Making Sense of the Universe | John Lennox and Peter Ulric Tse at Dartmouth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 окт 2014
- John Lennox and Peter Ulric Tse discuss how science and faith help us make sense of the universe. | Dartmouth College, 9/30/2014 | Explore more at www.veritas.org.
Want Veritas updates in your inbox? Subscribe to our twice-monthly newsletter here:
www.veritas.org/newsletter-yt
INSTAGRAM: / veritasforum
FACEBOOK: / veritasforum
SUBSCRIBE: / subscription_. .
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!
Peter deserves respect from everyone. He is respectful and humble unlike Dawkins, Krauss, etc..
C'mon Peter 😂
Yah, I’d give Peter that, but I couldn’t tell he heard, or understood a thing, or experience John was talking about.
Through his statement, he is proving that he doesn't have a clue!
Peter Ulric Tse is a well composed atheist who genuinely seems to not have a single adversarial bone in his body. I hope to hear more from him in future Veritas discussions and topics.
I would love to see a second conversation between these two men. They clearly respect each other and they are passionate in humanity. One is Christian, the other is not, but they have shared values and they do not wish to argue, but discuss and debate respectfully. I absolutely loved this, and I continue to come back to this conversation.
Thanks to you for your well developed intelligence and well worded critical review of these two highly astute men.
There*are* no Christians
Although I don't agree with Peter Ulric Tse world view, he was respectful and pleasant to listen to. Very refreshing for a change.
Anyone who claims John Lennox is unintelligent reveals just how ignorant they themselves are.
Hope to hear more debates/discussions between these two in the future!
If only you had some clear idea of what you mean by " intelligent or intelligence, but you are about to demonstrate that you have no idea what intelligence is.The idea that *any* man(human being/dreaming machine) is capable of intelligence is laughable
Good debate! Peter Ulric seems very humble compared to many other people I've seen debating John Lennox.
This was an awesome discussion. Both men were humble and treated one another with respect unlike guys like Neil Tyson DeGrasse , Sam Ellis, Richard Dawkins. I don’t name Christopher Hitchens because he and John Lennox created a friendship.
It may not be recognized by the Christian churches, but John Lennox is clearly presenting the Gospel message more clearly to the intellectural world more movingly and accurately than most churches that have been established since day one. God Bless your courage, Professor, Dr. and Brother John Lennox.
John Lennox..just brilliant!
Agreed. I spent much of the last few days listening to Dr. Lennox debates. His love of Christ and commitment to rational thought is very compelling. As a practicing physicist, I’ve come to realize the importance of a solid grounding for our science. As a Christian, I see the same importance for a solid grounding for our faith.
Lennox is simply supersttious and brainwashed! STUPID! STUPID!
GeoCoppens care to back up your claim with evidence?
Science will never be able to explain how Jesus raised the dead, heal the blind and infirm, and control the forces of nature (telling the wind and the sea to be still)… that is the Creator ruling over his creation
May I also add that my father was born in Amagh, N.Ireland, so I am quite proud of that fact!
John Lennox has his epistomology backwards. Peter Ulric, to me, comes across as much more epistomologically humble, and I deeply respect that. I appreciate what Peter said "Yes, I'ts very comforting, but it's not true".
I think I (a Christian) have my new atheist hero. Christopher Hitchens, stand aside and make way for Peter Ulric Tse. Truly open, enlightening and refreshing. Is this the beginning of a new non-adversarial page in our dialogue!?
Thanks Prof John L
Lennox is brilliant. Thank God for him
God created Him
@@erickipruto8480 That's the joke XD
Good job John and Peter!
Great discussion.
was a person who followed Harris,Dawkins & Hitchens , thinking I knew all the arguments. However recently I discovered the likes of John Lennox & Jim Werner, I can now say I have perspective, Interesting points of view that do make me think.
I really enjoyed this discussion. Both men are brilliant.
You describe *anyone* with more wits and learning than you as " brilliant", do yoyou not? Thus " brilliant" is utterly meaningless, given that the set of beings with more wits an learning than you is fairly extensive. If everyone and anyone is " brilliant", *no-one* is.Must you be quite so sycophantic?
This is a most brilliant discussion. I like the fact that it is not a debate. Both sides are very intelligent, articulate, deeply insightful. This has to be one of the most relevant discussions I've ever heard. There are relational tools here that I want to adopt for myself so I can be a more effective witness to the non-Christian.
The Bible is really mostly science conveyed perfectly to ancient people in their own time, but also recognizable today by people who have patient to examine it carefully.. When I read Psalm 139:14, DNA immediately comes to mind: "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well".
sayswho What science comes to mind when you read about Jesus curing epilepsy by driving out demons?(And if you have an answer to that, please elaborate on how it relates to driving the demons into pigs and running the pigs off cliffs to kill the demons)
I agree but i think the bible as deep science now has more to say to psychology, philosophy than hard science simply because hard science explains how things work in measurable and observable quantities which, of course you cannot measure god unless you explore history and psychology and question the rise of the early church and ask, why on earth did it spread so quickly when everything about it was antithetical to a dominant patriarchal religious Nation.
