Oxford Mathematician DESTROYS Hawking's argument (BRILLIANT!): God or Science - Why the Choice?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Discover the captivating insights of philosopher and mathematician John Lennox as he exposes the category mistake made by Stephen Hawking, proving that the choice between God and science is a false dichotomy.
📍 Subscribe to Practical Wisdom for more mind-expanding content: / @practical.wi. .
🎧 Listen to the full interview on your favorite podcast platform:
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Amazon Music: amzn.eu/d/5qdLrnk
Google Podcasts: podcasts.googl...
SUMMARY:
0:42: 🤔 Hawking's choice between God and science was a category mistake due to his definition of God.
3:54: 🤔 The concept of an eternal God and the role of evidence in establishing truth.
6:13: 🔬 Science has its limits and cannot answer all questions, such as those related to purpose and meaning.
9:46: 🔬 Faith is essential to science and all scientists bring faith to their work.
#stephenhawking #johnlennox #scienceandfaith #stephenhawking #education #interview #debate #apologetics
Werner Heisenberg, the Father of Quantum Physics, said "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist; but at the bottom of the glass, God, is waiting."
Werner Heisenberg was not the father of Quantum Physics, he was one of many quantum mechanics, a better candidate would be Kepler and his three-body problem which predates Werner Heisenberg.
@@michael-vl1mn Your point being?
@@metaljacket8128 "EVERYBODY talks to God" :)
@@metaljacket8128 Werner Heisenberg was not the father of Quantum mechanics. Try reading what was written.
@@michael-vl1mn Heisenberg, Pauli, Bohr, and Einstein were good uncles. But the nephew is such a tease.
Love John Lennox. Intelligent, eloquent, warm, confident yet humble. May God bless him for his ministry in defense of the Christian faith.
Too bad he doesn't have any evidence for his gods, however good at wordsmithing he is.
@@farvision no amount of evidence is sufficient to the one who doesn't want to believe.
@@hoopmania9912
Why should anyone not want to believe? I want to believe. Can you give any evidence?
@@JD-ro7xe many don't. They use evidence as a way to test God. Even if God Himself came down and revealed Himself many wlll not believe.
@@hoopmania9912
Sorry, you lost me there. They use evidence to test God? You mean if you give them evidence of God, they will use it to test God? How can they test... Mmm.. God?
Even if God came down, many wouldn't believe? Why not? Have you ever heard anyone saying I don't believe in the sun? If God is evident to all , no one will say they don't believe.
And you didn't answer me. What is the evidence for God that you have? I have no intention of testing anyone. Promise.
Science; the study of God’s universe!
Yeh, the universe is perfect for humans and life to live in! Asteroids, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, radiation, cosmic rays!!!!!! Wake up will you!??
And the religion rebuts ....
My own feeling is that the likes of Dawkins, the late Arthur C Clarke, Hitchens et al are not atheists at all : they know that God is (exists), and they hate Him for it.
To quote from a book titled Theology and Sanity, by Frank Sheed:
"...the soul has come to love self exclusively. Even in this life, that state may have its natural consequence of realized hatred of God, for THE MAJESTY OF GOD IS AN INTOLERABLE AFFRONT TO SELF-LOVE GROWN SO MONSTROUS (emphasis added)."
PS You got a thumbs-up!
Utter nonsense!.
The more we look at the structure of the cell, and the complexity of the moving parts even within the cell, and keep going deeper past the combinations and sequences of the amino acids and carbohydrates, and even past the molecules and into the atoms, it evident that there has to a be a being with an intelligence and power far capable beyond our imagination.
Darwin didn't know just how intricate and complex even the simplest of cells were, never mind the cells within a human body to come up with a joke of a theory of the origin of life. Well he didn't come up with it as it was thousands of years old, but now with the technology and the intellect that God has endowed us, we can see that what we've been taught at school about the origin of life and the pseudo-science of macroevolution were straight up lies.
Unless you believe all this came from absolutely nothing. Then you should at least expect that a hurricane would go the the junk metal scrap yard and build a fully functioning helicopter randomly. That's more believable than everything in the universe popping into existence from nothing out of nowhere randomly.
The ridiculous complexity in the cell is evidence of bottom up evolution and not top down designing. The more simple the design the better design. No competent designer would ever create such a mess. Entropy and disorder predicts complexity as there are more complex possible states than simple ordered possible states.
@@markb3786 Entropy and disorder helps build a cell from the ground up? Where did the necessary building blocks and materials even come from to be affected by entropy and disorder?
Just accept the mystery and magical properties of life that’s all that’s It
@@francescoallevato6507Those things don’t explain the words of Jesus or His resurrection
👍🍻👍🍻👍🍻😎
I believe, an honest study of how science works will lead you to faith in a creator.
That's a forlorn belief. 97% of scientists believe in evolution. So no.
And you'd be absolutely incorrect as science exclusively values and relies on evidence, 'faith' is never a component in science.
Sometimes. It is fascinating but a lot of it is theory and then that changes. And then your stuck.
But here is a quick run down.
This is a temporary world. It changes. Man changes.
But God does not change. When it is said, for God so loved the world. He still does 2000 years later.
Men put value on human life by their credit score or what they own. God does not. He values every life the same for it is he who breathed his very life into man. And no he does not consider men and women differently even though we may have different rolls in this world.
@@dw3403 You are describing lots of people not just God. So the question is so what? That's not special in any way.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
The christian claim is not "We don't know, therefore God did it.". The christian claim is far grander - God created everything, including that, which we know, that, which we don't know, that, which we could some day learn and understand and that, which we could never learn and understand.
Rubbish!
You can choose both God and science. Science confirms and explains what God has created.
Throughout history religion has fought against science only the give way and claim they agreed all along. Hypocrisy on stilts.
@@anthonyeaton5153 You are correct at different stages those in power who also enforced religion ignored scientific facts and also punished those who went against them. This goes against the core of Christianity.
These days the RELIGION is not part of politics but still science confirms the bible and God and vice versa.
@@mattpowell6291 with respect Science does not prove god and science. Listen to Brian Cox.
@@anthonyeaton5153 Science does not prove God and science?
"Science confirms and explains what God has created."
TRUE science does. There is a lot these days that flies the flag of science the way pirate ships used to fly merchant flags, and for the same reason.
Thank god for mr Lennox
Brilliant man. Using his mind and heart to bring glory to God.
Except that there's no evidence for any gods, so he totally failed.
@@farvision Demanding evidence for God is a bit like a character in your dream last night demanding evidence of his/her dreamer (i.e. you!) How would/could the dreamed character possibly gain any such evidence (of you, the dreamer) when they were ultimately nothing but an image in your own dreaming mind?
