18 science is not small minded you fool,,your contradicting yourself
jmcsquared also the fact that you think that when you don’t follow Jesus is eternal punishment is astounding. Scripture says that after we return to the new earth that the wicked will be like ashes under your feet. Meaning you shouldn’t just fear a god that can destroy your body and not your soul. But fear one that destroys both. So no he’ll isn’t eternal. It’s the annihilation of sin and the souls of sinners where they cease to exist. Basically what Dawkins thinks happens after death will really happen but in the process they will feel temporary pain and suffering of the ripping of their souls. Which will entail the end of the wicked and satan’s existence. I guess atheists like Christopher Hitchens win in that aspect because they will have full separation from god.
@@Mommascooking420 But I mean, like, do you have proof that any of that is true?
@@jmcsquared18 In 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, Paul writes that God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the “wise”, emphasizing that true wisdom comes from God, not human understanding….
You can't argue against belief, there just no point in it
.
Do you really believe that?
You can't use rationality to get someone out of a position if they haven't used rationality to get themselves in that position. Belief in gods is irrational, thus rationality has no bearing on their belief. It is true, according to them, no matter how useless the 'evidence' is.
Such a wonderful debate between the two. John Lennox is the best christian apologist. "In the beginning there was a Word the Word was with God and the Word was God" . John 1:1.
As a Christian and scientist, I appreciate both men for talking around difficult points in our human thoughts. May God bless them, especially Dr. Lennox. May the good news of Jesus continue be shared through his teachings 🙏
Some times answers to questions lead to more questions and need more complex answers. Nice that they debated in a friendly respectful manner.
Such a good debate. From 40 mins in you could tell they were really listening to each other's points. Wish Lennox asked the omnipotent question better though at 1:02:50
Omnipotent - but no question of overriding laws of nature
The answer to the omnipotence question is that the brokennesss and sin we see around us is not actually a deficiency in our design but the cause of free will in our design. So God being omnipotent didnt create a faulty product but endowed us with free will. We then chose to use this free will to destroy oursleves.
@@nathanvarghese. but he didn't answer the question in our design. If there is faults on people design if they are mentally or physically disabled or born with conditions...why? Why did God do this?
36:57 is my favorite part. I wish more people approached conversations like this. (context, pettiness was referring to what richard said about God/the idea of a divine Being; not attacking richard as being petty in case people skipped over that part)
39:45 I believe that Dawkins cannot imagine that a God so great would bother with our mundane thoughts is because Dawkins cannot fathom the idea of being so great yet being so bothered by someone of less greatness.
I believe that somewhere in there, there is desire to believe but I pray that the pride within him cracks enough to let the light of God in.
Nonetheless, the debate was lovely to listen to. I appreciate both men and have gratitude for both, more so John, who has helped me transform my own beliefs.
These are very weird assumptions about the thoughts of another. And they don't fit Dawkins at all. His argument there is based not on an emotional stance but on a logical one. He takes the observation that a Human wouldnt give any thoughts of looking out for every ant of an very specific ant Hill and being mad when the ants don't do as he wants them to and expands that to the relationship between god and humans. in the great scheme of things the lives of people dont matter at all compared to the universe. even much less than an ant Hill does compared to earth. Now I would also make an assumption about you, which is that you just Interpret his Character in such a way because your own Standpoint on that subject is very clear and in your mind undoubtetely set in stone. And as Dawkins thinks the complete opposite, you infer into his thinking that deep down he is on your side. That way your side wins after all. If you dont agree with me here at all, thats how your comment feels. If I might give you another analogue example of how that Sounds, your comment is exactly the same like an atheist telling theists that deep down they know there is something wrong with the believe in a god and that they know he is not real and actually they only tell others about their secure belief to cope with their doubts. I do not think that is Something you would agree with or like. It very much implies that your opponent thinks of you as a less sophisticated person like a parent of a child telling you "well, he just doesnt know better"
For me the question that insists on not keeping silent is: "Why did Dawkins run away from the debate with Craig"?
@Roderick Agol lmao. Keep telling yourself that in order to cling to your unsubstantiated claims.
Respect for both of those gentelmans, this debate was extreamly interesting
Fantastic discussion, love the camaraderie between two sort of frenemies, so to speak, the respect is present
Watching this after I watched Dr. Tour vs Dropout Dave. Gotta give it to these two for keeping the debate civilized. I can sense the mutual respect they have for each other.
