Oxford Mathematician STUMPS Richard Dawkins (By Using His Own Logic Against Him)
2023 ж. 17 Қыр.
402 164 Рет қаралды
In this video, John Lennox and Richard Dawkins discuss The Origin of The Universe...
Go to ground.news/ddw to see through biased reporting. Subscribe through my link before October 15 and get 30% off unlimited access.
The full-length conversation can be found here: • Video
Go to ground.news/ddw to see through biased reporting. Subscribe through my link before October 15 and get 30% off unlimited access.
The segue to the ad for Ground was worthy of Ben Shapiro.
glad to see you're finally turning a profit in the name of Jesus!!
@@wiffleballer28 This channel’s KZhead is genius!!! Post videos of famous people talking and add a few words at the end, and make thousands and thousands of dollars (which is increasing all the time) through advertising. Relatively little effort, for a massive cash cow. Honestly the smartest KZhead strategy I’ve seen! **Although I do believe that running ads is wrong. They can’t be completely controlled, and that aside, people would be up in arms if a pastor in church got a salesman to come up before a gospel presentation. Imagine Jesus doing it on sermon on the mount 😂 I guess that’s western Christianity for you!
Thank you Brandon! For anyone interested in being better equipped to engage in dialogue with opposing view points, check out the link above and let us know if you have any questions.
@@ground_newsdoes Daily Dose of Wisdom profit from the link above? Or is it being shared simply because he recommends your service?
Putting beliefs aside for a moment. It's very refreshing, in this day and age, to see two men having a civilized debate. No name calling. No hateful remarks...
Agreed.
Good point. They're also both from the UK, which I'll go out on a limb and say is why this conversation unfolds in the fruitful way it does.
Would have been better without the analysis in between though😀
Propaganda in a can. See how many thumbs up you can get. That's what you live for.
@@srinivasvedang4001 Repetition is good for developing minds
Dawkins just doesn't want a God to exist, he doesn't want to be held accountable for his sins.
This is what the new atheists are actually after. They relish i discovered scientific laws, but reject any such absolute for humanity.
Yes and he not even aware of that. He would deny it because he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.
Not to mention that for him to accept God's existence, he would have to disavow everything he has said and written previously on the matter!
All atheists are like that. They are not searching for truth. They want God not to exist. I have heard many atheists say that even if you could prove that God exists they still wouldn't become Christians.
@zilla5749 It's very odd that you speak of assumptions. The reason why is because you assume logic. But as an atheist can you account for logic according to your own worldview? Be consistent and don't just assume logic but rather I'm asking for you to account for it based off of the atheistic worldview
what a great debate; 2 guys politely interchanging dialogue. I recall in the 60's we did it all the time. No hating, no screaming.
Schools are not teaching rhetoric anymore, so students are coming out of school without the skill of this type of dialogue. That means that they go low because they do not have the language skills to do what these two men are doing. Debate is reserved for the advanced students (if they even get it) when every student needs these skills.
You say you "recalled in the 60s" indicating you were alive then. Have you learned anything worth decimating to those with less experience?
Curious what bubble you were living in during the 60's where there was no hating, screaming, etc. Sounds like a lovely spot! I recall there was so much hate that people were being killed for looking or talking a certain way. The screaming and spitting was the polite part.
Interesting notion of the 60s you have, considering the amount of political turmoil and social distress of that time. This sort of personal idealization does little for healthy debate.
They are both British. That’s why they’re both civil.
There's nothing wrong with saying "I dont know" instead of settling with the least logical answer.
evilution again seriusly the god Hazard again?the pope darwin again.The bible of evilution of spiceises again .Why all evilutionist identify as stupid? The truth is simple, no scientist or evolutionist who sees a bicycle thinks that it was chance that created it, yet the bicycle is much simpler to create, billions of times simpler. And they will never say that maybe after a trillion years it will become possible because corrosion and time damages all substances.The law of the god Hazard again .
How do you know if the statement you just made is logical in and of itself?
Liar, you see a car, you never,Never think, that Hazard created it ,or I don't know if anyone created it. If you continue to lie to yourself you will lose the little logic you have and become a WOKE who identifies as stupid.@@johnlovestosing04
@@johnlovestosing04 you think you're being smart but you're just being a twit. if you want to just be irritating, but not actually achieve anything, you're going about it perfectly.
Absolutely! Religious people are very comfortable saying “I don’t know” but I can exercise faith. It’s the atheist side that demands they know what cannot be known!
I've always been somewhere between a Christian and an agnostic but you bringing all of this content to me (including your frank turek videos) has brought me so much closer to Christianity that my agnosticism is essentially gone. Thank you for brining me closer to God.
Right on, James! You will be eternally grateful!❤️
Just curious, have you watched any of the large number of videos debunking Turek?
@@kinggenius930 No
What’s wrong with Frank?
@@evelynharper1212 Frank likes to use the same arguments again and again to make his points. These arguments are full of flaws in reasoning, and people have pointed them out repeatedly. It's worth looking into
Dawkins said he is starting with something simple…..but he’s not, he’s starting with nothing…….
I don’t think you can have anything simpler than nothing! It’s like his ‘you don’t believe in Thore or oden, I just go one god more and don’t believe in your god either’. Which to me is like, ‘there are a lot of women that we don’t believe are your mother, I just go one woman more and don’t believe you had a mother!’. As Lennox has said before ‘nonsense is still nonsense even when uttered by a well known ‘scientist’ ‘
When has Dawkins ever said anything about starting with “nothing?” Has he actually said that, or is that just how you’ve interpreted it?
@@jamesmaybury7452 the sperm and the egg are simple. Within it are the blueprints to form you into a person. That person has complexity, therefore the blueprint contained that complexity within it. A baby doesn't evolve into a complex human, it grows into what was written in its code. But, the sperm and egg don't come from nothing. Something cannot come from nothing. There is no example of that, and science uses time to explain why something can come from nothing. And "we don't know, but one day we'll figure it out." What that really means is "until we can come to a better explanation that God had nothing to do with it." Science has no intention of finding a creator, so anything that leads to it can be justifiably rejected under the guise of science. Once a narrative is established in science, it's hard to move the needle any other way, regardless of how much evidence of something exists to counter the narrative. Science is used as a political tool. The scientist that doesn't fall in line with group think, is ostracized as a quack. Therefore, the only acceptable answer to life has to be derived from nothing. That is the only acceptable conclusion in science. Also, the "nothing" is only nothing to someone that doesn't believe in a creator. But, not believing in one doesn't void it. It doesn't cease to exist based on your bias. And it is a bias, because you'd have to deny that what happens in the micro also happens in the macro. The simplicity of conception leads to the complexity of the human mind. Dawkins says "simple" but in reality, "nothing" which is devoid of anything also has within it, "EVERYTHING." Its a cop-out. The idea of a creator isn't more complex than the idea that everything came from nothing. And "time" isn't a sufficient enough answer to explain it.
@@LWS1989 what do you think the universe came from? Have you heard Dawkins say the universe came from something other than Nothing? In this interview he agreed with the idea that the universe created itself, which is nonsense. He mostly speaks like a politician, making assertions and promises and avoiding saying embarrassing things. I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard him say the universe came from nothing, that would sound foolish, but avoiding saying anything in its place is ‘not answering the question’. So when asked where the universe came from he may have avoided saying ‘nothing’ but instead said nothing.
@@jamesmaybury7452 Richard Dawkins, like many scientists and atheists, doesn't claim that the universe came from 'nothing' in the sense of absolute nothingness. Instead, he, along with cosmologists and physicists, explores the origins of the universe through scientific theories like the Big Bang. These theories propose explanations based on our current understanding of physics and cosmology. Saying that he 'avoids saying nothing' doesn't mean he's suggesting 'nothing' as an answer; rather, he's emphasizing the need for evidence-based explanations rather than making unfounded claims.
Enjoyed this very much. Dont worry about length and if possible make them even longer. Thanks for the post
I have really grown to dislike finding some topic that is interrupted by someone thinking his commentary adds to the discussion. I want to hear what Lennox and Dawkins say, not someone trying to interrupt.
I’m with you. I was actually just trying to find John Lennox talking without his input at all. I really like John Lennox but I’m unable to find videos with just him in it and whoever John is talking to on it.
i was just thinking this, its like being in class with your favorite teacher and a student whose suppose to be in another class busts through the door being obnoxious saying random statements lol
I agree - especially when the additional "analysis" is so incredibly lame.
@@scrumpymanjack even worse is when the idiot adding the useless commentary edits the wording of the argument. look closely at 7:50 and see that dawkins says something that the words don't match. not just being useless but changing the man's words is straight up deceitful and dishonest. this "content creator" should try harder.