Evidence:
1. Jesus's fulfilment of prophecy
2. Jesus's resurrection
3. Existence of the universe
4. Existence of life
5. Structure & design of DNA
6. Over 10,000 archaeological discoveries confirming the accuracy of the Bible
7. Hundreds of references to a cataclysmic flood in every culture around the world
8. Physics of radiation (deadly, and life-giving = energy)
9. Orbit of Earth
10. Properties of water
11. Rationality of universe
12. Design in universe
13. Blood types
14. Archaeological discoveries
15. Paleontological discoveries
16. History
17. Human moral conscience
18. Human ability to perceive purpose in the way things are
19. Miracles
20. The fossil record
Billions of other pieces of evidence you'll find, if you would only seek them (or Him).
@@farvision there is no evidence to disprove God either.
@@farvision well look to nature and you'll see God
This scholar is very accessible but also very stimulating. Brilliant.
And wrong.
@@atheistangel007 Some people consider him wrong. We have choices in listening and paying attention. I make different choices and consider he is right. Good luck to you. Good luck to atheist angels, may they broaden their minds.
@kateknowles8055 He's wrong because he can be proven wrong, what you believe is irrelevant.
God bless prof Lennox, he is a beacon of light and reason in this infantile world!
Did you know snakes talk?
@@mortyharenza9854 Excuse me?
He's still wrong though.
@@atheistangel007 Wrong about what?
@@alinucalinuc4124 Let's start with his first claim, about putting God into the "wrong category", Stephen did not.
When it comes to reality and science, there is only 1 category, something either exists and is true, or it does not and is not, there is no in between.
If a god existed, then it would be a matter of science and everything that deals with reality, there are no other "categories" for this.
He is so cool 😎 and passionate about defending the true power that is god 😊
Nobody is saying that he defines God as the God of the gaps, we're saying that theists try to fill every unknown with the God of the gaps. He does this himself, he brings up abiogenesis as evidence for God. It's shocking how intelligent this guy is and yet allows himself to undulge in this drivel.
More accurately he brings up abiogenesis in order to point out that evolution is not about the origin of life but rather about speciation of life, and as such insufficient as an explantion for the origion of life. Theology on the other hand does address the origin of life, though obviously not in a scientific manner nor adhering to the scientific restrictions of using language.
@@BlacksmithTWD No scientist claims evolution addresses the origin of life, it’s not yet understood, just because scriptures mention it doesn’t mean they’ve shed any light on it whatsoever. It’s not yet known how life starts but given the spectacular success of naturalistic explanations so far i would put my money on it having a natural origin
@@grahamblack1961 "No scientist claims evolution addresses the origin of life, it’s not yet understood"
Nice to rephrase what Lennox and I said, though not needed since we were in agreement on that already as the point was that evolution is insufficient to explain the origin of life.
" just because scriptures mention it doesn’t mean they’ve shed any light on it whatsoever."
On the contrary, various religious scriptures worldwide to provide a model, however none are scientific models, that doesn't mean they are not true it just means they are not true in a scientific sense, they can still be quite true in other senses. But obviously if you already dismiss them because they are not scientific, you deprive yourself of the oppertunity of finding that out for yourself.
There is way more to reality than merely what has been demonstrated to be most likely true by scientific models. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Plato's cave, or watch the movie 'the matrix' for a more modern depiction of the same idea.
An important thing to note, imo is that Hawkins statement assumes that religious folk are somewhat intellectually honest. .. and they clearly aren't.
I mean imagine trying to claim day and night existed "days" before creation of sun is in any way logic or scientific... Like this clown.
Gravity is the curvature of space, every school boy knows that, but apparently mr lennox doesn't. Mr Lennox impresses only the ignorant
Amen to that! He has 3 Phds, js the preeminent professor of of mathematics at Oxford University. And yet, his knowledge of Christ, and his humility, is itself humbling. His prsentations in his field, guided by his commitment to Christ as Lord, and his Christian apologetics, draw you in.
he is just a mathematician. being a professor isnt a big deal.
@@matswessling6600 Let me help you out there.
Billy bob the red neck with a 3rd grade education states he saw a UFO.
Nobody is going to believe him because Billy Bob is an idiot.
Conversely, a highly skilled fighter piolet observes a UFO, has it on video, and can clearly describe said craft.
He also offers some objective arguments in relation to his observation.
Who are you going to believe saw a UFO?
This is called credibility and speaking from authority. The more you know about a given subject, the more likely you are to be correct when commenting on your area of expertise and how it relates to the subject of discussion.
@@matswessling6600 when you look at the level of mathematics he teaches and where he teaches, it is a big deal. Not many people have that teaching ability.
@@fredbecker607 no, it is not a big deal. Not if you are discussing evolution, cosmology etc
@@matswessling6600you do hopefully realize that your claim also means that Dawkins or other biologists have no authority to talk about anything philosophical or religious, right? Considering how little knowledge Dawkins showed in "God delusion" about actual history of religion, it was a rather pathetic endeavor even writing this book. The typical arrogance of the atheist scientist. Never really looking into anything they so easily set aside as irrelevant. And I'm not even just talking about theology. Hawking for instance was just as quick to dismiss any science outside physics. Not realizing that economy, society, philosophy, etc cannot be explained by physics. It's strange really. Like they never noticed the difference between looking at small (atoms) or large (stars) objects is something completely different than any scientific subject that involves people.
The more I watch Mr. Lennox the more I like him. He is like Jordan B. Peterson and Thomas Sowell in that they explain very complex ideas, that are ingrained in us, very simply without being insulting or condescending.
He's talking nonsense though. Instead of offering evidence for the resurrection he says you need to accept a different kind of evidence! He says he doesn't use "god of the gaps" but then says his questions and answers "stop at god". He speaks nicely but it's word salad.
And unlike Peterson who talks gobbledegook half the time, he's far clearer.
@jrgenstorm6536funny because I think atheism is nonsense. Guess people have to agree to disagree.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
The ultimate clown!!
Wow. He presents as an intellectual but his arguments are empty. Why of purpose? It's simple THERE IS NO PURPOSE. Deal with it! Make up your own purposes! He's just unable to handle this.
So living in lie is your answer? Making your own purposes for no reason but hedonistic needs is the last thing you want. If life is meaningless just go full stoic then. Why pretend life have some meaning to you when there is no real value in anything. Because then you are acting like religious, but deny it because of pride.
He personifies the granpa I wish I had.
Right!!!!.....don't you just adore granda Lennox?🤔🤣
@@brianmendenhall8387 Has anyone got Lennox and Brailsford together? ruclips.net/video/Bffm1Ie66gM/видео.html
May God give him health and many years to live.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
If god can give him health and many years to live, why can’t he do that for everyone?
@@DrMontague Some other topic than turds? I know that medics find the topic of great interest. I enjoy lifting up my heart above my bum mostly.
@@anicecupoftea8303 Suffering is a moot topic. Have you checked out the stories of healing that are in the New Testament. Psalms also address many human conditions. Book of Job is a challenge if you are off work ill for a few days more than you wished. Prayer lists help some of us.
Do you have to choose between science and religion?
You’re talking about Faith with someone and they tell you they don’t believe in God because they believe in science. So they tell me I have to choose. What would you say?