Right when Dawkins said "so what," I would have said, "well, if you go to your car afterwards and it is smashed up because someone was looking to steal your possessions and you call the cops. You then say "someone broke into my car and they reply with 'so what,' and you accept that, then you will have known your concept has been applied on you. Can you live with it the way you casually dismissed with "so what" in your own words?" You can play games with justice until injustice happens to you, then all of a sudden a person will appeal to justice. Lennox messed up there.
I came here to watch this debate after struggling with God on a huge personal issue if suffering. I’m not struggling with suffering in general - theoretically. No! I personally am suffering and have been for a long time going through trials and tribulations as a Christian woman who’s serving God faithfully every day and lives a single and celibate life dedicated to Jesus for more than 5 years. The fact that my suffering has been repeatedly ordained by God is incomprehensible to me, yet that’s what the book of Job demonstrates: God ordains suffering for His faithful followers.
I’ve seen this PREACHED from the puppet, and it’s extremely theoretical and not personable.
John is the best minister.
John, how you deconstructed Christianity and explained EVERYTHING difficult so brilliantly is so profound.
What can I say?
I’m leaving this debate a STRONGER believer, and you, John, are God’s glory on display, indeed! Thank you.
I appreciate that the two of them can be professional and intelligent and respectful but part of me wonders if anyone is ever persuaded to change their preexisting point of view from one of these. Listening to the interviews of the audience members at the end made me think that maybe these really do have value to those who are still questioning. I'm glad John Lennox and Richard Dawkins have a good enough rapport that these debates can happen. More power to them.
You say this cause for a second Lennox made you believe that believing in talking snakes isn't stupid. Newsflash: it is.
@@francoisona For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18
@@stephenpeppin5537 Substituting verses for thoughts - The paragon of Christians' reasoning skills. Stephen, I know this indoctrination is not something you can grow out of easily. Been there but learn to think for yourself.
Ok let's try this. Gita is a hindu charity worker. She spends every breathing moment of her life helping others spending any little money she earns alleviating suffering, helping the poor with no care for herself and what she wants. When you ask her why she says: ' it makes me happy to see people happy'. She does not accept Jesus into her heart. She accepts Vishnu and other gods. Question for you: does Gita deserve eternal suffering/ be abandoned by god? 'No one goes to the kingdom of my father but through me' sorta thing. Is the fate that according to your faith awaits her fair?
@@francoisona
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. Romans 2:13-15
For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. 1 Corinthians 4:4,5
@@stephenpeppin5537 That’s not clever, Stephen. That’s intellectual cowardice. Pure and simple. You hide behind verses so as not to express a view. I think that’s all very pathetic really. The single most important pillar of your faith is that you must accept your hippy Jesus as your personal saviour. Isnt that the deal. I die and you telll me how great I am to have died (never mind that I came back to life)?
If the word salad above is to be construed as an exception to that, it means that your bible contains lies and your christianity counts for nothing. One can live not believing in your lord and still get to have eternal life.
This is what your religion has reduced you to Stephen, staying silent and hiding behind meaningless waffle so as not to engage what you clearly saw as an injustice to Gita.
I guess I should say well done for not throwing her under the bus but it costs you your intellectual integrity in the process. Like I said; Quite pathetic. Really.
Dont respond if you’re going to quote more word salad to masquerade your ineptitude to think for yourself as some kind of selective erudition.
20:45 - He says that the more sophisticated a mechanism is, the more likely it is to point towards an agent instead of a complex mechanism, but doesn't really explain the relationship between sophistication and the need for an agent.
This what happens when the audience isn’t there to engage to seek clarification, I would have loved to get more clarification l.
He later has an analogy, the watch is blind and automatic but it was design by something, it doesn’t exist just like that, there must be an intelligent mind designing all of this and fine tuning…
I now believe in a God Creator more than ever before
That's a shame
@@arlencarroll1964 not at all. It's liberating
It's called delusion. If it makes life easier for you, and it doesn't encroach on me then happy days, enjoy.
@@PaulHattlejerk off do need to be hater did you not see the debate that demonstrate respect for individual stance in thoughts and opinions?