Bit messy there, sorry, the bible as science in the ancient world gives meaning indeed, the bible today gives meaning when you explore the transcendent, the conscious and unconcious and metaphysics (soft science and philosophy rather than hard science).
With this in mind one can go extremely deep into the wonders of the bible (both theologicallyas a christian who believes Jesus was the miracle that our nature hinges on, and metaphorically - jordan peterson has around 20 hours of lectures on genesis and just its osychological imll8cations which is very interesting) both as something i believe points towards literal truth AND metaphorical/meaning as truth.
Getting a bit carried away now, sorry was a bit muddled 😊
@@Gnomefro convulsing does not immediately equate to epilepsy. Demons do not die. The reason why Jesus gave permission to the demons to enter the pigs is unknown to me, but based on my own personal experiences there was a good one. I will put my trust in God, in all of his forms, over corrupt and fail able human beings any day. That includes religious translations that may or may not be accurate.
And so called science that is more often and not bought and paid for by people pushing their own products and agendas these days.
Wow John Lennox is good!
Holy God Holy Mighty One Holy immortal One,Have mercy on us and on the whole world .Amen
Its refreshing to see such intelligence
Peter Tse is on his way to become a christian. He does not stand a chance, the Spirit of God is manifestly working in him.
I love how John is humble and dismissive at the same time which is inevitable because he is right! He is looking at all of it and I mean everything through the lens of his... Emerging, LOL, understanding of the word of God/ God / Jesus! Yeah I'm a Believer!
Listening to discover ...
I have seen the documentary he talking about since my youth. Where science implants a chip in the woman brain in the center toward the rear where emotion control is I don’t remember if in the front but according to my memory was in the rear center. Yes they tune the signal where they can control her emotional thoughts from sad to happy. It was an awesome thing for me to see. Amazing break through understanding of the human mind. However that was done by external force, when I say external force it just like she was a machine being tune to where we want. But what make us who we are is our consciousness our way to understand our self our body our being we than able to understand what greater than us made not by chance. But created therefore we can fine tuned ourselves to reasons and repairs to live with joy and peace. This is who we are we humans not machines. We are beings.
Enjoyed this conservation very much.
John Lennox is a brilliant man in a world full of adversity, one, I feel can learn more through him about God and the universe and people than most churches teach today. Will be watching more of him. And passing it on. God Bless you John.
These Atheists are a lot like a person wearing a box on their head, and they say there is nothing beyond the box, they refuse to take off the box and look
When Peter Ulric Tse speaks about information (around the 40min mark) and how (neurons) detect patterns in physical information. I as a Christian say, "Hallelujah. But keep going sir. On your worldview what is the definition of a "pattern" in a random chance naturalistic universe? Moreover, in a universe of random 'evolution (a pattern itself)' how can you have almost as much pattern as matter? The literal opposite should be happening." The Christian position should align with the ultimate conclusion of science that all observation (quantum physics) is information (conceptual reality); Theists should celebrate, 1. God is the mind that forms this conceptual reality of information for lesser conceptual beings to 'play in'. 2. The 'force' that actual holds patterns together to even be recognized a patterns would need be outside of matter itself, and of course can only be observed by beings with the capacity to do so - again, minds.
BTW here is a BIG Hint. Neurons ready the physical patterns in reality (what is there to make sense of) . The spirit parallel of the neurons (the mind) has the ability to actually INTERPRET it (rationality / how can I make sense of, the what my neurons picked up - see answer in min 48)
I think science is getting closer and closer to the result theists have know all along. Rationality is only consistent if a mind understands truth. Truth must be objective. Truth is that when the naturalist and his atheist buddies reach the summit, they'll run in a theist settlement with our flag of "we told you so" whisking in the breeze.
@Ted Green "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
- Robert Jastrow
How about this - “nothing doesnt exist therefore the universal nor anything else came from nothing, making it impossible for God NOT to exist”.
I think this is one of the best debates I have ever seen. This is because both sides are genuine. No crooks like Dawkins or others. I must say I am impressed by Peter Ulric Tse. He is an intelligent atheist (they are hard to find :D) Whether you are an atheist or a believer I strongly recommend (All the books by Lennox and) The Neural Basis of Free Will: Criterial Causation by Peter Ulric Tse.
Samuel/India: Dr John’s responses to very deep thoughts and hypotheses of Dr Peter, are brilliant and thought provoking that instantly encourages the thinking minds to stretch the boundaries of understanding in comprehending the ultimate reality or the truth.
This is coming from a Christian. 10 minutes in, and I can already tell that I will like Peter. He seems like someone that wants to actually have a rational debate and he seems respectful and nice to listen to. He's not like Richard Dawkins, and for a Christian example of this William Lane Craig.
