Christianity is called a faith because it is a belief. Non belief is not called a faith because it is not a belief. This used to be a simple concept. It takes some self-denial and a book on apologetics to get this concept so messed up.
Thank you Lord for John Lennox...please bless him with good health so he may continue to speak out, not only to encourage those of us who are Christians and need a role model like John but for any ear that will listen to the inspired words he speaks. Amen.
@otthoheldring I can answer that. If you read the Bible objectively, So, the people wanted the King to come to power and asked for him. I think you agreed on who they asked for him from...
Lovely discussion Samuel - I always enjoy your channel - & John Lennox is always such a great expositor on theism, and Christianity. In regard to why God does not show himself... I've come to realize that == God only shows himself to the extent to which our Faith has grown ==. This is because God will not overthrow our Free Will, ...He will give us 'hints' so to speak - IF we follow the trail of 'bread crumbs' in seeking truth, it will open up more and more. This is also why the majority of Christians are so feeble in their Faith. Jesus said in John 7:17 KJV "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." As we strive to become obedient to ALL the light (spiritual truths) that God has shown us, then He will give us new light. This is what the Bible refers to as 'walking with Jesus'. He shines the light of truth, we take a step of faith and obedience to step into that light and gain another victory. But what if one is NOT following what they know to be true? By way of example let's say a person is NOT following 3 Biblical truths that they know of. Then would Jesus be helping them to give them 2 more truths to IGNORE ? NO INDEED - because then in the judgement they would be damned for not only the first three truths they were rebelling against, but also the two new truths Jesus showed them. God is a Gentleman - He came not to condemn but to save - YET we have our part to play. If we truly LOVE Jesus - The Way, The Truth, and The Life - then we follow His commandments (Jn 14:15 etc.) This involves a sanctification process. Before the book of Acts, Christians were known as "followers of the Way" as from Ps 77:13 - "Thy way of God is in the sanctuary". This Old testament is a form of diorama of salvation even for the Christian - with its Justification (courtyard), Sanctification (Holy Place), and Glorification (Most Holy Place). So few today are inclined to learn anything that might disrupt their worldly lifestyles. I grew up in an atheist background. And accepted it hook, line and sinker. But I kept seeing an increasing number of elements in life that did not match that paradigm (e.g., Big Bang, our Conscience, our seeking of purpose in this life). Yet when I'd ask questions of Christians around me, they had no logical/reasonable answers. I did come into a relationship with God aside from any specific religious affiliations - 20 years in that mode. God even helped me in my technical field - time and time again - a few times things I could not have possibly known He showed me. Finally on a challenge from a Christian astronomer - I went back to reevaluate the whole materialistic perspective. It fell apart like a wet biscuit. Then finally I bought a Bible started through it -- it was SO INCREDIBLE - it utterly stunned me - took a week from my consulting business and just read the bible and other books on it. At the end of the week gave my life to Christ. And he's been moving me and growing me and keeps giving me increasing light. I teach classes and preach on occasion and witness at every opportunity. It is one of my constant prayers, that we as Christians would step up to follow ALL that God says - that is where the rubber meets the road. I used to design computer based systems, operating systems, etc. before going into writing & arguing patents for universities and various companies. I say that to bring out that the Bible is == MUCH == like a technical specification, it has its own language and methods of expression. Also it can only be truly understood if we integrate the teachings across its full breadth. The resultant system (our character) will not operate in the manner that the INVENTOR of the Universe desires, unless we seek to integrate ALL those teachings into our lives. Yet, if we are not really willing to FOLLOW, then God will give us neither the inclination, or the necessary light, to step forward into being truly born again, and thus dying to self, ...and thus coming into a saving relationship with the Lord. There is a path to that heavenly kingdom, ...and the sad fact is that only those that have a TRUE love of the truth will be the OVERCOMERs that make it into heaven. Walking this path requires that our LOVE of Truth be far greater than our love of this world. And even if we start an atheist, IF we keep searching out truth and stepping into it to follow, then I believe Jesus will always move the pieces in our lives so that our bearing will be on an intercept course to the One that made Heaven and Earth. We see that too when God gives a divine appointment - leading us to specific people that have been following what they know, and are hungry for additional light. There is nothing better on this side of heaven than sharing the Good News. BTW - my wife grew up in a very conservative Jewish upbringing -- Mother was a holocaust survivor, and her Father 'fought' in the 1948 independent movement in Israel. My wife had to leave home as a teenager to follow Jesus. There will always be a cost - but we will count that cost as rubbish, ...for being with Jesus is a greater joy than anything else this poor dying world has to offer us. Blessings, RH
No wonder Atheists have no respect for them, then, if his bollocks is the best on offer. All John Lennox proves is how a very good brain can be corrupted by religious bollocks, so all that comes out are logical fallacies.
By what criteria do you make this judgement? Did you study the writings of every "Christian intellectual" in all of modern history? What if I make a judgement that he is just another pompous bloviating apologist offering the same old word salad that all "Christian intellectuals" have always spewed? How would we determine whether you are right or not? How would we determine whether I am wrong or not? Sounds like your statement is just another opinion based on nothing.
Asking if you believe in god is a loaded question. It assumes there is a god and asks if you believe in him. You have to start by asking if there is a god in the first place. Then you can have a conversation that makes sense.
If there is a God they don't have to market "if you believe" right? They will just tell, call or text God, he will surely respond to you. But there isn't.
@martinlag1 you really think that's necessary or would you be able to continue a normal conversation using the classic definition of the capital G God?
@@food4thort Do you know what the definition of spiritual existence is whether you believe it or not ? { I mean you have an idea of what a unicorn is whether you believe in them or not ) If you do not know it would be quite difficult to offer an explanation to your question especially when the definition is largely the answer to your question.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp I have no experience of a spiritual dimension so imagining what it might be like is pointless. Until I have a reasonable balance of evidence for what the characteristics of a spiritual dimension might be, I have no reason to believe such a thing exists.
@@food4thort So you didn't genuinely want an answer to your question. I am not surprised that you do not think that you have seen any evidence for the existence of God when you have no idea what God is and therefore might not recognize evidence even if it jumped up a bit you. btw: Mathematics is an example of metaphysics. Do you have any experience with that ?
Why is there something rather than nothing? This question presupposes there is a reason for everything including the whole universe itself. In effect it suggests that everything in the universe is derived from logic, truth, and reason. This is the same as the correspondence theory of truth, which says that everything that exists is correlated to statements (theory, or reason) that are true.
How is there something rather than nothing is a far better thing worthy of consideration! The word why wouldn't be out of the parameters of consideration, however.
The only thing that can be said is we don't know. you can have theories in science. Religion says it does know but does not provide verifiable evidence.
@@silverfire01 We don't know is a reasonable response. I commend you on that! However, what we DO know is this... there are two options as to how we exist. One: evolution. Two: creation. One major problem with evolution is that it NEEDS the very thing it dismisses! What is that thing? It is the supernatural! How? Regardless of whether evolutionistic dogma prefers Panspermia, Oparin-Haldane (Primordial Soup Theory) , Hydrothermal Vents theory or ANY____it remains an absolute essential that SOMETHING HAD to have existed BEFORE EVOLUTION! Otherwise, there would have been NOTHING to evolve. So whatever agent (thing) you choose to have existed BEFORE evolution , that particular something would have to have been eternal or self-willed into existence. But we know that self-willed existence or eternality is NOT NATURAL. Therefore ____to the evolutionists chagrin ____you all are stuck with the supernatural anyway! Most importantly, since they dismiss the supernatural ____evolution clearly cannot stand.In contrast____embracing the supernatural means that there IS room for a creator... since a creator would be supernatural. The problem deepens however. How? Not one person has the authority to say," Evolutionary supernaturality is real . But any other supernaturality is not real. I've done what I'm about to do many times within this forum. And I'm extending the same opportunity to you. If the agent (thing) upon which evolution started really existed , present a third option to eternality or self-willed existence? Remember, evolutionistic views demand a NATURAL explanation. So your option MUST be NATURAL!
@GregoryHolden-k5c yes it all comes back to we dont know. You would still need to prove a creator. If you are religious you would still have all your work cut out to prove is the god as described in the Bible . I agree with Richard Dawkins who once said . There is no such thing as the supernatural . There is only evolved natural. If you took someone from 500 years ago as an example and brought them to present day I imagine they would think some things were magical or supernatural but they would not be. i cant say i agree with your statement evolutionists demanding a natural explanation . Science only looks at what evidence there is how can it be otherwise.
If everything can be derived from reason, then so can the laws of physics. If that were to be the case, then even the constants of nature would have a derivation, and the problem of fine tuning would disappear because it is all derived.
I don’t know a lot of things but what really boggles my mind is for someone who seems to know specific details about god, nature of god and that they are evidence base and when ask about the evidence, he confidently turn to specific pages, chapters and line in the bible and say here it is together with some convoluted explanation. not different from Jordan Charlattan who needs 2 days to answer if the virgin birth is true. Oth never fail to exasperate me.
1/ That there is no evidence for the existence of God. 2/ That nobody knows for a fact that God exists. 3/ That what other people accept as evidence for God's existence does not qualify as evidence. 4/ That people who say that they know for a fact that God exists are deluded. 5/ Atheism is more rational and logical than Theism. 6/ Empirical evidence and scientific methods are the only legitimate way to prove existence. Atheists *believe* these things - they do not know them as incontestable facts. They are the pillars that reinforce their atheism.
Theists believe in agency. Atheists believe in non-agency. As such at the fundamental level whether or not you are aware of it, you believe that the universe and life came about by chance. That limits what you believe is realistic and in turn influences how you perceive reality. Theists do not believe the universe came about from chance and that the agency behind the universe also has some interest in us. Deists do not believe in chance but do not believe the agency has any real interest in us and we are predominantly just by products. Agnostics have no real position on anything ranging from because they have questions that can not be answered sufficiently by any position through to just never having bothered to think anything through to a sufficient level. They do not believe in agency nor do they believe there is no agency - as such they are not atheists.
You believe there is no God. Everything came in to existence by cheer luck. Your life, your feelings, your relationships, your whole point of existence revolves around nothing. Literally nothing. Every feeling you have is a result of chemicals and neurons firing in your brain. That's it. And that is what you believe. And yet there is not one shred of evidence it is so. So that's why atheism is a belief system. If you do not see or acknowledge that, you are intellectually dishonest. And yes, Christians believe things too. But they are based on evidence that points in the direction of divine intervention. Not blind faith. Get that. Think about that. Read, learn, open your mind and see if you then still can accept an atheistic worldview. You are more than molecules stacked on top of each other my friend.