@@PaulHattle To believe in the God of the Bible makes it easier because He gives you all assurance about eternal life & He gives you true peace. The hard thing is to follow Christ is to be hated in this world. And in the end you have to be ready to die for your faith. (When persecution will grow)
”“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.”
John 15:18-19
At least the third time I have watched this discussion now, always learn something new from both sides. Although I am biased towards Prof. Lennox.
I feel the same way! I'm biased towards professor dawkins
@Carlow Ancelotti How did you arrive at that conclusion that people that believe in God don't have any evidence? Do you have any scientific evidence to support that statement?
@Carlow Ancelotti DNA contains information that is copied, read, translated, corrected for errors, by nano machines which are irreducibly comple. The ATP Synthase Motor which spins at 7,000 RPM and is 99% efficient, makes half your body weight everyday in ATP, the energy currency of the cell, without which you would die.
Where you have information, you have a non-physical mind, only the Mind of God could've programmed our DNA as the information is not a property of the molecule itself as it contains specified complexity. The information stored on the DNA molecule is not a property of the molecule itself.
Do you know of any computer program that originally didn't have a Programmer?
@Carlow Ancelotti I was expecting that response, you sound like Matt Dilahunty, 'If God exists then He would know what evidence I would accept', just an argument from personal incredulity.
@@hwd7 How is that an evidence for God? It's just biology.
Dawkins is head knowledge, whereas Lennox is head knowledge & heart knowledge.
To know God, a person has to have a heart conversation. 🙏 for Mr Dawkins to have a heart conversion. ❤️
Heart knowledge as you call it is emotion, and facts don't care about emotion lol.
@@jsar5409Actually when christians talk about heart they are talking about the soul. Its not actually emotions but the soul open to the possibility of love who leads to an attitude as of Lennox.
Everything enters through the mind (or head, as you say), but some things eventually must sink down to the heart in order to reveal their true meaning.
We can only 'see' the one true God by learning to use the space between our mind and heart. If something is all mind, it remains just cold hard fact (much like scientific fact) and God dies (or is killed) in such an environment. Such things and facts can be written down on paper, contained in a test tube or recorded in some physical shape or firm. On the other hand, if something is all heart it is like romantic love (or evangelical Christians), totally irrational.
The knowledge of an objective good and evil is discovered only in the space between mind and heart and this freedom of knowing has been granted to the human race alone. No other species in the universe can or will have such ability. The freedom to question ones own existence is truly a gift. It is in itself the ultimate act of love granted us by the one true God. Without it we can never truly love Him (or anyone else).
It doesn’t matter how much they disagree, it’s civilized, gentle, and steeped in rationality even if I totally disagree with Lennox.
Going with RD, you're NOT rational. RD believes we got the universe by "literally nothing." To a tiny brain like yours, you're fine with that.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
3:43 lol the guy on the far right is like, "ooops, I hope nobody noticed me breaking the rules 😶"
Lmao he looked so upset
A very interesting topic and a very nice discussion. I appreciate this two
@ANDY LUMEH © I bring you Gold.
😵😵😵
Nutty
The majority of John Lennox arguments boils down to personal incredulity. I'm so glad he's not in charge of science curriculum in schools. "I believe god did it" would be the beginning and ending of every chapter.
How so? He isn’t straw manning Dawkin’s scientific explanations and understanding of the universe because he’s a mathematician. They both seems come to a mutual understanding that science gives room for evidence that the universe was created.... but how or by whom is the question. Both of them are using evidences based off of science, personal experience, logic, and reason but are coming to two very different conclusions. Of course Lennox has his own ideas about creation... but science has its own set of beliefs too.
@@brookemoore8369 "science has its own set of beliefs too". No, that is not how science is done. If it can't be proven, then the 'belief' (hypothesis) is tossed out. If it can be proven, why call it a belief?
Oren Arieli Because they both come to the same conclusion.... The universe was created. Science gives way towards understanding how it was created by evidence, but it does not know right now how it was created because the evidence for that isn’t available. Therefore, science “believes” or “has faith” that one day it will have the evidence. Of course, based upon facts, logic, and reasoning.
@@OrenArieli how does science explains the origin of life?