Why do we need the commentary?
It's not that Dawkins cannot see, it's that he refuses to see. He wants his autonomy. He wants to be right. He wants the praise of men. Ego vs Intelligence.
Ego? What can possibly be more egotistical than saying you are made in your own gods image.
@@listeningto8371 I didn't say it. God said it. Genesis... chapter 1 Check it out for yourself.
@@listeningto8371that’s not egotistical unless you’re saying that w/ a bow down and praise me type of attitude lol. A person literally refusing to acknowledge the truth and trying to bounce things around, I could more or less see ego involved in that. Not to say that he has an ego issue but he was definitely presenting some very circular arguments. Like literally saying “this entire universe was simple” or however he was saying it lol. If it was so simple why did people need to STUDY it to understand it? If you go look outside at your grass, you can chalk that up as “simple” but the reality of it is that there is an entire complex process going on and him saying stuff like that is “simple” made me wonder wth is he even trying to do? Best logic I could see is he’s trying to protect his ego. But maybe my interpretation on his words are skewed, care to enlighten me?
@@cthulhucrews6602 You need more than just atoms to make a molecule. Those atoms have to go together in a certain way. Someone or something has to arrange that and make it happen.
@@cthulhucrews6602 I thought so, so the thing is atoms actually have information they aren’t as simple as let’s say a rain drop hitting the concrete (which is also not simple). These atoms came together to form molecules, there is a mind or some type of structure behind it. The process for an atom consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons. So to say something like that is “simple” is like him basically saying that human life itself is a simple thing bc we live and then we die. It’s basically saying that everything we come to realize and understand means nothing.
As a young Christian scientist, I liked to ask myself "How did the universe come to be? How did the Big Bang come to be?" Modern science doesn't answer this question, or what came "before" it. I propose that the existence of the universe points towards a metaphysical cause that transcends the physical universe itself. It has to be. If time, matter, energy, space, physical and natural laws, and reality as we know it, the cause has to be beyond all of those and subject to none of those. This actually happened to align with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I discovered years later, a philosophical argument for the existence of God (arguably, this could be any "god", but this is besides my point). The universe was caused and it began to exist, so what caused the universe to begin, via the Big Bang? Additionally, rationality was briefly mentioned in the video. Rationality coming from irrationality seems incredibly counterintuitive and counter to what science and logic tells us. If our cognitive faculties were derived solely from irrational processes, we should have no reason to trust them. That is, on a strict naturalistic view, our senses have evolved for survivability and not necessarily truth. A quote from C.S. Lewis says this better than I can, "If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees." I'd like to also reiterate that the God Christians worship is not a created God. We worship the God that has no beginning and no end, since it exists beyond time and space. If atheists criticize a god that must have a beginning, or in other words a god that must be created, then that is not a god we Christians worship nor even acknowledge. We acknowledge the God who is the uncaused first cause and Creator of everything. The universe, purported to be the creator of Richard Dawkins, cannot say nearly as much. Brandon, I personally love these "long-form" videos, though I may not be your target demographic. I like hearing more of the context on both ends, along with your thoughts and analyses.
This is more the agnostic/theist position rather than a Christian one. Atheists cannot assume that what created the God was not sapient, just as they don't assume that it was sapient. In fact there was a video featured previously on this channel where an Atheist kid proposed higher dimensional laws that have all the features of God except sapience, and just as Earthlings were created by the unthinking simple laws of nature the unthinking simple higher dimensional laws created our universe. The Christian professor then claimed that this is what Christians refer to God, which I found a little strange because these higher dimensional laws wouldn't be sending down bibles and communing with humans. The bigger hurdle is explaining why the bible is the word of God and why we should trust it as opposed to any other religion that believes in a creator. Or why God would even care.
May I ask if I am correctly inferring from what you have written that you have started from the commonly accepted guess of the scientific processes that resulted in the creation of the earth and life, and then have interpreted the creation account explained in the Bible from that? In other words, do you believe the universe is billions of years old and that man was created by means of evolution?
I think the videos are good for anyone no matter if they are questioning atheists that are curious about God, devout Christians or anywhere in between. For me, why I like these is, where I live, most Christians fall into that same dichotomy of God or Science, to the point of outright rejecting anything but a strict, most literal interpretation of the bible, and rejecting any ideas that may not fit into that view. It is very refreshing to see people who are strong Christians that also follow science and reason.
Is that Problem of Pain or Miracles?
@@erseshe A channel I very very highly recommend that will go some way to answering your question regarding the bible being the word of God (although you may not like the name) Truth Is Christ. The numerical patterns are so unbelievably vast they are miracles in themselves considering it was written over 1500 years, over 40 authors, in 3 different languages over 3 different continents. The continuity throughout especially numerically is beyond staggering. Give his channel a gander. Much love
I would love to hear more. This conversation is not too long for me. Thank you for posting it.
it's a very old debate but i believe still on yt, see "Lennox Dawkins debate"
Lennox is a seriously sharp debater, he’s a real credit to Christianity
Sharp as a brick. An obnoxious, pompous, dishonest old fool at this stage.
Lennox is a delusional fool.
not if you listen to the drivel he talks. don't be fooled by the santa claus presentation, but then again if you believe in the magic man who grants wishes then lennox will not be able to do any wrong in your eyes.
@@HarryNicNicholas Your tawdry putdowns are that of an wannanbe edgy 12 y/o who's binged old C Hitchens vids. If you're still at the 'religion is a magic man with a beard - how stupid lolz' stage, you're leagues away from understanding even the very basic philosophical precepts of the contentions, or lack thereof, for God's existence.
Which of his lies about evolution do you like the most?
I can appreciate how civil both of them are. It's dialogue, true conversation.
Civil but fruitless
Yes! I appreciate both of them for that!
@@TheWordisGodwhy do you see this conversation as fruitless? (Not trolling or trying to argue, just a sincere curiosity)
@@TheWordisGod Maybe you don´t understand the subtleties?
If they were LGBT, there would have been a giant argument
When i question an atheist who believed the big bang how it happened without a creator, he said there were no laws millions of years ago. But i said without thr laws of nature or physics or everything else, nothing can come into existence. The blindness is appalling
Religion and God are a belief system, yet you act like it's the only truth.. yet you don't have a single fact of Gods existence
Just loads of evidence for those honest enough to see.@@wieisdebaas
Please don’t paint all atheists with a broad brush. The Big Bang might be a mystery, but invoking a creator just adds another layer of complexity. It's like explaining a magic trick by saying it was done by a wizard. Science is still unraveling the universe's secrets, and I find that journey far more fascinating than simply attributing it to a deity.
Nobody knows the origins of the universe - the reality of time and physics before the big bang are entirely unclear. It's one thing that people think there is evidence for an un-created creator - where an infinite natural pre-universe makes equal or more sense - but the water is muddied much further by the rates of such people claiming that they have a personal 'spiritual' relationship such a creator. Not only that, but they also claim that this creator sometimes intervenes in human-affairs on Earth, throws out the laws of physics by way of miracles, and whispers prophecies and moral codes in the ears of certain humans throughout history (though near exclusively in an small area in the Near-East in the case of the most popular religions), for some reason. The rarity of desists is pretty telling. Oddly, the people convinced by the idea of a creator are near entirely theists with God/s who care about their wellbeing, who nod along with every moral argument they make, and who have eternal paradise or torment waiting for them after death (depending if they've acknowledged a specific form of theism). It's a bit far fetched.
If the big bang needed a creator, how did the creator come to be?
Not knowing the answer to something doesn't give you free reign to make stuff up and pass it off as fact.
Right. Unfortunately however, this is one of those instances when the left use the 1st amendment as a loophole, giving them wide protection to sew their lies. All the more reason young ones should be armed with the discernment and wisdom that comes from scripture and prayer.
Like evolution
Like the big bang
@@Rick-the-Swift the Big Bang doesn’t tell people they’re going to suffer eternal pain for kissing someone of the same gender 💀. I think I’ll stick with the Big Bang lol
@@solosalvador Haha. I don't think you understand the bible. It teaches to not commit to a multitude of sin, including theft, disrespecting your parents, lying, murder etc. It doesn't only address acting on your every lustful desire. And it's the foundation for your morals. Without it, you'd have no problem stealing, killing deceiving, etc. as it's in your very nature. In fact, as is, right now you're far more likely to commit transgressions due to your abandonment of your moral foundation. All you have as a moral compass is what society tells you is acceptable, and society has already failed you. Like Chris Rock said, when food shortages hit, it's not christians, jews, muslims, or buddhists etc. I'll be watching over my shoulder for- it's atheists! Or something like that heheh 😏
Excellent content and the length is great. I'd even enjoy a longer format. Great work!