There are those who believe that science and religion are in conflict and that someone must choose whether they want to believe in science or believe in religion. If you ever hear this argument, here are four things to remember…
First, modern science was started by Christians. Many of the founders of modern science were Christians. Men like Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, and Clerk Maxwell were all firm believers in God. They weren’t scientists despite being Christians, it was their faith that moved them to want to discover more about the natural world they lived in. As CS Lewis wrote, “Men became scientists because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a legislature. Far from hindering modern science, faith in God was one of the motors that drove it.
Second, many of the best scientists today are people of faith. Between 1901 and 2000, over 65% of Nobel Laureates were Christians. If our best scientists are people with deep sincere religious faith, there may be a misunderstanding by some about what religious faith is, but there cannot be an essential conflict between being a scientist and faith in God.
Third, science explains “how” but religion explains “why”. One reason science and faith are not in conflict is that they are complimentary. Imagine there is a boiling pot of water. Someone then asks, “why is this water boiling?” You could say, “because heat energy from the gas flame is being conducted through the copper base of the kettle and is agitating the molecules of the water to such an extent that the water is boiling.” This is a true statement! But you could also answer by saying, “because I wanted a cup of tea.” Though very different, this is also a true statement! One answer explains “how” the water boils. While the other answer explains what “caused” the conditions that made it boil. So it is with science and religion. They are not in conflict. They are complimentary. As we seek to understand both how and why.
Fourth, science can’t explain everything. Science describes the laws of nature but it can’t explain where matter came from. It can’t explain how life began. It can’t explain the purpose of our lives. It can’t explain what it means to love. It can’t explain why we desire to do things we know we shouldn’t do. It’s not only possible to be curious about those big questions as well as scientific questions, but it’s strange not to. The fact is science and religion are not a mutually exclusive choice. Instead it’s more like learning to walk and chew gum. So next time someone tells you science and religion are in conflict, remember these four things.
1. Modern science was started by Christians. You don’t start fields of study you don’t believe in.
2. Many of the best scientists today are people of faith. 60% of Nobel Laureates in the 20th century were Christians.
3. Science considers HOW. Religion considers WHY. They aren’t in conflict, they are complimentary.
4. Science doesn’t explain everything. It’s not only OK to think about things beyond the realm of science, it’s healthy.
Science requires faith (although not necessarily faith in God). Epistemologically (i.e. in terms of knowledge and belief) science does not know everything, therefore, about that which is not known, it must be believed.
"Science" has made the mistake of, when having discovered something that was not previously known, grossly projected that everything which is not yet known can be (and will be) discovered (by "science") -- thus creating their own brand of (scientifically-) religious faith, including their own brand of prophets.
Well said.
Leaving a comment for a reminder.
I've been saying this same thing for years but I've been using the wrong terms to describe it. Hats off to John Lennox for telling us a more convincing way of explaining what's obvious to Christians and other believers. It's a different category.
But it's really not. Things either exist, or they do not, and the only category that science deals with, is what DOES exist.
Right now, ANY "god" is in the "does not exist" category as there is zero hard evidence for any, and a "god" by common definition simply cannot exist.
Mr. Lennox is terribly wrong on every single one of his claims.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague I am sorry that you have "ongoing" difficulty in htis respect.
@@kateknowles8055 Why can't he answer a simple question? i.e. Why would an intelligent designer the designer of the universe- design us to crap out stinky filthy dirty turds, to be able to have wet farts in public, and to crap our ourselves by accident. Are we to conclude this intelligent designer couldn't think of a better design? such as making human turds taste and smell like Cadbury's chocolate.
@@DrMontague I suppose God included turds in the human design and made them smelly deliberately so that we wouldn’t play with them … they are a good way of getting rid of used foodstuff, they are also an essential part of the composting cycle … and are symbolic of the death and resurrection scheme. Your objection to that part of design theory seems aesthetic rather than scientific.
Very helpful points especially how faith of itself is not a religious concept. The key is what do you put your faith in
And, to know what to put your faith in you need evidence, which is non-existent.
@@brud1729 not really, faith is belief despite lack of evidence. The more concrete the evidence, the less faith required. In short, it's a "trust me bro" thing 😂😂😂
@@capslock956 More correctly, faith is pretending to know things for which there is no good evidence.
@@brud1729 No. Faith consists of evidence.
Science doesn't need or require the self induced delusion of "faith". Lennox equivocates faith and evidence and often makes claims that are ludicrous! The key is that without faithglue the belief crumbles into snuff powder. Pa Kettle's homilies do nothing to dispel the frequent fallacies needed for lies to oila! become truth to convince the gullible.
Hawkins now knows the truth,sad very sad but he more than most saw the wonder of creation from the smallest bug with life in it to the unknown universe
I used to pray for Hawking. I hope I will find someday, to my surprise, that it did him some good. Meanwhile, we can still pray for Dawkins.
@@bettyrouch1833 hahaha, yeah you pray.......................
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague yes
@@arfermo853 An intelligent designer thought it would be a good idea to design humans to shit dirty stinking turds?! Have you ever had a wet fart in public? went to fart and followed through i.e. shit your pants? And you believe this is the work of an intelligent designer? Care home workers and care workers have to clean up incontinent people everyday, clean up dirty stinking turds and piss, and you think this is an intelligent design? If lennox becomes senile and incontinent would you like to clean up his dirty stinking turds? You lot are weird. Now I want you to think of a way that humans could be designed to stop them having to shit dirty stinking turds. You are the designer.
We cannot see the wind....we can only see the effects on the grass and trees when they sway and wave, we can hear the wind howl, still the wind is invisible, we can feel it on our skin....the same with God. We see him in his works, his creation,
And under very special conditions we can see heat waves on a very hot day, when you look at the mountains and you notice a seethrough wavy movement vibrating against the background of those mountains.
I once saw an angelic being in a fairly darkened hall, bending in front of a praying chaplain in the front row, waiting for his small flock of police officials to arrive.....a self-contained large sized golden light, no specific shape like angels are portrayed in picture books, no light source from anywhere......it was amazing, until I switched the lights on in the foyer....and poof....just a room with the praying chaplain!
Evidence. Whenever I have read a Materialist talk about, or ask about The Evidence for God, i have found that person has never actually looked at What Theists (Christians) really say, and what we believe. Its not that they are stupid, its that they are ignorant.
Created from a dispicable fluid, given bones and made rigid. Given hearing, sight and intellect. After all that, man (some men) denies God to his face.
John Lennox does bring a certain style and eloquence to circular argument and straw man analysis but ultimate is arguments have little substance.
English is a funny language with the same word meaning different things. faith as in I have faith we will get to the bus in time as a different mean than I have Faith in the lord our god. It is therefore manipulating the English language when Joh Lennox implies they mean the same. Whilst it is true there is a certain amount of faith in science it is all based on balance of probability tht can be quantifies. The basis of science is the acknowledgement that you could be wrong, science is all about claiming the probability of being right until you are proven wrong. Hard sciences by their very nature are objectively and require a high level of probability where soft science such as sociology, psychology are more subjective and require a lower threshold of probability but they are question raised are still quantifiable, because you test any hypothesis on the null hypothesis the probability of the opposite occurring. Claims of theology are not quantifiable there is no evidence anyone has presented which is quantifiable, that can be falsified that it is why it is referred to as a Faith since it is based on an untestable believe.