All the great scientists, the philosophers, theologians are painstakingly climbing up the unsurmoutable mountain of the real truth , and when the time they reached the apex they are greeted there with Christians and offer them a cup of coffee.😊 ❤
I’m in the Lennox camp on this one but great to see two renowned intellectuals having such a mutually respectful debate.
Mr. Lennox sure does have a lot of patience. I missed seeing him speak at my University back in 2015.
How on earth did you get into university? You do know which of the two gentlemen is Mr Lennox right?
@@johnnycharisma162 one mans success really took you so low that you resulted in being insulting and childish?🤣🤣🤣! I am praying that you are no older than twelve.....! Sad and sorry indeed!
@@johnnycharisma162 correction: one man's. 3 subscribers to your channel??? You go dude!!!!!
@@chereejohnson2400 my other account @charisma Johnny has 11,350 subscribers go check it out.
They both have a lot of patience.
Man must always be left in doubt. Otherwise he would have no Free Will to choose. To believe or not to believe. He is shown enough, but not too much. He is left free to disbelieve.
wise words brother
Romans 9:18-21 would disagree with you. Belief or disbelief for each individual is dictated by God. The Bible mentions this consistently throughout. If anyone is right about Christianity, it is the Calvinists. Free will is nothing but an illusion if God is omniscient.
@@loganleatherman7647 Clavin? You mean the chap who wrote "that man has choice and that it is self-determined" and that his actions stem from "his own voluntary choosing."
i firmly believe that God is the author of science, because the mystery of the nature explain there's SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING INVISIBLE who created it by proving through scientific study to answer it
But then you claim that his being cares about you ?
“The author of science.”
What a erroneous statement.
What makes me awe with this is the composure and class of these gentlemen.
As far as I know folks, neither the Buddha or Gandhi walked on water or turned water into wine and both those men changed the world as well, yes? YES. There ya go.
Is a point of demeaning Christianity?
They were not chosesn by god to do what jesus did for us
Not the best example. Almost all the earliest Buddhists believed the Buddha could and did fly and use various psychic powers.
Very nice debate I have ever listened to,The resource persons were very pleasant decent and meritorious. The audience also paid their attention very attentively. Thank you all.
@adharmawardhana7328: Only an audience of mindless sheep pays "their attention very attentively" without ultimately siding with one of the people in the debate over the other. Otherwise, what's the point of having the debate? If nothing is decided, noting is gained.
This debate shows in a viscerally clear way the big difference between mere intelligence and intelligence coupled with wisdom!
I didn't find either intelligence or wisdom in John Lennox. So who was the merely intelligent third person in the discussion?
@@lepidoptera9337 Really you don’t think John Lennox is intelligent? A professor of mathematics at oxford, published and successful author, and a well regarded philosopher. And you’re a line cook at Burger King. Talk about the dunning Kruger effect…
@@Ace-pb8iu John Lennox is mostly a self-serving Christian apologetic. He hasn't published anything of importance in mathematics. Somebody hired him for some unknown reason on a lifetime position and now they are stuck with a worthless professor at Oxford. :-)
@Lepi Doptera What a coincidence that nobody can find either intelligence or wisdom in any of your comments.
@@viktordoe1636 I am simply stating facts. Religious people hate facts. ;-)
I can't help wondering who taught Lennox about God and when, because if he'd never been taught about God would he be able to argue these points as this subject wouldn't even occur to him.
same thing goes with mr.dawkins
Maybe he read the Bible.
I can tell from what Lennox said that nobody ever taught him basic logic.🙈
@jrgenstorm6536 Ouch
@@FourDeuce01😂 ayyy
Wonderful to hear such a debate without personal attacks or vitriol.
Arthur Francis D. Murphy: Why should an opponent in a debate not be attacked for speaking in approval and promotion of systems of belief that treat lies as truth, myths as reality, and encourage delusional behavior?
22:38 I dont understand how DNA could have come from matter back then, why cant it do it now? Information could only be created from information. I cant see it any other way.
It is not possible to generate DNA with its full functionality just from the atoms of CHON, because there are introns and exons, that have very sophisticated splicing and what not functions.
@@iznij3284 your comment is pretty much adding nothing to the OP's question.