It's always a pleasure to see two sophisticated people having a civilized debate, no matter what I believe myself. We are a part of a huge mystery and that humbles me.
Exactly
Interesting, So would you consider yourself as a part of either camp of these 2 men?
Well said
@@ethanrichard4950 In case you didn't notice, this post is not meant to be the opening of an exchange. It only has persuasion value. The OP is click bait unless you know how to get in. For one, Dawkins is NOT sophisticated. What follows after that?
which of the two will back YOU when god decides you're going to be burned for eternity? which of the two will tell god that drowning everyone was wrong?
Dawkins: Who created your God Lennox: Answered Lennox: Reverse your question who created the universe? Dawkins:bla bla bla… we still waiting for the answer😂
Lol, exactly.
Dawkins: Who created your God Lennox: "just makes stuff up" Lennox: Reverse your question who created the universe? Dawkins: Offers a rational point of view and admits he doesn't have all the answers, you know, since he is an evolutionary biologist, not a astrophysicist/cosmologist.
@@zilla5749 Zilla, what the dilla? I asked you in another thread to answer a question why haven't you done it yet? You are appealing to logic. Now based off of your own worldview account for logic?? By the way atheism presupposes theism. The default position is belief in God not the other way around. You have the burden of proof just as much as anyone else who makes a claim. You think you get a freebie because you try using word salads like saying atheism is a lack of belief in something well I hate to break it to you but that in and of itself is a belief system. So don't think you get off the hook either buddy
No one can answer who created god.
@@Ul-zs3vp The historical position is not the same as the default position. Many cultures in history never believed in a creator god at all.
I love how you and the video clips give each side a fair shake. It really helps form my own perspective in a more wholistic way.
Dawkins points in one of his books that it is possible to create a computer programme that starts off by replicating and adapting images on screen to appear more complex - a basic form of evolution. He fails to recognise that someone had to write the program in a language created by another person, on a computer created by other based on a design by someone else.
you're missing the point.
YOUR DUMB
who wrote god's program, oh, god wasn't created? got me there.
The point of that computer program analogy isn't what you think it is. It's not that it proves there is no creator. It is that you can start with simple random chaos and a few rules and out of that chaos comes extremely complex interesting stuff. In the case of the computer program it is the computer and the (very simple) computer program that enforces the rules on the chaotic virtual world. With evolution the rules are enforced by the laws of physics. Evolution doesnt prove there isnt a god nor does it explain how life emerged. But what it does do is make the need for a creator to make sense of the universe much much less. If for example we couldn't trace humans back to simple life forms at the start and we seem to have suddenly appeared on earth, thát would be a serious problem where a creator seems like an attractive explanation. Off course you would still need evidence for such a creator but at least it would would fill a serious hole in our explanation of how this came to be. But that hole is now reduced to why and how did the universe start. Which is a massive question but the neccesity of a creator is much less because the start of the universe was quite simple compared to its current state. When it comes to explaining complexity in the current universe we have pretty much figured out the main mechanics. Purely from a "explanatory power" perspective, a creator isn't really that useful anymore.
@@test5093 - Rules are constructions. Did you not think about that? Try that again mate.
what Dawkin calls the more simple explanation is in fact no explanation
Dawkins simply says we don't yet have a good explanation for origins of the universe - the reality of time and physics before the big bang are entirely unclear. It's one thing that people think there is evidence for an un-created creator - where an infinite natural pre-universe makes equal or more sense - but the water is muddied much further by the rates of such people claiming that they have a personal 'spiritual' relationship such a creator. Not only that, but they also claim that this creator sometimes intervenes in human-affairs on Earth, throws out the laws of physics by way of miracles, and whispers prophecies and moral codes in the ears of certain humans throughout history (though near exclusively in an small area in the Near-East in the case of the most popular religions), for some reason. Before the 19th century, the origin of species was explained 'best' by Biblical creation theory, which has now been relegated to mythology with the advent of evidence for evolution by natural selection. I'm sure some people originally looked at a story about the universe being created in 7 days, a talking snake, a forbidden apple etc (or any other religious creation story), and were unconvinced by that explanation - even if they didn't have an conclusive alternative. Equally, the disbelief that the few gaps unexplained by science as of 2023 can be adequately explained by cramming God/s into those gaps (as has been done to all such knowledge gaps throughout history, which have since been filled by a natural, scientific explanation), is equally unconvincing
@@jamesthompson9003 the problem with Dawkins' claim isn't that he doesn't have an explanation yet (though he demonstrates faith by believing there surely will be sch an explanation). The problem is that he claims that the Universe itself and its nature is a less complex thing than a god and therefore it's a better explanation for everything than a god. But for fucks sake, the Universe is unfathomably complex.
The idea that all this unbelievable diversity of life and materials and order and structure in this world created itself out of nothing with no mind behind it is absolutely absurd. And it all hinges on this ridiculous theory of evolution for which zero evidence exists. There is no evidence at all for one type of organism (“kind”) changing into a different type of organism. What Darwin saw was some birds developing bigger or smaller beaks and that sort of thing. Not a bird becoming a fish or growing four legs or anything like that. The Book of Genesis presents a very simple, beautiful, and believable explanation for this world.
@jamesthompson9003 thanks for sharing your perspective - regards evolution - if you can endure listening to the first video in my playlist 'atheism?'; "By Design: Behe, Lennox, and Meyer on the Evidence for a Creator" - also imagine you gossip about your boss unaware that he was in the room - as long as it is at all possible that there is a creator, that one should be treated with the uttermost respect considering the powers being displayed in the universe, and it must be our uttermost priority to find the truth regards that question
The universe is a book of life. Matter is the ground for humans and the stars are the ground the soul walks on. We're living inside the motherboard of the next life so you see the inside of it from earth. Earth is only one of the hard drives in it.
I spent decades as an atheist after being taught and believing all the evolution, big bang, billions of years stuff. I actually attended a presentation by Richard Dawkins once at my college and believed everything he was saying. That’s how deceived I was. I was saved in May 2021 when the Lord finally got through all my years of stubbornness and I was able to see the truth. Biblical Christianity makes so much more sense as an explanation for what’s all around us than anything else. I am so thankful to God for never giving up on me and letting me see reality.
Recurring story, I tell you. Dawkins absolutely made me think I had to make a choice, meanwhile through Mathematics/Logic I got to reject his worldview. I was young and impressionable, but shame on Dawkins 🤣🤣🤣
The opposite here, once I read the bible, the more disbelieving it got. I can't understand how outdated the statements are like how to treat slaves and sacrificing thousands of animals etc etc etc....
@@skid69 I agree with you. I went the same way. I became an atheist in my 20s. People like Dawkins persuaded me to take an interest in science, so in order to understand the foundations of science I studied logic, Mathematics, computer science for 15 years and when I understood it all then I understood God. I haven't bothered to re-read the bible since then (and I am not really a Christian anymore), but I absolutely believe in the creator. And if you ask me to speculate (this is entirely subjective, not based on any facts) it looks to me like we live in gigantic computer simulation. That's what the universe looks like to me anyway. It's the mathematician and computer scientist in me speaking. I think what made you an atheist, is the fact you are confusing god with the stories people told about god; or the acts that people did in god's name; or perhaps the words that people put in god's mouth. And probably (definitely for me!) the fact that people fight over whose god is the real god. There is only one god, the one true god. It's the god Christians AND the god of Muslims. It's the same God by different names. And if anybody claims that God told them to murder - they are lying in the name of God. You can't come to know him from any books or writings - those are the stories of men. Only science, logic and mathematics will help you find the truth. God is in the understanding. Work your hardest to prove yourself wrong. Do the work and let reason guide you. Little knowledge of science makes you an atheist, in depth knowledge of science makes you a believer in God -- Francis Bacon
@@skid69Where does the new testament mention about treating slaves?
@@skid69sacrificing animals went out of fashion due to God telling man that it was no longer necessary.
Lennox loses every debate by a large margin. He has no facts in his favor.
I have a feeling you wouldn’t fair well against Lennox in an open debate.
Just another human pissed at God.
@@ce6277 Have you not seen his debates? His positions are full of logical fallacies. He's a retired math professor playing at being a theologian. Not to mention that the argument for or against a god isn't exactly a 'debate' thing since the evidence on both sides isn't exactly balanced. I mean you have zero evidence of a god so you can't really have a balanced debate in the first place. The only thin Lennox has ever done, including in this video, is make vacuous arguments which basically boil down to "I can't understand the world therefore god" or "I am scared therefore I need god" or "I have a need for god therefore there must be a god" - and none of these are valid arguments for a god.