If you’re an atheist, your belief is that there is no God. We cannot know everything, and therefore faith is inevitable, though the question is where you put it.
@@Yarp-y I do believe leprechauns do not exist. I believe I can trust my senses. These beliefs are ultimately based on my faith in my perception of reality.
@@jon__doe But the leprechaun non belief does not define your belief system - it is trivial part of what you believe. So it goes with atheists regarding a personal God. Also, my advice is: Rather than use faith, instead define a formal system, then ground your non belief in Leprechauns in that formal system. The word faith is loaded with theistic baggage, creating a divide as to understanding between one type of theist and others, and between those and atheists.
Hi Practical Wisdom what exactly does this man mean by his use of the word 'descent'?, I mean he definitely says it as if it means something important but the spoken style embodies no information. A bit later he refers to the question why something as if that too has some material significance, what actual difference does us knowing why anything actually have? I can see clearly that a rational explanation of how something works could be useful but why has no contribution. He also appears to be captivated by the concept of creation and beginning, I can see that this could be important in the context of why questions but I have already got rid of that concern on the basis of utility. Again my question is what difference would it make? given that we do have a material universe of some sort just how does its origin inform its current state, it is clearly a complex dynamic system and as far as I understand given the way chance operates within the confines of the natural laws that apply, whatever they are, absolutely anything can just happen, and in the fullness of time probably will somehow somewhere. It would seem that this poor man simply lacks the breadth on imagination to see that just because it makes no sense to him it absolutely cannot be, what special qualifications does he have to insist that the accurate explanation will be one he must comprehend?. Cheers, Richard.
@@sabinekoch3448 Hi Sabine Koch, thank you for this response, I do agree to the depth of the discussion but without some useful purpose what is the point?. I have had many years of fruitless debate with all sorts of people of all sorts of background, I am now in the rather awkward situation of having to come to terms with some aspects of reality, among them the fact that our feeble human brains have no great effective agency, we cannot even regulate our own lives according to our own prescriptions, the talent we do have for dreaming up all manner of complicated ideas about what is happening around us and in just what ways we can alter actual events is extraordinary but when it comes to finding any truth or conclusion we have made very little real traction, all the 'discoveries we have made about the physical universe we inhabit tell us only that the volume of what we do not know is vastly greater than the volume of what we have found!. Then there is the enormous catalogue of mythology and delusion we have invented, that appears to be greater still!, for a while I was content that the concept of refutation was adequate for the removal of much of the dross, now I understand that most of the delusional dross cannot be disposed of this way!, cognitive delusions that are the product of imaginative fantasy are not amenable to logic or reason, based as they are just on desire and faith. The best I can find to deal with it all is application of the principles of utilitarianism, where the significant criteria is efficacy, any ideas that can leads to useful solution to real problems can be kept, those that offer no utility abandoned, not because they are morally or materially wrong but because they are useless!, this then allows me to dismiss all that silly religious twaddle as irrelevant regardless of intellectual depth and conserve my limited resources to issues that I can resolve and questions that I can answer. Cheers, Richard.
Atheism says nothing about the question of why there is something instead of nothing. Atheism is not believing in a god. That's all. As far as choosing between science and God, that is a silly question. There are millions of scientists who are believers in a God. Science has never asked anyone to give up their belief in a God. Science merely asks for reproducible results. It is the young earth creationists that demand scientists abandon science, and accept a literal interpretation of the bible.
Wonderful thoughts being exchanged. Does it make sense to say that when God created plants, means that God created seeds, bulbs... first, then created the Sun which permitted the seeds to grow into plants?
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei (Especially the first six paragraphs) *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Bible Contradiction **#134**. Which Ten Commandments?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
The fact you cite Aron Ra you have dicredited yourself, he is a mid functioning Autist, while someone like Professor Dave is high functioning, but theyre both arrogant and ill-read, ill-experienced, people. The fact these Biblr stories are OLDER than thr Bible is evidence for their being TRUE, not "false", that is an individualistic, possessive, egocentric, perspective of ownership. You think like a human, and attribute human attribute to God, then judge God as an equal, and by proxy yourself greater (in the ways you defeat it); You Are A Satanist.
Paraphrasing Revelation.. And in those final days, God will send strong delusions such that even the very elect would be deceived if that were possible. Jesus is God in human form. Jesus rose from the dead proving that He is God, since death has no hold on the Creator. Jesus accepted the Jewish Scriptures, including Genesis as true. Since Jesus affirmed the scriptures, all the scriptures are true. Jesus said “Heaven & earth shall pass away, but My Word will not pass away.” Therefore, the entire Bible is true.
Professing themselves wise, they became fools, and exchanged the Truth of God for the delusions of men. And God gave them over to depraved minds such that their sins could be made manifest in their minds & bodies.
Why try to answer questions for which we obviously do not have adequate understandings? Apophenia and the need for certainty inspire magical thinking, misrepresentation, and unreason.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Long ago, we (human beings) did not understand the hydrologic cycle. We did not understand how water vapor rises, cools, condenses, and falls in liquid and solid forms. Although there was no adequate understanding of the process, many reasons, many fanciful causes were imagined.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Amazing interview. I want to watch it again. I still have one big issue. There is archaeological evidence that people existed for at least 160000 years, so how does one reconcile that with (a) Adam and Eve (b) The genealogy of Jesus Christ? My only answer now is to believe in Jesus is my and all of His follower's saviour, which is all that matters. Nobody can say whether the human life of 160000 was aware of God. Is it the awareness of Adam and Eve that started the moment of an unharmonious and sinful world? If so, then Genesys makes sense as Genesys talks of the awareness of God. The worst sin is not disobedience (Moses for example), but when a person becomes arrogant thinking that he can be like God. The is serious, how do we explain to our grand children?
There is no first cause because there is no such thing as nothing , you can only come to the erroneous conclusion of a first cause if you know there is nothing . It seems to be too complicated a concept for many to accept , fear and ignorance are a great motivator , it's sad but understandable .
@@johnhammond6423 Okay it sounds like you're talking about abductive reasoning in that case. Abductive reasoning is both subjective and uncertain, it can't actually prove anything, only suggest that one explanation for a given body of evidence is more or less plausible than another. Everything Mister Lennox brought up in his discussion is evidence within the context of abductive reasoning, definitionally. But you also mentioned validity, which refers to whether or not a deductive argument is formulated correctly. Godel's ongological proof is a valid argument for God's existence, but I'm guessing you wouldn't accept it. I suppose it's possible that you are thinking of evidence in the Baconian inductive sense, but that's most useful for examining physical systems and deriving math that describes the behavior of that system under your observational parameters. Trying to use Baconian induction to ask questions about God would be like examining a book and declaring that you can't find any authors in it.
That’s an intellectually dishonest answer. You state there is no God, but have zero proof despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Atheism is merely a faith.
@@bradsmith9189 If you think atheism is a faith, it's a faith in nothing, isn't it? If you say God is real which you just stated. You are doing exactly what I did only the dead opposite. I say no god, you say God. Big deal. Your evidence is that of men that wrote a book to scare people into conforming and I say that book was written to frighten people and it's bullshit.
@@mirandahotspring4019 This is of course well established. What is astonishig is that they are suing tisas a reference even though it infirms creation ex nihilo.
Biologist here. Lennox admits he is no astrophysycist, yet quotes them, agreeing or disagreeing at his own presuppositional whim. Lennox, while admitting he is no biologist quotes Dawkins and rejects the scientific consensus of biological evolution while quoting Denis Noble, an outsider, as if the minoroty view is the consensus. It is not. Biological evolution already incorporates the critiques of Noble. As a non-scientist, (mathematics is not a traditional science) Lennox wouldn't know that, of course, so who is he to erroneously claim that biology is in turmoil? Lennox, quotes philosophers about the fine tuning argument, which is a philosophical argument, presupposing the parameters of the universe are malleable variables. If they are not, or if they are connected, which is likely, his point is completely invalid. Thanks for your opinion, John. You are doing apologetics. I've not met an apologist yet who will stay in his own field of knowledge.
What atheists believe: 1/ That there is no evidence for the existence of God. 2/ That nobody knows for a fact that God exists. 3/ That what other people accept as evidence for God's existence does not qualify as evidence. 4/ That people who say that they know for a fact that God exists are deluded. 5/ Atheism is more rational and logical than Theism. 6/ Empirical evidence and scientific methods are the only legitimate way to prove existence. Atheists *believe* these things - they do not know them as incontestable facts. They are the pillars that reinforce their atheism.
The creator of the universe and life exists, because the universe and life exists. We choose to call that creator God. If atheists insist that nothing created the universe and life then nothing is the creator, the creator still exists but atheists call the creator nothing. Whatever we choose to call the creator does not change the creator.
00:36-00:50 complete misrepresentation of Big Bang cosmology. Science doesn’t tell us the universe had an ultimate beginning. It is impossible to defend theism without committing an endless string of logical fallacies.
Actually science DOES indeed CLAIM that the universe had a beginning. And it is NOT from theists. I'd suggest that you research The Singularity. Because, you probably shouldn't make a claim that you are not sure of. Such an action suggests that your mind is made up... regardless of what you DON'T know!
@@GregoryHolden-k5cWrong. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the universe had an absolute beginning. The ‘singularity’ was first posited by by Penrose and Hawking, and this hypothesis was based on a number of assumptions which have since been shown to be incorrect. Both Penrose and Hawking have both acknowledged that their singularity theorems are not valid. The current view amongst leading cosmologists and physicists is that the universe is most likely eternal. Might I suggest you do some research before you make a fool of yourself on the internet 😜
You must be an atheist. Am I right? You believe in science? Am I right? Science does NOTHING! People do science! Am I right. The Bible instructs everyone to put everything to the test and hold fast to that which is good. That is the scientific method. Am I right? Atheists by their own admission are not intelligently designed. Am I right? Therefore atheist talk nonsense. Am I right? Would you trust a computer that wasn't intelligently designed. I hope not.