@@thegreekdeal4747 it's not a comment addressing OP, it was perspective on video itself....I was not debating here to add or subtract anything..cheers
the name of what you just said is "argument of personal incredulity"
it can't do it now, because it requires a slow and gradual process called evolution, which takes millions and billions of years
Kelvin Domingos hopefully you don’t believe in some sort of chemical soup that created the first life. I never said that you said that, I’m just curious what you believe about the first life.
24:00 - Would it really be impossible to believe that the cells were evolved and generated by natural forces, if you also assume that's the way God intended it to be?
This assumes facts not in evidence. There is no credible evidence for the existence of God.
@@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot Yeah but the question was about belief, not scientific proof. There are loads of things we can believe without evidence, but instead based on personal and/or logical rationalizations.
But I do agree with you, but only because there is no credible or authoritive consensus on the definition of God.
@@IsakAidee I believe in many things without evidence. If you tell me you own a dog, I would be inclined to believe you as many people own dogs.
If you said you owned a fire-breathing dragon, I would require evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It’s impossible to believe that happened by natural processes, there must be something super natural for that to happen, that’s John Lennox point.
@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot
Lack of evidence is not an evidence either. That is the whole point. The point of Dawkins is, there will NEVER be an evidence, which is quite radical but it is his beliefe rather than fact. We are not talking about dragons or dogs. We are talking about ultimate cause, is there a logos or not. And there is no answer, it is all about belief based on the knowledge gathered, including science and history and that is the point Lennox is puting forward, Christianity has evidence and it is up to you to believe it or not.
It never ceases to amaze me when naturalistic atheists claim "truth" for their metaphysical statements. This raises Pilate's question: what is "truth" for a naturalistic atheist? Augustine's "eternal truths" come to my mind, which - originally going back to Plato - were taken up by Leibniz as an argument for the existence of God.
Leibniz argues that spaceless and timeless immaterial truths, such as the laws of logic or the theorems of mathematics, apply independently of any real world and can therefore only be grounded in the Logos of God. According to Leibniz, there must be something that this non-material reality is based on. Following Leibniz, that something is God 'as the ultimate basis of the being or nature of things that are possible and necessary - or of eternal truths: 'If there were no eternal substance, there could be no eternal truths'. God is seen as the root of what is possible, for his spirit is the realm of ideas or truths.« [ Maria Rosa Antognazza, »Leibniz, a very short introduction«].
As a mathematician, I find this line of reasoning interesting. There is a certain irony in the fact that materialistic atheists, for whom brain processes are (as they themselves explain) mere reflexes, claim "truth" (an obviously immaterial category) for their supposed 'knowledge'. And if they think that, using logic and mathematics, they can establish a naturalistic materialism in which neither actually exists (or are ultimately just 'reflexes'...).
This is gibberish. Just say what you mean to say, rather than using vacuous terms and concepts akin to Jordan Petersons views on religion.
1:56 me talking to the cashier while my son is upset he didnt get chewing gum
Depending on Darwin to make a point is exactly why we're in the horrible mess we are in.
This debate was great. Dawkins and Hitchens are both personal heroes of mine and incredible debaters and Lennox seems to be an amazing match. Hes probably the most elegant speaker I've seen in a debate with those two. Much respect.
Lennox is a good speaker but he has big problems understanding points.
@@Maximum7077 Lennox is a PHD mathemetician and philosopher, pretty sure he understands more than you could ever know
One of your heroes is dead and now knows he was wrong. Might want to get new heroes who never die lol
@@c.h.7580 Many of my personal heroes are dead, some for a long time. I don't see what that has to do with anything. I love how Christian's lash out when they realize they've been backed onto a corner. You know what you believe is bullsh&%.... admit you've been duped and grow up. Willful ignorance is as low as low can get and you seem proud of it.
@@andrewdarlington7115 I have heroes who are dead as well, but none of them were athiests. If you are going to let athiests inspire your entire world view and guide your intellect, you might want to find some that dont die just to find out they wasted their entire life being stupid.
If Hitchens and Dawkins are wrong (and they are), they will have both died only to find out they were intellectually inferior to even a plumber who believes in Christ. Lol.. And thats going to be hard for their fragile egos.
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty."