@@valkhorn Creation is evidence for God. OBVIOUSLY>
@@lawrence1318 No. You have to demonstrate a thing is created. Then you have to demonstrate a god created it. Then you have to ask the question what created god. That's a very tall order.
And here I thought hat Lennox was going to explain something but in the end he just does special pleading to the god of the Bible but demands Richard to explain everything.
The problem with man is that he or she believes there’s nothing greater than themselves.
That's pride.
Well that solved all my remaining questions I had on life 😂
Well, the beauty of human curiosity is that we don't just believe there's something greater, we relentlessly seek to understand it. We explore the cosmos, uncover the secrets of life, and delve into the mysteries of the universe precisely because we recognize there's more to discover beyond ourselves. It's not about denying greatness, it's about celebrating the endless quest for knowledge and understanding.
@@LWS1989 the spiritual world is outside our conception of the universe and ourselves so that’s a story for another day .🤭
@@GTSN38 So essentially everyone's obligated to believe in some random theistic God/s above them (on poor evidence) so they don't get accused of 'pride'? Seems like the logic of the people who made 'faith' a virtue. If someone has truly brainwashed themselves into believing Scientology, say, then they are inherently more 'virtuous' than than any non-religious person (on faith / 'lack of pride' grounds, at least)
Great video. More like this. Getting into the deep questions is exactly what we need to be out there doing ourselves. With gentleness & respect. Dr.Lennox is the best at this.
Just me that thought the summary was off though? The whole argument about we must have a creator because language requires a mind seems a bit off to me, because the language of DNA referenced we don't know that a mind has made that, Lennox is assuming it must have a creator because all language requires a mind but as soon as that assumption isn't made then the rule of language requires a mind is no longer a rule because we have a language that we don't know or even have evidence that a mind has made. That was the true circular reasoning in this video no?
@@fantasypgatour well what would you pose as a counter to this claim? It doesn’t seem circular. One may say that evolution is the answer, but evolution itself is just claims with no answers to all the questions. If we evolved from single cell organisms where are all of the other stages of organisms around the universe leading up to the complexity that we have today?
@@SanctifyinTruth Yes evolution is a possible explanation, I wouldn't say evolution is a claim with no answers we know evolution is true as much as we know anything is true, whether or not it created the language of DNA you could debate but it's definitely a possibility. One could argue even plants have language as they communicate with each other and again no mind is involved. Unless of course you assume that it was the mind of god that made the language of DNA and of plants, but that seems like the biggest leap ever to make that assumption because human and animal language is created by minds. It's really an awful point when you think about it. I'm not sure I understand your final question, you say universe rather than earth are you asking why we haven't found life forms on other planets? or are you asking where is each one of the life forms that makes up every single mutation that led to the life forms we have today on earth?
Yes evolution is a viable possibility, I would not agree that evolution is just claims with no answers, evolution is as true as anything we know and does a great job of answering many biological questions. We have some languages like human and animal that are directly related to mind and we can see that sure, but then we have the language of DNA that isn't directly related to mind and actually we could argue plants have their own language as they communicate to each other and could probably make the case for very simple lifeforms aswell, so actually we have examples of languages not directly related to mind, that's when Lennox assumes well god must have made their language then because human and animal language requires a mind, therefore all language requires a mind lol, do you seriously not see the circularity there? The rule that proves god exists only becomes a rule when you decide god exists. I don't understand your last question, because of the wording I can't tell if you are asking why we haven't found other alien life forms in the "universe" or if you are asking why we can't see each life form that represents every mutation that happened to get to the species we have today here on "earth", please clarify.
@@fantasypgatour The language of DNA is pointing not to the mind of the plant or animal but to the intelligent mind that created the 3.4 billion letter code inside each & every cell. Evolution needs to explain how there are still monkeys? Did evolution stop? What is the mechanism evolution uses? What about proteins being as complex as they are? Does fossil record prove evolution?
Love these videos covering extensive debates. I could watch for an hour 😅
It's always easier to fool someone rather than convince someone they are being fooled.
Who do you think has been fooled in this sinario? And how would you know you have not been fooled on the matter?
@@brendancoulter5761 quite a lot of the folks in comments. amazing how many people think lennox has half a brain. still surprises me that in the 21st century we have people think sky man grant wishes is true.
@@HarryNicNicholas still surprises me that people think Life can come from Non life. Everything can come from Nothing. Get down from your high horse thinking you’re smarter than those who believe in a Supreme, Eternal being who, by His own definition Defies & Transcends Every human notion & concept Including the notion of Time created everything When YOUUUUU literally believe in a MAGIC TRICK that created everything & get this not JUST a magic trick but a magic trick WITH OUT a MAGICIAN performing it !!! THIS is what you believe. and THAT !!! is a lot more non-sense than an all powerful eternal God.
@@HarryNicNicholas especially when you actually dive into the roots of theology and find out the concept of "yahwe" was originally a thunder/storm god. But their rivals also worshipped a storm god who was called "baal" in the image of a bull. These 2 folk collided and eventually the ones who believe in yahwe won. (Probably why the story of moses consists of god punishing the people who worship a lamb statue But eventually the people of yahwe were also raided and destroyed and nothing of their village was left. Note that at that time a god was geographical. So when your village was destroyed and you had to seek refuge in another town you basically had to switch from god The people of yahwe solved this problem by saying "our god isn't geographical but universal, he's the god of everything" and yea eventually this idea starts to spread because everytime a village gets raided and people seek refugee they don't abandon their god anymore. Eventually a man called jesus claims the god they've been worshipping isnt the true god he worships. He claims they've mischaracterized god and his interpretation is the true one. Eventually he gets executed and a few decades later a man who never even met him claims Jesus was actually god and the meaning of his death was to save is from our sins ( even he never explained what that meant nor does it ever in the bible)
I am not a Christian, but am completely comfortable with the reality of a Divine Creator and find that John Lennox is brilliant--extraordinary video. Thank you!
There is something, a God, who created things, maybe just starting with the stars, then the galaxirs and universe, etc.... but whether it is the Christian God or not is the real question.
@@sootuckchoong7077 "whether it is the Christian God or not is the real question." God is God. God is not "Christian". Only men/women can be called Christians. Becoming a human being and dwelling among humans, teaching us for three years, Lord Jesus showed us how God is. Lord Jesus said: "I and the Father are one.” [John 10:30] None of the man-made gods has taken human form and lived among us. None of the man-made gods went to cross to die for the redemption from our sins, so that we get the chance for eternal life.
@@jounisuninen But if Christian Biblical God is the true God, who created Heaven and Earth, and Lucifer interrupted God and wanting to be a God too, which is a great Sin, then, why did God after fighting with Lucifer, and Lucifer lost, why was Lucifer and his angels cast out of Heaven and thrown, not to hell or any other planets or stars or galaxies, but down to the earth, where God just started creating all living things, including men and women?
@@sootuckchoong7077in creating man (Adam and Eve). God gave them freedom to choose. God did not annihilate Satan for man to have a choice. It is unfair to have your own will if you don't have a choice. And freedom is not freedom if God programmed the mind of man (like a robot) to just do good.
@@jounisuninenI think the person simply meant the God of the Bible, when he said “Christian God.”
Yes, keep these debates coming. I appreciate sharing both views as adequate as possible, then adding your own personal take. Good stuff Ty 🙂
conclusion: neither of them know the origin of the universe.
You are right. And this goes back to an answer that you have to answer with Faith: God created the Universe, or the Universe created itself, or something in the Universe always existed. I'd say that (despite what Dawkins during the dialogue says) the first hypothesis is the most logical and the easiest to explain.
@@lucmanzoni6265 the most reasonable response is "I don't know" instead of making up things. people are afraid of not knowing things, that is why gods were invented in the first place.
@billjohnson9472.....mmm...you may gave just 'Made up' that last comment......all I'm saying is 'I don't know'.
then trust Pasca's wager
@@victropolis to trust Pascal's wager one must trust all the gods and follow all religions, to make sure the right one is among them.
Hey, I did enjoy it. Very much. Nicely done. Thanks for putting this together. Breaking down the key-points and highlighting the incongruities of Dawkins is a nice break from the debate. Good stuff.
Fair play to Dawkins for showing up to these events. I feel like at least he is prepared to listen. He seems to be more open to John
If he was more open he would use words like, possibly, probably, nobody knows..etc.. he is not open whatsoever. You rarely hear him say we don’t know for sure.