As a mathematician John Lennox knows this but you can tell in the refraction of his own voice when he is talking about something which is a logical absurdity, he just needs to start being honest with hinself.
I believe in the God of the Bible who created the laws of science, and He Himself is able to make override said laws in the making of miracles.
Can't understand any intelligent human being, scientist, etc., can believe in this nonsense. He talks about it like it's real....shameful.
Thank you all for your engaging comments and interest in our video! John has also authored a book, 'God and Stephen Hawking', which is a response to Hawking’s 'The Grand Design'.
SUBSCRIBE to our channel for more thought-provoking discussions like this one: ruclips.net/video/n7XBNaPu-Ds/видео.html
Next interview - Noam Chomsky.
#JohnLennox #StephenHawking #TheGrandDesign #Christianity
The truly frustrating part about this Myth that Science irreconcilably conflicts with Christianity specifically, and God in general...
Is that when the Scientific Method was developed?
It was done in Christian Europe.
By Scholar's Educated in Christian founded/run Universities and Colleges.
All but one of those over 50+ Scholar's, were practicing Christians.
And that it was Done in order to reliably make verifiable Observations, about the *Natural Order God Instilled into His Creation.*
Additionally, Science that holds itself to the Scientific Method, is only capable of Directly making statements about the observable Natural World.
It's only capable of dismissing the Supernatural existence of deities(like Thor & Zeus), through observations made on the supposed effects said deities existence would have on the Natural World.
And for Christianity... Approximately Two out of every Three Miracles that are Listed in the Bible, are considered Scientifically Observed phenomena. _(Storms calm down all the Time, Bears are known to attack people._ _Older Women past Menopause, have been occasionally known to conceive._ _Trees Whither._ _Quails move where they will, & water springs up from the Ground._ _Recently Dead person's can be revived if the proper actions are taken Etc...)_
They're considered Miraculous, because they happened in accordance with God's Stated Will & Purpose.
The other Third, are obviously miraculous because they happened in defiance of the Natural Order God instilled into his Creation. _(Virgin Birth, Global Flood & Revival, Creation, the _*_RESURRECTION,_*_ Etc...)_
Yes, as indicated in this video, the discussion is meaningless without a definition of GOD. GOD is the Mind that is ALL. You should be interested to know that I have published the answers to the WHAT and WHY questions in great detail, with access just a click away.
Religion is art,for entertainment only and there thousands of them Its science that is the truth, that gave us a better life,that gave us electricity,medicine,computers,transportation, satellites,and all kinds of things .It's between truth and art only.
When Covid came it was up to science to give what was the virus,what did it do in the body and what vaccine to make.Religion has words only,art.
@@mcmanustony Because the Scientific Method was developed by Christian Scholar's.
That's literally what I'm pointing out here.
Not saying that individual Scholar's failed to make discoveries, or advance the available knowledge of the time.
Just that they weren't deliberately using science to make observations, or test hypotheses. They were mucking about, and occasionally finding something that worked out.
It wasn't what we today call science.
Some just use the term, because science is what we know.
Without Christianity, science as we know it today, would probably not exist as something that people knew.
There probably wouldn't even have been a colonization of the New World.
I could go through the contemporary worldwide situation regarding likelyhood of scientific thought development...
If you're interested.
If that wasn't clear...
I'm not talking about individual discoveries, but the development of the Scientific Method by which multiple individuals can test & observe the Natural Order God Instilled into his Creation. (Aka: Natural Order)
The *development of actual Science itself.*
@@mcmanustony I think I'm in love ;)
God gave man science. The simple fact that nothing will not produce anything is *proof* not evidence, that God must exist.
Exactly, it baffles me that they actually would believe that absolutely nothing created everything vs. an intelligent mind that transcends our tiny brains....Like Frank Turkek states, it's takes more faith to believe in their miracle😄
Great man full of God's wisdom
No evidence there is any god
Well then, God is wrong.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it is not there. air!
I put God over science. Thats my opinion though
God created science. And man has abused and perverted it, just like he's abused and perverted everything else in God's creation.
Science proves God - always has and always will
That's pretty dumb.
@@smithr74 not even close. Where is the scientific study showing they found god?
God has ONLY EVER hid in the gaps of scientific knowledge.
If the species of apes called "homosapiens" would not have come into existence by evolution, some two hundred thousand years ago, the concept of a god or gods and all the stupid and often cruel doctrines would not have come into existence neither!
The fact that Lennox misrepresented, you know lied about Professor Dawkins statements in a previous discussion makes him a liar. If this deity he believes in needs liars to justify its existence, then, if it actually existed it would be a pathetic being, or maybe, just maybe imaginary.
Thanks for your comment. I was wondering if you could let me know where you think John misrepresented Dawkins in a previous discussion?
@@Practical.Wisdom ruclips.net/video/IDWjX7vIAlg/видео.htmlsi=4ctDbgC9EsZIWKIh
I don’t “think” I know, the evidence is in the RUclips clip, above.
@@jackthebassman1 Ten months… No reply.
Pls read my post. The Principia was dedicated to Charles II. Newton did briefly address God, but not as John Lennox has presented. Newton was very likely a Deist conceiving the possibility of a spiritual god that was not the temporal god of the religions.
Prof Lennox’s words are like gifts from God. Oh thank you Prof for sharing your wisdom with us. Every time I listen to Prof L (even over and over to the same lecture) I get more and more! Love this humble wise and brilliant man.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague Would it help if you cut some rich foods and increase your portions of parsley and celery, scientifically experimentally? My designer gives me interesting choices day by day (and I am not a robot).
@@kateknowles8055 You don't know my diet, But surely your intelligent designer could have designed you in such a way that you don't get skid marks on your knickers, that you can't accidentally crap yourself in public, spare care workers the joy of having to clean up other peoples excrement,
The intelligent designer designed him to crap out stinking filthy turds, that is a fantastic design, wonder if he has ever had a wet fart!
There is no god.
Lennox is worng when he says science can't answer two fundamental questions. We're did we come from and how did we get here . The answer blind evolution and all it's implications. But he won't accept it. So he has too incert god in to it😊
When someone understands everything and has all the answer (we don't even know all the questions - in fact every answer throws up more questions) then they will be God
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
I absolutely love learning about our universe and how things in it interact. I have absorbed everything a layman can about science and have never had a problem loving God more. For me exploring the workings of the universe is just a peek into God's tool box.
Maybe you should look into reality a little bit then. becsause you don't get it at all.
@John Doe In your opinion! My opinion is different and what you think of that does not concern me...
@John Doe "No one has been able to prove God or any gods exist or are even necessary"
What exactly is the proof of a conscious mind? Can you even prove your own conscious mind exists?