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
Respect to both on their conduct but I am disappointed in Prof Lennoxs arguments. He seemed out of touch and not well informed. So many of his objections and questions were very easy to answer and explain. I really feel that I could have sat in Prof Dawkins chair and argued the exact same points as he did. His responses were clear, rational, to-the-point and logical. I think Prof Dawkins had an easy debate against weak opposition.
Lol. That only shows you understood nothing about Lennox's rebuttals. Dawkins position is quite flimsy as it lacks philosophical sophistication and analytical rigour. No wonder he became the laughingstock of all popular atheists.
I like how Dawkins pronounces it as "evil-lution".
Steve Hall Freudian Slip? 🤷🏻♂️😂 lol
Eh, it's just accent's my man, I pronounce it like that
@@thecommunistowl811well most people pronounce it as EVO lushon
@@Magister195 American people do
I usually find myself looking through comments on the debates I watch and it's always sadly the same one or two good sports who show respect to both debaters respect and appreciation and then we got the rest who invade those good sports messages in the reply and call them idiots and pick childish fights instead of having a civil kind respectful debate.
Dawkins seems to be on the level but Lennox uses psychological jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility. and how do you tell when someone is lying?
@@lutkedog1 My point wasn't who was right or not although that's very important. My point was instead of screaming haha Sky daddy, Why not explain your points like an adult? That's all. I was only pointing out what I typically end up seeing in the comments. But I suppose some atheists might think well God doesn't exist nor do his presuppositions so what obligates me objectively besides preference. The answer their would be if your statement was true well absolutely nothing.
"God of the gaps"
If it is unexplained, then it's god's work. If science figures it out, it becomes science and god got disproven again. Then all those god believers either start to twist words in order not to looks stupid, or they move on to something else and claim that to be god's work.
Around 40:48
Dawkins wants a god of his own
@Alex McAuliff 1: Slavery was a completely different back then and it's definition was different. 2: Killing people who worship Molac and were putting babies on stoves and slowly burning them alive while they melted - while drummers pounded so loudly that the parents couldn't hear their baby's scream should be put to death 100% of the time. 3: Read the Bible and see why God actually does the things that He does. You'll find out - God is killing people for evil actions such as raping, child ritual abuse, and more.
People condemn God for not killing evil people. "HUR DUR, WHY DOESN'T GOD JUST STOP ALL EVIL?!" And when He does kill people for their evil deeds and give us a moral code to live by. "GOD IS INTOLERANT."
@Alex McAuliff You don't understand the bible. You need to spend a lot of time on some theology sites. God is not moral, but amoral. We are moral because we are guilty before God and so are constantly presented with our consciences. (This is why the word "moral" is etymologically linked to "mortal" and "mortified": it speaks to death.) But God is love, which transcends knowledge.
@Alex McAuliff The superordinate by definition doesn't serve any purpose. It (He in this case) just is. Otherwise He isn't God.
@Alex McAuliff We don't preach Christ because of any book. We preach Him because we have a personal relationship with Him through the 3rd person of God, the Holy Spirit. The bible has only been around for about 500 years, yet Christians have been around for 2000 years. Christianity, in particular the born again experience, is indeed a very real experience. It is spiritual, not emotional, not intellectual, and not superstition. Only the Lord Himself can reveal this to you, and I pray He does in His good time. And be very very sure, when He does, you will know that you know that He is real.
Man do I love Lennox. I used to be an atheist and would have seen the is debate so very differently. But now as a Christian I cannot be more on Lennox’s side. He’s so brilliant in the way he shows the blind spots of the atheist worldview. What a blessing this guy is.
I'd like to see Dawkins debate a scholar of ancient history on the resurrection of Jesus.
Would be embarrassing for the 'scholar'
Dawkins wouldnt have a say
@@gloriousforever3451 Would be embarrassing for Dawkins lol, he got embarrassed in this debate and exposed of all the assumptions he was making hah.
@@gzoro8645 lmao. Says the guy who supports the one who keeps spouting god of the gaps.
@@gzoro8645 Richard actually already revealed his argument on this topic in THIS debate. He said: “I don’t care!” That’s Richard’s argument. Is it scientific, historical, philosophical? No. It’s EMOTIONAL and arrogant and ignorant.
And it only reveals just how much Richard is OBSESSED with God but angry at God for the fact that God is concerned with Richard’s sin.
Так же как мы выросли в СССР, где нас убеждали: у нас в стране Бога нет… Почему? Потому что коммунисты боялись Бога.