@@shaunmcinnis1960 He often says it when it is merited. The fat one is sure about his god, for which there is not the slightest bit of physical evidence.
@@edeledeledel5490 His name is John Lennox, you can see his name in the description, with a minimal bit of effort. You can also - again, very little effort involved - hear that he is describing "physical evidence" all the way through the video, do try to keep up.
He argues for the sake of argument, that's how he makes his living
@@save_theworld If you’re referring to Professor Lennox, he argues because he’s passionate about truth. He made his living as a professor of Mathematics.
I didn't see Dawkins stumped. Please don't clickbait.
Neither did I 👍
Is that your actual study? If so, it's pretty sweet! Or is it must kind of a set for your channel? (Love the podcast btw!)
Your closing comments about Dawkins not being able to accept on the grand scale what he does on the parts that make up the grand scale were well spoken. Great point
Firstly, the creation of the universe doesn’t have to follow the same rules as the creation of things within the universe. We just have a hard time imagining a causeless thing because it doesn’t exist here. God wouldn’t have a cause either btw. Secondly, a creator is a perfectly reasonable conclusion for a book or piece of engineering, but when that creator has no cause for itself and is nothing like what we’ve previously seen we have to question if it’s the only option. We don’t consider a tree to probably be man made since we have a more reasonable explanation anyway and it’s not probable. We only assume books to be man made because we know only people can make such things and it is the logical conclusion
🤦♂️
when a woman is impregnated, the only thing the parents (the creators) do is putting the sperm in the vagina, the rest of it from the sperm swimming to the egg, to the egg preventing from other sperms entering it, to the growth of the baby and finally the delivery is NOT planned by the parents, it's a mechanism on it's own that has no intelligent person guiding it. the universe is the same, IF there is a creator, then at best it is only responsible for starting it all, not "guiding" the universe to reach it's current position
My best friend, who is more like a brother, is an atheist. I’m always thinking of him when watching your videos. I don’t always share, but sometimes I do. Keep up the great work brother, may the Holy Spirit guide your channel so that it can be seen by the people who need to see it. Father, bless this man and his channel, may his content remain Holy and uplifting. Allow him the ability to provide a way of bringing your lost children closer to you. In the name of Jesus, may his cup overfill, and blessings shower him and his family. Amen 🙏🏽☝🏽
Why are you trying to fill your brothers head with nonsense?
Praise Allah my brother
Brother, never worry how long your videos are, you are doing an awesome job in bringing them to us.
There he goes again. When Lennox has no answers to hard questions, he ALWAYS goes "I think I'm correct because I think so". That is not an answer or does not explain anything. The truth is that Lennox does not know if his god is created or uncreated. He just claim that his god is uncreated, and his claim does not shape the reality. It is extremely artogant of him to just assume so.
So is Dawkins.
@@jeremiahsams2848 What does Dawkins have to do with it? It's irrelevant whether Dawkins does it or not. I'm pointing out the fact that Lennox does it, and Dawkins arguments do not change this fact.
I don't think the scope of the debate included a lengthy metaphysical discussion on _why_ God is uncreated. Obviously, as with any Christian who understands logic, he will believe God is uncreated, which Lennox claims. So there shouldn't be any confusion. There is of course much Christian literature dedicated to this subject, but the conversation did not move that way - Dawkins could have easily asked the question but he didn't. I don't think there's any need to impart your own judgement as to Lennox's intellectual honesty here.
@@Wilantonjakov But as a mathematician, Lennox also should understand that the christian reasoning leading to the idea of the uncreated god is not necessarily scientifically valid and that philosophical arguments CANNOT determine the veracity of this claim. Then, the question becomes: Is he taking advantage of his reputation as an Oxford scholar to influence people knowing full well that his claim is no more valid than any layman's claim but perceived as more valid than it really is?
@@tosuchino6465 if you watch the Dawkins vs Lennox debate on 'The God Delusion' I think he addresses what you're talking about about, from memory. I think the discussion went further there. Jay Dyer's analysis of that debate is pretty good also. As a side note, "philosophy of science" is it's own legitimate discipline. It deals with the very reason we use the scientific method in the first place. For this reason I don't think it would be possible to carry out the scientific method if it weren't for the _philosophical method,_ which really would be a type of "science of rational intelligibility" and establishes a rational framework for scientific processes. And the Christian, of course, argues that philosophy can only be carried out via a "metaphysical scientific method", aka theology. So whilst the claim that an uncreated God may not be "scientifically valid", yes that may be true, but no Christian would be arguing from the baseline that it conforms to our understanding of the natural sciences ... rather he would be arguing that the study of the natural sciences is but one branch of a much larger, interconnected tree.
Everything they say is fascinating to me, but sometimes way over my head, and I have an intellectual inability to digest it all. I really appreciate how you break things down to help us understand what they are saying in laymen terms. Please continue providing these shorter videos (20 minutes or less) with your input on the content. If it helps me, I know that it has to help others.
Pray in Jesus name and that Holy Spirit will help you understand better, that's what I always do when a concept is far above my understanding, and immediately I come to understanding.
I trust this will help you, I always seek to make things simple, isn't that what Jesus did? There is nothing Rock Solid about Evolution It is a theory in crisis. There are three stumbling blocks or limitations that bring Darwinian Evolutionary Religion into disrepute and they are: 1. No evidence that living matter came from non-living matter [They have been trying to produce life in the laboratory, in a controlled environment for decades but to no avail]. 2. Irreducible complexity within the single cell: all the parts have to be present for it to function. Organisms are made up of trillions of cells and every organism has several systems within it, that synchronize together in order to maintain life. There is indeed complexity that allows life to exist. Irreducible complexity dispenses with the idea of mutations and natural selection in relation to new species. What we see is complex information in the genome that has existed since creation, but it is degrading: See Dr John Stanford’s book on Genetic Entropy. The evidence is shouting at us, for those who have eyes and ears to hear! 3. There are no transitional fossils. Darwin said if my theory be true, there should be innumerable intermediates forms, embedded in the earth’s crust! There are none, even Dr Colin Patterson British Paleontologist in the 1980’s admitted in a reply to Luther Sunderland in America, regarding his book on evolution. When Luther asked him about the absence of transitional fossils in his book, he replied: We do not have any transitional fossils if we had any I would have included them in my book. There are no branches in Darwin’s imaginary tree of life, no branching from an imaginary “common- ancestor” and the term for this branching is “macro-evolution”. We only have evidence at the nodes, which agrees with kinds within species as mentioned in the book of Genesis at Creation, being the biblical account. Evolutionists hate Genesis or should I say humanists, who want to play god with a small g. All we have is micro-evolution kinds within species, this is all we observe living and in the fossil record of events. For example: Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, birds produce birds, pigs produce pigs, and man produces man, should I go on? This is all we observe. Remember science is about things we can observe, test and study. This anti-God spirit is prevalent today and is responsible for the state of the nation’s leading up to the end of this present age of sin and sadness, just as Jesus predicted, a time of lawlessness and violence filling the earth as in the days of Noah and the Days of Sodom and Gomorrah, leading to the rise of the Anti-Christ who will deceive Israel and the nations of this world by bringing in a time of false peace ending in the battle of Armageddon. This will prompt the descend of the Lord from heaven and his feet will touch the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem and then he will go against those nations and judge them. Jesus said during his ministry, except those days be shortened there should no flesh be saved. The days are shortened by the Lord’s return to stop man destroying himself through selfishness and greed. There will only be peace when the Prince of Peace returns to set up his kingdom on the earth. Read [Matthew’s] Gospel Chapter 24. This will give you some insight. I am here ministering to the sheep, the goats will always headbutt
@@JESUSCHRISTISLORDANDKING leave people alone, they enjoyed the video and now you want his soul, no wonder no one likes christians, you really are totally lacking in self awareness.
@@JESUSCHRISTISLORDANDKING that's good, can you ask god how to get cold fusion working, i doubt god will off putin for me, so the next best thing would be to help with my electricity bills, be a love and ask, don't be pushy obviously, crawl on your belly and really suck up to god and he might possible maybe give you the answer? thanks dear.
I could actually listen to these two for hours. I feel you could have longer videos. Great content!