@@JohnDoe-zo8wj I think therefore I am. --René Descartes
What I was asking you is that you prove to the others that your conscious mind exists. Since you are the one making this bold claim "No one has been able to prove God or any gods exist or are even necessary".
Whoever makes this claim, 100% sure don't even have a single clue themselves what proof they are speaking.
@@JohnDoe-zo8wj I'd bet you have never attended high education. You are the one who claimed "No one has been able to prove God or any gods exist or are even necessary". And I am asking you to prove to the others that your mind exists. The question is not asking you whether you think your mind exists or not.
You don't even know how proving works and therefore you think "No one has been able to prove God or any gods exist or are even necessary".
You can have god and science if you don’t look too closely at god or science. Lennox has a talent for saying nonsense with gravitas, but it is still nonsense
I don't understand any of theoretical physics, but I can recognize a religious fundamentalist when I see one.
if prof. Lennox's counter-argument is:
- "God is eternal (...) "- sic! yeah? says who? a man- made book) (
"(...) he is the ultimate reality (...)" - yeah? that nobody can see, hear, touch or smell?
" (...) the ultimate fact (...) - any fact is supposed to be based on observations, isn't it, professor?
"(...) to ask who created him is to show that one does not understand the nature of his being " - it is not matter of one's understanding, it is a matter of one's atheism or theism...
So, if all these are professor's argument, then our professor is a genuine fundamentalist.
luckily this is 21st century, so he doesn't have power to burn alive.
yet...
When religion - *ANY* of the multitude of manmade, geographically & culturally, competing & conflicting religions comes up with *ANY* credible evidence I will asses the situation then & judge accordingly. That will be *AFTER* I have been requested an explanation as to why the original scriptures got all this so catastrophically wrong in the first place.
Bath tub arks & prophets flying to the Moon on winged beasts to split it in two to make a new Moon & the Earth don't do it for me I'm afraid..
How does he know what any "god" wants? Has he got access to information denied to me and billions of others?
How close do you get to regularly asking what your God wants? Try some humble attempts at listening prayer. Or just try "mindfulness" with quiet fullsome breathing.
@@kateknowles8055 . I don't believe the assertion that any of the multitude of proposed "gods " exist.
@@jerryoconnor-ps8bb
With the pantheon of all history you have statistics siding with your current view.
(Many little gods and idols: One God who spoke by the Prophets)
Working on the otherview point:
Circumstancial, individual evidence only.
We are a wicked generation seeking for signs and wonders and closing our eyes and ears to anything not testable in laboratories.
GOD IS NOT HIDING, He is just providing spaces for a thought-through relationship with each of His human creatures if they can survive outside their comfort zones for one hour at a time.
Best wishes
:D :D :D hawking was much smarter than lennox - he exatly knew the truth of this science vs. god. lennox just showing cheap deformation of mind.
Wow! Glad I listened. You have helped me to understand that items need to be placed in their right category. If no proper definition or understanding is established, it is easy to respond to questions from a different category and nothing really gets answered
No. There is no scientific evidence WHATSOEVER for resurrections. You have to believe in them, which in itself is the definition of not knowing but mere claiming.
You just can't place a lot of unearned specificity into your beliefs surrounding what a "god" is or could be. There's room for something that we could define as god, but to attach the hyperspecificity of any one of the thousands of religions currently employed by humanity is bereft of scientific weight. Which is perfectly fine if you choose to harbor such beliefs, but it's only reasonable to talk about god in a scientific setting because god is so conceptually diverse. I suppose that god can fit scientifically, but religion is nearly always anchored in dogma, immediately recusing itself from scientific debate.
You make a good point. There is a difference between faith -- a.k.a. beliefs -- and religions -- hyperspecificity of faith found among the thousands of religions of the world. In terms of epistemology, no one knows everything, therefore everyone believes something. Everyone -- scientists included.
@@sagesaith6354 Indeed, the question is whether those beliefs are based in dogma or well reviewed evidence.
@@liquidpza ... and the extent to which the criteria for establishing the truth or validity of both the review process and the evidence itself is deemed to be valid both in substance and application ...
John is a typical aplogogist with the same arguments except he adds some more scientific language.
Pretty easy for John to pick apart Hawking after he's dead and introduce this strawman category error idea.
Of course Newton said that about god. There was no alternative way to think yet, it was just getting started.
No atheist starts with nothing. Again John sets up a strawman.
If you want to believe in something, you'll find a way.
God is the ultimate scientist.
Generally scientists are fallible human beings, not gods. Besides someone who is all knowing already doesn't need to search for answers. So I don't know how your statement should be interpret to make sense.
@@BlacksmithTWD You're assuming that God doesn't experiment or progress in any way. He might be all knowing relative to our understanding.
@@rsstnnr76 As I see it it's human beings who experiment and progress in their understanding of God. I'm not at a point where I feel confident to assume either way about God. I just wonder how your statement should be interpret, still not sure.
This is highly disingenuous of Lennox.
Newton said what he said because he was a man of his time! It is unworthy of Lennox to infer that Newton still is ahead of his modern counterparts because he saw God in his calculations.
I often see the word "humble" attributed in these posts about Lennox, but I wish I was as certain about anything he is about everything...
Thank you for sharing your gift of wisdom and debunking the separation of God and science that has been pushed by acadamia and industry for decades now. King Jesus lives
There are no gods!
Jesus never existed!
.
Well Newton was an anti trinitarian i.e. he believed that Jesus was only a man, and Einstein did not believe in the god of the Bible. I wish people would not misrepresent history to suit their biases. What God is Lennox talking about? Well he certainly does not believe in Genesis literally. So he cherry picks religion and science to suit himself. That's why he disagrees that you have to choose one or the other. I have no problem with that but I bet his fans do.
Amazing. Completely agree.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
I never understand these stupid arguments. Science came from God just like everything in the universe came from God. God and Science are supposed to work together not against each other. If anything God is helping us discover more scientific advancements and those very same advancements can help us get closer to God. The problem is people are too ignorant that this is supposed to be a coexistence not an opposition.
About Hawkins, the great danger when people say you're the smartest person on the planet is that you believe it.
Another blessing. I am getting less smart since my fiftieth birthday.
This guy is awesome
Query whether Newton would have believed in God had he lived later after the Origin of Species.
I just recently started listening to some videos of Lennox Im not certian about the existence of God. However, he is a brilliant man who knows how to convey information. Thanks for the video!
Nick, have you weighed the possibility that God exists and created everything?, or that absolutely nothing created everything?, which is a scientific impossibility. I love thinking about the truly miraculous nature of the cosmos, it fascinates me. I love reading about the fine tuning that you see in the universe and to me that points to an intelligent mind outside of time and space. There is a lot of evidence for Christ, His existence, His crucifixion and His resurrection
God is reaching out to you.
Ps. Also Jason Lisle videos
@brian mendenhall I think it's likely that a Supreme Being created the universe. But I'm not sure how one can go from the Supreme Being making the universe to God of the Bible.