I appreciate most your witnessing and ❤ love for the God Almighty ... ❤
Gentlemen , well , we are all engaged in the finest of our discussions , debates , conversations and all ... ... forgetfully ignoring our own consciousness and unbelief in the Eternal Word other than the Apocalypse . We never remember that we are well within the realm of histories and personal destinies. Histories do loose the legacies of a rational Mind , thinking and Thought as The Timelines and the Ages take us through. 🇺🇸 Words disappear , Meanings lose sheen , Words go out of usage and so on. As you know the divinity of God Almighty and or the Word is not a definable entity but the mysteries well approved 👌 👍 👏 to be continued ... ...
The universe exists that we should be a part of it; that within our perceptions as individual as they may be, at the collective level we learn of Compassion, of how to live by way of some greater Truth that sees us survive, if only for this time we call Life with at least some feeling for Eternity, what may well simply be the entirety of being: Eternity = entirety.
What an absolutely rich debate! Their final remarks about suffering were very meaningful.
Thank God for the Hope in Christ Jesus.
Peter is studying the piano. John is studying the pianist.
Those are the two world views not touching each other in this conversation.
Not quite. Peter engages in not just Methodological naturalism, which is Science, but takes it further into the realm of metaphysical naturalism, which is a Philosophical worldview that has no foundation for actually doing science, as John Lennox demonstrated.
"Peter is studying the piano. John is studying the pianist."
You know, that is a nice hyperbolic metaphor, but I do not think it is anything more. Nobody is studying piano here or any pianists. In fact, nobody is studying anything here. What is happening is that Peter is talking about observable reality, and John is talking about unprovable religious dogma which is not in common agreement. Why John feels he can simply assert that dogma onto others, or why, in general, religious people feel they have the authority to do this, I will simply never know. Let's be dead honest with each other. Does Auschwitz give them that authority??? Does it??? Does it give man the authority to lie about the nature of reality, simply to prevent such a thing from happening again??? That SEEMS to be religious argument. MAYBE it is a damn strong argument. But let us at least sit down and be open and honest with each other. If religion is FURTHER asserting that even THAT openness and honesty is in question, well, what do we have left??? Are we as humanity REALLY at that point, or has this whole problem been fabricated by powerful governments, institutions, and religions in order to preserve religion??? I am not saying that Auschwitz was fabricated. What I am saying is that what led to Auschwitz was the act of a few bad apples, and blaming humanity for conforming to the rules of society and peer pressure that led to Auschwitz is unjustified. And what about those of us that value happiness that comes from truth over some self-centered false happiness??? Are we just force to live in this world created by people like Lennox???
ThinkTank255 ("Peter is studying the piano. John is studying the pianist.")
"You know, that is a nice hyperbolic metaphor"
It's not hyperbole.
It's an ordinary metaphor.
"but I do not think it is anything more."
All I intended it to be was a metaphor.
"Nobody is studying piano here or any pianists. In fact, nobody is studying anything here."
What does that have to do with my metaphor?
"What is happening is that Peter is talking about observable reality, and John is talking about unprovable religious dogma which is not in common agreement."
I assert Peter is talking about the piano (physical) and John is talking about music/pianist/intellect/consciousness (nonphysical).
"Why John feels he can simply assert that dogma onto others, or why, in general, religious people feel they have the authority to do this, I will simply never know. "
What dogma are you trying to push on us?
That the nonphysical doesn't exist and John Lennox has no right to talk about it?
"Let's be dead honest with each other. Does Auschwitz give them that authority??? Does it???"
What are you talking about?
"Does it give man the authority to lie about the nature of reality, simply to prevent such a thing from happening again???"
What's the nature of reality? Answer that before we go any further.
"That SEEMS to be religious argument."
What the hell are you talking about?
"MAYBE it is a damn strong argument."
??
" But let us at least sit down and be open and honest with each other."
OK, about what?
"If religion is FURTHER asserting that even THAT openness and honest is in question, well, what do we have left???"
What are you talking about??
"Are we as humanity REALLY at that point, or has this whole problem been fabricated by powerful governments, institutions, and religions in order to preserve religion???"
What are you talking about???
"I am not saying that Auschwitz was fabricated. What I am saying is that what led to Auschwitz was the act of a few bad apples, and blaming humanity for conforming to the rules of society and peer pressure that led to Auschwitz is unjustified."
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Here's my take on Auschwitz. The Nazis who created and ran Auschwitz (and the other work and death camps) didn't hold God as Truth and they held their own beliefs as truth instead. Hitler slowly altered the beliefs of a generation of people who didn't hold God as truth and in doing so had a group of people acting as if what Hitler said was truth once they believed it. If they held God as truth this never would have happened. So they happily killed millions of people because they didn't love God and instead gave god like powers to their own twisted and immoral beliefs that Hitler instilled in them. The denial of God causes ALL the major problems in the world and is the single largest mental health issue the world faces. If you want to control the world then get people to deny the Biblical God and then fill their heads with garbage. Your head is clearly filled with garbage although you haven't demonstrated any dangerous garbage yet. Since you have no idea your beliefs are being fed to you, all it will take to make you as dangerous as the Nazis is to implant like beliefs into your wide open and undefended belief system. So that's my take on the matter of Auschwitz , your delusion and the state of the world. You are the next Auschwitz waiting to happen.