I hope the following information is helpful to you. There is nothing Rock Solid about Evolution It is a theory in crisis. There are three stumbling blocks or limitations that bring Darwinian Evolutionary Religion into disrepute and they are: 1. No evidence that living matter came from non-living matter [They have been trying to produce life in the laboratory, in a controlled environment for decades but to no avail]. 2. Irreducible complexity within the single cell: all the parts have to be present for it to function. Organisms are made up of trillions of cells and every organism has several systems within it, that synchronize together in order to maintain life. There is indeed complexity that allows life to exist. Irreducible complexity dispenses with the idea of mutations and natural selection in relation to new species. What we see is complex information in the genome that has existed since creation, but it is degrading: See Dr John Stanford’s book on Genetic Entropy. The evidence is shouting at us, for those who have eyes and ears to hear! 3. There are no transitional fossils. Darwin said if my theory be true, there should be innumerable intermediates forms, embedded in the earth’s crust! There are none, even Dr Colin Patterson British Paleontologist in the 1980’s admitted in a reply to Luther Sunderland in America, regarding his book on evolution. When Luther asked him about the absence of transitional fossils in his book, he replied: We do not have any transitional fossils if we had any I would have included them in my book. There are no branches in Darwin’s imaginary tree of life, no branching from an imaginary “common- ancestor” and the term for this branching is “macro-evolution”. We only have evidence at the nodes, which agrees with kinds within species as mentioned in the book of Genesis at Creation, being the biblical account. Evolutionists hate Genesis or should I say humanists, who want to play god with a small g. All we have is micro-evolution kinds within species, this is all we observe living and in the fossil record of events. For example: Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, birds produce birds, pigs produce pigs, and man produces man, should I go on? This is all we observe. Remember science is about things we can observe, test and study. This anti-God spirit is prevalent today and is responsible for the state of the nation’s leading up to the end of this present age of sin and sadness, just as Jesus predicted, a time of lawlessness and violence filling the earth as in the days of Noah and the Days of Sodom and Gomorrah, leading to the rise of the Anti-Christ who will deceive Israel and the nations of this world by bringing in a time of false peace ending in the battle of Armageddon. This will prompt the descend of the Lord from heaven and his feet will touch the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem and then he will go against those nations and judge them. Jesus said during his ministry, except those days be shortened there should no flesh be saved. The days are shortened by the Lord’s return to stop man destroying himself through selfishness and greed. There will only be peace when the Prince of Peace returns to set up his kingdom on the earth. Read [Matthew’s] Gospel Chapter 24. This will give you some insight. I am here ministering to the sheep, the goats will always headbutt
Always nice to see a good maths debate on the internet
I've never once heard a syllable of mathematics from the pompous buffoon Lennox.
Why do we have to argue about it why can’t we just appreciate both. I certainly do I’m not odds with science nor religion. Both have shaped me tremendously as an individual and I’m grateful for both
...because the morality of Christianity is all wrong. For example, Genesis 38 says that if a man's wife dies, he has to impregnate her sister or God will kill him. Good enough for me to accept that it's all baloney, made up by some stone age idiots.
This video actually taught me something about how atheists rationalize and also where Satan is blinding them. Thank you.
*_God Bless_*
Given that the leaders are all jesuitically trained you probably want to learn about jesuitism.
Specifically the original definition found in the 1800 websters vs the changed and jesuitical definition of today.
Lol Dawkins will die afraid, screaming for God's mercy lol
What has been rationalized by atheists?
Great video mate…. All these types of videos you have done have been a great help to me in coming to terms with my own opinions about my life and faith… Thank You 🙏
Love the content. I actually wish your videos were way longer.
I’m a new subscriber and I really appreciate your respectful style. Makes it easier to share with seekers
It’s not personal incredulity, it understanding that everything in the Universe moves towards increased entropy, not increased order. 😂
Well, isn't that the beauty of it? The universe doesn't need divine intervention to create order out of chaos. Natural processes, like evolution, showcase how complexity can emerge from simpler systems without the need for a cosmic designer. It's like watching a magnificent masterpiece paint itself over billions of years, all thanks to the laws of physics, no divine artist required.
@@LWS1989 You seem to have completely missed the point…without an intelligent designer the Universe has no life because it moves towards higher entropy naturally, meaning macroevolution is complete nonsense, and without an intelligence to provide order and design, life would not be possible. Or are you trying to make the claim that pouring Koolaid from a pitcher into a glass results in the powder jumping out of the water, becoming dry, and going back into the pouch? You do understand what entropy is and how it works, right?
@@DrJoshuaPerry Yes, the Universe tends toward higher entropy, but that doesn't negate the possibility of life. Earth, for example, is an open system where energy from the Sun constantly flows in, allowing for local decreases in entropy, such as the formation of life. Evolution is about adaptation to environmental changes over vast periods of time. Complex life forms can arise from simpler ones through natural processes like mutation and selection. Well, it's quite the cosmic Kool-Aid analogy you've got there! But let's not forget, if the universe needed an intelligent designer to defy entropy and create life, who designed the designer? Did they pour their own cosmic Kool-Aid, or did they come from an even higher-entropy realm? It's a never-ending pitcher of questions! In all seriousness though, pouring Kool-Aid into water isn't a valid analogy for biological processes. It simplifies the complexity of life's evolution over billions of years into a trivial comparison. In essence, while entropy is a fundamental concept in thermodynamics, it doesn't preclude the possibility of life evolving through natural processes without the need for an intelligent designer. Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on Earth.
@@LWS1989 Ah, the brave atheist has entered the chat. I’ve known many atheists who became believers in Christ, many due to being evangelized by a Christian. But I’ve never met an atheist who has convinced even one Christian to stop believing. Not one. ********************* Atheism and agnosticism are the way the Devil injected NPCs into the struggle between Good and evil. ************ Atheists are the biggest hypocrites in the world. If you truly and simply did not believe, you would keep your mouths shut, everyone would be fine. But no, you have to blaspheme and try to drag everyone down with you. You have no faith in your own lack of faith. You secretly fear the pit of fire so you want company when you are cast into it. What are you doing watching and commenting here? Just to further harass people living much better than you are? Have your arguments ever converted even ONE Christian to atheism? Millions of atheists have been convinced to convert our way. "The devil's finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist." ~ Charles Baudelaire
god creates a universe, at the end of all of his fantastic creation he designs us all to shit and to be able to have wet farts in public. Need I say more?!
Great episode, would have been happy to see more. Thanks for the insightful wrap up at the end
It’s a great conversation, I want to hear more. Is there a link to the full thing?
Great video and analysis. Keep up the good work!
I’ve watched the full version of the debate before. Your video does help me understand their intellectual arguments better. Keep making more videos like this!
misunderstand them
He didn’t understand either though.
Thanks for sharing this and especially adding your comments. Very nice to be able to understand clearly what each man is saying and referring to.
Love your work. Thank you !
The difference is that an atheist can say, "I don't know".
If the universe is self-creating, it's not simple (his whole argument (universe is simple) is factually absurd). Heck, does any actual physicist agree that the universe is simple? If so, I'm dying to hear their grand unifying theory & I hope they'll give up their jobs/honors etc cause why bother honoring people if it's so simple. Ugh.
In fact!!!
Imagine being so intelligent and believing that the universe began to exist out of nothing. Logic is not the atheist's strong suit.
@@michaelarojas Not atheist. Satanist. Dawkins knows what he is doing.
@@michaelarojas Dawkins isn’t intelligent.
You don't understand what simplicity and complexity are, nor do you understand emergent properties.
Dont get why it’s so hard for Dawkins to say “I don’t know “ he’s hard headed 😂😂😂
Scientists, most of them have to try and explain. I have no proof to believe in a God and I don't know how the universe and beyond was created. Which I think makes me more clever than all of them.
God simply is. God is reality and fantasy. God is space and time. God is what is.
I've heard him say I don't know on another debate
Dawkins is desperate to hold onto what little fame he has. Dawkins was totally annihilated and has no rational atheist explanation for reality. That's because there isn't one.
He says that all the time
Love the content, and finding my people!
Dr. Lennox is always so patient with Dawkins and Atkins and Hitchens. He is such a classy gentleman. They can't see how shallow their materialist arguments are. They haven't thought it through to the end in a steel man way. Lennox is so good to them in these debates.
'....They haven't thought it through...'
Lennox lacks critical thinking skills and is simply attempting to justify his mythology. Lennox begins with false premises so there is nothing to think through to the end.
Materialist? Shallow? What other method is there to determine what is and isn't true other than naturalistic materialism?
Please do more of these! I love this form of content!
In his interview with Ben Stein, Dawkins says it can be aliens but not God…SCIENCE!!
Lol!
Dawkins is ready to believe aliens to have planted the seeds of life, but wouldn't believe God to be the ultimate perfect architect.