@@nickh.44 Yes, the idea of an all creating God doesn't need the addition of any particular religious beliefs - including those of the Christian faith. In fact, it renders this whole theist vs atheist argument redundant and unnecessary. God = simply what is. And so the whole thing becomes very intimate and personal. No religious beliefs, dogmas, rituals, books, sermons or arguments required!
He cannot prove anything. What he says is complete nonsense 😂
"A little while longer and the world (Governments, educational institutions, businesses, religious organizations, etc) will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also." "thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes(those who are pure in heart)." "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
So-called scientists are working very hard to deny the existence of something that was purposefully kept a secret from them. They will never understand or find God, no matter how hard they search and debate, but just because something hasn't been made clear to you doesn't mean it is not real or doesn't exist. But "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt. 5:8), God reveals himself to such.
Fewer scientists than you think are 'working very hard to deny the existence of something.' Even if they're atheists, that's not the point of what they're doing. They're merely trying to figure out how the natural world works. IF something hasn't been made clear to you, how to you think you know anything about it? Are you pure in heart?
I think that the phrase "you must choose between God and science" might have been right, though not in the way Hawking thought. It's correct in that you won't ever be able to empirically prove the existence of God without a shadow of a doubt, especially not with the direct physical evidence that many atheists often insist is necessary.
Science and reason can and often does lead people to God and Christ, but the jump from scientific understanding to actually believing in God will always require a leap of faith. You need to be able to accept that you do not and cannot know if God is real with 100% certainty, and choosing to have faith in God despite that. It is the ultimate test of humility, one that you cannot complete if you refuse to let go of your pride.
One must really misunderstand theology AND science to honestly believe that one must choose between God and science.
Just misunderstanding one of the two suffices I think.
True believers will perform greater wonders than Jesus. Says religion. Show me. X-ray photography can show up broken bones without surgery. Says science. Show me. I have seen. Nobody said I had to choose. But I have chosen.
@@benvanrensburg4261 No, I won't! My healed clavical (collar bone) is unoperated, and is privately mine. I saw the Xray of the healing, already just beginning ,four hours after the break. Individual evidence, and you have chosen already to believe or not believe it! You can have belief in science and in God.
@@benvanrensburg4261Are you talking about Wilhelm Röntgen, who was awarded the nobel prize for producing x-rays? He was a prominent member of the Dutch Reformed Church. You do know that science just means to study, yes? Studying a field and believing in a God are not mutually exclusive.
There's no doubt that these kinds of conversations have value. Highly educated people, scientists, philosophers, theologians may enjoy going round and round with unbelieving colleagues. The problem is that these lines of argumentation ultimately lack any power whatsoever to convince or convert.
The power to convert an unbeliever doesn't lie in scientific, philosophical or logical arguments. It can only be found in God's revealed Word; the Bible.
Isaiah 55
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."
A simple undeniable fact (according to I Corinthians) is that unbelievers (those without the Spirit) will find all this "God talk" a bunch of nonsense and foolishness.
12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
So while philosophical conversations do have value, the real power to convert unbelievers lies in The Bible, which should be part of every conversation.
Perhaps there is no gravity. It’s just a word for an experience, a sort of ”fact” that we take for granted. Newton asked the question but could only state something we all experience every single moment in our lives.
Science is nothing more than the choices God made to create our realm.
To me logically there should be no existence of anything whatsoever,since nothing cannot create anything. Since there is beyond incredible complexity and order there has to be an uncaused first super intelligent first cause. 1948 proves there is a God and He is the God of Israel.
Adding from my previous comment, I noticed the negative comments have no reputations, just anger. Inreresting.
Sorry, refutations.
Not all comments.
So what created this God then?
@@majeedmamah7457 If God created everything, then who created God?
How many times have I heard that question or variations of it? But inherent within that question there is an assumption, and this assumption that is wrong. That is because when someone asks the question, “Who created God?”, they make the assumption that there was a time when God did not exist.
If God created everything, then He created absolutely everything: space, stars, planets, mountains, rivers, oceans, life etc. This means that He would also have to create all matter (the atoms that things are made from). All this God would have made from nothing or else where did it all come from? He would also have laid out all the rules that hold it all together: the laws of gravity, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics and the rest; all the laws that hold the very fabric of the universe together.
This means He also created the dimensions; you know: up - down, left - right and forward - backwards. Without these dimensions there would be no ‘place’ to put the stars and planets etc.
If God created everything, *He also created time.* If He created time then there wasn’t a time when God did not exist. This would make God outside of the dimensions of time and space that we are bound by. We are bound by these things; He is not. For God, all of time would be, sort of like an open book. God is bigger than any box we can make for Him.
So, the question “Who created God?” is the wrong question because to ask this is to assume that there was a time when God did not exist. Because of this the question is nonsensical and a bit like asking, “What is the smell of the colour 9”.
So what is the right question?
Well a much better question is: “What is God like?” And the answer to that can be found in the Bible.
Wonderful! What beautiful common sense! Yet so lacking in the acclaimed writers he critiques! How have Dawkins and Hawking become so idolised?
Science doesn’t say god is fake.. science proves god is real. Scientists say god is fake…
Yep, sadly some people just never grow out of the mediaeval woodoo BS.
A brilliant man of God.
What god? The murderer?
@@theamalgamut8871no, the one that is love.
@@MrSeedi76 Hum, where is he/she/it? Hidden in the bushes?
Everyone creates their version of their god/s. Sounds like Lennox is veering towards deism which nobody can challenge. There could be a creator deity that's never made its presence known to humans. I doubt this as well as all god claims but it's possible. If any deities exist, they will need to prove their existence to me. I still wouldn't be religious though.
Suspect Lennox is a Christian and not a valid Deist. Though, he does give something of a Deist position when applying the construct, “God,” in the interview. Pls read my post on Newton, who very likely a Deist. I quote Newton on God, directly from The Principia.
May God bless brother Lennox! A true man of God
Thank you very much for your interest!
The one thing that has escaped science folk is the very God that gave them the intelligence to do science!
Hawking knows now, after meeting Satan.
When did you meet Hawking?
I think hge suffered enough in this world.
What an ugly thing to say.
Calm down !! It’s a valid question and one with which that anyone with a modicum of a brain has grappled with - unless of course you’re a zealot.
Is asked for evidence and instead redefines what evidence is in any other context then proceeds to give none.
I was actually quite sad when Hawking explained his disbelieve in God in terms of entanglement. In his mind he said if entanglement is completely random then he must believe that the universe is also random and does not need God as an explanation for it. What made me sad was he really turned his back on both science and God because he could not find an explanation for either. Because he couldn’t understand it There was no reason to believe in it.
Einstein did no better
Newton was born the same year Galileo died under house arrest for heretical science beliefs: perhaps Newton’s Principia dedication was simply an attempt to fend off a book ban and/or a prison term.
Pls read my post. The Principia was dedicated to Charles II. Newton did briefly address God, but not as John Lennox has presented.
Brilliant explanation and presentation.