Where do ideas come from? Before an author writes a character, where and what is the nature of the being of the character? Talking about apples falling is not the same subject. Imagine a way of knowing in which there are nouns and verbs. An apple is a noun and falling is a verb. Talking about an apple doesn't create an apple. But talking about falling does create falling. Things and ideas are as much alike as a man and music. The talk about "life" is a talk about ideas. God is an idea. Ideas don't "exist" until they are "said to be" because they can only be created and they never become a "thing" and they can never "fall" nor be "eaten" nor be "poisoned" like an apple can unless all those words are metaphors. Talking about the nature of being of being should be very simple to understand. This video by an intelligent speaker and writer about God is fun, but wrong, at a fundamental level.
My Bible says that LIGHT was created on the first day, and plants on the third. That is the order. Just because the sun, moon, and stars were set in the heavens in a particular place where God wanted them on the fourth day doesn't detract from the fact that there was a light source on DAY ONE. So I don't see a problem with the text at all. After all, sunlight may be a source of life, but GOD is the ULTIMATE Source of Life, and if He wants something or someone to LIVE in outer darkness, they will. They won't need light or anything else we associate with life on this planet. People forget Who they're talking about sometimes. The don't call Him ALL x3 for no reason. There is NO MYTHS in the Bible. Only an ALL powerful, ALL seeing and ALL present, miraculous GOD. Dr. Lennox, study genetics, and read Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson's book, TRACED which follows the Y chromosome all the way back. Then you'll see that the genetic lineages bottleneck with three individuals around 4400 years ago.
@@bradsmith9189Lennox only proves science can't disprove the God of the Bible. He doesn't prove the young earth theory. In fact, many theologians prove you can only hold the 6000 years old earth if you believe the Bible account. Lennox is not a theologian.
I worry that by over-interpreting the Genesis creation poem (that's what it is), Lennox weakens the credibility of the Christian case. As a matter of scientific fact, Homo Sapiens emerged as a very successful species from now extinct hominoid species, including Neanderthal and Denisovan. Part of the success of this new hominoid species was due not only to its intelligence and physical agility, but to its aggression, high sexual fertility, territoriality, etc. Due its very biological success (8+ billion humans) many of these self-same attributes threaten its continued existence. Sin is the unrestrained exercise of these primordial attributes. Jesus has come to lead us away from these primitive instincts. We should frame matters this way, rather than over-emphasise the metaphors of Genesis that speak of an original state of bliss, a first sin, and then a need for a saviour.
Christians should really start reading Genesis for what it states. This god did not create the universe. He did not create the primordial (and eternal) waters, he just "hovered over them". Then he "blew his pneuma (creating spirit) over them so room was made ("in the midst") for land and the heavens (plural). It also wasn't original in its storyline. The Egyptian and Sumeric creation stories outdate Genesis by at least a millenium and are quite similar. They all start with the primordial waters that have always been. And out of this, land and skies (or heavens) were created by gods. These empires ruled over and influenced the worldviews of the peoples of Canaan (Levant). The best explanation is that they, like the proto-Israelites, drew upon these earlier stories to write their own formative identity texts.
Do you have reasons for not believing in Zeus which you accept as true even though you have not scoured the entire Universe and not found Zeus? And what would you call that system of reasoning? An unbelief system perhaps ?
Happy New Year is a wish not a fact. Wishing you a Happy New Year. Enjoy your choice of videos! (Advice is free , sometimes) "Give me just the plain facts, man"
One can’t get away from the sovereignty of God in Salvation which comes from Paul’s teaching. It seems to me that Paul in Corinthians was not comparing various inaccurate teachings but personalities. Calvinism to me is that Christ said “I chose you”. Paul takes that to the truth of ‘vessels of wrath’. Lazarus could not respond to Christ until Christ called Him. This causes a layman like me to feel doubt if I’m honest, yet I know that my Heavenly Father has looked after me as you would a child since i believed.
@ Lazarus was dead. Christ delayed His coming (His sovereignty) so that His power and Glory would be revealed in Lazarus’ resurrection. I think a Calvinist would say that it is a picture of being ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ unable to respond to Christ until the Holy Spirit quickens a sinner. However, to a sinner we must preach that Christ said that whoever comes to Him He will not cast out; Then a saved sinner Looking back learns that God is Sovereign. As I understand it once we have died in this life we cannot be saved yet in the case of Lazarus Christ was Sovereign in salvation even after physical death. ( I am a laymen having learned all this second hand as it were and therefore not an authority)
@@davidrichard2761I do not see how the resurrection of Lazarus can support the Calvinist position. Calvinist theology would say that Lazarus would have to have been resurrected (New Testament parallel = Born Again ) before he was even capable of hearing or responding to the call of Jesus. But in John 5 Jesus says "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when *all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out* -those who have done what is good will rise to live, *and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."* The wicked have not been regenerated or born-again of the Holy Spirit but they will still be able to hear and respond to the voice of the Lord. Jairus daughter also heard the voice of Jesus: But He (Jesus) took her by the hand and said, “My child, get up!” *Her spirit returned*, and at once she stood up. Jesus and Paul refer to physical death as 'sleep.'
@@davidrichard2761I myself do not hold to the TULIP of Calvinism. Some of my reasons being. Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: *You always resist the Holy Spirit!* Luke 7:30 “But the Pharisees and the experts in the law *rejected God’s purpose for themselves,* because they had not been baptized by John.” Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, *how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, **_and you were not willing.”_* Romans 10:21 'But concerning Israel he says ,“All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”'
How is it exposing to realise that we defined having an idea -any idea- about god(s), spirits and our purpose as being called a belief system? That is not a flex. It's smug stupidity. Why should it be an issue that others have different views at all? Quit creating conflict where none is needed. Respect that others have different views, without having to disparage or change them.
One really needs to believe first....only then Lennox makes sense. Have you believers given up on convincing anyone of your God? Because Johnny here is not doing that at all.
Plants do not need the sun to survive. They simply need light. God made light on the first day. And if you think God had trouble sustaining plant life for 2 days, you’re going to have a bigger problem with Moses surviving 40 days on Mt Horeb in God’s presence. Yet both accounts are consistent with each other. It stands to reason the creator of life possesses the power to sustain life. And the creator of the sun is more powerful THAN the sun- possessing the power to sustain the existence of the things he has the power to create.
Thinking gift as objective and having faith need as subjective are inseparable and qualitatively equal. The keeping of this is in uncertainty of belief (Heisenberg) in present moment real presence in the relativity of time and space (Einstein). God as "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14) is this keeping.
THE ATHEISM TODAY AS A METAPHYSIC QUESTION IS TO NOT ACCEPT THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST TRUE GOD TRUE MAN PERFECT MEASUREMENT OF EVERYTHING OF EVERYTHINK....
Even if atheism is a belief system, which it isn't, it still wouldn't prove a god exists, so it's a pointless comment that Christians shouldn't keep repeating.
God has left us proofs that he is there: 1)The wonder of creation, the beauty of the universe ,the co.lexity of atoms and molecules..they all show His handiwork. 2) Our consciences tell us that we have done wrong and need forgiveness. God has provided a way to be forgiven through the death of Christ and His resurrection. 3) A hugely complex code in every single cell of our body which could not have arisen by chance. Codes are written not organised by chance. 4) It is historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. This is a supremely important event where God has declared Himself. Let alone the prophecies which came true in Jesus life. Or the miracles which He performed that showed His Deity.
@@TeeHee-i3m "The wonder of creation?" You mean earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, cancer, MS, polio, downs syndrome etc, etc, etc. It is NOT an historical fact Jesus was raised from the dead, in fact we can be certain beyond all reasonable doubt it never happened simply because no historian of the time wrote about it, nor the miracles, which would be impossible if they did happen. The prophesies were all too vague to be taken seriously and they were too easy for the later authors to write stories to make them look as if they were fulfilled. You really need to learn critical thinking and listen to the right scholars and not the biased, ignorant ones like Lennox.
If one talks of the mythological "religions", one realises that they had been creating gods for everything in nature that primitive man could not explain otherwise. A typical example is the mythological god Thor for thunder. The mythological gods disappeared as science progressed. For atheists to compare mythology to the Christian religion is, therefore, a fundamental reasoning mistake, since Jesus did not explain what we see in nature, such as thunder. Jesus used nature as it was known to man, to explain God, as a channel of communication, for example a tree bearing fruit. That has nothing to do with mythology.
@@Birdieupon It is not a belief in the sense that theists use it. Atheists do not "believe" in gods because they have credible evidence they don't exist independent of human thought and imagination. The belief (or faith) that theists display is really a suspension of evidence based reason, so the contrary of atheism.
What evidence could you come up to the contrary there is no evidence for God or no God there is only facts or theorys that point to either direction and goal is to either live to see the truth or to balance out reasons to see what would be the more logical possibility
Where's the Christ for the rest of the universe? Are there a multiverse of Christs, or is Christ just a human thing? Are Gods just a human thing? Oh, it's "choose", not "chose".
Poor old Christians. I understand why they want to hang on to these fantasies, but not how they can. Re Lennox’s question, there are two responses. One, we do not know that ‘Why?’ is a reasonable question in respect of the Universe, it may be simply a fact that something exists, and we have good physical theories that do not require us to imagine an unembodied Mind; and Two, if it is a reasonable question, it applies equally to the Divinity: ‘Why is there a God rather than nothing?’
We have no good physical theories. Science is agnostic. We have metaphysical hypotheses of which agency is one. Science shows some hypotheses are highly unlikely - for example CERN has shown string theory and so the multiverse as being unlikely. Concerning agency science finds this to be a highly plausible possibility because we now are pretty sure that external to the universe is pure energy and information. That is pretty much what Christians believe is God.
God is supposed to be unknowable yet you know so much about him. Cute. ignorance means God exists. Science is the objective limitation of what we actually do know about what's around us.
My favorite example of believing in something that can't be seen is the wind, which is moving air. Air is invisible, so how do we know there's such a thing as the wind? Because of how it affects the world we can see. We see tree branches moving around, sand or trash moving across a parking lot, or we feel pressure on our face and our hair whipping about. It's the same thing with God.
You can measure wind. This is an empirical test. It is movement of air. You can weigh air. You cannot measure immaginary things. I see God in that category. Can you measure God?
I really appreciate your efforts! Could you help me with something unrelated: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
Why god? I don't want any Jesus. The possibilities are endless. I want to say that belief in atheism doesn't exist. These are just words. If I say yes. "I believe" in science, so what? Evolution is over? I wonder what the world will look like in a million years? The same?