Yeah, referring to other intelligent life (something we know to exist) seems more reasonable than a supernatural, perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful and benevolent creator constructing everything in this particular unnecessary way
The alien explanation just pushes the argument of our origin back. Now, "God is spirit." It seems to me the simpler explanation is creating outside of time and space by God. Even the big bang is unfathomably complex considering the amount of matter involved from seemingly nowhere, the truly incredible fine tuning of the universe and how DNA could develop in that from the beginning. The odds of all this is insurmountable on its own. So much so that the multiverse was theorized. But God is spirit, and those that worship him in Christ, worship in spirit and truth. "His spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God," Still, "He hides his face because of your sin." Yet when he could find no one righteous, no one to intercede, "his own arm brought salvation for him." Isaiah 59. "He bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors." Isaiah 53. t "Seek and you will find." -Jesus
@@johnvirgilio5323 firstly, I’m pretty sure matter didn’t even exist for some time after the Big Bang, certainly not atoms and molecules. It started with an expansion of space and some quarks and energy, that’s it. A complex being from the start seems even less reasonable. Secondly, there’s no reason the universe was fine-tuned for us. Any time you have a lot of coinciding events with lots of possibilities each outcome will be incredibly rare. For example, throwing 1000 100-sided dice will result in a rare outcome, but there’s nothing necessarily special about that particular outcome that might lead you to believe it was orchestrated. The universe has to the contrary lots of features that seem genuinely hostile to us and which seem completely unnecessary if the only goal was us. Thirdly, DNA wasn’t even developed for a long time and came slowly through natural selection after LOTS of trial and error, like millions of millions of years of quickly reproducing cells. If we point to conveniences in the human body, we can point out the unnecessary drawbacks as well. Why do our bodies deteriorate? Why are we weak compared to other animals? Why are we so stupid? Why are people born sociopathic or autistic? Why are we so prone to disease? The seems highly unlikely for a perfect and benevolent creator. The last 40% was just meaningless preaching
theres a lot of bad shit happening so hes not so perfect
Because, alien life, is possibly just life that evolved on another which is still natural, and in accordance to the laws of physics. It doesn't postulate the supernatural. By Occam's Razor, of course it is more likely than magic. Even if abiogenesis were 0.0^10*40% unlikely, that's still more than the supernatural, which has a 0% track record. Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence, and that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I see no sign that Dawkins is "stumped" by Lennox's argument, which is a very bad one, relying as it does on unverifiable Biblical authority and false analogies such as his claim that human language and DNA are directly comparable.
This type of video is an incredible way to introduce people to debate. I used to watch all the lennox debates and as a young man it was hard to follow in terms of the long format. Awesome niche to fill man good stuff
Oh I wish the video had gone on for more! Definitely love to see more Lennox-Dawkins discussions on your channel.
"Life, as we know, has got this digital db ... it's got a language all its own." - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Addressing your last point at the end of the video, there was no break in logic in Dawkin's statement. When we see a book or an aeroplane, we know it comes from a complex being like a human because we understand thag humans have a fine knowledge base of language and engineering. Similarly, we have evidence for biological evolution that is supported in fields of paleontology, molecular biology, geology, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, ecology, biogeography, and several others. Therefore we understand how brains came to be. The difference however is that, we do not have evidence for a creator building a world. There have been several Gods like Shiva, Ra, Vishnu. Who is to say that Ra is the true creator. We simply do not have enough evidence therefore, while we can understand that a plane suggests an engineer made it or a book suggests a human wrote it because of evidence, we cant do the same for a creator of the universe. But if lets say we were to look past that, and assume that there is indeed a creator that created the world. Because the world is so complex therefore, there must be a creator. We now arrived at the same issue which we tried to solve: trying to explain the complex world using a creator. Now ask yourselves this, applying that same logic, someone must have created the creator, since he is a complex God that can command the world to his will. If you say, no buy God is eternal and he has always existed. Then by that argument, it would be fitting to also say that the universe was always eternal and has always existed. The universe is much simpler to explain, compared to an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresence, omnipotent Creator. Thank you for the insightful video ! =)
To say that the universe has “always existed” would by definition go against all principles of science. ( I know Hawkins before his death also made this statement but it never rang true to me) There is not one item “scientifically speaking” in the universe that does not follow a pattern of Creation Period of Existence (Timespan) End Not just talking about simple and/or complex life but every single item contained in the knowable universe. (Planets, stars, galaxies, black holes etc) I say this respectfully and not as an attack to your comment. You seem to be a very intelligent person and your response was well thought out and nicely presented. Too many people online just attack and not converse. It’s human nature to question everything and that's a great thing. Nothing wrong with simply asking was God created too?? Personally, I've always believed that the true definition of the word science is Humanity’s attempt to reverse engineer all of God’s creations.
Since you mentioned Ra.....that is just the ancient Egyptian name for Lucifer....the all seeing eye of Ra equals the all seeing eye of Lucifer. exactly the same entity!!
Well, that's the neat part because God is actually MORE SIMPLE than the Universe, it is Simplicity itself. God is not made of parts.
@@sonylyons7888 not the same at all
I learn something new and helpful every time I watch a video! A perfect balance of of topic clips and commentary! Keep up the great work in pursuit of love, rationality, faith, and hope! Thank you!
Romans 1:22-25 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
The Scriptures will not convince anyone. I have read the Bible front to back multiple times and found it wanting. None other than Satan himself could have authored the Bible. Only a fool would believe the Bible is the word of God.
Baconboyxy 1:22-25 22 Claiming to be wise, the Christians became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal Flying Spaghetti Monster for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and humanoid things. 24 Therefore the FSM gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to [redacted, purity is for drinking water], to the honoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about the FSM for a lie and worshiped and served the God rather than the Noodly One, who is blessed forever! R’Amen.
@@baconboyxy Hey loook, a Christain accidently discovered the one good thing Jesus did: _Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity_ Ah, thank you Jesus for impurity and lust, I don't know how I'd get through the week without those.
Not knowing how the universe was formed does not equal “there is a guy in the sky who wants us to be good”
If you implore God to enter your spirit and life with a truly open heart.. He will make Himself known by filling you with a peace and joy that is undeniable. If you think you can’t tap in with the Creator, you’re mistaken. It can seem to good to be true but I wouldn’t encourage people to turn to Him if He hadn’t done these things for me. God bless and I wish you peace regardless!
Not knowing how the universe was formed does not equal "Blah, all religion is bad and wrong, there is no god, arghhhh!"
Yeah but the book knew about the big bang before science figured it out.
@@josephsloop8865 but it does lmao, no sky daddy
@@gmb7200 least delusional theist lmao
You have a new subscriber! Enjoying this 😊
12 minutes is not too long to listen to something this important and interesting. Great topic great video. Thank you...
If shuffled 1,000 times per second, this # is how many years will it would take to reorder a deck of cards back into its original order: 2,555,903,337,736,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 YEARS 4,543,000,000 (4.54 billion) is the estimated age of the earth in years Now try that with the number of atoms in amino acids / protein / blood cell 😂😂😂😂
I think you forgot about the part where there are trillions upon trillions of planets each shuffling the card deck, not just earth.
Why do you guys insisted on being either intentionally dumb (like you can't bother to read a book) or total liars? Suffling a deck of cards is random, natural selection is not random. Jesus, at least read some Nick Lane and Jerrry Coyne and study this stuff before you make dumb statements in public. IF you want to argue successfully, you must actually understand the other side, which you CLEARLY don't (unless you're just lying).
So where exactly does Lennox stump Dawkins?
In the video title. It's only ever in the video title....
Just goes to show what a con religion is!
😂Not sure but Dawkins slammed Lennox around the 2:13 mark
He stumps him when Lennox turns around and asks dawkins who created the universe, when dawkins asks lennox who created god. Lennox uses dawkins logic against him
@MyLife-ux1vs I see it the other way around. Dawkins stumps Lennox. Besides, Dawkins is a biologist, not a physicist. Stephen Hawking might have been better suited for that part of the debate. Science doesn't have the answer now and may never have it. I take science over fiction any day. Pun intended.
Hello. Just a friendly constructive criticism. Excellent program. Excellent editing and audio. Your cut away shots are bright and clear. But your studio is so dark that it is like? Please turn the lights on.
Love the format! Its just enough to get to the meat of the conversation, and for you to share and explain the thoughts behind it without feeling like I missed anything
Glad you enjoyed it!!
If you've accepted his explanations, then you have missed a great deal.