"What the hell are you talking about?"
Well, you either know or this conversation is lost on you. Modern religion is a lie fabricated to prevent something like Auschwitz from happening. Most people do not realize this, but I am fairly certain, from the way Lennox talks he does and he supports this lie. Now, of course, you turn this around and try to call me the one that is crazy, all the while you worship your imaginary "God". Science is not the crazy one here.
ThinkTank255 ("What the hell are you talking about?")
"Well, you either know or this conversation is lost on you."
I know this conversation is lost on me. I said as much. What the hell are you talking about means I have no idea what you are talking about and this conversation is lost on me.
So what the hell are you talking about?
"Modern religion is a lie fabricated to prevent something like Auschwitz from happening."
What's a modern religion? What are you talking about?
"Most people do not realize this, but I am fairly certain, from the way Lennox talks he does and he supports this lie."
What are you talking about?
Are you saying Lennox supports modern religions? What's a modern religion and how do they prevent another Auschwitz from happening? If they do then I support them as well I guess. Why is it a lie? I'm not getting anything your talking about. Can I have some context please?
"Now, of course, you turn this around and try to call me the one that is crazy"
I have no idea if you're crazy. You could be a genius for all I know. I have no idea what you are talking about.
"all the while you worship your imaginary "God". Science is not the crazy one here."
How do you know God is imaginary? Do you have scientific proof? Maybe you think you're a god and are all knowing? If you know that God is imaginary then you must be all knowing proving that God does exist and he's you! So the most logical understanding I can derive from what you have said so far is that you are god and you are telling me you are imaginary. Maybe you are crazy.
Outstanding debate.
Peters work seems like it will be very important with how to manage big data and AI in the processing of societal issues such as the justice system and medical intervention. And how we properly utilize these powerful systems while maintaining ethical fairness to the individual.
I am was very intrigued by the implications of the science and how this could help sort out the theological debate between freewill and determinism.
There is hope for Peter. He walked himself right up to the line of believing in Jesus’ divinity and his saving grace. Jordan Peterson said similar things and then, after a terrible health crisis, he converted
Everytime the issue of pain and suffering get into the discussion between theism and atheism, the Theodicy Question that gets into "Catch 22" always resurface. First off, if there is a Creator God, and there is God, we are His creatures and we can never be in a position to judge Him or to know all about Him and His will. What we know about Him and about His works are only those things that He chose to reveal. Presently, Satan still rules the earth, and we suffered pain and death since the day we rebelled against God; we have chosen not to trust in His protective shield; we broken all His commandments, which is the user's manual for correct living on this earth. But our God perfectly understands our situation, for He, Himself, were "acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53:2-5).
At first I wasn't sure where exactly you were going with this, but I found your comment to be incredibly insightful. Thank you!
I have been a Christian for around 10 yrs. Before that I was having premarital sex with women, and having homosexual relations with a man. I also committed other sins, e.g. lying, blasphemy, lust, dishonoring my parents, worshiping statues, hatred. I was guilty and all of humanity deserve to go to hellfire, to be tortured forever by GOD.
But GOD is rich in mercy, and he loves us so much that He sent his Son into the world, to be tortured and to die for sinners. This sinless Jesus laid his life down for us, and 3 days later, he rose from the dead!
Homosexuality, and lying and stealing, is wrong, abnormal, it's unnatural. What is natural, is that you walk in GOD's good ways!
Turn from your sins today, & put your trust and faith in Jesus. Will you be a Christian today?
If you become a Christian, you will receive forgiveness of sins, your sins and guilt will be blotted out, GOD himself will dwell inside you, your name will be written in the Lambs book of Life, you will enter the new Earth, and you will see GOD's face.
Paul writes to the church saying:
do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6.9).
If you become a Christian, you will become a saint, and you will be holy, and people will hate you for Jesus' name sake.
If you don't become a Christian, then your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. (Acts 18:6)
.
Now you have no excuse for your sin.
Can I suggest that "entering the flow state" - as in being "in the zone" - is to engage with the Grace of God, as much a natural part of being as it is considered supernatural! Why? Because as a composer, when I enter the "flow state", the feeling is one of reciprocity, that indeed, as through my deeds, what I am creating is also creating me, both defining and diving me! The feeling is large than Life itself. The insecurity of it all - where any moment of doubt can creep in that I feel less worthy than I imagine, despite my imagination being God - when harnessed by the energy of my Faith in the Divine, is one of absolute mercy; that I am as much at the mercy of the moment as I am within it seeking mercy, but then to find the moment is merciful. And this is what we will all come realise soon enough, I am sure of it!
Why is religion not allowed to challenge science
Thank you, good and thoughtful discussion from quite different points of understanding.
John Lennox's comments are very difficult to listen to. His epistemology works like this: "Athiesm scares me because its bottom line doesn't offer meaning" and also "just because it's comforting doesn't mean it's false". He starts with the premise that his beliefs are true. It's hard to listen to. Peter Tse, on the other hand was phenomenal. He's honest and willing to follow the evidence and see where it leads. Bravo Peter.