Because God will ultimately bring justice to evil that every creature committed since the beginning of the world. God has sent his Son so that anyone who believes in Him will not perish and should have eternal life. You have a way of escape and it’s up to you to accept or reject it. Romans 1 20 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse
Why a christian god, modern man has been around for approx 300,000 years, that's approx 298,000 years without the christian god, that's an awful lot of generations that lived productive lives without the a god that forget to tell them about him...oops
Atheism is a response to the claim about the existence of deities, *forming a position* on metaphysical issues. In contrast, not collecting stamps isn't a stance; it's simply the lack of engagement in a specific hobby, not a philosophical view.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Nope... that is referring to the classical definiiton. Most atheist identify as an agnostic atheist defined as have the psychological state of not believing in any dieties. At its core, atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of deities. It does not, in itself, propose a positive claim or a comprehensive worldview, making it more of a position on a single issue (the existence of gods) than a fully developed philosophy.
Atheism is simply faith based as it does not provide proof for its claim. It’s clearly on its way out with recent scientific discoveries. The majority of scientists today are NOT atheists.
Since you're discussing Biblical faith, you should go to the Bible where faith is defined. In Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen. God says faith is EVIDENCE BASED. Shame on Webster's dictionary!!!
Is this mathematician, who only taught math at undergraduates at a Welsh university, implying that he can correct a giant in cosmology and theoretical physics like Stephen Hawking?
@@evanmartin8101 They're not Hawking's "ideas". Hawking substantiated his propositions with evidence (math and observations in cosmology), hence they were far more than just ideas.
@@lizadowning4389 I agree with your elaboration on my use of the word “ideas”. With your appreciation for Hawking’s work, why then simply appeal to authority? I’m not an expert, so I may be mistaken, but there is no unified theory in physics. There is indispensable faith in the intelligibility of the universe, let alone the faith that such a pursuit is worthwhile. Lennox hones in on Stephen Hawking’s quote “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can create itself from nothing”. Of Lennox’s ensuing critique, and with your knowledge of Hawking’s work, what are your thoughts?
@@evanmartin8101 There is indeed no unification model for quantum gravity but this is what Hawking at the end of his life, together with his close collaborator Thomas Hertog, came to put into question. That a unifying theory might not be found and our current understanding of the cosmos (standard model) might be flawed. Peering into the extreme quantum physics of cosmic holograms and venturing far back in time to our deepest roots, they were startled to find a deeper level of evolution in which the physical laws themselves transform and simplify until particles, forces, and even time itself fades away. This discovery led them to a revolutionary insight. The laws of physics are not set in stone but are born and co-evolve as the universe they govern takes shape. So instead they proposed the no-boundary model of the beginning-conceived from the top down vs bottom up-which is key to realize the fundamentally historical perspective on physics and cosmology, a view of physics that includes the genesis of the laws. The no-boundary hypothesis predicts that if we trace the primordial universe as far back in time as we possibly can, its structural properties continue to evaporate and transmute and that this extends, ultimately, to time itself. Time would initially have been melded with space into something like a higher-dimensional sphere, closing the universe into nothingness. This led the early Hawking, still reasoning in a causal bottom-up fashion, to proclaim that the universe was created from nothing. But Hawking’s final theory offers a radically different interpretation of this closure of spacetime at the big bang. The later Hawking held that this nothingness at the beginning is nothing like the emptiness of a vacuum, out of which universes may or may not be born, but a much more profound, epistemic horizon involving no space, no time, and, crucially, no physical laws. In that sense, Lennox is not only taking Hawking out of context but actually equivocating him on the term “nothing”, and hence leading him to a fallacious statement that it is contradictory. Either Lennox is ignorant on Hawking and Hertog’s work, or he is simply quote-mining and strawmanning them. Personally I think its a mixture of both. “The origin of time” in Hawking’s final proposal is the limit of what can be said about our past, not just the beginning of all that is. This view is especially borne out by the holographic form of the theory where the dimension of time and hence the basic notion of evolution, the epitome of reductionist concepts, are seen as emergent qualities of the universe. From a holographic viewpoint, going back in time is like taking an increasingly fuzzy look at the hologram. One quite literally sheds more and more of the information that it encodes until, well, one runs out of qubits. That would be the beginning. Imagine you’re a traveler that undertook a journey. You’d have no problem explaining exactly how you got to your end point. But how would you explain exactly how you got to your starting point? I know it may be alot to digest but at the deepest levels of the cosmos ‘things’ are not so much illogic rather massively counter intuitive and an assault on our common sense. But maybe we have to start acknowledging that our common sense doesn’t reflect the universe we live in. Beyond our understanding of the universe there might have been a layer out of which the laws of physics not only emerged but co-evolved with the particles in this universe and influenced each other much like a “Darwinian model of cosmology”. We know (this is solid math) that gravity directs particles with mass where to go, yet we also know that particles with mass direct the curvature of gravity. This interaction seems to be fundamental to our universe. As an analogy: we change, refine our human laws to be more efficient and adress new challenges/issues-our behaviour changes laws and our laws change our behaviour. In a nutshell, our cosmos fine tuned its cosmological constants itself through a mechanism of adaptive evolution so that energy and matter could interact better, and resulted in what we call OUR universe, as we observe it. This “fine tuning” is a dynamical, interactive process, not a static once off, as in “divine poof!”. And as we gradually are finding out with new information from the JWST ... Hawking may have been on to something profound and revolutionary. Time will tell. In any case, what Hawking proposed and stated is not contradictory as Lennox likes his listeners to believe. Lennox is simply ignorant on modern cosmology and what they mean with “nothing”. If you really want to get into a basic understanding, I highly recommend Thomas Hertog’s book “On the Origin of Time” in which he explains the basics of it for an enthusiastic laymen audience.
We do not all take for granted that we live in an unlimited universe let alone a multiverse- that is multiple universes for which, by definition, we cannot observe, nor interact with. The 'faith' of atheism has grown to the point of ridiculousness.
Nah, the despair of believers is really showing when they have to tell so many lies about people who do not share their beliefs. Atheism has nothing to do with the multiverse and you know it.
31:50 geneticists have been saying that the human race came from 2 people for over 30 years. Follow the genetics on a 6000 years since creation. It is too stretched out over billions of years
JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS TRULY GOD IN HUMAN THE IMAGE OF INVISIBLE GOD, HIS TEACHING THE SINLESS LIFE HE LIVED HIS DEATH AND RESSURRECTION HE IS ALL IN ALL ALPHA AND OMEGA, BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO ARE PURE IN HEARTS FOR THEY WILL SEE GOD.
It's not a "belief". Atheists in general have very good "reason" to reject the existence of gods. Therefore we do not have to "believe" they don't exist rather we have convincing evidence they don't exist.
Was a member of the atheist religion for almost 35 years. I simply lost the faith required to believe.
Jesus allowed me into his life January 2024.
Christianity is called a faith because it is a belief. Non belief is not called a faith because it is not a belief. This used to be a simple concept. It takes some self-denial and a book on apologetics to get this concept so messed up.
Thank you Lord for John Lennox...please bless him with good health so he may continue to speak out, not only to encourage those of us who are Christians and need a role model like John but for any ear that will listen to the inspired words he speaks. Amen.
He is greater❤🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
And he jives and jams all meanings in a word salad.
Mumbo jumbo
@@josevalverde7431he is the greater spinner of nonsense
AMEN.
Good day, praise God from whom all blessings flow,
If you read the bible objectively you'll see that no blessings flow from God. Aside from the fact that God was invented by humans.
@otthoheldring I can answer that. If you read the Bible objectively, So, the people wanted the King to come to power and asked for him. I think you agreed on who they asked for him from...
What a great interview. John Lennox is a rockstar!!!!!
He is a spinner of nonsense.
🔔 SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.com/@Practical.Wisdom?sub_confirmation=1
Lovely discussion Samuel - I always enjoy your channel - & John Lennox is always such a great expositor on theism, and Christianity.
In regard to why God does not show himself... I've come to realize that == God only shows himself to the extent to which our Faith has grown ==.
This is because God will not overthrow our Free Will, ...He will give us 'hints' so to speak - IF we follow the trail of 'bread crumbs' in seeking truth, it will open up more and more. This is also why the majority of Christians are so feeble in their Faith.
Jesus said in John 7:17 KJV "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."
As we strive to become obedient to ALL the light (spiritual truths) that God has shown us, then He will give us new light. This is what the Bible refers to as 'walking with Jesus'. He shines the light of truth, we take a step of faith and obedience to step into that light and gain another victory.
But what if one is NOT following what they know to be true? By way of example let's say a person is NOT following 3 Biblical truths that they know of. Then would Jesus be helping them to give them 2 more truths to IGNORE ? NO INDEED - because then in the judgement they would be damned for not only the first three truths they were rebelling against, but also the two new truths Jesus showed them. God is a Gentleman - He came not to condemn but to save - YET we have our part to play. If we truly LOVE Jesus - The Way, The Truth, and The Life - then we follow His commandments (Jn 14:15 etc.) This involves a sanctification process. Before the book of Acts, Christians were known as "followers of the Way" as from Ps 77:13 - "Thy way of God is in the sanctuary". This Old testament is a form of diorama of salvation even for the Christian - with its Justification (courtyard), Sanctification (Holy Place), and Glorification (Most Holy Place). So few today are inclined to learn anything that might disrupt their worldly lifestyles.
I grew up in an atheist background. And accepted it hook, line and sinker. But I kept seeing an increasing number of elements in life that did not match that paradigm (e.g., Big Bang, our Conscience, our seeking of purpose in this life). Yet when I'd ask questions of Christians around me, they had no logical/reasonable answers. I did come into a relationship with God aside from any specific religious affiliations - 20 years in that mode. God even helped me in my technical field - time and time again - a few times things I could not have possibly known He showed me.
Finally on a challenge from a Christian astronomer - I went back to reevaluate the whole materialistic perspective. It fell apart like a wet biscuit.
Then finally I bought a Bible started through it -- it was SO INCREDIBLE - it utterly stunned me - took a week from my consulting business and just read the bible and other books on it. At the end of the week gave my life to Christ. And he's been moving me and growing me and keeps giving me increasing light. I teach classes and preach on occasion and witness at every opportunity.
It is one of my constant prayers, that we as Christians would step up to follow ALL that God says - that is where the rubber meets the road.
I used to design computer based systems, operating systems, etc. before going into writing & arguing patents for universities and various companies.
I say that to bring out that the Bible is == MUCH == like a technical specification, it has its own language and methods of expression. Also it can only be truly understood if we integrate the teachings across its full breadth. The resultant system (our character) will not operate in the manner that the INVENTOR of the Universe desires, unless we seek to integrate ALL those teachings into our lives.