But if he was born in a Muslim country or belonged to another religion other than Christianity, he would not be saying any of the things you hear in this video would he ? He also has a tendancy to undermine people he's had discussions with in the past. That is hitting below the belt.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
love this man. wisdom, what a concept.
I honestly don't understand how scientists find it so hard to accept science and God.
The world is full of simple. minds like you
Just want the same standard of proof for God's existence.
And, Romans 1:20 about natural revelation _does not_ prove the existence of God.
How about science and tooth fairies? Science and astrology? Science and Santa Clause? Should I keep going? Do any of these examples help you understand? How about science and Poseidon? Science and Zeus?
God is the supreme being the creator not just a fairy tales that is the fact and our human brain mind can't comprehend @@cvanunen
They failed to understand the most important part of life and that is spiritual knowledge.
Brilliant. Thank you John.
Genesis tells us what God did. Science tells us how God did it.
May I: In mathematics, there are infinite sums, that give finite answer. Maybe, the first mover may not be needed. Maybe, God is at the other end of the infite row. Infinite number of creation steps gives a finite creation, a finite world that we experience.
Gobbledegook.
Where to start with your errors?
May I: "infinite number" is contradiction. If it's a number then it's not infinite. If it's infinite then it cannot be asigned a number. I suspect you won't agree.
Infinity in mathematics is a concept only. 1 divided by zero is infinite. That's disputed of course. Can you not just as well say that 1 divided by zero is meaningless?
In any case the question of God's existence would not be hanging on our understanding or misunderstanding of mathematics or any other field of enquiry for that matter. At best we can show that faith in God is reasonable just as Lennox in this video quoted Einstein as saying that scientists have faith that the universe is intelligable or they wouldn't bother.
@@gerardk51 You probably noticed that I have used a phrase "infinite number of creation steps". Since English is not my language, I have done some googling and I believe that I have used the phrase correctly. OK, not quite, I forgot an article "An". LOL
@@mitjarihtarsic3360 I wasn't commenting on your english.
I just don't agree with the common use in mathematics of infinite and number together.
John 3:36 & Ephesians 2:8-9.
Well I think Jesus said it best God is a SPIRIT and must be worshipped in SPIRIT AND TRUTH... science is man's knowledge which is way lower then God's knowledge WAY LOWER WAAAAAAAY!
I don't recall this. Got a quote on where Jesus sais this?
When it comes to science and scripture I'm with Aquinas, since both nature and the word of God have the infallible God as their author, neither is fallible. Science studies nature, hence when proporly done it can't be faulty either. Hence if a fallible human being thinks that one refutes the other, it's not that one refutes the other but rather that that fallible human being didn't understand at least one of them proporly.
Hence to refute scientific findings one must provide a scientific argument, to refute scriptural interpretations one must provide a scriptural argument in accordance with the relevant tradition of reading and interpretating that scripture.
So to me, neither is lower than the other as both have God as their author.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
― St. Thomas Aquinas
Pity you can't even prove that god exists. IMO that puts god"s knowledge into the category of insignificance.
@@nerdyali4154 It's possible for me to know something that you don't know that is still quite significant for you and you would recognize as being significant if you knew (and obviously the reverse is also true). It's why people can get pissed when they discover someone else was withholding significant information. Though of course usefull information you don't know about can't be used by you untill you get to know. The significance of something can only be determined once that something is fully known, not before as you seem to think.
@@nerdyali4154 Perhaps you meant 'inapplicable' rather than 'insignificant'?
No. In the End, You must chose between God and Science because, God requires FAITH in His Son Christ Jesus for salvation; Science requires PROOF. The highest Fallen angel, Lucifer had PROOF God was real and all-powerful, but in his Pride, he chose to set his throne higher than the Creator's. As beings created to live, experience and grow ever closer to their creator, the highest and most solid, heartfelt Belief (the belief that will not be swayed by pride or anything else) is believing without proof. According to the Bible, those who do are even more blessed than those who saw and walked with Jesus.
Well DD - just because you believe and have faith in your one particular god, without evidence why should anyone else. In your own mind ask yourself the same question of a Muslim, a Sikh, a Jew, a Mormon, a Hindu or to a any other believer in their choice of over 1000+ gods. Each will say they have evidence but fail to provide anything other faith and personal testimony. Could a Muslim prove to you that their god is the real one? I doubt it.
Just type into Google… ‘list of holy texts’. Do you discount all of them except those of your particular religion? Is your decision based on bias or evidence?… or do you just know, what you know is true?
Thank u all for doing these high-end and high-quality questions. timely in need also.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague God designed us to enjoy everything in fine balance. BUT stinking(pollution) comes from the overdoing of any given thing (by not following the right principles, rules, and laws -This is called Sin in the bigger picture )we consume (physically mentally, and chemically, etc.) And The same stinking turds are not shit to other designed creations of God which are in a way doing the cleansing work of the stinking we become (plants and animals). So the intelligence is beyond measure to make us see what its grand depth scale and beauty and exuberance and whatnot?!! The Intelligent Designer Designed things absolutely marvelous and to be perfect in any observable measure. Thank you for being and the question sir. God bless you.
What, not a single breath of criticism in the comments?The man hasn't got a clue. Science tries to answer "HOW", it doesn't pretend to answer "WHY". I think it was Bryson who wrote:"There's always a little old lady who says"you cant tell us WHY": he answered "not my field dear lady: go ask your vicar. And don' forget to ask him for his evidence."
What's the betting this comment also is soon deleted?
I value open dialogue and welcome criticism, not only of John, but of myself also! Just scroll down, there’s plenty of criticism. Science and religion can address different aspects of human existence, with science focusing on the ‘how’ (or so we think) and religion delving into the ‘why’. The question is, can religion also make claims about truth, or is this only the domain of science? Is all faith really blind faith? What do we do with the evidence that actually IS there? And of course, I am talking about abductive, rather than direct arguments. Most theologians and apologists (such as Lennox, Francis Collins or William Lane Craig) reject the idea, initially used as a derogatory term, of a ‘God of the gaps’ that you mention: if I can’t explain it, something supernatural did it. Rather, they embrace the idea of a God who fine-tuned the universe precisely so human life can exist - I hinted to this in one of my questions. I do hope you find some of my future conversations worthwhile - I hope to have Richard Dawkins on the podcast soon.
"God, by definition, is eternal." says Lennox. By whose definition? By human definition, of course. Because we don't have a definitions of God from any other source. Lennox can say what he wants, but the argument still stands. That is, if the evidence of the creation demands a creator, then that creator also needs a creator. Invoking Isaac Newton doesn't help his case. Isaac Newton is dead, and we can't go and ask him to look at the science of today, and give his opinion as to whether it demands a god or not.
I agree he's just parroting a definition someone else made up. But I think their rationale is that either something came from nothing or something has always existed. I can't see any other option, can you? They've convinced themselves that it must be the latter (something has always existed) and that this something (they'll call it the creator) has to be greater than its creation (they work that out logically and call it the ontological argument) so they apply many attributes they think just have to apply/exist/be part of this 'creator.' So they have to define the creator as eternal or it doesn't work as a creator in their minds. It does seem circular reasoning because you'll see where they'll claim a fall back of, 'if it isn't [insert an attribute/quality the believe God must have] it can't be God' which isn't really saying anything other than what the atheist already (thinks he) knows.