Still my favorite debate/conversation of all time on the topic of God!
One of them(Dawkins) was talking about god. Lennox was too busy building Straw Man arguments and other logical fallacies so he never got around to proving any gods exist. That’s how religious apologists have been failing for thousands of years.😏
@@FourDeuce01 Proving or disproving God wasn't the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate was the relationship between science and belief in God. So many of Lennox's topics and questions dealt with the a philosophy of science and how Dawkin and Lennox have different philosophies of their science but not so much difference science. Again the question is Has Science Buried God? Not has science proven God or has science disproven God?
@@timsmith9503 Until somebody proves any gods exist, there is no relationship between science and belief in god.
BTW, science doesn’t need to prove or disprove any gods. The burden of proof for gods is on the people claiming they exist.
@@FourDeuce01 I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. I think what I mean is, a person needs to think about what scientific study can and can't do, that's what I mean by philosophy of science. Now I grew up learning through school that the question does God exist is not a scientific question. But again, this debate isn't about does a God exist or not, it's has science buried God? I agree that there is no relationship between science and belief in God, which is why I think the answer to the debate question is no. Because to answer yes to question is to then say there is a relationship between science and belief in God. My position is to say that science doesn't even have the ability to study the topic of God, let alone proof, disprove, or bury. Which is why what I like about what Lennox has to say here is that it, to me, comes across as what science studies has no relationship to belief in God because they are unrelated. That's a problem for Christians and Atheist who claim that they can somehow defend their position using scientific method.
@Tim Smith “this debate isn’t about does a god exist or not.”
Au contraire. If nobody can prove any gods exist, there’s no point in debating whether science has buried god.
Atheists don’t need to defend their position. Theists need to prove any gods exist.
Love Dawkins trying to appeal to logic and reason even though he believes his brain is just chemicals firing with no intrinsic meaning or purpose.
Atheism is ultimately a circular argument that destroys itself.
That's the nature of Atheist belief, a circular argument that destroys itself.
May I ask, in your opinion, what is the brain? What's logic and reasonable about the brain to you?
You don't need intrinsic meaning or purpose to use logic. He even addresses this in the debate, i.e., he points out that the ability to engage the world in factual, logical terms would likely be selected for since it helps organisms survive.
God, in this context, just strikes me as a superfluous explanation: doesn't mean there isn't one, but our ability to construct and evaluate truth statements doesn't seem to require a supernatural explanation. Organisms incapable of doing this didn't get a chance to reproduce.
24:45 about when Lennox says the logos didn't come from anywhere and Dawkins responds "well, then in what sense is it an explanation" That is actually a really great question but Lennox's response does at the same time point to the premise of the question is based on presuppositions about what the 'explanation' is supposed to include the first place. Great minds. Great debate.
starting at about 32:00 Dawkins's protest to the Christ narrative, how it is petty in comparison to the grander idea of a cosmic creator; it once again based solely on his presumptions and and expectations about how such a creator 'should' be behaving according to Dawkins. That is a bias that causes him to have serious blinders. The explanation, imo, of why a cosmic creator would need the Christ narrative (the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection) is simple; maybe that is simply how God allows himself to communicate with the only other conscious creatures in the universe. If you take away assumptions about how such a creator ought to behave most of these protests simply vanish. that doesn't mean the stories are true but it is interesting to think that does the resurrection story need to have actually happened for the story itself to be the way the creator would communicate with his creation? For anyone that has the ability to hear and understand the story.
about 40:00, I keep harping on Dawkins even though I really respect him and agree with him more than I disagree with him on most topics; but so many of his arguments here and protests are all based on his presumptions on how a god ought to behave within his expectations. So here at 40:00 he is saying that the "medieval god" is "preoccupied with sin". once again maybe that is because God allowed us to be formed with enough intelligence that we could figure out most other things on our own; but he focused on helping us with the one thing we cannot help ourselves with (namely our fallibility). such a god would not have need or interest to address the other topics because we could figure them out on our own (Dante metaphorically describes this with the character Virgil who is a representation of human reason) Human reason can take us a long way all the way through the inferno and even through purgatory but it can't get us to paradise (I mean these places as a metaphorical sense not physically real places btw).