Yet, if we are not really willing to FOLLOW, then God will give us neither the inclination, or the necessary light, to step forward into being truly born again, and thus dying to self, ...and thus coming into a saving relationship with the Lord.
There is a path to that heavenly kingdom, ...and the sad fact is that only those that have a TRUE love of the truth will be the OVERCOMERs that make it into heaven. Walking this path requires that our LOVE of Truth be far greater than our love of this world. And even if we start an atheist, IF we keep searching out truth and stepping into it to follow, then I believe Jesus will always move the pieces in our lives so that our bearing will be on an intercept course to the One that made Heaven and Earth. We see that too when God gives a divine appointment - leading us to specific people that have been following what they know, and are hungry for additional light. There is nothing better on this side of heaven than sharing the Good News.
BTW - my wife grew up in a very conservative Jewish upbringing -- Mother was a holocaust survivor, and her Father 'fought' in the 1948 independent movement in Israel. My wife had to leave home as a teenager to follow Jesus. There will always be a cost - but we will count that cost as rubbish, ...for being with Jesus is a greater joy than anything else this poor dying world has to offer us.
Blessings,
RH
The Spirit of Truth is speaking through John...
@@raymondjoseph9282 Faith is all you have , certainly not a path to truth
The spirit of mumbo jumbo ...
@@raymondjoseph9282 All faith zero evidence zero truth
One of the best christian intellectuals in modern history...
No wonder Atheists have no respect for them, then, if his bollocks is the best on offer.
All John Lennox proves is how a very good brain can be corrupted by religious bollocks, so all that comes out are logical fallacies.
By what criteria do you make this judgement? Did you study the writings of every "Christian intellectual" in all of modern history? What if I make a judgement that he is just another pompous bloviating apologist offering the same old word salad that all "Christian intellectuals" have always spewed? How would we determine whether you are right or not? How would we determine whether I am wrong or not? Sounds like your statement is just another opinion based on nothing.
That’s quite an admission! :)
Agreed
If he is one of the best, what are the worst like? On second thoughts, don't tell me. It's clowns like Kent Hovind, right? Oh dear.
Asking if you believe in god is a loaded question. It assumes there is a god and asks if you believe in him. You have to start by asking if there is a god in the first place. Then you can have a conversation that makes sense.
Do you believe in magical unicorns?
If there is a God they don't have to market "if you believe" right? They will just tell, call or text God, he will surely respond to you. But there isn't.
@fil-el How did you determine that there is no God?
True. We need to define God in order to even know what we think we are believing.
@martinlag1 you really think that's necessary or would you be able to continue a normal conversation using the classic definition of the capital G God?
Amen. Thank You so much Lord Jesus for giving us John Lennox. God is spiritually discerned.🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️
Lenox is a spinner of gobbledygook
Amazing interview!Please keep up the good work👏
If a god can be uncaused, why can't a universe be uncaused?
@@YuelSea-sw2rp A spiritual existence is a matter of faith.
@@food4thort Do you know what the definition of spiritual existence is whether you believe it or not ? { I mean you have an idea of what a unicorn is whether you believe in them or not ) If you do not know it would be quite difficult to offer an explanation to your question especially when the definition is largely the answer to your question.
@@food4thort Can you define 'metaphysics.'
@@YuelSea-sw2rp I have no experience of a spiritual dimension so imagining what it might be like is pointless. Until I have a reasonable balance of evidence for what the characteristics of a spiritual dimension might be, I have no reason to believe such a thing exists.
@@food4thort So you didn't genuinely want an answer to your question. I am not surprised that you do not think that you have seen any evidence for the existence of God when you have no idea what God is and therefore might not recognize evidence even if it jumped up a bit you.
btw: Mathematics is an example of metaphysics. Do you have any experience with that ?
Why is there something rather than nothing? This question presupposes there is a reason for everything including the whole universe itself. In effect it suggests that everything in the universe is derived from logic, truth, and reason. This is the same as the correspondence theory of truth, which says that everything that exists is correlated to statements (theory, or reason) that are true.
How is there something rather than nothing is a far better thing worthy of consideration! The word why wouldn't be out of the parameters of consideration, however.
The only thing that can be said is we don't know. you can have theories in science. Religion says it does know but does not provide verifiable evidence.
@@silverfire01 We don't know is a reasonable response. I commend you on that! However, what we DO know is this... there are two options as to how we exist. One: evolution. Two: creation. One major problem with evolution is that it NEEDS the very thing it dismisses! What is that thing? It is the supernatural! How? Regardless of whether evolutionistic dogma prefers Panspermia, Oparin-Haldane (Primordial Soup Theory) , Hydrothermal Vents theory or ANY____it remains an absolute essential that SOMETHING HAD to have existed BEFORE EVOLUTION! Otherwise, there would have been NOTHING to evolve. So whatever agent (thing) you choose to have existed BEFORE evolution , that particular something would have to have been eternal or self-willed into existence. But we know that self-willed existence or eternality is NOT NATURAL. Therefore ____to the evolutionists chagrin ____you all are stuck with the supernatural anyway! Most importantly, since they dismiss the supernatural ____evolution clearly cannot stand.In contrast____embracing the supernatural means that there IS room for a creator... since a creator would be supernatural. The problem deepens however. How? Not one person has the authority to say," Evolutionary supernaturality is real . But any other supernaturality is not real. I've done what I'm about to do many times within this forum. And I'm extending the same opportunity to you. If the agent (thing) upon which evolution started really existed , present a third option to eternality or self-willed existence? Remember, evolutionistic views demand a NATURAL explanation. So your option MUST be NATURAL!
@GregoryHolden-k5c yes it all comes back to we dont know. You would still need to prove a creator. If you are religious you would still have all your work cut out to prove is the god as described in the Bible . I agree with Richard Dawkins who once said . There is no such thing as the supernatural . There is only evolved natural. If you took someone from 500 years ago as an example and brought them to present day I imagine they would think some things were magical or supernatural but they would not be. i cant say i agree with your statement evolutionists demanding a natural explanation . Science only looks at what evidence there is how can it be otherwise.
If everything can be derived from reason, then so can the laws of physics. If that were to be the case, then even the constants of nature would have a derivation, and the problem of fine tuning would disappear because it is all derived.
I don’t know a lot of things but what really boggles my mind is for someone who seems to know specific details about god, nature of god and that they are evidence base and when ask about the evidence, he confidently turn to specific pages, chapters and line in the bible and say here it is together with some convoluted explanation. not different from Jordan Charlattan who needs 2 days to answer if the virgin birth is true. Oth never fail to exasperate me.
The same way that an atheist might refer to 'On Origin of Species' or Quote Christopher Hitchens as if that puts a stop to all further debate.
Lennox picks at science but ultimately he is just filling whatever gaps he picks away with a god myth that explains nothing.
Thanks for sharing another bless full episode.God bless You❤
If atheism is a belief system then can someone tell me what it is I believe?
1/ That there is no evidence for the existence of God. 2/ That nobody knows for a fact that God exists. 3/ That what other people accept as evidence for God's existence does not qualify as evidence. 4/ That people who say that they know for a fact that God exists are deluded. 5/ Atheism is more rational and logical than Theism. 6/ Empirical evidence and scientific methods are the only legitimate way to prove existence. Atheists *believe* these things - they do not know them as incontestable facts. They are the pillars that reinforce their atheism.
Theists believe in agency. Atheists believe in non-agency. As such at the fundamental level whether or not you are aware of it, you believe that the universe and life came about by chance. That limits what you believe is realistic and in turn influences how you perceive reality. Theists do not believe the universe came about from chance and that the agency behind the universe also has some interest in us.
Deists do not believe in chance but do not believe the agency has any real interest in us and we are predominantly just by products.
Agnostics have no real position on anything ranging from because they have questions that can not be answered sufficiently by any position through to just never having bothered to think anything through to a sufficient level. They do not believe in agency nor do they believe there is no agency - as such they are not atheists.
You believe there is no God. Everything came in to existence by cheer luck. Your life, your feelings, your relationships, your whole point of existence revolves around nothing. Literally nothing. Every feeling you have is a result of chemicals and neurons firing in your brain. That's it. And that is what you believe. And yet there is not one shred of evidence it is so. So that's why atheism is a belief system. If you do not see or acknowledge that, you are intellectually dishonest. And yes, Christians believe things too. But they are based on evidence that points in the direction of divine intervention. Not blind faith. Get that. Think about that. Read, learn, open your mind and see if you then still can accept an atheistic worldview. You are more than molecules stacked on top of each other my friend.
All they can do is try and drag it down to their level.
You believe there's no God and you believe in the fairytale of evolutionism .
Thank you Mr Lennox :)
Is he bashing atheism for being a faith system? It's not, but what is theism??
If you’re an atheist, your belief is that there is no God. We cannot know everything, and therefore faith is inevitable, though the question is where you put it.
Excellent! Thank you.
Even a non belief system is a belief system 👍
Oxymoron.
Nope. Not believing in one thing is not sufficient to identify the belief system. You don't believe in Leprechauns, probably,
@@Yarp-y I do believe leprechauns do not exist. I believe I can trust my senses. These beliefs are ultimately based on my faith in my perception of reality.
@@jon__doe But the leprechaun non belief does not define your belief system - it is trivial part of what you believe. So it goes with atheists regarding a personal God. Also, my advice is: Rather than use faith, instead define a formal system, then ground your non belief in Leprechauns in that formal system. The word faith is loaded with theistic baggage, creating a divide as to understanding between one type of theist and others, and between those and atheists.
Not believing in leprechauns is not sufficient to become your belief system. I hope that's super obvious.
Hi Practical Wisdom what exactly does this man mean by his use of the word 'descent'?, I mean he definitely says it as if it means something important but the spoken style embodies no information.
A bit later he refers to the question why something as if that too has some material significance, what actual difference does us knowing why anything actually have? I can see clearly that a rational explanation of how something works could be useful but why has no contribution.
He also appears to be captivated by the concept of creation and beginning, I can see that this could be important in the context of why questions but I have already got rid of that concern on the basis of utility. Again my question is what difference would it make? given that we do have a material universe of some sort just how does its origin inform its current state, it is clearly a complex dynamic system and as far as I understand given the way chance operates within the confines of the natural laws that apply, whatever they are, absolutely anything can just happen, and in the fullness of time probably will somehow somewhere.