@@rizdekd3912 I think the point is that they use the requirement for a creator argument to explain the universe, then abandon that argument when required to explain where the creator came from. If they can say the creator has "always existed", why can't they say the universe has always existed. You can't have your philosophical cake and eat it too.
@@peskyfervid6515 I know...they attach significance to the problem of infinite regress with eternal natural world not realizing the same problem would also apply to a god. Saying something doesn't exist 'in time' like we think of the universe as doing, doesn't really solve anything. If there are sequential events...happenings...even thoughts such as the thoughts involved in deciding, planning and then carrying out creation then that either implies a form of time because time is essentially what separates events from happening in the same eternal instant or owns to the idea that in some cases, multiple things can happen in sequence without time to separate them. In any case, an eternal natural world would seem to fit t
It depends on the form of the creator don't you think? If it was a human then you'd say well a human created it, but the bible clearly states that God is a flame of fire, it also states that God is Light itself, If God is Light itself then He would have Power over All things, I truly believe that gravity is only controlled and programmed energy to do what it's supposed to do
@@jamierivera7259 And the bible was created by humans, so any definition therein contained is, perforce, a "human" definition.
Stephen Hawking got most everything wrong.
From the book Albert Einstein … THE WORLD AS I SEE IT
An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise: such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
It was the experience of mystery-even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion.
The key is "beyond my comprehension". He should have listened to his own advice.
@@thomaswayneward Science versus religion
To those heavily invested in religion ... pseudo-science is forced to fit all the religious stories ... which is not science at all.
THIS is religion ... which is mythology ... God exists and God IS energy ... and when God created the universe HIS energy ... is ... to this day ... what runs the universe.
THIS is science ... which is natural ... The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.
And that is why the theory that the universe always existed ... no plan ... no creator ... made and makes sense to more than a few scientists ... including Stephen Hawking. It also makes sense that suffering of all forms of life ... including human life ... is natural.
As the two theories are at total odds with each other ... there isn't any room in the theories of science ... FOR religious theology.
@@thomaswayneward From the book, “Ideas and Opinions” … author … Albert Einstein.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just and omnibeneficient personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind.
But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every thought, and every human aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
@@thomaswayneward There are now hundreds of ex members of clergy that have stepped down from their pulpits and have joined The Clergy Project.
From the book … From Apostle to Apostate: The Story of the Clergy Project … authors … Catherine Dunphy, Richard Dawkins
Welcome to the Clergy Project. It is hard to think of any other profession, which is so near to impossible to leave. If a farmer tires of the outdoor life and wants to become an accountant or a teacher or a shopkeeper, he faces difficulties, to be sure. He must learn new skills, raise money, and move to another area perhaps. But he does not risk losing all his friends, being cast out by his family, being ostracized by his whole community. Clergy who lose their faith suffer double jeopardy. It is as though they lose their job and their marriage and their children on the same day. It is an aspect of the vicious intolerance of religion that a mere change of mind can redound so cruelly on those honest enough to acknowledge it.
The Clergy Project exists to provide a safe haven, a forum where clergy who have lost their faith can meet each other, exchange views, swap problems, counsel each other-for, whatever they may have lost, clergy know how to counsel and comfort. Here you will find confidentiality, sympathy, and a friendly place where you can take your time before deciding how to extricate yourself and when you will feel yourself to stand up and face the cool, refreshing wind of truth. Richard Dawkins
Math is not science. you cant argue religion or the lack of it with mathematicians. they wouldnt know about physical laws so they can be religious and be mathematicians as well.
So you can't argue religion with mathematicians but you can with physicists making statements about metaphysics? Who is, in your opinion, qualified to talk (or argue for) about religion?
This guy is cracked. Absoloutely love him!
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
And yet, John Lennox rejects the narrative given to us by the Creator in the Word of God, in Genesis.
_"For_ *in six days* _the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them ..."_
- Exodus 20.11 (ESV) (Emphasis added.)
John Lennox allows the popular science ideas of today to be his hermeneutic of Genesis. There is no category error in the choice between thousands of years and billions of years. The choice must be made. The Christian Bible presents our history as being a few thousand years. The atheist scientists offer us billions of years. These two ideas are wholly incompatible with one another. Why does John Lennox accept the atheists' offering? Sorry, John, but "six days" means six days. There are no millions and billions of years.
In all other respects, I consider John Lennox a wonderful speaker and thinker. In his evaluation of Genesis, John is a failure.
Pls read my post. The Principia was dedicated to Charles II. Newton did briefly address God, but not as John Lennox has presented.
He knows now.
In the beginning was God… and in the end there will be God!
As Lenox mentioned, Newton had a deep faith and understanding of the Creator. However, Newton believed in the one and only God of Israel, and denied any and all deity in the trinity and Jesus! Newton generally remained mum on his theology lest he be executed by the Church.
The Spirit University
Life on this planet Earth is to educate the spirit of the Human.
Here is some of what they need to learn. : Truth Is Existence
Truth is All That Truly Exists.
Other Than Truth there is Just The understood Concept of An Absence.
Lies with intent to deceive or not is fantasy. Lies remain in the nonexistent realm.
Creation is only the rearrangement of Matter. As Existence and Matter does not evolve from nothing.
The Great Designer and Creator, The Spirit Energy Source Matter, Knowledge, Energy, Time and Space Has Always Existed.
All Without Beginning or end.
Beginning and End only reveals an absence.
The Great Creator is far more Massive and complex than the God worshipers realize and understand.
The Great Creator is not a being somewhere in space.
The Great Creator is a huge mass of spirits in perfect unity. And with the same care for each another.
The proof of 'Intelligent Design' Is 'Existence'. It begins with the complex 'Intelligent Design' of 'The Universe'. 'The Universe'. was Designed to make Life on Earth possible.
Words to the honest and wise: honesty and understanding is the only true belief. Without honesty and understanding we do not know what to believe.
To accept other’s opinion of the truth without proving it to yourself; it is being deceived it is not believing.
We must understand to believe.
Until Next time: Sweet Dreams: Truth will solve all our problems before we create them; and ignore or reject the truth; problems will multiply all by themselves; those problems will need no help.
Have a great and a meaningful life if it is at all possible.
Just whispers, of the Spirit of Reality.
Could listen to John for hours .It's nice to hear someone sane
Listening to him is akin to going to Sunday school. I can barley take one hour of it. Iget very sick.
@@jerrylong6238so sorry
Apologists are the furthest thing from sane
@@jerrylong6238sorry for you you need God in your life I hope you realize it before it is too late.
*Could listen to John for hours .It's nice to hear someone sane*
Anyone trying to rationalise the irrational by attempting to justify a belief in an entity that is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist has lost the plot.