@@jean-paulroberts9521 “If you've accepted his explanations, then you have missed a great deal.” Nope!! Try again!! And please enlighten us with your superior “EXPLANATIONS” regarding the fundamental nature of reality and existence? I’ll wait!! Sorry to break it to you buddy but the fact is that under this strictly reductive, causally closed, atheistic, nihilistic system “you” and your very ironic absolute Truth claims about better “EXPLANATIONS“ come with a whole load of unprovable metaphysical baggage and a whole load of unprovable value laden claims and metaphysical presuppositions. You are now in the domain of metaphysics buddy. And that’s our domain!! The fact is that under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your very ironic absolute “Truth” claims about “EXPLANATIONS” have no more Truth value than leaves blowing in the wind. It’s all nothing more substantive than the blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless, accidental arrangement of random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Which is why it inevitably leads to fatalism, epistemological nihilism and suicidal ideation if you live it out consistently!! Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Furthermore, the fact is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your very ironic absolute Truth claims regarding “EXPLANATIONS” are nothing more substantive than brain chemicals buddy, that is nothing more substantive than the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur? Nothing more substantive than the delusions of an evolved “ape” who shares half their DNA with bananas? Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Sorry but your “EXPLANATIONS” are nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over!! The blind, mindless, ultimately meaningless accidental arrangement of pond slime evolved to an “HIGHER” order? Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! As I pointed out already the fact is that under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your very ironic absolute “Truth” claims about “EXPLANATIONS” have no more Truth value than leaves blowing in the wind. The elephant in the room is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism “you”, the leaves and your very ironic absolute Truth claims regarding “EXPLANATIONS” are ultimately destined for the same place buddy (THE FERTILISER PIT/THE ROTTING SH…T PILE/THE GRAVE/THE VOID/OBLIVION!! Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Prove me “WRONG”? I’ll wait!!
I don't envy Professor Dawkins. Living a lie is so difficult. How someone can deny the truth and sleep soundly at night is beyond my thinking.
Why do you say such a thing?
Lol yes, keep ignoring the actual evidence and just tell yourself it's all ok. Just don't waste your life worshipping a god who isn't there. Please do live it
You are the one living in a lie...
@@haurg7418 Do you notice that Christian’s will say the most stupid things,when they are confronted they stay very silent. Funny that isn’t it 🤭
It's the truth he speaks that gives him a good night's sleep. Dawkins represents a mammoth figure as the world becomes less superstious ,as churches decline and secularity rises globally. G'DAY FROM AUSTRALIA 🇦🇺.
I’m happy to say I’ve been watching Lennox for over 12 years, maybe longer. I enjoyed watching debates with him and Hitchens. RIP to Hitchens. Lennox is a Blessing, and he has only gotten sharper in his debates. He always amazes me.
Lennox is a delusional fool.
really? i stopped actually listening ages ago, he just repeats the same tired drivel that was debunked the first time he came up with it, but clearly if you believe in the old man in the sky who grants wishes if you subjugate yourself i guess even lennox can make sense.
Have you ever heard him talk about mathematics? He's always introduced as Oxford mathematician who did very mathematical mathematics in Oxford in the Mathematical department of Mathematics at Oxford University where is a mathematician.....In fact he has done no mathematics in decades and retired from Oxford years ago. For all the mathematics I've heard him discuss (NONE) he might as well be introduced as a former member of The Spice Girls.
@@mcmanustonythat’s interesting you say that. I mean he is 80 and is a emeritus professor of math from Oxford which is a retired professor. Has put out multiple peer reviewed articles on mathematics, mathematical monographs, has multiple degrees and has a doctorate. Maybe you should do more research on him aside from KZhead. He’s usually on KZhead speaking about God because that is the subject matter. He’s following the subject. If you want his mathematical background, maybe you should do some intense research.
@@nickNLB Yet in all of these debates and videos about god he hasn't yet put forth any actual evidence or proof of god, much less that Christianity is true, or that his particular view of Christianity is true. Not even in this video either. He hasn't done any maths to prove it either. He's basically a retired math professor playing at being a theologian. It's about as credible as a tap dancer playing at a master electrician.
The last 2 minutes of this are the best, well done sir !
John Lennox, so kind, so thoughtful, such excellent logic leading to a thoughtful apologetic. As a Christian (follower of Jesus), this is excellence.
This was an awesome presentation! Keep them coming!👍🧐
The difference between the logic of intelligence creating books / computers etc... and intelligence creating the universe is very simply the fact that we know intelligence created books, as we created them. It should be fairly obvious that you can't use the same logic with something that holds zero evidence.
Whenever an atheist gets obliterated in a debate, atheists in the comments remark about the cordiality of the discussion.
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” Thomas Aquinas
I would welcome a longer format. I find your videos to be an excellent resource for my interest in apologetics and finally, I appreciate you brother! God bless
god creates a universe, at the end of all of his fantastic creation he designs us all to shit and to be able to have wet farts in public. Need I say more?!
They aren't his videos. He is posting bits of other people's content. Editing them to cut out bits he doesn't agree with and dropping in his comments. Look elsewhere and you'll find the full versions. I've a feeling you won't like the full version though.
@littlefluffybushbaby7256 Exactly, it is chopped with one agenda in mind. I posted on here recently how Dawkins, in this debate, had Lennox cornered to the point he blurted out "Well, wouldn't the world be better if we just all believed" (or something to that effect, the words escape me).. Anyway, the comment went missing, it's no longer on here.!
Turning the question around on someone doesn't answer the original question. Not knowing how the universe was created doesn't mean that it can be explained by saying a made-up sky fairy did it.
I think you have created an amazing platform by bringing such exhaustive topics into an enjoyable and understandable session. You help understand what would be difficult to grasp.
Sometimes your videos are “too much” but ONLY to me, due to lack of formal education. I listen to those kinds for the nuggets I get from them, so please continue to post them as you’re lead. Todays video was amazing and informative, so thank you, Brother, for it and all you do for God’s glory. PS…the more I listen the more educated I’m getting!!!
The universe is a book of life. Matter is the ground for humans and the stars are the ground the soul walks on. We're living inside the motherboard of the next life so you see the inside of it from earth. Earth is only one of the hard drives in it.
god creates a universe, at the end of all of his fantastic creation he designs us all to shit and to be able to have wet farts in public. Need I say more?!
no, this was too short! I’d be delighted to watch a longer version!
Completely awesome content. Thanks 👍🙏
I love how Lennox remains calm though assertive about his thesis. He's one of my favorite who speaks in favor of the theist version. Thanks for these videos, they helped me to get closer to God.
A Goldfish remains calm in a bowl, doesn't mean it has a clue about reality.
Both are so respectful as they debate. Love it!
god creates a universe, at the end of all of his fantastic creation he designs us all to shit and to be able to have wet farts in public. Need I say more?!
I am amazed at Professor John Lennon's mind as a mathematician, for I find his theistic thinking more helpful & encouraging than many theologians. Keep up the good work Dr Lennox.
The carnal mind cannot comprehend spiritual things. It’s amazing how things, the rhema, are hidden in plain sight to a dead spirit. When you know you know.
His art is Strawmanning, Arguments from Incredulity or Unfounded Assertions. That you are impressed, says more about you than him.
@@roscius6204 You are entitled to your opinions as, I hope, am I?
@@roscius6204not impressed by Paterson, I study the bible myself. He’s articulate and growing, but he has a lot to learn, as we all do. If you’re mature enough, you don’t need Paterson to validate your belief.
@@ironore1000 Paterson?
I hate when a video title says it will be about an Oxford Mathematician and Richard Dawkins discussing something and suddenly a random guy appears out of nowhere making comments nobody asked for.
"Who" made the universe is a loaded question...
“Deny till you die” - R Dawkins
When you spoke of the time of the gaps vs the God of the gaps, it occurred to me that with the God of the gaps, born again Christians are not exercising blind faith. The thing that born again Christians have that atheists do not is our experience with God and His Holy Spirit in us in addition to all the evidence spoken of by Mr. Lennox and many apologists.
Absolutely!
What makes you think 'time of the gaps' is blind faith? Faith is belief without evidence, but science finds new things all the time. There is evidence that will find more things out because it does all the time. God of the gaps is different. It fills an unexplained problem with nothing but faith
@@ironheade22 so you don't believe in the ability of man to receive revelation about the truth of this world? Truth doesn't exist to you?
@inchristalone25 People can be deluded into thinking that way, it's a very arrogant thing to think that the creator of everything ever would communicate with 1 of billions of people on a relatively small planet on an insignificant solar system, which there are billions of. People from every religion claim this. This should tell you that it isn't true, but a cope the faithful create in their minds to justify their delusions
@@ironheade22 Why would it be deluded for our creator to want us to know about Him?
Thanks for sharing this great video showing a civilised discussion. It's plausible that terribly complex design could not have been resulted from blind random process. Materialism seems to be a irrational doctrine.
Excellent video. Thanks!