It would seem that this poor man simply lacks the breadth on imagination to see that just because it makes no sense to him it absolutely cannot be, what special qualifications does he have to insist that the accurate explanation will be one he must comprehend?.
Cheers, Richard.
I think the depth of the discussion is complex - it’s definitely not about “what difference does it make”- that is too superficial.
@@sabinekoch3448 Hi Sabine Koch, thank you for this response, I do agree to the depth of the discussion but without some useful purpose what is the point?.
I have had many years of fruitless debate with all sorts of people of all sorts of background, I am now in the rather awkward situation of having to come to terms with some aspects of reality, among them the fact that our feeble human brains have no great effective agency, we cannot even regulate our own lives according to our own prescriptions, the talent we do have for dreaming up all manner of complicated ideas about what is happening around us and in just what ways we can alter actual events is extraordinary but when it comes to finding any truth or conclusion we have made very little real traction, all the 'discoveries we have made about the physical universe we inhabit tell us only that the volume of what we do not know is vastly greater than the volume of what we have found!.
Then there is the enormous catalogue of mythology and delusion we have invented, that appears to be greater still!, for a while I was content that the concept of refutation was adequate for the removal of much of the dross, now I understand that most of the delusional dross cannot be disposed of this way!, cognitive delusions that are the product of imaginative fantasy are not amenable to logic or reason, based as they are just on desire and faith.
The best I can find to deal with it all is application of the principles of utilitarianism, where the significant criteria is efficacy, any ideas that can leads to useful solution to real problems can be kept, those that offer no utility abandoned, not because they are morally or materially wrong but because they are useless!, this then allows me to dismiss all that silly religious twaddle as irrelevant regardless of intellectual depth and conserve my limited resources to issues that I can resolve and questions that I can answer.
Cheers, Richard.
Atheism says nothing about the question of why there is something instead of nothing. Atheism is not believing in a god. That's all.
As far as choosing between science and God, that is a silly question. There are millions of scientists who are believers in a God. Science has never asked anyone to give up their belief in a God. Science merely asks for reproducible results.
It is the young earth creationists that demand scientists abandon science, and accept a literal interpretation of the bible.
I just love them, and so proud.
I believe (on faith) that the universe was created by Barney the purple dinosaur. Prove me wrong.
There is no absolute evidence that the universe began in an instance.
Wonderful thoughts being exchanged.
Does it make sense to say that when God created plants, means that God created seeds, bulbs... first, then created the Sun which permitted the seeds to grow into plants?
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE."
"Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.")
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
(Especially the first six paragraphs)
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"*
(Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)*
*"Bible Contradiction **#134**. Which Ten Commandments?"* - Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
Don’t they know that they should have asked you to speak?
The fact you cite Aron Ra you have dicredited yourself, he is a mid functioning Autist, while someone like Professor Dave is high functioning, but theyre both arrogant and ill-read, ill-experienced, people.
The fact these Biblr stories are OLDER than thr Bible is evidence for their being TRUE, not "false", that is an individualistic, possessive, egocentric, perspective of ownership.
You think like a human, and attribute human attribute to God, then judge God as an equal, and by proxy yourself greater (in the ways you defeat it); You Are A Satanist.
Paraphrasing Revelation.. And in those final days, God will send strong delusions such that even the very elect would be deceived if that were possible.
Jesus is God in human form.
Jesus rose from the dead proving that He is God, since death has no hold on the Creator.
Jesus accepted the Jewish Scriptures, including Genesis as true.
Since Jesus affirmed the scriptures, all the scriptures are true.
Jesus said “Heaven & earth shall pass away, but My Word will not pass away.”
Therefore, the entire Bible is true.
Professing themselves wise, they became fools, and exchanged the Truth of God for the delusions of men.
And God gave them over to depraved minds such that their sins could be made manifest in their minds & bodies.
Someone needs to stop listening to Billy about Elish...
Q. Why something instead of nothing? Atheist answer 'I dont know'. Theist answer ' God'. Atheists don't make up answers.
John Lennox is a treasure!
He is a spinner of nonsense
Good afternoon sir,i am from Africa Nigeria,i just like you,long life and prosperity also healthy living for in Jesus name ❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉
Why try to answer questions for which we obviously do not have adequate understandings? Apophenia and the need for certainty inspire magical thinking, misrepresentation, and unreason.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Long ago, we (human beings) did not understand the hydrologic cycle. We did not understand how water vapor rises, cools, condenses, and falls in liquid and solid forms. Although there was no adequate understanding of the process, many reasons, many fanciful causes were imagined.
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown."
*"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.*
A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"*
(Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)*
*"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular.
El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.)
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Someone needs to get you an interview 😂
Amazing interview. I want to watch it again. I still have one big issue. There is archaeological evidence that people existed for at least 160000 years, so how does one reconcile that with (a) Adam and Eve (b) The genealogy of Jesus Christ? My only answer now is to believe in Jesus is my and all of His follower's saviour, which is all that matters. Nobody can say whether the human life of 160000 was aware of God. Is it the awareness of Adam and Eve that started the moment of an unharmonious and sinful world? If so, then Genesys makes sense as Genesys talks of the awareness of God. The worst sin is not disobedience (Moses for example), but when a person becomes arrogant thinking that he can be like God. The is serious, how do we explain to our grand children?
There is no first cause because there is no such thing as nothing , you can only come to the erroneous conclusion of a first cause if you know there is nothing . It seems to be too complicated a concept for many to accept , fear and ignorance are a great motivator , it's sad but understandable .
Great!
John Lennox has never ever given us any real evidence for any God.
But when it comes to bloviation he is a world leader!
This is exactly every single atheist that has zero proof for any of their pseudoscience, just hot nasty rotten breath
What do you mean by 'real evidence'?
@@bennewby9600
Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
@@johnhammond6423What would be the evidence for God ?
@@johnhammond6423 Okay it sounds like you're talking about abductive reasoning in that case. Abductive reasoning is both subjective and uncertain, it can't actually prove anything, only suggest that one explanation for a given body of evidence is more or less plausible than another. Everything Mister Lennox brought up in his discussion is evidence within the context of abductive reasoning, definitionally.
But you also mentioned validity, which refers to whether or not a deductive argument is formulated correctly. Godel's ongological proof is a valid argument for God's existence, but I'm guessing you wouldn't accept it.
I suppose it's possible that you are thinking of evidence in the Baconian inductive sense, but that's most useful for examining physical systems and deriving math that describes the behavior of that system under your observational parameters. Trying to use Baconian induction to ask questions about God would be like examining a book and declaring that you can't find any authors in it.
Where does he dream up the idea that anything came from atheism. We just don't don't believe in Gods. Any Gods.
That’s an intellectually dishonest answer.
You state there is no God, but have zero proof despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
Atheism is merely a faith.
@@bradsmith9189 If you think atheism is a faith, it's a faith in nothing, isn't it?
If you say God is real which you just stated. You are doing exactly what I did only the dead opposite.
I say no god, you say God. Big deal. Your evidence is that of men that wrote a book to scare people into conforming and I say that book was written to frighten people and it's bullshit.
@@bradsmith9189
There is literally no evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately for these two people, Genesis does not describe a creation ex nihilo. Thai should put a nail in the coffin of their theory.
Genesis is nothing but a retelling of absurd old myths.
@@mirandahotspring4019 This is of course well established. What is astonishig is that they are suing tisas a reference even though it infirms creation ex nihilo.
whether atheist or a theist i think we can all agree that god didn't break his word on the cross
Biologist here. Lennox admits he is no astrophysycist, yet quotes them, agreeing or disagreeing at his own presuppositional whim. Lennox, while admitting he is no biologist quotes Dawkins and rejects the scientific consensus of biological evolution while quoting Denis Noble, an outsider, as if the minoroty view is the consensus. It is not. Biological evolution already incorporates the critiques of Noble. As a non-scientist, (mathematics is not a traditional science) Lennox wouldn't know that, of course, so who is he to erroneously claim that biology is in turmoil? Lennox, quotes philosophers about the fine tuning argument, which is a philosophical argument, presupposing the parameters of the universe are malleable variables. If they are not, or if they are connected, which is likely, his point is completely invalid. Thanks for your opinion, John. You are doing apologetics. I've not met an apologist yet who will stay in his own field of knowledge.
Amen
Atheism is a belief system? Hello?
What atheists believe: 1/ That there is no evidence for the existence of God. 2/ That nobody knows for a fact that God exists. 3/ That what other people accept as evidence for God's existence does not qualify as evidence. 4/ That people who say that they know for a fact that God exists are deluded. 5/ Atheism is more rational and logical than Theism. 6/ Empirical evidence and scientific methods are the only legitimate way to prove existence. Atheists *believe* these things - they do not know them as incontestable facts. They are the pillars that reinforce their atheism.
Someone explain to me how god exists
The creator of the universe and life exists, because the universe and life exists. We choose to call that creator God.
If atheists insist that nothing created the universe and life then nothing is the creator, the creator still exists but atheists call the creator nothing. Whatever we choose to call the creator does not change the creator.
Well said. Many people don't understand the concept of God.
@@cisuminocisumino3250Nihilism is a poor man's deity ;-)
Most atheists don’t insist what you said. Do better
@@cisuminocisumino3250
Including you.
There is a big difference between the creator being nothing vs God. If the creator is God then you are and will be accountable to Him for your life.
00:36-00:50 complete misrepresentation of Big Bang cosmology. Science doesn’t tell us the universe had an ultimate beginning. It is impossible to defend theism without committing an endless string of logical fallacies.
Not true.
@@jon__doewhat’s not true?
Actually science DOES indeed CLAIM that the universe had a beginning. And it is NOT from theists. I'd suggest that you research The Singularity. Because, you probably shouldn't make a claim that you are not sure of. Such an action suggests that your mind is made up... regardless of what you DON'T know!
@@GregoryHolden-k5cWrong. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the universe had an absolute beginning. The ‘singularity’ was first posited by by Penrose and Hawking, and this hypothesis was based on a number of assumptions which have since been shown to be incorrect. Both Penrose and Hawking have both acknowledged that their singularity theorems are not valid. The current view amongst leading cosmologists and physicists is that the universe is most likely eternal.
Might I suggest you do some research before you make a fool of yourself on the internet 😜
You must be an atheist. Am I right? You believe in science? Am I right? Science does NOTHING! People do science! Am I right. The Bible instructs everyone to put everything to the test and hold fast to that which is good. That is the scientific method. Am I right? Atheists by their own admission are not intelligently designed. Am I right? Therefore atheist talk nonsense. Am I right? Would you trust a computer that wasn't intelligently designed. I hope not.