Dang, that Dr Lennox is such the image of Christ, but doesn’t appear Middle Eastern . He exhibits love and respect for every interlocutor. He listens,hears and understands them, even if they remain clueless of what he’s saying.
The heart pumps blood!
Thinking is the result of neurochemical processes.
.
Great 😊
Peter is so intelectuellI could say after heaaring his speech I give up my duality!
It's interesting that Peter seems to believe that information is immaterial. Hopefully, he will also realize: Naturalism makes no sense. Non-rational particles cannot produce rationality.
for thousands of years man worshipped something they knew there is a supreme being. Until today that belief stands and considered TRUE. scientists and professors brilliant minds as they are fail to explain and prove the beginning of our wonderful universe.
You’d think these folks would’ve watched Lennox’ debates before going up against him. He cleans their arrogant clocks each and every time.
What I take of this debate above all else, above each world view and all its reasons is civility and genuine respectful exchange of ideas. Very rare ! Lennox is brilliant and passionate and very inspired with many things gotten right but still not convincing enough... I am more or less in between worlds here, I have a mathematical conception of "God" as Unity. I do agree God is ratio period, not a person. But you see...I don't separate realities in half, one side nature the other side God...my "God" is natural although I don't pretend to classify what matter is because nobody knows. to properly define matter, or energy...I can't say I am a materialist although I am a naturalist. Why not a person you might wonder ? Because thinking is the job of incomplete beings that try to answer to questions, to challenges within space time...Completeness in BEING requires ratio not reasoning...ORDER not a temporal orderer. That which is complete, nature itself, with all time in a self enclosed loop, doesn't reason but rather has the ratio for reason to happen within time. God exists but is "dead" and is powerless...Being the reason of all things, the ratio in all things, as the whole of nature, he is done and over complete with all space time enfolded in a looping pattern. God cannot be an enquiring mind...and then there is the problem of growth...God cannot move or grow as the whole of reality, the complete set...there is no nothingness no further vacuum to grow into. God is motionless ! NATURE is DONE ! (We ride deterministically in a 4 dimension movie)
No middle ground for randomness with a bit of determinism either...its nonsense..either there is FULL mechanical connection, cause and effect, or if there are gaps then there is no information communication period. This is serious ! Soft determinism is more politics then it could ever be serious Philosophy !
😊
Yes, indeed 100%
Fear of the unknown and the need for justice and hope is the foundation of religion.
Violent husbands don't change. The only solution is to leave them.
The non-physical can be assumed as much a physical thing in the case of Music especially, where does the silent beat affords to a phrase of notes as with any language once articulated such a degree of buoyancy to be transferred to the listener a tangible presence, although fleeting it may well be. For such buoyancy to be felt presupposes the ability or tendency of something to float, such as the differences in pressure acting on opposite sides of an object immersed in a static fluid. The only difference here is that the fluid is of sound; melody being the liquid state of words as are words the solid state of a thought!
Love is the result of evolutionary processes!
.
Uncertainty is one thing but purposelessness and meaning are essential for life
Peter seems to be quite certain about uncertainty 😊
Half German, half Chinese makes a beautiful combination.
John Lennox for one MORE time speaks the logic coherent world view.Conversation was good.Too bad that in the end Tse non knowing how to respond started throwing genetic fallacies without a stop.
There is no blind as those who refuse to see, Peter is spiritually blind
In the absence of or the distance from God the subject becomes God but is defenseless to that God which gave them life.
I believe in nature and supernatural
One domain should inform another
i think he contradicted himself.
Is science fundamentally about knowing how things truly are(truth)or is it fundamentally about being unsure about everything?
It seems to me that being in the state of not knowing and ultimately and perhaps never knowing IS actually a problem from the scientific view. Since never knowing neither meets the criteria of either contradictory notions of the scientific worldview (as previously stated).
why do guys cross their legs ? Are your loins not mashed together in the process ? Do not thy loins crunch in agony ?
Lol!
Crossing legs at the knees ….opens the pelvis provides a little more room.
If we want to delve into the inconsistencies in the personal lives of those who put forth belief systems those in the arena of science should not be immune. We all fall far short of perfection. We are all fallen humanity/defective searching for answers and nature is far from the perfected state it was created to be.
Why won't google let me know which of my posts offends them and why?
There must be a source which is non contingent. Which all contingent things depend. Whatever that source is would have very certain and specific necessary attributes, in order to be logically possible and to be called non contingent.
And it just so happens that insights about Gods attributes in scripture meet that criteria. Even though these attributes are often being asserted in a context which is not exploring the philosophical question of what are the needed attributes of the(a) non contingent source.
This IS good evidence of the existence of the biblical God. Sorry if that is a trigger in an Atheist's presupposition. (In full disclosure, I am not actually sorry)
If you wish to assert an infinite regression in a physical and natural universe, you would need some evidence of how that could even be pissible in light of all the scientific knowledge and experience which has been established and built upon by the giants of our recent revolution and advancement. (good luck with that) One might wonder what could fueling such blind faith in an idea that has no data to support it. And which all knowledge says can not be possible.