Very good! Makes sense to me - 🔺 the was never nothing! - nothing ever existed!
Smart, smart, man.
A smart man who believes in talking snakes and donkeys
Yet misled by faith.
@@otthoheldring "Yet misled by faith."
And do you have faith that your statement will not
"mislead" others?
Where do ideas come from? Before an author writes a character, where and what is the nature of the being of the character? Talking about apples falling is not the same subject. Imagine a way of knowing in which there are nouns and verbs. An apple is a noun and falling is a verb. Talking about an apple doesn't create an apple. But talking about falling does create falling. Things and ideas are as much alike as a man and music. The talk about "life" is a talk about ideas. God is an idea. Ideas don't "exist" until they are "said to be" because they can only be created and they never become a "thing" and they can never "fall" nor be "eaten" nor be "poisoned" like an apple can unless all those words are metaphors. Talking about the nature of being of being should be very simple to understand. This video by an intelligent speaker and writer about God is fun, but wrong, at a fundamental level.
My Bible says that LIGHT was created on the first day, and plants on the third. That is the order. Just because the sun, moon, and stars were set in the heavens in a particular place where God wanted them on the fourth day doesn't detract from the fact that there was a light source on DAY ONE. So I don't see a problem with the text at all. After all, sunlight may be a source of life, but GOD is the ULTIMATE Source of Life, and if He wants something or someone to LIVE in outer darkness, they will. They won't need light or anything else we associate with life on this planet. People forget Who they're talking about sometimes. The don't call Him ALL x3 for no reason. There is NO MYTHS in the Bible. Only an ALL powerful, ALL seeing and ALL present, miraculous GOD. Dr. Lennox, study genetics, and read Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson's book, TRACED which follows the Y chromosome all the way back. Then you'll see that the genetic lineages bottleneck with three individuals around 4400 years ago.
Then I suppose it is only agnosticism is not a belief system.
You do have to choose, science, earth is 4 billion years old, bible earth is 6000 years old.
No.
Your interpretation is incorrect.
Lennox clears up that misconception in other talks and writing.
@@bradsmith9189Lennox only proves science can't disprove the God of the Bible. He doesn't prove the young earth theory. In fact, many theologians prove you can only hold the 6000 years old earth if you believe the Bible account. Lennox is not a theologian.
The bible is a book of tall tales made up by ancient ancestors
I worry that by over-interpreting the Genesis creation poem (that's what it is), Lennox weakens the credibility of the Christian case. As a matter of scientific fact, Homo Sapiens emerged as a very successful species from now extinct hominoid species, including Neanderthal and Denisovan. Part of the success of this new hominoid species was due not only to its intelligence and physical agility, but to its aggression, high sexual fertility, territoriality, etc. Due its very biological success (8+ billion humans) many of these self-same attributes threaten its continued existence. Sin is the unrestrained exercise of these primordial attributes. Jesus has come to lead us away from these primitive instincts. We should frame matters this way, rather than over-emphasise the metaphors of Genesis that speak of an original state of bliss, a first sin, and then a need for a saviour.
An astounding mind.
Christians should really start reading Genesis for what it states. This god did not create the universe. He did not create the primordial (and eternal) waters, he just "hovered over them". Then he "blew his pneuma (creating spirit) over them so room was made ("in the midst") for land and the heavens (plural).
It also wasn't original in its storyline. The Egyptian and Sumeric creation stories outdate Genesis by at least a millenium and are quite similar. They all start with the primordial waters that have always been. And out of this, land and skies (or heavens) were created by gods.
These empires ruled over and influenced the worldviews of the peoples of Canaan (Levant). The best explanation is that they, like the proto-Israelites, drew upon these earlier stories to write their own formative identity texts.
I don't believe in Zeus. This is not a belief system.
Do you have reasons for not believing in Zeus which you accept as true even though you have not scoured the entire Universe and not found Zeus? And what would you call that system of reasoning? An unbelief system perhaps ?
No it isn't. If you don't bring me any facts you have nothing.
Happy New Year is a wish not a fact. Wishing you a Happy New Year. Enjoy your choice of videos! (Advice is free , sometimes)
"Give me just the plain facts, man"
One can’t get away from the sovereignty of God in Salvation which comes from Paul’s teaching. It seems to me that Paul in Corinthians was not comparing various inaccurate teachings but personalities. Calvinism to me is that Christ said “I chose you”. Paul takes that to the truth of ‘vessels of wrath’. Lazarus could not respond to Christ until Christ called Him. This causes a layman like me to feel doubt if I’m honest, yet I know that my Heavenly Father has looked after me as you would a child since i believed.
Did Lazarus hear the call before he was brought back to life or did he have to be made alive before he could respond to the call ?
@ Lazarus was dead. Christ delayed His coming (His sovereignty) so that His power and Glory would be revealed in Lazarus’ resurrection. I think a Calvinist would say that it is a picture of being ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ unable to respond to Christ until the Holy Spirit quickens a sinner. However, to a sinner we must preach that Christ said that whoever comes to Him He will not cast out; Then a saved sinner Looking back learns that God is Sovereign. As I understand it once we have died in this life we cannot be saved yet in the case of Lazarus Christ was Sovereign in salvation even after physical death. ( I am a laymen having learned all this second hand as it were and therefore not an authority)
A straight answer is that Christ’ Call is irresistible. But I see your point
@@davidrichard2761I do not see how the resurrection of Lazarus can support the Calvinist position. Calvinist theology would say that Lazarus would have to have been resurrected (New Testament parallel = Born Again ) before he was even capable of hearing or responding to the call of Jesus. But in John 5 Jesus says "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when *all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out* -those who have done what is good will rise to live, *and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."*
The wicked have not been regenerated or born-again of the Holy Spirit but they will still be able to hear and respond to the voice of the Lord.
Jairus daughter also heard the voice of Jesus: But He (Jesus) took her by the hand and said, “My child, get up!” *Her spirit returned*, and at once she stood up.
Jesus and Paul refer to physical death as 'sleep.'
@@davidrichard2761I myself do not hold to the TULIP of Calvinism. Some of my reasons being. Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: *You always resist the Holy Spirit!* Luke 7:30 “But the Pharisees and the experts in the law *rejected God’s purpose for themselves,* because they had not been baptized by John.” Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, *how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, **_and you were not willing.”_* Romans 10:21 'But concerning Israel he says ,“All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”'
Jesus was a Carpenter that built things, the same as his father.
A nonesense is a nonesense even if John Lennox says.
Can you write a paper to refute hawkins, or just spewing crap about sky daddy
How is it exposing to realise that we defined having an idea -any idea- about god(s), spirits and our purpose as being called a belief system?
That is not a flex. It's smug stupidity.
Why should it be an issue that others have different views at all?
Quit creating conflict where none is needed.
Respect that others have different views, without having to disparage or change them.
One really needs to believe first....only then Lennox makes sense. Have you believers given up on convincing anyone of your God? Because Johnny here is not doing that at all.
Plants do not need the sun to survive. They simply need light. God made light on the first day. And if you think God had trouble sustaining plant life for 2 days, you’re going to have a bigger problem with Moses surviving 40 days on Mt Horeb in God’s presence. Yet both accounts are consistent with each other. It stands to reason the creator of life possesses the power to sustain life. And the creator of the sun is more powerful THAN the sun- possessing the power to sustain the existence of the things he has the power to create.
1:11 This I experience.
Every religion has a super belief system too😂
"SUFFER NOT A WITCH TO LIVE" is to be found in the bible. Think about it ..... carefully!!!!!
Thinking gift as objective and having faith need as subjective are inseparable and qualitatively equal. The keeping of this is in uncertainty of belief (Heisenberg) in present moment real presence in the relativity of time and space (Einstein). God as "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14) is this keeping.
THE ATHEISM TODAY AS A METAPHYSIC QUESTION IS TO NOT ACCEPT THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST TRUE GOD TRUE MAN PERFECT MEASUREMENT OF EVERYTHING OF EVERYTHINK....
Even if atheism is a belief system, which it isn't, it still wouldn't prove a god exists, so it's a pointless comment that Christians shouldn't keep repeating.
God has left us proofs that he is there:
1)The wonder of creation, the beauty of the universe ,the co.lexity of atoms and molecules..they all show His handiwork.
2) Our consciences tell us that we have done wrong and need forgiveness. God has provided a way to be forgiven through the death of Christ and His resurrection.
3) A hugely complex code in every single cell of our body which could not have arisen by chance. Codes are written not organised by chance.
4) It is historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. This is a supremely important event where God has declared Himself. Let alone the prophecies which came true in Jesus life. Or the miracles which He performed that showed His Deity.
@@TeeHee-i3m
"The wonder of creation?" You mean earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, cancer, MS, polio, downs syndrome etc, etc, etc.
It is NOT an historical fact Jesus was raised from the dead, in fact we can be certain beyond all reasonable doubt it never happened simply because no historian of the time wrote about it, nor the miracles, which would be impossible if they did happen. The prophesies were all too vague to be taken seriously and they were too easy for the later authors to write stories to make them look as if they were fulfilled.
You really need to learn critical thinking and listen to the right scholars and not the biased, ignorant ones like Lennox.
If one talks of the mythological "religions", one realises that they had been creating gods for everything in nature that primitive man could not explain otherwise. A typical example is the mythological god Thor for thunder. The mythological gods disappeared as science progressed. For atheists to compare mythology to the Christian religion is, therefore, a fundamental reasoning mistake, since Jesus did not explain what we see in nature, such as thunder. Jesus used nature as it was known to man, to explain God, as a channel of communication, for example a tree bearing fruit. That has nothing to do with mythology.
No actual god just a belief in a god, and not just any god.
A-theism is simply a belief that a Supreme Being (God) does not exist. Period. If anyone wants to call that a “belief system,” then fine.
At least you admit it’s a belief that there is no God (as opposed to it being mere “lack of belief in God”), which is refreshing!
@@Birdieupon It is not a belief in the sense that theists use it.
Atheists do not "believe" in gods because they have credible evidence they don't exist independent of human thought and imagination.
The belief (or faith) that theists display is really a suspension of evidence based reason, so the contrary of atheism.
Mathematics dont describe god , IT describes only the creation.
Clever decent man but all based on faith but zero evidence
The definition of evidence disagrees with you.