Simple,there is no morality without God .
Jesus is the only one who gives hope to the most wretched soul who might be in the standard of others (who had a chance for university) are totally wrecked. In the Christian teaching, Jesus reach and will reach this kind of people. Other worldview does not have that kind of teaching.
What do you say about Jesus Christ?
Isn't it amazing that of all the creatures that have been created on this planet, only humans have mastered and used resources of the planet, building machines, lighting up the planet with electricity, being able to comprehend the vastness of the universe, being able to consider the future and the keeping track of the past, to name just a few of humankind abilities, and then recalling that Scripture claims man was made to have dominion over the creation......yes it is amazing, because it didn't just happen, it was predicted..
A few insults always manages to find its way into this conversation on the part of the atheist. An arrogant one, that there is some how an immaturity and even stupidity on the part of those who believe in one true God. The other is that we are just believing what we were taught. I find the later one even more ridiculous in that we do not come into this world with a knowledge base. None of us do. We are taught everything we know. Our belief system is a matter of the will. What makes the most sense and rings true based on our personal experiences or what we like. All of us, including scientists.
Since I have lost the ability to edit my comments on RUclips for some reason: *A few insults always manage to find a way into this conversation from the perspective of the atheist.*
Wonderful listening to the three of the scholars. I sense you are witnessing in doubt severally. Believe that every witness is not true and authentic and likewise every unbeliever as an Atheist may be unknowingly and impliedly witnessing for the divinity of the God Almighty 🙏. Most of the Scientists and or the Atheists ⚛ fall under the category of spiritual blindness. We cannot blame the divinity of the Omnipotent God for the bad Sciences represented. The eternity of the vast expansive eras of histories and evolutionary states of the geophysics bear a witness of the Kharmic events of the Providence in the bad Sciences 👎. To cont ...
If evolution is the cause of everything, why would we evolve emotions that make us feel so miserable over things that don't really matter?
Emotions are selected just like physical attributes. The miserable emotion was probably selected because it makes you dwell on bad decisions and not repeat them. A side effect is you dwell on irrelevant things as well. But at some stage feeling miserable had definite survival benefits.
vinm300 Then how do you explain the fact that depressed people are more likely to commit suicide than people who are not?
+Timothy Fish I think you would have to look at depression statistically and (say in evolution it helps avoid bad decisions) there would be say a 90% success rate for avoiding repeating bad decisions against say a 10% rate for depression having a detrimental effect on the person. Something like that , I'm just guessing. For it to be selected for it would have to benefit the overall
population even if it was harmful to some individuals.
vinm300 I would hate religion on guess work. It is obvious that depression isn't beneficial, but people still want to find a way to argue that it is because it shows that their beliefs about evolution are wrong.
Why does evolution want us to live?
1:05:36
Science has a lot to say about how to live!
.
He doges the issue with the whole "collection of cells" argument. While the relationship is factually different from the individual cells that doesn't lead to purpose or importance anymore than a rock being different from a tree means the rock is more important than a tree.
There is no dogma in science!
.
I always wonder why an atheist would expend so much mental energy trying to disprove the existence of God. If the concept is so silly, why address it? I think they are trying to convince themselves what they truly know.
Having listened to quite a few of Prof. Lennox’s talks, I see in Prof. Tse all of those shaky arguments and examples he had addressed many times. However, on this occasion, I’ve found Prof. Lennox’s answers less thorough, less sharp, less brilliant than usual, right where I though he would have gone for the jugular.
Nice debate though
God is very real and Satan is very real. Choose wisely. 🙏🏻
“Who created God” is not an ignorant question if you understand the intention. The question is meant to illuminate the fact that, when arguing from brute facts, we somewhat arbitrarily have to select a starting point. The atheist starts with something that doesn’t assume a metaphysical Being somehow living outside of space time. The Theist then says “we’ll where did that come from?” , presupposing a creator. There is no reason to presuppose anything preceding space time. Nothing comes from nothing, this form of eternalism however is not accepted by the theist. The basic question is “why presuppose one eternal thing over another?”. “Where does God come from?” Is just a cheeky way to express this contention. Theists arbitrarily choose the starting point simply on presupposition, rather than evidence and facts. The Atheist simply says “maybe the question is incoherent and that ‘something’ was always there since nothing can come from nothing”. Anyways, conflating materialism with Atheism is something incredibly ignorant, because scientifically minded atheists are aware of something called information, which does not have mass and thus falls outside the physical definition of matter. There’s one example. Another example is an Idea. These are immaterial. But to conflate these with something metaphysical is a leap. This constant misrepresentation of atheism as “physicalist, materialist, reductionist, naturalism” is so annoying and dishonest: there is nothing that unifies atheistic thought with the exception of an absent belief of theism. In other words, there are many non theistic variants of thought that aren’t encapsulated by the aforementioned metaphysical positions listed above. Many atheists simply attempt to ground their serious beliefs on something testable and grounded in empirical data; god is definitionally (if there even is a definition, since the “Nous” precludes boundaries) untestable.