What evidence could you come up to the contrary there is no evidence for God or no God there is only facts or theorys that point to either direction and goal is to either live to see the truth or to balance out reasons to see what would be the more logical possibility
A creation needs a creator by the laws that our universe presents
@mild2634
There is nothing to indicate that our universe was created by God.
That is your problem- evidence. Christianity requires faith.
He's good, I would say a similar level to mine.
Where's the Christ for the rest of the universe? Are there a multiverse of Christs, or is Christ just a human thing? Are Gods just a human thing? Oh, it's "choose", not "chose".
Poor old Christians. I understand why they want to hang on to these fantasies, but not how they can. Re Lennox’s question, there are two responses. One, we do not know that ‘Why?’ is a reasonable question in respect of the Universe, it may be simply a fact that something exists, and we have good physical theories that do not require us to imagine an unembodied Mind; and Two, if it is a reasonable question, it applies equally to the Divinity: ‘Why is there a God rather than nothing?’
"Poor old Christians"? Maybe you are a poor old ignorant man by the same logic.
We have no good physical theories. Science is agnostic. We have metaphysical hypotheses of which agency is one. Science shows some hypotheses are highly unlikely - for example CERN has shown string theory and so the multiverse as being unlikely.
Concerning agency science finds this to be a highly plausible possibility because we now are pretty sure that external to the universe is pure energy and information. That is pretty much what Christians believe is God.
God is supposed to be unknowable yet you know so much about him. Cute. ignorance means God exists. Science is the objective limitation of what we actually do know about what's around us.
many good points.
still, one could pretty much imagine evolution from fish to bird.
Have you watched any videos from Gunter Bechley?
hm, doesn't ring a bell but will do, thanks.
richard dawkins call this the god delusion
Richard Dawkins is about as passé as it gets. Move on and learn something new.
My favorite example of believing in something that can't be seen is the wind, which is moving air. Air is invisible, so how do we know there's such a thing as the wind? Because of how it affects the world we can see. We see tree branches moving around, sand or trash moving across a parking lot, or we feel pressure on our face and our hair whipping about. It's the same thing with God.
You can measure wind. This is an empirical test. It is movement of air. You can weigh air. You cannot measure immaginary things. I see God in that category. Can you measure God?
Trouble is, the selective choice of arguments, makes the Christian belief system seem disingenuous.
Isn't materialism a selective choice of arguments?
The G-d thing us gaslighting, religion exists, lime it or not.
I really appreciate your efforts! Could you help me with something unrelated: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How can I transfer them to Binance?
Why god? I don't want any Jesus. The possibilities are endless. I want to say that belief in atheism doesn't exist. These are just words. If I say yes. "I believe" in science, so what? Evolution is over? I wonder what the world will look like in a million years? The same?
Because God will ultimately bring justice to evil that every creature committed since the beginning of the world. God has sent his Son so that anyone who believes in Him will not perish and should have eternal life. You have a way of escape and it’s up to you to accept or reject it.
Romans 1 20
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse
A singularitet is a mathematical description of a black whole a imploid star IT doesnt dscribe big Bang
Why a christian god, modern man has been around for approx 300,000 years, that's approx 298,000 years without the christian god, that's an awful lot of generations that lived productive lives without the a god that forget to tell them about him...oops
❤^_^ Amen !!
Atheism is just as much as belief system as not collecting stamps is a hobby...
As usual John has no idea what he is talking about.
Atheism is a response to the claim about the existence of deities, *forming a position* on metaphysical issues. In contrast, not collecting stamps isn't a stance; it's simply the lack of engagement in a specific hobby, not a philosophical view.
YDF!
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Nope... that is referring to the classical definiiton. Most atheist identify as an agnostic atheist defined as have the psychological state of not believing in any dieties.
At its core, atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of deities. It does not, in itself, propose a positive claim or a comprehensive worldview, making it more of a position on a single issue (the existence of gods) than a fully developed philosophy.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Atheism isn't a philosophical view, it's simply the absence of belief in a god or gods.
Atheism is simply faith based as it does not provide proof for its claim.
It’s clearly on its way out with recent scientific discoveries.
The majority of scientists today are NOT atheists.
Since you're discussing Biblical faith, you should go to the Bible where faith is defined. In Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen. God says faith is EVIDENCE BASED. Shame on Webster's dictionary!!!
This guy takes his information from a book that states that stars will fall to earth.
Complete foolishness….
Science is a philosophy of discovery.
Religion is a philosophy of dogma contradictions.
Is this mathematician, who only taught math at undergraduates at a Welsh university, implying that he can correct a giant in cosmology and theoretical physics like Stephen Hawking?
Stephen Hawking’s ideas cannot be questioned? That’s an appeal to authority fallacy.
@@evanmartin8101 They're not Hawking's "ideas". Hawking substantiated his propositions with evidence (math and observations in cosmology), hence they were far more than just ideas.
@@lizadowning4389 I agree with your elaboration on my use of the word “ideas”. With your appreciation for Hawking’s work, why then simply appeal to authority? I’m not an expert, so I may be mistaken, but there is no unified theory in physics. There is indispensable faith in the intelligibility of the universe, let alone the faith that such a pursuit is worthwhile. Lennox hones in on Stephen Hawking’s quote “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can create itself from nothing”. Of Lennox’s ensuing critique, and with your knowledge of Hawking’s work, what are your thoughts?
@@evanmartin8101 There is indeed no unification model for quantum gravity but this is what Hawking at the end of his life, together with his close collaborator Thomas Hertog, came to put into question. That a unifying theory might not be found and our current understanding of the cosmos (standard model) might be flawed.
Peering into the extreme quantum physics of cosmic holograms and venturing far back in time to our deepest roots, they were startled to find a deeper level of evolution in which the physical laws themselves transform and simplify until particles, forces, and even time itself fades away. This discovery led them to a revolutionary insight. The laws of physics are not set in stone but are born and co-evolve as the universe they govern takes shape.
So instead they proposed the no-boundary model of the beginning-conceived from the top down vs bottom up-which is key to realize the fundamentally historical perspective on physics and cosmology, a view of physics that includes the genesis of the laws. The no-boundary hypothesis predicts that if we trace the primordial universe as far back in time as we possibly can, its structural properties continue to evaporate and transmute and that this extends, ultimately, to time itself. Time would initially have been melded with space into something like a higher-dimensional sphere, closing the universe into nothingness. This led the early Hawking, still reasoning in a causal bottom-up fashion, to proclaim that the universe was created from nothing. But Hawking’s final theory offers a radically different interpretation of this closure of spacetime at the big bang. The later Hawking held that this nothingness at the beginning is nothing like the emptiness of a vacuum, out of which universes may or may not be born, but a much more profound, epistemic horizon involving no space, no time, and, crucially, no physical laws.
In that sense, Lennox is not only taking Hawking out of context but actually equivocating him on the term “nothing”, and hence leading him to a fallacious statement that it is contradictory.
Either Lennox is ignorant on Hawking and Hertog’s work, or he is simply quote-mining and strawmanning them. Personally I think its a mixture of both.
“The origin of time” in Hawking’s final proposal is the limit of what can be said about our past, not just the beginning of all that is. This view is especially borne out by the holographic form of the theory where the dimension of time and hence the basic notion of evolution, the epitome of reductionist concepts, are seen as emergent qualities of the universe. From a holographic viewpoint, going back in time is like taking an increasingly fuzzy look at the hologram. One quite literally sheds more and more of the information that it encodes until, well, one runs out of qubits. That would be the beginning.
Imagine you’re a traveler that undertook a journey. You’d have no problem explaining exactly how you got to your end point. But how would you explain exactly how you got to your starting point?
I know it may be alot to digest but at the deepest levels of the cosmos ‘things’ are not so much illogic rather massively counter intuitive and an assault on our common sense. But maybe we have to start acknowledging that our common sense doesn’t reflect the universe we live in.
Beyond our understanding of the universe there might have been a layer out of which the laws of physics not only emerged but co-evolved with the particles in this universe and influenced each other much like a “Darwinian model of cosmology”. We know (this is solid math) that gravity directs particles with mass where to go, yet we also know that particles with mass direct the curvature of gravity. This interaction seems to be fundamental to our universe. As an analogy: we change, refine our human laws to be more efficient and adress new challenges/issues-our behaviour changes laws and our laws change our behaviour.
In a nutshell, our cosmos fine tuned its cosmological constants itself through a mechanism of adaptive evolution so that energy and matter could interact better, and resulted in what we call OUR universe, as we observe it. This “fine tuning” is a dynamical, interactive process, not a static once off, as in “divine poof!”.
And as we gradually are finding out with new information from the JWST ... Hawking may have been on to something profound and revolutionary. Time will tell. In any case, what Hawking proposed and stated is not contradictory as Lennox likes his listeners to believe. Lennox is simply ignorant on modern cosmology and what they mean with “nothing”.
If you really want to get into a basic understanding, I highly recommend Thomas Hertog’s book “On the Origin of Time” in which he explains the basics of it for an enthusiastic laymen audience.
❤
We do not all take for granted that we live in an unlimited universe let alone a multiverse- that is multiple universes for which, by definition, we cannot observe, nor interact with.
The 'faith' of atheism has grown to the point of ridiculousness.
Nah, the despair of believers is really showing when they have to tell so many lies about people who do not share their beliefs. Atheism has nothing to do with the multiverse and you know it.
How does any of this prove that Huitzilopochtli is Lord of the universe?
Yeah, what about religiosity? 😂
31:50 geneticists have been saying that the human race came from 2 people for over 30 years. Follow the genetics on a 6000 years since creation. It is too stretched out over billions of years
JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS TRULY GOD IN HUMAN THE IMAGE OF INVISIBLE GOD, HIS TEACHING THE SINLESS LIFE HE LIVED HIS DEATH AND RESSURRECTION HE IS ALL IN ALL ALPHA AND OMEGA, BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO ARE PURE IN HEARTS FOR THEY WILL SEE GOD.
If you SHOUT that means it must be true...
Btw, according to the words attributed to Jesus, he would be in Hell.
@BarakaLemway:
There is no need to shout.
@@pineapplepenumbrareference or you're a soft brain
@@pineapplepenumbra
Jesus never claimed himself as God.
A man was made God by the sinners .
Of course is a belief lol we believe there are no Gods 🤦♂️
You will find a lot of atheists disagree with you on that definition.
It's not a "belief". Atheists in general have very good "reason" to reject the existence of gods.
Therefore we do not have to "believe" they don't exist rather we have convincing evidence they don't exist.