My personal take as an agnostic; metaphysical speculation is inherently defeasible. Despite this, metaphysicians of the theological camp try incredibly hard to convince us that metaphysical propositions can be known like that of mathematics. This gives some of us the illusion of certainty. We should actually admit our ignorance and refrain from dogmatically believing metaphysical claims that conflict with well established knowledge. Be like Wittgenstein, Feynman, Thomas Jefferson, or Arif Ahmed. Don’t be like Thomas Aquinas.
And also, whenever you hear an apologist or theologian speak, they are incredibly clever rhetoricians who can point any statement in the direction of God. This is probably because God is an infinitely malleable concept. But take note throughout any discussion, any evidence can be reframed to be consistent with the existence of God. In other words, it’s an unfalsifiable concept. A plane crashes and 200 people die, with one survivor. Implication? This is evidence of God working through people in a tough situation. The survivors statement? Well, God must have plans for them. This obviously ignores the economic and physical factors determining aerospace design and hence reliability of the plane, or other contingent factors leading to the cause that can entirely be explained without invoking metaphysical deities. The fact that there are confidence bands around these events implies statistical regularity, not divine intervention; causal factors. Now you can go up one level and say “this is god trying to get us to make safer planes” or “most planes that don’t crash are a miracle and our excellent institutions that guarantee functional aerospace engineering proves the existence of god”; but you are obviously doing what the theologians and apologists do at this point. And of course it only begs the question of why these specific instances are instantiations of divine will while the constant bombardment of natural disasters (or anything else currently outside of our control) is explained away. It just so happens that when we have a level of control in the situation, it was God at some level. Take the DNA example; how did we explain natural variation before? Well, it was theological. People rejected genetics and evolutions, realized it’s foolish to do so, then subsumed it under God.
This will remain the relationship between Christianity and non believers for the foreseeable future; thing gets explained, religion denies it, religion realizes it’s foolish for doing so, religion subsumes it under the guise that it reaffirms the biblical world view. This is how Christianity persists; it’s framework is generally adaptive. This is why you hear certain Christian’s saying Atheists are actually theists. The concepts involved are infinitely malleable and evolve to socioeconomic circumstances.
Rant over
If one is privy to some special ‘truth’ (information) about the world, then there ought to be something ‘special’ you can do because of this; something that your interlocutor can’t, on account of being deprived of such information. So what can John ‘do’ that Peter can’t on account of his special ‘acquaintance’ with Christian knowledge? He could obviously put Peter to shame in a pork-pie eating contest (both metaphorically and literally!), but that wouldn't require any supernatural assumptions.
+modvs1 He can worship God, Peter can not. The late Christopher Hitchens asked the very same question before his passing. John is right with God and Peter is not, but it is mainly due to a suppression of truth by Peter and any atheist. Peter has no basis for truth, science, morality, justice, or meaning because his atheistic worldview means he believes truth doesn't exist birthed out of nothing the universe is indifferent (to quote dawkins), science should not be able to be done because there is no order in the universe, no morality because who cares what one bag of star dust does to another bag of stardust, no basis for justice because there is no such thing as an afterlife and there is no justice regardless of our hearts crying out for it, no basis in meaning either which I believe is self explanatory. Peter lives everyday with one foot in the world of a Christian when he does science, when he makes moral pronouncements and when he says anything because he assumes he himself has meaning. Good thing you can join my worldview, the view that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and through him you may have eternal life.
+David Brighina So John can spend some or all of his time (allegedly) reminding an omniscient being of how fantastic he is, despite the fact that this being is infinitely better resourced to to do this for himself; and Peter can't? I think by “doing something” I meant something that was non-verbal, like an ecologically significant, causally efficacious interaction with some part of the environment; that has some predictable and useful outcome. Peter could observe John engaging in 'worship', but all he would see is some guy doing something that is essentially verbal, in the absence of any recipient or interlocutor- like a conversational mime. That's not special, anyone can do that. My children do it when they play with their dolls.
modvs1 Thanks for the response, would you mind responding to the rest of my post "John is right with God and Peter is not, but it is mainly due to a suppression of truth by Peter and any atheist. Peter has no basis for truth, science, morality, justice, or meaning because his atheistic worldview means he believes truth doesn't exist birthed out of nothing the universe is indifferent (to quote dawkins), science should not be able to be done because there is no order in the universe, no morality because who cares what one bag of star dust does to another bag of stardust, no basis for justice because there is no such thing as an afterlife and there is no justice regardless of our hearts crying out for it, no basis in meaning either which I believe is self explanatory. Peter lives everyday with one foot in the world of a Christian when he does science, when he makes moral pronouncements and when he says anything because he assumes he himself has meaning. Good thing you can join my worldview, the view that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and through him you may have eternal life." My assertion is that Peter has no basis for the way he lives his life and John does.
There is this weird idea about worship as if all it were was telling God how great He is. As if the worship were for God's sake and not the worshipers. As if we don't ALL worship one another whenever we love another. As if loving someone gave you nothing beautiful and invaluable in return. God LOVES us. Loving Him back is AMAZING! Its like the love between humans but on steroids. If you're just faking it, sure I guess it would seem dull. But actually getting to know God is the most healing, wonderful thing. I wish more people could experience that.
Peter Ulric is well composed. However, he does project assumptional thought.
Peter just confused me lol
@Rachel c .." Then he has the audacity to insult Peter, " do you care to give a reference?
Peter Ulric is dragging his answers so much I am lost
People who don't believe in God have chosen the devil as their father.
i have no idea why Christians debate. Why grant the materialist an ought from which to make their case ? They don' have one, call them out on it. If they want to debate, perhaps they should 1st get a worldview which allows for a debate to take place. You guys are far too nice, just call them out and move on. No time to waste on the willfully ignorant.
Joshua Hults
We must remember that even the "willfully ignorant" God loves. I saw the naturalist reaching, mentally struggling not to attribute any cause or design or intention .. or even clear pattern ..(inferring design) and trying to explain the natural world without such..is it not a good thing for the uninformed to see how well Scripture stands against every aspect of inquiry?
Victoria Layrisse i think it does more damage than good. It makes it seem like atheism is a world view worth considering. It makes it seem like it has value. For example if we held a debate of wether pedophilia was good or bad, it accidentally puts pedophilia into the " Take it serious " realm. Of course it is bad, it is so bad that we should not even discuss wether it is bad, it should be obvious. Likewise atheism is so logically flawed we should not even discuss wether it makes sense of the world, because the ideology itself does not make sense. The second you grant it makes sense enough to debate with it, you just put atheism a step up from where it belongs. Jesus and the disciples did not debate, they laid out the gospel.
Joshua Hults
Your point is well taken, however i have known people who have finally come into a belief of God after years of opposition. We have the example of Paul for good reason. We mustn't boast.🔹
Victoria Layrisse they prob would have come to faith a lost faster if someone loved them enough to simply tell them the gospel straight and let them react. For me before I was saved, I just debated to debate. I was not interested in truth, it was just fun to argue. It was not until I had a personal experience with God that I accepted.
It is odd that Peter accepts that insurance companies can make lots of money predicting what will happen off stats & accepts that is hard, if not impossible, to know who specifically it will happen to, But he then used the argument that John would be Hindu if he was born in India. Yes, odds are he would be, but you cannot specify say John would be! How does he not see that simple contradiction!
Also, does a wrong model of anything, regardless of popularity, prove the correct model is wrong? Where is the sun, in the center or is the Earth there? At one time both models were or are, more prevalently believed, & the other still had adherents. Odds are if you were born anywhere on Earth you would have believed the Earth as the center of the system, at one time. That power structures idea was wrong, but so was questioning it. He is suggesting we return to such a system, but with a secular authority, regardless of the truth. It is worse in many respects.
Jesus did historically do what he did. How & why did that happen? You cannot accept the teachings & dismiss the point the teacher was making. He has overly compartmentalized his thinking in order to avoid the conflict.
Over all, this was a great talk. I respect Peters line of work & his ideas are very interesting. He is on to something there, & I hope he modifies his thinking to follow it to the logical conclusion. I do worry that he wants to strip Christ out of Christianity. We will have to call it I-anity. All about the self.
Peter Tse's opening statement....either he was told the wrong subject for the discussion or just straight out defensive. "...scientists wake up every morning trying to prove how they can be wrong."....what???
His arrogant attitude towards the scriptures...wow. "Professing to be wise, they became fools..." (Romans 1:22) attempting to marginalize Christianity to mere social protocol. Folks like him would doubt even if Jesus made a personal appearance and held 1 on 1 discussion.
Disagree
Can't say I appreciate the moderator. His ridiculous gotcha question posed to Dr. Lennox at the end was ridiculously elementary and childish. Anyone who knows scripture knows that a the God of the Bible is as incomprehensible to us as the Law of gravity. We know the attributes of both, but not know what they really are. Makes sense since God laid the laws of nature for our benefit. It goes without saying we trust in God for our benefit. To think a man can put forth the question about the future of Christian eternity without sin and think that is a question that cannot be answered is a sure tell of his ignorance. But of course we all were ignorant until we found we all are sinners and then understood.
John lost me directly from the start when he posed it as a given that "Communism" necessitates atheism and that it is also a political system that depends on, is derived from, and requires atheism. Then, the patronizing way he views "reading the 'Communist Manifesto'" as a way to "understand these people" is such a condescending and performative way to pretend to promote open-mindedness and makes him more understanding/empathetic by default. Peter, on the other hand, was a splendid representation of these traits in a none performative and genuinely sincere/inspirational way.
Master of sophistry,simply a disgrace.
Same debate different spin 🙄
Jesus is a man made fairy tale figure.
Imaginary beings do not suffer!
.
If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence