Christopher Hitchens vs John Lennox | Is God Great? Debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- "Is God Great?" sees two of the West's very best minds face off on the subject - the late atheist Christopher Hitchens and Professor John Lennox of Oxford University.
Hitchens, who made his opinion clear on the topic with his book "God is not Great," maintains not only that God fails to be great, but denies his existence entirely. Professor Lennox, a convinced Christian and scientist, respectfully disagrees. This event features a unique blend of both planned remarks and fast-paced dialogue that tackles these issues in a refreshing and informative light. It is sure to offer insights to all.
Free study guide at fixed-point.org/
Debate starts at 9:00
Lennox's first turn starts at 25:25
Hitchens' second turn starts at 41:29
Lennox's second turn starts at 52:40
Audience questions starts at 1:03:30
Lennox's closing remarks starts at 1:38:00
Hitchens' closing remarks at 1:44:35
Thanks He Who Must Not Be Named
thank you
@@seanchua2777 thanks to you I realized I forgot about Hitchen's closing remarks.
Thank you.
“Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth.”
“What draws people to be friends is that they see the same truth. They share it.”
“The sun looks down on nothing half so good as a household laughing together over a meal.”
“Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person’s ultimate good as far as it can be obtained.”
“It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed.”
“Being in love’ first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise.”
“We do not want merely to see beauty ... We want something else which can hardly be put into words - to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it.”
“If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.”
“Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see.”
“One road leads home and a thousand roads lead into the wilderness.”
“Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods.”
“Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.”
“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” -
“You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a new dream”
“I have come home at last! This is my real country! I belong here. This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now…Come further up, come further in!” (C.S. Lewis)
❤️❤️
@@georgedoyle7971 "If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanations is that I was made for another world."
Actually that is not the only logical explanation. Another one is that Lewis just had unsatisfiable desires. Actually there is an extra hidden premise behind Lewis' conclusion. He assumes that he was made for the purpose of being satisfied. But all the evidence shows that he was made to pass on his genes.
"Miracles are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see."
The only story I see is that things can always get a little better or be better than predicted now matter how dire the situation. I also see that the it isn't enough to stop our horrible fates.
"One road leads home and a thousand roads lead into the wilderness."
That's actually very ridiculous. It is actually the inverse. There are dozens of ways home just in your own town/city but almost no roads lead to the wilderness. So the metaphor falls flat.
"Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods."
That is an admission to faith being unreasonable since you're HOLDING on to something your reason ONCE accepted.
"You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."
Well if you accept that your soul dies with your body than I don't see any falsehoods being told here.
The rest of the quotes aren't attempts at proofing a god? They are however, wise words that I agree with. So I'll give C.S Lewis that one.
The best debates are the ones in which both parties respect each other and appreciate their ideas enough to offer their most comprehensive perspective and opposing views without compromising intellectual integrity. This is one of those talks that you can come and listen to again every few years and enjoy.
I'm not sure we listened to the same debate. I've literally never heard Hitchens have a respectful debate. He is always sny, passive-aggressive, and mocking his opponent. It's obvious he is more angry that people than he is interested in debating intellectual discourse.
@@ChristIsKing270 Technically he only mocked Lennox's views, not him directly, as far as I noticed. But of course, if you hold the opponents views as being idiotic views and calls them so, you will inevitably indirectly imply the view-holder to be idiotic as well, but this kindof has to be allowed as it otherwise would be impossible to attack someones views without "mocking". I think atheism is utterly idiotic, and it frustrates me to listen to such awful portrayal and understanding of the Christian narrative and theology as Hitchen puts forth, but I understand him arguing in that way given what he holds to be true, and don't think that he should have wrapped his views up into nicer words just because its frustrating to listen to him otherwise. He should say things directly as he sees them, it's honest even though he's totally in the wrong.
@krissmork I understand what you are saying but a few points. First, mocking makes no point, no defense, nor argument. It only attacks a person who holds a belief. 2nd, people only do this when they have no argument or defense. It simply takes out frustration on its opponent bc of pride. It's unintelligent and cowardly. 3rd, it's not about nicer words. They are adults, and it's about having a better understanding of one's own viewpoint in order to defend and prove it. Hitchens attacks Lennox point of view because he has no factual defense and is angry that he doesn't. Last, Hitchens' big problem which is the reason for the mocking as well as his atheist point of view is bc he is high minded and thinks he is smarter than anyone who does not hold his opinion. Pride comes before a fall.
@@ChristIsKing270 yeah, i just didnt notice him attacking Lennox with mockery so strongly, maybe there were some of it. I agree his rethoric doesn't help his points at all
@krissmork passive aggressive tone and sarcasm is a cowards attack. That's what he was doing. And honestly it's a direct attack on Lennox's intelligence.
Now this is a fine couple of hours. I wish that the debate between Lennox and Dawkins had a format closer to this one. And as with both, the friendship was as enjoyable as the exchange.
Best Hitchens debate I’ve ever watched, both sides had amazing arguments and valid points, I wish this was a whole day long. 2 hours is no where near enough time.
So true!
An unseen hitch debate is like finding gold in an old pair of jeans
@RUSSIAN ROBOT You made exactly no sense . . . but cool.
redghost420 I feel exactly the same. Only god knows what the Russian is talking about 😂!
@RUSSIAN ROBOT Wow! I sincerely hope that they don't release you from the correctional facility that you so clearly reside in. I think you would be a danger to society
Seems legit 👌
You sound like Kanye bruh and that's not good.
The debate starts at 8:58
Thank you.
Thanks!!!
I love you
True hero right here
Awesome, was looking for this comment.
I love debates like this. The good ones still hold up and are quite entertaining. It's amazing how an open mind allows you to listen to both sides and make an appropriate assessment.
I hate the way they talk past eachother though....he dont seem to understand that a created god is an example of a created universe...a universe in some form can be eternal...he can just understand a god can be eternal and dont understand the point.
@@skagenpige88 No such thing as "god". The Universe has been here forever.....for infinity.....no "Dog" created the universe. Man created "God".....
@@jds6206 That the universe existed forever is equally an insane claim as god, your basicly giving the universe god properties?
Well with an open mind I can honestly say that John Lennox's arguments all boiled down to "magic did it". Without demonstrating his premises he runs away with his conclusions.
@@coffeetalk924 I think you are asking too much of anyone, religious or not religious, to explain the origins of the universe. If you call what Lennox believes magic, you have to then be honest that science also uses magic to explain dark matter.
I love the respect these two men have for one another. These two hardly interrupted one another and never shouted at each other over their thoughts or beliefs. I wish more debates followed these two as an example.
Very interesting, but people wearing a microphone shouldn´t be allowed to clap!
Yeah, sounds like some balls clappin
@@IlluminatedGame 🤣😂
A very salient point
Hahahaha
How superbly not salient. What is a voice?
This has been so enjoyable, and moderator was superb!
I wish we had such high-end debates around here in France... Involving both real thinking and convictions, with all the interesting contradictions that it implies.
Wish the same for Brazil.
Il y a. Des fois. Michel Onfray quand il a cassé Sigmund Freud (j'ai trop aimé, je hai la psychologie) et des psychologues était la pour un débat.
The French have birthed some incredibly gifted intellectuals; Foucault, Derrida (not technically, but yeah), Lacan, just to name a few.
In 2024 I’m watching this debate again. I was a struggling Christian when I came across Mr Hitchens. Now I am a stronger Christian and I thank God for having someone like Mr John Lenox. I miss Mr Hitchens for his honesty and brilliant mind. I pray for God’s mercy on his soul and I so hope he did find the truth before his passing. Even though he was so strong in his “not believing” but somehow I feel he has a gentle soul 🙏
I lose any respect for Hitchens when he misrepresents Christianity, especially when he deliberately distorts the New Testament by quoting it out of context. His behavior is these cases is similar to "a wolf disguised as a sheep".
@@roccodivito9354Lennox does the same thing in reverse. And introduces concepts unrelated to the discussion. Example, Hitchens states what is a good that a religious person can do that an atheist cannot. Lennox answers that Christ died for it sins. This is compete non sequitur. And an atheist can and has given his life to save an innocent stranger. I used to admire Lennox but now I realize his whole spiel boils down to faith alone. He just fancied it up.
Whatever side of the debate you are on i think it's wrong to post derogatory comments about the other side. If we can't agree let's do it respectfully.
Absolutely... the pro-Christian arguments all converge to the one weird fact; “what we cannot explain, we choose to believe in by stories”, absurd at its outset, and if all thought like this we would never have evolved from our original forms and societies
@@mortenthorpe, atheist whiners like you are quick to point out the problems that religion causes within society.
The Christian religion created universities and hospitals. 106 of the first 108 colleges in the US were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860, there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose. Never heard of a hospital, orphanage or university started by an atheist.
Luigi Vampa just because Christianity has certain positive aspects does not rule out the negatives, OR the fact that religion has one singular problematic truth at its core, counter to science; belief! It also does not mean that Christianity is correct as a whole, but it is good that a part of the deception of religion has spurred thinkers to be an actual thing, and trying to share their thought with others at places such as the university.
@@mortenthorpe Let's address your assertion that I have belief and you lack it. The statement, "I lack belief in a god," is a common position of atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them, it is a non-issue. Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning belief. Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required.
Luigi Vampa you cannot seriously imply that blind belief and intellectual pondering are related, they are each other’s opposites by pure nature. You beautifully describe the nature of belief, by saying that you take a position and cannot be swayed, but you have in your argument mistaken atheism and deism ... it is deism that takes a position and cannot be swayed... atheists are most commonly also scientifically inclined, in which case they are swayed by arguments backed by evidence... something no deist or religion can provide about their beliefs... until such a time, you need to review your ideas, because you are confused, and if possible, and to carry on this discussion, prove that a god does exist... and prove in the scientific sense.
This is one of the most decent debates I have seen on this topic, and I am impressed with the reverence they gave each other.
I'm not. I have no patience for the willfully ignorant religtards who lie about reality.
@@fleshanthos and who are we talking about in that situation?
@@fleshanthos what is reality, someone random particles in your head who decided what is what?
@@meindertbakker8377 damn i guess jebus did
@@Jw-un8oh amen
Although i am a Christian...Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant and hilarious man. The world has lost a brilliant mind. Wish he was still around so I could hear more debates and commentary.
As a Christian I also loved CH he was the ultimate wit and raconteur who baulked against woke pc mindset Islam and Catholicism.
If you call Hitch brilliant, you are one loser of a Christian.
Hitch who pretends to know the bible as he screws up on it over and over again including what faith means biblically.
--"Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other animals. It's our need to believe and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. ... Out of all the virtues, all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated”-- Christopher Hitchens
Now, look at what biblical faith really means that Hitch the liar didn't even look at:
Biblically, faith means trust. It's a trust by evidence seen. God asks that we prove things. To reason. To get knowledge. To study. God has nothing to hide. We develop trust from what is seen, and that which is not seen yet is trusted also because of the trust built up from what is seen. It's much like a human relationship. We don't trust much until a person has gained that trust from what is observed. The difference is though, God is not limited to human powers. He created us.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
crossexamined.org/biblical-faith-vs-blind-faith/
www.truthortradition.com/articles/what-does-the-bible-say-about-faith
www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/16/Faith_is_Trust
www.truthortradition.com/articles/faith-a-confident-expectation-of-gods-promises-coming-to-pass
www.truthortradition.com/articles/hebrews-1-11-and-faith
Hitchens always went into evasive word antics to avoid key questions like how we got the creation of the universe.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
@@2fast2block listen to others. Expand your mind. You'd be better off for it. Like all of us...
@@2fast2block what evidence would make you not believe in god?
@@zaydevans2077 evidence that shows all I gave is wrong. It's absurd though to think the laws of nature can be proven wrong, but nothing stops you losers from believing that. Your agenda to a loser is full speed ahead and to heck with evidence.
I truly appreciate the way Dr. Lennox articulates. I'm impressed with full strength.
you are obviously a typical gullible god fearing sheep like his comrades
Powerful even, I am impressed
New rule for debates: if you operate the camera, don’t clap.
Because Lennox was resonating with the audience from the beginning of his speech..you disparage human response? One question is why the title "Is God Great?" when Christopher Hitchens does not believe in any "god" at all? I have to ask God why they both have an issue with their glasses in this clip..lol! My answer to the question though..is Yes, God is Great!
Carol, quit embarrassing yourself.
Steve, the camera operator isn't wearing a mic. That would be the "moderator".
@@carolr.556 Carol, we will talk about your "god" as long as it regulates school syllabuses and laws around the world. We do not mean God as in the entity, since no god exists, but instead we talk about the concept of "god". And as long as horrible things are being said and done on the excuse that there is a god (deity), god (concept) is not great.
@@Gwydda The opposite is true..trangenders are being promoted in the elementary school..concusing children about biology..There are only two genders..I don't need a Bible to tell me that..although that is where moral teuth is found..
Carol R.
What gender are intersex people?
I really do not appreciate how the host allows Hitchens to FREQUENTLY interrupt or counter Lennox, but then when Lennox begins to respond this "fixed point foundation" stops Lennox from addressing the fallacies and misleading statements withing Hitchen's claims...as was the case where Hitchens called Mary a liar to her husband, for this overlooks the scriptural reference that Joseph (her husband) also received divine intervention of knowledge of the occurrence.
Indeed, Hitchen mischaracterizes a lot of his examples.
What John Lennox conveniently never considers is that even if there is a supreme force or creator there is no evidence that the religion he follows is the sole representative of that creator cause he just picked one out of hundreds yet he thinks he hit the jackpot so it's that kind of pettines that Richard Dawkins always talks about and this is a problem within all exclusive religions because on the one hand they seem to accept other religions on the surface in order not to pass off as intolarant but on the other hand deep down they truly disregards other religions because in their view they're all false religions and there's no salvation if not via so-and-so religion, now that's why both Christianity and Islam are religions that seek to evangelize the world, what they want is a dictatorship where their religion is the only one and the others cease to exist. So the only way for that to work out is via evidence but no religion has evidence of their gods' existence, it's all about childish wishful thinking, then this John Lennox says that people have to make decisions on that choice but that's not people making decisions, it's their culture, parents and geography making decisions, if John Lennox were born in the Middle East he would be defending the same thing I guess but the Islamic god and not the Christian god.
If we are to say there is a creator then no religion has the right to say they're the sole representative of that creator while they have no evidence to back up their claims.
I also love it when Hitchens in his final argument tries to equate Catholicism with Nazism despite Pius XI explicit condemnations of Mussolini and Hitler, Fascism, and nationalism. Pius XII being involved in three assassination on Hitler and The Catholic Church being responsible for saving 800,000 Jews. “But the Catholic Church is bad because they were forced to celebrate Hitlers birthday”.
Christianity was also integral to emancipation, women suffrage, and civil rights. If you deny this then I’m afraid the forerunners of these movements will disagree.
As Lennox brilliantly put it “if you start telling people that they are nothing more than animals then they will start acting like animals”. I can assure you that if it weren’t for Christianity we would still have slavery (of course we still have slavery but you get the point). These morals are not as self evident as these atheists would suggest.
There is Christianity and CHRISTIANITY. As an agnostic you could not know the real Christian. It is short sighted of you to assume that some atheists/agnostic people don’t ttreat their women badly.
Can you give an example of any false statement made by Hitchens?
Fantastic discussion. I love it when both sides can civilly discuss things and concede points.
though it was certainly civil (you know, they aren't killing each other or condemning each other to eternal fire); I would hardly think Hitchens conceded any points or facts in his argument at all. He was quite careful and grammatic and clear about his assertions. Indeed one of his challenges was left unmet, and many of the opponent's remarks are left in confusion: for example, the dr. Lennox says that, humans are 100% human. A bizarre statement and almost non sensical. Yes, we are human, but we are also very close and indeed 98% or closer to our primate cousins. So it's not only grammatically confusing but also says nothing about being created in a god image. Unless the implication is that we will be greeted by apes and other primates in the afterlife?? the bible makes no mention of them as far as I know? and of course makes no mention of the many other homo species which are evidenced in the fossil record and analyzed very carefully: their DNA and cultural lives. But they aren't there, they aren't mentioned in the bible which of course demonstrates they weren't known about and shows the bible and its tenets are very man made. It's just a shame they didn't know about our other human ancestors otherwise maybe they could be joining us in this so called afterlife haha
Never imagine for one moment that Mr Hitchens' mesmerising oratory delivered within civil discourse ever means he has conceded a point of any meaningful worth.
@joeturner9219 yea, definitely not anywhere close to a science book - not even close. Anyway it's a pretty sadistic form of love: if you don't "love" the god in the bible it will condemn you to eternal punishment. That's an awful kind of love that I and many others want nothing to do with. It's fortunate there is no scientific basis for anything in that awful fictional book.
Hitchens now knows what lies beyond death and sees the other side
@@grubsgrubsgrubs6735 or he's dead and doesn't see/ know anything because he's dead🤷
Nowadays, apologists do not use revelation as a center argument. John Lennox did, and this is great because if you consider all angles, it must be revelation which gives clarity and depth to Christianity. If not, we end up, as in other occasions, fighting to evidence the smallest historical detail of the gospels while the vast part of revelation is left out. Revelation is the key.
What you call revelation is conjured up delusional views in an attempt to explain away superstitions
Yes!
After all this time, I love finding a Hitchens video I've never seen before.
Ken H Me too Ken; this man was impressive .
@@user-ed1mj5zk6f He was a complete jerk.
He was a complete jerk.
@@kg4lzc and he forgot more than you know
@@donjonsen5295 He is the epitome of institutional egotism... Folks get into Academia so they can learn a lot of facts or hyperbole and they think they are something. Then they look down their noses at anyone who hasn't 'attained' and think they can get away with it. I'm sorry Lennox condescended to give his time away so cheaply.
It makes me super anxious how close Hitchens's glasses are about to fall from the point of his nose
They're held in place by Scotch sweat and the wasted breath of the indoctrinated.
Those are nice glasses btw, damn i miss this gentleman.
too bad he couldn't see the truth of salvation through those greasy glasses
@@nancygerke1648 what truth?
@@FatherDingo Jesus
Debate starts at 8:58
Oh my word thanks the introducer kept rambling about socrates
Lennox was definitely the most worthy of Hitch’s debate opponents. This was truly fascinating to listen to!
I have always loved the late Christopher Hitchens …. That is to hear him speak … his mind. And, although I was born and raised in Birmingham, Ala., and was taken to church three different days and nights each week, I was not really religious. I am now, due to life’s experiences, and I often hear Dr. Lennox, and deeply admire him … his words/thoughts.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
There is salvation outside the church, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ
@@KathleenHopper-o3j"The Church" is the covenant between man and God through Jesus Christ. The church are people, not a place or specifically an institution.
@larrydesmond1787 the Church is the body of Christ and Christ is the head of the Church. You can't have one without the other
I wasn't expecting Winston Churchill to be debating Christopher Hitchens.
And you certainly didn't get it. So you weren't disappointed.
@@bobobandy9382wow, you're, like, really really smart. That's the most intelligent thing I've ever heard someone say. It's such a comfort knowing that there's minds as brilliant as yours in our world, helping guide people towards the truth about whether or not a certain individual is Winston Churchill or not. Thank God for people like you. Without your insightful remarks, our civilization would surely be run into the ground.
@@Krehfish534 lol
I kept wondering why he seemed familiar.
He's Irish Winston was British jon reminds me more of Ian paisley.
Very enjoyable debate from both men. We need more open explanations like this.
Both? Lennox just repeated his beliefs, gave zero evidence, and just invoked an unwarranted knowledge of the divine and the workings of miracles which he clearly does not have and cannot demonstrate.
@@SnakeWasRight Yes both
@@deadking8224 laughable
@@SnakeWasRight Nope
@@deadking8224 yep. Name one thing that Lennox said that was even remotely valuable... other than for ridicule.
Things at the university have radically changed since the time of this wonderful debate. Not much free and open exchange of ideas and opinions
Have you been to a university lately ? Where are you getting your information about this ?
@@luciennoxisou9502 yes,have you?
Which one,I've been to dozens
I have even worked at a university,have you
@douglasparise3986 is it because of the rise of atheistic extremism?
Real stuff begins at 9:00
Thank you
First of all without changing our criminal mentality what scientific advancement will help .it is no use . because we may produce nuclear weapons or biological weapons and we will destroy everything . science is not free is definitely depends on money donation .and money donation is coming mainly from military industry . military industry demand weapons for war and killing . therefore things are no so simple .why science not produce car to go without petrol it is forbidden to do so by petrol industry. So many examples of scientist being killed for providing such cars.science is influenced by very bad people there is no doubts about.another things is possible for science to provide or make life in laboratory is not possible . science can not make even one virus in laboratory .why science believe that life is coming from combination of elements .this is just speculation with no prove .or make something from nothing in your laboratory. Or make harmony and order after explosion science can not.science is just big speculation
Syzygy - Thank You very much....
Syzygy
Yeah! Why get challenged on your world view? When you can resort to mockery, straw-mans & ad-hominems?!
Gibberish begins at 25:26. Knowledge and truth picks up again at 41:30
Here we go to the comment section of total confirmation bias, where everyone is smarter than the person they disagree with. Yippee!
As accused, I may already have a bias, but I am genuinely interested, BECAUSE I am Chinese. Almost all the theism/atheism debates I've seen on TH-cam involve atheists who grew up in a religious society, or who used to be a religious person. However, most Chinese grow up atheists, like me (although you may argue we are "irreligious" instead of "atheists"). So, when a Christian says, without God, there would be no morality. The interpretation for a Chinese is: Well, for thousands of years the Chinese people are either immoral or amoral, because there was never a worship of the Christian God. If we look at 2019, Prof. Lennox is pretty much saying, over 1 billion people (in China) do not understand morality. Just to be sure, I'm not picking a fight with you or anything. I'm responding to your comment simply because yours is so freshly written and I totally agree with you: Most comments are simply self-confirming. They've already made up their minds.
@@markvonsteiner3080 Lennox would argue that there is a moral law and that people can still be moral because nature clearly demonstrates and supports a moral law, but the question he begs is, where does the moral law come from. In other words he'd argue that morality is of God, and works because of God willed it to work like that. God is the great designer and everything works the way it works because of God. If you exclude God, morality becomes subjective and from a historical point of view, morality without God is evil. Excluding individuals from China, Chinas government has a plethora of problems and historical evidence that would support morality without God being bad.
Hitler abhorred the bible. He discarded the old testament for its "Jewishness" as well as all references to mercy, meekness, etc. He was a known practitioner of the occult. The third reich created the Reichskirche specifically to coopt the large group of professing Christians in Germany. You'll have to do better than that.
The crusades were perpetrated by the Roman Catholic church, which, if you're unfamiliar, many people protested quite heartily in the early 1500's. Indeed, you'll find that many of us don't believe the RCC to be in step with the gospel of Christ at all, so the atrocities they committed are unsurprising.
@@Hylianamused Compare it to what scripture says. When Christ says, "turn the other cheek" "don't return reviling for reviling" "love your enemies" "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" and we see people advocate for war and murder, we can clearly see they are putting themselves in God's place and are not in obedience. And if you're referring to the Reichswehr, mentioning the word God hardly constitutes a theological position.
Oaths of office in the USA also end with "so help me God" but America is legally a secular nation. To almost all that repeat the words, it's as chaff in the wind. I'm quite certain that as SS officers crushed people's skulls with their boots, they weren't considering the gospel which says, "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility," no? I'm certain that the call to take the gospel to all nations in Matthew 28:18-20, and the numerous mentions of the gentiles being equal heirs with the Jews who follow Christ did not enter the minds of those professing to be Christians when the KKK dragged people out and murdered them in the streets, not the same KKK which hates Jews as well as blacks?
Jesus himself said that many will claim to be his followers, but that they will not be genuine. Their works are like filthy rags before him, and he's going to cast them from his presence. So why are we often so quick to believe that everyone who claims the name, "Christian," is in fact a true follower of Christ?
By the same token, it would be easy to use Darwinism to argue for genocide. In fact, many have. Much of the genocidal atrocities of the 20th century can be traced to his theory of evolution. Do the horrors committed by those claiming to follow science negate the claims of science? Of course not. They stand or fall by their own merit. I would actually say that it is immensely difficult indeed for a Darwinist to argue that genocide is wrong at all.
The only real argument you present is that of the old testament genocide, as you call it. And that is really where the rub lies for you. The actions of followers don't always speak for the beliefs of leaders, but the actions of the leader himself absolutely do. So your problem is with God himself, since God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites. Though you may think me monstrous, I won't actually defend this. If God created everything (and he did) and creation -us- rebelled against him (and we did) he has every right to destroy us. That we were created at all is by God's grace. That we remain after spitting in his face, by his mercy.
If 10 people commit a crime and the president pardons one, that the other 9 are punished is not injustice, but justice. They are justly getting what they deserve. The pardoned one gets mercy. But not one of them receives injustice. The Canaanites received just payment for their sins. God used Israel in that day as his instrument to do so.
Allow me to ask you the same question you ask me: "By what objective standard" do you say that any of what you mentioned is wrong?
@@elijah4606 you are so right, brother! it is so sad to see so many people lost..
Even as a believer that Christ was and is the Messiah I do enjoy listening to Hitchens and Lennox. Two incredibly advanced minds and two fine gentlemen.
Even as a believer that Christ was and is the Messiah,
What does that even mean in relation to actual reality?.
@Jason Lusk Jesus either told the truth about who he really was, or he was a complete lunatic with powerful influence on people. I believe the former because I look at what he did in his life and even if it's not fully comprehensible, it seems like the better option to me.
@@thegroove2000 well, I think it means that Christ lived a human life and is now in a place of eternity-perhaps outside of space/time. I believe he is the messianic King that was prophesied about in the bible and the One who will one day come back to end the earth and take the believers with Him to heaven.
@Jason Lusk In the same way I believe Jupiter to exist and be real. I have no direct interaction with Jupiter. Only secondhand and thirdhand accounts, pictures, descriptions, etc. I have no encounter with Socrates, Jesus, or George Washington, but I find it quite unlikely that such a large amount of people would bear false witness to the accounts of these people. So I take it with a small ounce of faith that the accounts are true.
@Jason Lusk what happens to non-believers is not really up to me. I believe God gave humans free will and those that don't choose Him will live freely, but not live eternally.
It's lamentable that our current society and educational system doesn't produce minds such as either one of these gentlemen.
I agree .
I need a dictionary every time I listen to these guys
It's The English language in it's correct form and use, other forms of our Launguage are based on a lazy wrongly spelt and incorrectly pronounced bastadized version, All one has to do is be prepared to learn it and how one uses it.
virgil Allen. Obsolutely correct.
Can't tell you how much I've learned from listening to these debates. I do think John Lennox
You should start reading more
virgil Allen. It’s “bastardised” in English in Britain. Also, only use “it’s” when you mean “it is”. Furthermore, try not to randomly capitalise words in the middle of a sentence and you may also want to look again at the grammar, spelling and structure of your sentences. If you have access to Microsoft Word it’ll put you right on most, if not all, of your paragraph above. Rule number one when being patronising....get it right yourself.
I think I have watched pretty much all debates about the existence of god, every one of them had a believer with really bad line of thought and argument, this debate, on the other hand, is a true gem! I don't believe in god, but Christopher H. had a really strong and well spoken opponent with some truly thought provoking arguments! Thanks for the upload
I always thought it was interesting NOT to beleive in God. Can you tell me what led you there
@waltglass7055 There is no proof not even an atoms worth. Then see that most of the misery in this world is caused by theists.
@@waltglass7055 Hello, I don't have a reason to believe, I have got no evidence at all. Tbh it would be sick if god existed and created it all, but all the biblical nonsense and obvious imprint of human intervention in the whole Bible story doesn't lead me to believe. What's your reason to believe in an almighty creator?
@jaroslav-6027 when you say evidence. What do you mean? Mathematical? Scientific? What are we talking about when you say you have not seen evidence. And then based off whose sense of good and evil do you submit that if God was real it would be sick. Which is to say that it would be messed up. How would it be messed up? Who do you compare God's judgment or moral compass to if he is in fact real?
Lennox's problem is he always pushes HIS religion, lots of biblical quotes prove nothing. I prefer to keep an open mind, there quite possibly might be a creator, but its NOT the biblical god, Yahweh, who is a sadistic nutter who pretends to be a force for love and who has only been around for 2600 years , the billions of years that have passed without it instructing us seem to have been the time when he was twiddling his thumbs.
Please keep clapping directly into the microphone, we love that sound.
I nearly choked on a grape when reading this comment XD You made my day :D Thank you :)
Setekh lol same
The words of Lennox are beautiful and inspiring.
I'm a Muslim. I found that many arguments for the existence of God raised by Dr John Lennox can be used by Muslims as well.
Thank you, Dr. Lennox.
I found more reasons to be kept in ignorance. Good job buddy.
What would you say the primary differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God?
@@Pullen-Paradox The Divine Trinity would be one.
could you give me a Quranic manuscript, before the 10th century, containing al fatiha? If so I will recite the shahada :)
Muslims better use their own brain. Use your Quran if it is from God 😂😂😂
These two men are the best debaters from their respective worldviews. There will never be another matchup like this.
If Lennox really is the best of the Christian apologists then that pretty much sums up why sane and rational people should be atheists.
@@AlanBolshevik Stephen Hawking: "Religion is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark"
John Lennox in response: "Atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the Light."
Sane and rational people believe all sorts of things. I don't think anyone is sane and rational enough to determine what sane and rational people SHOULD be.
@@Makeaocbartendagain2 Couldn't agree more💯
@@Makeaocbartendagain2thats not evidnce
@@zappersolo7588 so im supposed to prove the existence of God on a TH-cam comment section? I was defending my claim that Lennox was a good debater, not that God exists.
Both of these men are admirable. A much appreciated debate.
I love this comment.
Jonathan Kafoure what kind of god would give u a world of suffering
Both of these men are admirable? - are you kidding? Hitchens employs logic throughout while Lennox is a superstitious moron.
owen williams Some choice words about a guy who would probably give you the shirt off his back if you needed it.
Whether he would give me the shirt off his back does not prove the validity or accuracy of his doctrine- incidentally how did you assess that probability?
why do worlds top chess matches last for so many hours and many days in a row, but we always get a 1 or 2 hour cliffhanger debate on the most important questions
me scrolling through the comments expecting to find comments about the debate turns out the only thing they took out of the video was the clapping
Memes have taken over the hivemind. Nobody questions things and listens to people like Hitchens. Just braindead people farming upvotes with weird meme promulgation and zero thought.
@@tkbikesnc6079 they also don't listen to the uncomfortable truths of Jesus Christ
@@jimdee9801 what a load of absolute nonsense.
@@jimdee9801 They also listen uncomfortably as the theist spouts drivel and is totally owned.
@@allingtonmarakan1436 "owned" yeah hitchens didn't stop trying. It was petty.
This was nearly 2 hrs well spent. I learned a lot.
Thank you for existing!
Anon lol
hitch got slaughtered!
RUSSIAN ROBOT - hahaha you learn more from people you don’t know when you’re older
RUSSIAN ROBOT - I thought Dr Lennox had pretty good apologetics to counter the Atheist rants by Hitchens, may he rest in peace.
Whats awesome is John Lennox showed up to watch the debate! The first person dropped out! John was asked if he would fill in and he said sure!
And ended up being outclassed
He should of gone for a pint
@@denniskiarie1984 what debate did you watch?
@@Raiddd__I wonder
who was the first person?
1:18:48 "My knowledge that dead men don't normally rise..."
This entire section regarding the alleged virgin birth and subsequent death and resurrection rely completely on the accuracy of the recording of those events.
It is quite possible that a preacher who would go on to inspire the early gospels DID exist 2000 years ago but it is also possible, as is the case with human nature/memory and motivations, that embellishment may have occurred regarding the accounts of the birth and death of this person in addition to significant events.
We have no proof that the famous Palestinian carpenter was clinically dead in the modern understanding of the term before being taken down from his crucifixion so the 'resurrection' is not necessarily a miracle but a case of people just not knowing enough at the time.
The same with the alleged virgin birth, as noted in the video.
I appreciate that my points are also unprovable but that is the point. Which is more likely?
Nobody has any evidence, other than hearsay, (ironically very close in spelling to the word 'heresy' ) that those two particular events told of in the Bible actually took place. There are countless beliefs all over the world that tell of fantastical events within their respective cultures that are dismissed by those outside as not standing up to scrutiny and these claims made within Christianity are no different as far as evidence is concerned.
This is also true of claims made in other Abrahamic religions.
It is circular logic to try and use the apparent veracity of a holy book to make extraordinary claims whilst at the same time trying to use the extraordinary claims to validate the veracity of the holy book because (surprise, surprise) the holy book(s) are the only source of these physics bending feats despite the far reaching implications.
Bro, historians have more evidence that Jesus was real than Socrates. Jesus was an Israeli Jew, a Man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. The followers of Jesus, the apostles, died in horrific ways not because they were told to believe something, but because they believed something that they claimed to have seen.
People don’t die for a lie they know, but rather people die for something they truly believe in.
This comment section is fairly civil enough. A lot civil than those I see from other debates, especially those from WLC vs Hitchens debate videos.
@Brandon Aitken Why don'¨t you make like a tree and get the fook outta here
"your father was a hamster, your mother smelt of elderberries , I fart in your general direction" ..........has this statement redressed that balance a bit?
:-)
@@jonfromtheuk467 Is there someone else up there we can talk to?
- Go away or I shall taunt you a second time
@@FatherDingo A SECOND TIME???? You haven't done one yet....
@@jonfromtheuk467 Do bears shit in the forest??
1:09:00 This guy doesn't know what "evidence" means. Just as he misunderstands the word "faith", ie, believing when you have no good reason to do so.
Exactly. It's about the common sense use of terms. There is no common sense for what Lennox calls his "evidence". He answers this "very important question" in a solipsistic way. His religion is kind of a collective solipsism. Why are there other myths? "Well, I decide that my Myth is the only true one. That's evidence"
Sooo I'm gathering neither one of yall have actually looked for evidence from what y'all are saying lol
@Kim Okhee That's not "biblical faith", it's trusting that something will behave a certain way for very specific, testable, falsifiable reasons and experience. Biblical faith is just randomly believing something with no good reason or evidence because someone told you to or you want it to be true.
Fantastic debate from these two.
I am never fascinated by the opening statements or rebuttals because I kinda have a jist of what they're both going to say. Besides, they've clearly prepared the opening statements quite well and studied their opponent. The real measure of the debate is the Q&A session. Unlike the opening statements and rebuttals, non of them can predict the questions that will be asked and also some questions don't relate to the debate. This did where I am afraid to say Hitchens comes alive. Dr Lennox looks out of depth and seems to struggle with answering questions. When he does, Hitchens quickly owns him. That in my opinion is the measure of a good debater. That has always been Hitchens greatest strength. He has a real good ear for listening and his mind is a library of knowledge that he can access quickly to answer any question.
As an atheist, I've never been interested in whoever wins the debate. Honestly, it's always the measure of the strength of their arguments that I enjoy listening to.
Agreed. I'm a former atheist, now a believer, so I'm in the strange position of having rooted for both of them at one time or another. I find Hitchens to be utterly masterful in his rhetoric, but when given time to marinate on what he often posits, it frequently doesn't bear the weight of rigorous philosophical scrutiny. He's something of a poet...a linguistic and rhetorical magician...and, ironically, is very nearly the antithesis of C.S. Lewis in style or force. Anyhow, always nice to disagree nicely. :)
@@adammeade2300 What exactly made you a believer? What information, evidence based, made you decide? Hopefully, you don't tell me it was the writings of a man, or the absence of evidence, therefor it must be God.
Lennox offers nothing but ignorance.
@@adammeade2300 Interesting. I am aged 75 and have been an atheist my entire adult life. I mean no disrespect when I say that I find Christianity so far-fetched, so lacking in evidence, so unbelievable that I honestly find it an insult to my intelligence. It genuinely amazes me that anyone of intelligence can believe it.
Sure, I can understand how kids are indoctrinated into faiths. As the Jesuits say "Give us a child until the age of seven and we will give you the man".But to go from atheism to Christianity is something I just don't understand.
@Jenkem Muhdikken Nah. I've seen countless hours of Dillahunty's debates already. He's certainly not the apex of secular thought. Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett make more cogent arguments, while Matt is more in the ilk of Hitchens...rhetorically persuasive but ultimately flawed in his blind spots and a priori.
I was reluctant to watch hitchins debate thinking it might make me doubt my faith but the whole debate has reassured my faith. The whole exchange on both sides were so civil and thought provoking. Thx for uploading..
It’s cause you’re gullable. The bald man’s arguments were weak and didn’t really dispute Christopher’s points. He just did enough to confirm the beliefs you already want to believe in so so bad. He keeps referring to God as he, as if God had an uncircumcised penis and chest hair. Ofc God had to be a He at that time cause women had no right at that time, and ofc if there was a god, it would be a he.
Chris put it perfectly “if your wife was pregnant and you weren’t the father the only explanation would be virgin birth” 😂😂 they called her virgin marry not cause she was a virgin but because she was unmarried, and an unmarried woman at that time is assumed to be a virgin. But ofc she was not a virgin lool.
I find it so disappointing that their are not allowed to engage in dispute. These are not debates these are statement. At least there should be some part of whole event where they can exchange their ideas freely and not with this statements and monologues. That would be much more fierce and therefore more interesting
Exactly!!! Cross examination is the best part of the debate. SMH
This is what actual debates are. Back and forths are fun but they are not part of a formal debate format
YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A FORMAL DEBATE IS, THIS IS NOT TH-cam COMMENT SECTION THAT WE ARE SEEING LOL
If you are patient, and at all observant, you'll realize that while one is speaking, the other is listening carefully and preparing remarks. Because it sounds nothing like the violent blowout in the family kitchen is precisely the point of a formal debate.
John Lennox has it set up that way so he can use all sorts of rhetoric and fallacies and get away with it.
Evidence. John Lennox; this word does not mean what you think it means, regardless of your profession.
Doc Carter - How are you going to say that to a mathematician. I could bet anything he looked for logical evidence longer than you ever will for justifications of atheism.
Bet away. Won't help. I have Christopher Hitchens on my side and there is no evidence for the existence of a God/s.
Not until we die will we know who says the truth. See ya
FightforFlight _____ yes that’s pretty much it
I agree . Didn't produce a shred of evidence for anything .
Best thing about these debates is how well these two articulate their arguments. I’m in awe of that. I’m an atheist and come down on Hitchens side but often find the words to describe my logic out of reach. Good debate. Enjoyed listening to both.
It isn't just because they articulate it's also because they don't interrupt each other or insult each other
As a believer I likewise appreciate this debate for the same reasons. Also illustrating that 2 great minds can argue intellectually and passionately there opposing points of view and still do it in a respectful manner.x
@@wormsnake1 That is a big victory indeed for one of these in particular.
@@tomgreene1843
I’m glad you think so.😂
Yes, God is great. 🙂🙏👉❤️👈😇
He created the devil and if you're naughty, he'll send you to hell where you'll burn forever and ever.....But he loves you😂
@@toni4729 a false premise, a fallacy statement and the usual sarcasm…enjoy your time on earth. 👋
@@tk6839 Come on now, your god is supposed to created everything, sin, hatred, After all, he knew that Eve would eat that fruit, that's why he put the snake in the tree. That's why one of Eve's son's murdered the other. If you're will to believe all that, you're welcome to it.
@@toni4729The devil is in hell as a punishment.
@@isaacthegoat1432 Yes, and God send anyone there to punish them when they're naughty. What a wonderful God you have. God created everything, including the devil, and hell. What a wonderful guy is is.
I'm gonna give Lennox credit for being polite. So many of the people I've seen Hitchens argue with have tried talking over him and have been too snide and demeaning for me to take seriously.
Edit: I'm getting a bunch of responses to this that frankly doesn't interest me. If you comment on this, don't expect a response from me in turn.
God teaches his class, Class. 🙏👍
That's because Hitchens is snide and demeaning. He gets what he gives.
Yeah, it’s ridiculous to say Hitchens didn’t do the same, especially when he was drunk.
Christian Grace
I was impressed by Professor Lennox and some of his arguments, as he was far more coherent and plausible then most theists. He did not convince me of course, but was far more impressive than his peers.
This is was a marvellous example of how debates should be undertaken, without the usual name calling and emotion they seems to always follow
Hitchens is the ultimate debater, informed, entertaining, efficient, and eviscerating in humor. He is greatly missed.
Dang, best description of Christopher Hitchens I’ve heard. The best so far!
Absolutely
Hes faced with Truth now. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess sooner or later.
@@johnjaso385 just no 🤦🏻♂️ it’s 2023 grow up.
@@markusbaker1161 i am grown up.
Please explain to me creation and explain to me what atheism can give me for hope?
All this talking about "revealing" and "evidence" of god's existence between 56:12 and 57:59, and he finally gets to what this so called evidence is, but just says "Because Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day."
Maybe Im missing something but how is that evidence?
Or indeed, what evidence does anyone have that this actually occurred? No witness gave a direct, sworn written testimony at the time. And do those that claim it occurred, consider the possibility that a number of illiterate, stone age people were mistaken or do they really believe that the laws of nature were temporality suspended for those present - and in their favour - to provide the belief they were seeking?
Mike Lawton
Your comment is exceedingly stupid. Where is your evidence that these were “illiterate stone age people?” Is the Bible not a written testimony from that very time? There were above 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ.
Also, history tells us that all the apostles who originally went out and preached Christ and him crucified. They were all martyred with the exception of one. Now, if it was a lie and they made the whole resurrection thing up, why would they die for it? Sure, you could say that the following generations of Christian martyrs were deceived and died for a lie, just like Muslims do today. But why would the men who originally preached it die for the lie THEY MADE UP???
You can write it all off and believe they were unintelligent, illiterate morons who barely knew how to put a fire together, but even IF that was true...again, who dies for a lie they made up? It was all of them but one. What are the chances that not even one of them caved and did the logical thing and gave up their lie to save their life? Even the one who wasn’t killed went to his grave believing his “lie.”What did they even have to gain from this supposed lie anyway? All cult like religions make the men who start it look perfect and godlike. The men who first preached Christianity...their own scriptures showed them making stupid mistakes and made them look like every other imperfect person like you and I. They were preaching about a spiritual kingdom, it’s not like they were trying to gain temporal power and authority...
Let's take your points in turn. You appear to have constructed a 'strawman' argument to make your point. I did not say they were "unintelligent, illiterate morons". I did, however, make an error that I will correct. I said, "illiterate stone-age people " - it should have been "illiterate bronze-age people". 2,000 years ago, the state of the art for technology was the working of soft metals, such as tin, copper, iron, lead and a range of the first alloys such as bronze, hence "bronze-age people". It was not meant to be a derogatory term, merely a pinning of just how advanced a society we're discussing. Belief in spirits, demons & the supernatural was rife, slavery widely practiced, and the slaughter of women & children from opposing tribes seen as acceptable & expected. This is the environment into which we're trying to place ourselves and gain insight.
I said “illiterate” people - they were. The ability to read & write was largely the preserve of rich males. By the time of Christ, the chief institution amongst the Jews was the Synagogue. This encouraged a rudimentary level of Hebrew literacy for those male Jews that could afford it. Opinions vary, but it is generally accepted that 90 - 97% of the population were unable to read or write. The chance of a written eye-witness record at the time of the miraculous events claimed is thus very unlikely, let alone several testimonies existing that could be compared for consistency & factual accuracy. Consider today's modern world: with high levels of literacy and cameras to record sound & vision; how often do reports contain conflicting and often contradictory information? Now mix in the fact that even the Christian church (by and large) accepts that the bible was written several hundred years AFTER the events described. Thus, your position relies on a story not being distorted or embellished for hundreds of years by highly superstitious believers in magic. Do you genuinely believe that no error or intentional embellishment occurred?
And I must admit, your statement of, “who dies for a lie they made up?” almost had me not bothering to write a response due to its ignorance. I simply point you to countless religious cult leaders over the ages that have made up miraculous stories of salvation in order to obtain money, sex and power. One of the most infamous “maker up of lies” was David Karesh, the particularly sick individual behind the Waco siege in 1987. He was convinced that the second coming of Christ (and an apocalypse for good measure) was imminent, convincing his deluded cult members, the “Branch Davidians”, of the same. This resulted in the deaths of 76 Davidians, including 25 children, 2 pregnant women - and Koresh himself. Wikipedia cal give you a depressingly long list of liars who have fatally deceived themselves and their victims in just the last hundred years or so. Your appeal from incredulity that people do not die at the hand of their own religious lies does not stand up to the test of evidence.
I put it to you that a particularly charismatic deluded preacher, but all too human, existed in the middle east some 2,000 years ago. In the same way, modern history has captured and documented a long tally of similarly deluded individuals. I submit to you he was no more gifted with magical abilities, or immortality, than you or I. If a largely illiterate, sorcery believing society, wrote some 10th hand verbal story down a few hundred years after the event is the best evidence that can be presented, then its clear our standards of evidence vary greatly. If you’re making claims for the miraculous, you need evidence of a high enough standard to assert such claims. Fables from illiterate believers in the supernatural certainly isn't mine.
@@stevenl1706
@MNI Andes And? Muslims have died for what thye believe in, so have hindus, zoroastrians, celts and so many others. Their willingness to die for what they believe in doesn't make what they believe real.
Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? If yes than know that by the same historical process Jesus jas been confirmed by more historians of various indpendent positions (egyptians, jew pro and against, roman, grek, syrian, etc.) AND who lived a lot closer to the event which they described, with all versions confirming the same thing (except the pharises). Jesus has archeological evidence, the tomb itself, and the tomb and bones of the one who condemned him (Caiafas). Records, eye witness accounts and millions of converts that began by martyrdom (dont really see the point in joining the religion of the fugitives who lived in abject poverty and got fed to lions if caught). But you seem to ignore the first SEVERAL evidence he goes through, which are quite empyrical and proven by scientific means (not philosophical) : You got the origin of the univers (infinite univers debunked by Hubble and thermodynamics and cosmology ), you got the fine tuning of the univers, DNA (3.5 billion letter inteligent and specific message) , OBJECTIVE morality (transcends human opinion/authority), coherent , consant , interdependent, exact, precise and rationally inteligible laws of nature. Are all these not revealing evidence of God's existence? Can you find a better more rational explination for all these coincidences that somehow sum up the required conditions for life, knowledge and morality ?
53:39 JESUS!!!!!!! End the debate with that quote. OMG!!!!! That was an outstanding statement.
Always great to find some new footage of hitch looking in good health
May Natural Selection make you stronger and happier bruh! I wish Hitch was around!!!
@@PiyushSingh-mt2tb how did he die again? ah yes a complication of his throat cancer was it? ironic....
@@ValentineCrescent what's ironic? He had full fun...did not live his live being a good religious person just to get a place in the plausible heaven..he did what he thought was right and was a good man!
@Htx457
Where does he say this?
ValentineCrescent smoking like a chimney for decades might do that to ya' . No magic involved
Noticeable that Lennox avoided giving examples of evidence even though his faith is based on evidence 🤔
Watch his other videos, he'll give you many. The time frame didn't let him to elaborate.
That's because there is no evidence for his position.
@@rottweilerfun9520 O yes, there are many. Just push the barrier of your bias away from your eyes.
He never supports his claims, he's pretty bottom barrel.
How about Jesus resurrection, the virgin birth, the putting back of a man's ear , this are biblical evidence that Lennox mentioned.
2021 anyone one
Enjoying this video in 2031, made possible by our Most High Lord XG36 Type A. All Hail Our Robot Overlord!
One-one?
@@tragicsans All praises given
@Paul d’Holbach cool 😎
@Paul d’Holbach
(1) The universe is all an illusion, nothing actually exists, (2) The universe has always existed, is self-existent (3) The universe was brought into existence by something/someone that is self-existent. The question is which hypothesis has the greatest explanatory power, which is the most parsimonious and which is the simplest (Occams razor) ? Well option 1. is self refuting as you can’t have an illusion of an illusion. Equally, according to the brilliant cognitive scientist Noam Chomsky despite criticisms of Rene Descartes famous quote “Dubito ergo, cogito ergo, sum”
(“I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am”) Descartes still stands. So we are clearly not an illusion. Option 2. crumbled under the weight of evidence from the “Big Bang”. Ironically atheist scientists actually coined the phrase “Big Bang” to unfairly ridicule the brilliant scientist George Lemaitre who discovered the “Big Bang”. The double irony is that George Lemaitre also turned out to be a Christian/Catholic priest proving that there is no conflict between science and religious expression. The conflict between science and religious expression is a myth and is actually a false dichotomy promoted by militant atheism. Again ironically it was actually atheist scientists who held back the science for several years by resisting the theory as the “Big Bang” supported the metaphysical beginning to time and space described in Genesis. You couldn’t write this!!
Nevertheless, we are left with option 3. did (mind) bring reality into existence or are we nothing more than “matter” that is nothing more than an “illusion” created by the random motion of atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Nothing more than the blind, mindless, pitiless, merciless, meaningless process that Richard Dawkins takes great delight in pontificating about. Again we’re back to the illusion problem and an immaterial mind is simpler than the complexities of matter (Occams razor). If we are just an illusion created by complex brain chemicals and the random motion of atoms and mindless “matter” materialists/atheists have no ground for insisting we should take any of their convictions seriously as their claims are also created by the same illusion. Even atheist philosophers admit this existential problem and the inevitable nihilistic conclusions under the materialistic paradigm. The fact is that you can not ground values such as morals, ethics, knowledge and not even science and logic itself in the materialistic paradigm.
logic is an illusion (Nietzsche)
It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all...
This is an attack not upon faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." The philosphic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not, therefore I cannot think”
G.K. Chesterton.
❤️
John brought a doubled edged sword to this debate. He knew he was going to be debating a formidable opponent. Well done to both speakers and their viewpoints.
Fantastic. Thanks for posting
BRILLIANT ON BOTH SUBJECTS LETS YA GO 2 PLACES INSTEAD OF ONE. WE STILL END IN 1
God is indeed great. He gives us the tools to make our own way. He gives us his words to consider and in his greatness and love he allows us to formulate our own opinions and beliefs even if we deny him. Yet after all that and before the end, he grants us the freedom to change our minds and hearts. So you see, he leaves it all up to us. We create peace or war, love or hate, truth or falsehoods. We build or we destroy. Don't blame him for the natural order of life and death. It is we who make the choices.
"Don't blame him for the natural order of life and death."
Then who do we blame for
Anthrax
Cholera
Covid 19
Dengue Fever
Ebola
HIV/AIDS
Influenza
Leprosy
Malaria
Measles
Meningitis
Plague
Pneumonia
Polio
River Blindness
SARS
Tetanus
Tuberculosis
Typhus
Yellow Fever
?
Childish nonsense
Pablo, you’re talking out of your ass
@@JohnSmith-xx9th Even you, can find what you are missing in a personal relationship with God.
I miss the honest atheist Hitchens. He was a brilliant mind and brutally straight up. I pray he discovered the joy of faith, the peace, that exceeds all understanding, before his untimely passing. John Lennox is an exciting discovery as well. I look forward to more of this man.
Jim, There is another debate between Lennox and Richard Dawkins, like the one between Professor Lennox and Christopher Hitchens, that's also out and about, through various formats--that's available to people who like this kind of thing.
Jim Demers Lennox is a dishonest debater and demonstrates this by repeatedly lying to his audience. I find him a somewhat pathetic excuse as an intellect and clearly not a scientist.
I find the term "honest atheist" to be such a classic oxymoron!! That is just exquisite!! Quite excellent!! Like declaring a Judas-like, Christ-betraying, left-wing baby-murdering monster...as being 'trustworthy', 'truthful', and 'caring', and worthy of people's trust. Like being a Jew a century ago in Germany, and being demonically deceived into believing that Adolph Hitler was someone Jewish people could trust with their lives. Or Americans voting for left-wing betrayers of God and Country; and believing such lies as "the separation of church and state" (while the public education is morally disemboweled); and Satan's lie that murdering babies is a "woman's rights", insidiously!!
Gary Weidemann have a lie down or something mate, Jesus hasn’t done too much for your state of mind eh? And read your book dude, Jesus was a socialist.
Gary Weidemann and you bring your religious bullshit around my kids, and you’re going to have yourself a little problem. There are no gods.
Because from only nothing, nothing comes just by itself and because from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes, *God's existence is proved* by the existence of this reality with intelligence into it (in addition, God has told us that He is _"the beginning and the end",_ and that is why He always existed).
Yes, from the nothing of a vacuum (empty space), particles and anti-particles are created all the time. This is a form of something from nothing. There are ideas of how the universe might have come about from a form of nothing.
God telling you that he always existed can be replaced with something like a false vacuum always existing.
If there is a god though, what do you do with all the terrible teachings found in texts like the Bible or the Quran? Are these things (killing people for collecting sticks on the Sabbath, for sleeping around, leaving their religion, s e x slavery, etc) that you think a wise creator of the universe, billions of galaxies, stars and planets would really want to impress upon us, a god who loves us? We don't follow many of these things anymore because we have outgrown such Bronze Age man-made ideas, so our morality seems to be higher than that of a god.
Science will never be able to really know, at least, what a photon is (the magnification process being infinite). Regarding the Creator of this reality (the nature of God etc.), our power of comprehension will always be like how much the cups can think to understand the man who made them (comparison mentioned in the Bible), but *we have Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity, to be able to see God and what He expects from us.*
"crosses crackling merrily on the lawn" That was a true LOL moment. Great guy!
He’s got humor on another level
What does that mean?
@@LaplacianFourier It's a reference to the Ku Klux Klan burning crosses on the front lawn of black households to intimidate them.
Heretics
This is the most I've ever seen Hitchens challenged. The audience was given a large upgrade by having Lennox step in for DeSouza.
Considering his past performance, I think having Hitchens debate one of the potted plants behind him would have been an upgrade from D'Souza.
If you watch Hitchens debate Berlinski, it is obvious that he excels at 1) "zingers" designed to condescend and make drones laugh, and 2) spouting his rehearsed talking points and completely ignoring the topic at hand. It's a bit annoying to anyone but a fanboy and disingenuous to the truly interested listener.
@@kylealford23
Yet.... You still don't have your personally preferred imaginary friend.
How does that make you feel?
@@WilbertLek Sorry, I'm not fully understanding your point about imaginary friends. That may be because how I process information is predetermined, and I have no ability to transcend the information given and the processing ability of my own brain. It sucks to be a humanist automaton with no ability to assess the validity of a truth claim. My feelings are also predetermined from what I understand.
@@kylealford23
So it makes you angry that your personally preferred imaginary friend only lives in your brainwashed head.
Gotcha... 👍🖖🖕😘
53:21 - 54:28 "and created gods are a delusion, we've known that for centuries" Really? What makes those other gods less real than yours? This is why, at the end of the day, As intelligent as Professor Lennox may be in the field of mathematics, religion makes you sound stupid. If you ask who created the creator, It does not mean you can not comprehend the possibility of the eternal. The universe may be eternal, or the nothingness before the universe began may have been eternal and religious people often say, "well how can that be, surely God must have created it?" All you have done is moved the concept of eternity over one step further and anthropomorphize it. The Infinite regression question is valid and he did nothing to answer it.
The end of the excerpt is the perfect example of the fundamental misunderstanding between the faithful and the rational. 'I don't Know' is not a dirty phrase. It's exciting. There are lots of things we don't know, and don't claim to know, that's the difference, you claim to know the unknowable, we look to find out what's possible.
@arun mehta Of course you have every right to believe whatever you want, And I would NEVER want to take those rights away. Freedom of speech means freedom for everybody. That also includes my right to say I think it makes no sense. As for your comments on science vs belief, well, science is made up of people who claim no infallibility, merely the power of observation, If we get something wrong, eventually, we'll tell you. That's kind of the whole point, come up with a theory, test it, does it work? yes, great, test it again, No, discard it. You claim to already know the answers, we're still looking.
@arun mehta Also Why is belief in something Always better than nothing to you? Your phrasing makes it seem like you don't much care what deity people do believe in, as long as they pick one. There are plenty of believers who do terrible things, specifically because of their faith, and, I as a godless heathen, wouldn't hurt a fly. Would you want me to trade?
I "believe" in many things. Freedom of Speech, Civil Rights, Secularism, Feminism, Science, The Democratization of Knowledge, But I don't take them on faith, I do my best to inform myself about important things and If I learned something counter to my world view, I would do my best to examine it honestly and adjust my worldview accordingly.
@arun mehta I agree about my love for my mom not really being quantifiable, not sure what that proves of your point though. I mean I suppose you could measure what I say vs what I do and come up with a formula, plus, love is a chemical cocktail in our brains that we can measure, but yes, I do agree that there is something else to it as well, I just think we evolved to be this way and it's our choice what we do with it. It seems like a bit of a non sequitur to our conversation though.
Science can answer the how, but not the why unfortunately. Science is good - but it cannot replace the importance of religion.
arun mehta
Wrong.
I don't care how witty and "smart" Hitchens was when he was constantly disingenuous on the points he made. It's like he never heard of the phrase "wolf in sheep's clothing" or the concept of hypocritical character. I can separate the followers from the teachings. I can deduce when an atheist says "I believe in God" it would no longer make him one. If a Christian or a Church act AGAINST the commands and teachings, then I can deduce that their fruit is false and should deem them hypocrites (such as the ones during Nazi Germany).
I have no idea what you just tried to communicate
@@davidpatteson3061 Hitchens and like most atheist can’t seem to understand what a hypocrite is.
Edit: apologies, my original post was unnecessarily mean
What was disingenuous ? Hitches says that having religion doesn't make you more moral (given that it increases human well-being), and he proves that by showing how religious people do all kinds of horrible things. If that makes them hypocrites, well, organized religion is that of hypocrisy. If religion doesn't make people more moral than secularism, then in what sense does moral belong to religion?
@ you didn’t even read my post or understood it. Without distinguishing what is taught vs what is practice, you can’t attack religion as a whole but those who falsely proclaim (hypocrites). For example, Atheism that uses science as the champion of interpreting the big questions, like religion, there is a distinction of pseudoscience and empirical evidence. People would be called ill-informed or disingenuous if they put ALL “science” together and toss it out because there’s bad scientists that sell placebo or developed mustard gas and nuclear bombs to kill people. People who killed in the name of Jesus didn’t read scripture, but use it to justify their selfish desires to concur and murder, like the crusades and inquisitions. That’s religion being used for evil and I’m all for criticizing it.
This is probably the most respect i've ever had for lennox. I'm not a fan normally and i still disagree with him but the sit down debate session with question makes him show his true self instead of all the pre-planned speeches ive seen from him. The sit down section and questions from the audience was the best bit of the whole debate. Debates with times and prepared speeches are always terrible and bring out the worst in debators as everything is pre scripted. Just sit more intelligent, civil people down and let then talk, thinking on the spot is much better.
I suspect that if Lennox was born and brought up as a Communist in the early part of the 20th century that when he reached his seventies or eighties he would be just as positive of the good that Communism had brought to the world and just as dismissive of the evils of Communism as he is now of the evils committed by Christians in the name of Christianity
"Thinking on the spot is much better" for the sake of a debate sure, but to build and express a cohesive argument absolutely not
@@t2nexx561
I get what you are saying but depends on the situation. If you have the knowledge and the right attitude it can actually work out well either way. I find organised debates are about "winning" (which ever way fits the bill). That's why they attract people like Mohammed Hijab who use intimidation tactics, aggression and misquoting people where as sit down discussions are much calmer. If you have the right attitude it doesn't matter either way but Lennox is certainly more tolerable this way from my perspective. The topics go in different and more interesting directions with looser agendas.
The debate that springs to mind is when Lennox and Dawkins were each given 5 minutes then the next question was asked. Dawkins always went first so never got a chance to rebutt Lennox who had a chance to challenge Dawkins who got visibly irritated after about 30 minutes. The organisation that held the debate had an agenda (this isn't uncommon either way).
If you know the subject well enough you should be able to think on the spot and still get a point across and if you can't the other person should be able to see what they've missed and ask follow up questions.
Exactly what i was going to comment, Lennox missed more than half of the Hitchens first speech points and focused on one on the end same for hitchens. They gave their own analogies for thier respective beliefs didn't refute each others point much (which is actually the Essence of the debate usually being emphasized in one to one debate )
@@t2nexx561its not difficult especially not for these two debate experts , there are many videos of both of them debating one to one and giving cohesive arguments
I would consider myself a true agnostic . Science can’t prove how everything came into existence , on the other hand thiests can’t prove that some intelligent designer is behind the creation of the universe. We simply don’t know...
i always found the agnostic position difficult to understand. Surely deep down you believe or you dont? if you actively believe there is then surely you are an atheist by default even if you do not believe science will be able to answer every question. not trying to start a war just interested on how on the point of believing or not :)
Do you understand that you're presupposing that everything came into existence? Alan Gutt or Alexander Vilenkin claimed that the universe had a beginning, but that the ingredients necessary to form it might have been here all along. So, by stating that there must have been a nothing you're starting from a position that has never been justified. The Big Bang theory also doesn't start from a complete empty universe, it starts from the earliest age of the observable/material universe (re after it had mass). Also, you're not a true agnostic. You're an atheist concerning Hinduism, Greek, Norse, Roman, Egyptian, Incan and Mayan Gods. You're an atheist in regards to Judaism, Islam and Christianity unless you believe that we can never prove that Genesis never happened (which we already have) and it's these religions that we're generally debating. We're not debating deism, which is the only religious-philosophical position we haven't disproved yet and never will because the chain of "God probably caused that" (whenever we've went further into the past of the universe) can go on forever (infinitism). So, deism is the only philosophical standpoint that would justify being an agnostic. Keep in mind that theist believe in scripture with its dogma and scripture is easy to disprove. Deists don't have scripture and that's why we can't be sure that this concept is not real, because it is ill defined and leaves a lot open to interpretation (basically cheating).
@@sourk606 No, you may honestly do not know. There are a lot of things that I do not know and therefore have no stance.
I am not economist so I often just do not know how X will influence economy.
Saying "surely deep down you believe or don't" is the same as "deep down everyone believes in god"
... and this is probably the best comment I've read on this video. True open-mindedness. I'm in the same camp
DNA is a code, all codes are languages, all languages are created from a mind.
So who is the mind behind matter?
Skip to 9:00
Great to see some new-to-me hitch material.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
@@royog3088
Quoting the bible, only works weak minded cult members like yourself. We're all well aware that the bible is nothing more than a book of bronze age fables
At 1:21:22 …Hitchens states, “…whether you’re a naturalist or supernaturalist, no particular reason to say that human life has no enormous innate value…” If that were true, then nothing Hitchens or Lennox says has any value. Life is rendered meaningless. Yet Hitchens wanted to assert his position that God is not great, and we should believe him, his atheism and not Lennox and Christianity. Hitchens’ implying he has more value than Lennox, gives me the impression that Hitchens pretends to be a bank of a great wealth of knowledge, while his vault is empty.
I thought Hitchens was going to challenge me as a Christian I was rather disappointed
With so many different versions of Christianity, I don't see how anyone could ever possibly cover them all.
@@moodyrick8503 there are plenty types of Atheism too… keep with the subject at hand
@@eddyekofo5102 Atheism is a single position on a single question.
If you lack belief in a God, _you are an atheist._
If you have belief in a God, _you are a theist._
Everything beyond that, is a separate issue.
*Yes of course, atheists believe in many different things beyond "the God question", as do theists.*
But all of that is secondary, to the question of _belief in a God or a lack of belief in a God (s)._
(atheist/theist)
*The issue at hand :* Not all Christians believe the same things, to the point that, no single argument is going to apply to them all.
Believing in the Gods is also one big ego trip for many. That we are created by some all powerful, all knowing perfect God. Put on earth for some special purpose. That gives us all of the answers to complex questions about our world.
The idea of death being like one long endless sleep, that you don't know your having. Is certainly nothing to be afraid of. Its just a question of when that end is. That we fear. And no one wants to leave the party that continues after your gone.
Maybe the fact that we long to live forever is an instict based on a Divine plan.
death and shitty lives are religions trump cards
@@paulrichards6894 well that's just rude, and highly speculative.
So? I know just as many atheists you actively get off to telling people that there isn’t meaning and that they’re going to be a tombstone that nobody visits in 100 years. The fact that theists are looking for answers and atheists aren’t isn’t an argument against them.
BAHHHHHHHHHHAAAA!!!! Funny stuff. So, belief in self is not the "biggest ego trip" of ALL time. Stupid and wrong all in one ignorant package Stephen.
Proving that 2 brilliant minds with opposing views can intellectually and passionately argue there respective point of view.x
Lennox isn't brilliant, he's pretty bottom barrel.
This was a tough one for me. Glad for it, though. A question to anyone/everyone, but I'd love to hear from Mr. Taunton or Fixed Point. At 59:40, Lennox says that "the relationship with God is not something that's forced (upon us)", and speaks of God "honoring" our choice of belief or disbelief. This is in response to Hitchens giving his "We are created sick and ordered to be well" interpretation of original sin. Before Lennox even finishes his sentence, the camera cuts to Hitchens scribbling down what I presume to be an objection. But not the precise objection that seems more troubling and obvious to me: If we are created by God, plucked from non-existence and awakened into existence, does the mere fact of our wholly unsolicited creation constitute truly sufficient, justified, "moral" grounds in God determining where we spend eternity? Regardless of what we believe or do not believe about Him?
It seems both whimsical and cruel at the same time.
If God "honors" the position of inevitable human disbelief or misunderstanding with an eternity of fire and torment (at worst reading) or with an "eternal separation" from Him (still an unending anguish), I don't understand how the punishment is even remotely proportional to the crime. It seems like a "forced" hand to me.
God's justice is, well, justice. And he takes his holiness seriously. Start there.
The good part was that Dinesh couldn't come
The inability, maybe lack of desire, to know the difference between good and bad on an objective level, might actually result from the rebellion against the worship of God. Dinesh an amazing and decent man in a world suffering from indulgence in chaos, deception, and the kicking of a wild ass.
@@Rextrent I've always said the only 2 words one needs to know to be a religious apologist are "if", and "then"
holy shit! I forgot all about "might" or "maybe" thanks
@@emach07 that's about the dumbest most vague philosophy ALMOST that I've ever heard...next to Hitchens and his complete lack of understanding to simple scripture a child can understand....along with most other atheists.
@@davidu8688 oooh, hit a soft spot eh? Your insults don't carry much weight to me David. You just stay in make believe land while the rest of us deal with actual reality XO
@@emach07 it's funny how you give no real rebuttal for your claims but only insults...remember you were the one who started with the insults bud...and lol, no, no "soft spot" at all. Unlike atheist who have no real evidence for their claims and only attack Christianity instead of proving their views, I can back up my talk.
Lennox is passionate in what he says.. quoting Bible to prove God exists is not how to move forward in a logical debate..
I still say Christopher Hitchens has got some solid points..
One can be passionate and still be wrong, you know.
@@titaniumspecial4207 Or the universe is suspended on a giant turtle. We will never know, what the REAL truth is. But that is not important for me. I care that i can ponder these questions. That is my personal meaning of life. Thinking.
Jeffrey Emrick Why do you believe in christ?
@@titaniumspecial4207 Well spoken, sir. The only thing that bothers me with your argument is the following: If someone sincerely said the same thing about Allah, would you be persuaded?
It's interesting that Hitchens challenge is, "beware, if my opponent starts to tell you what this God is like or knows what he wants". Yet, Hitchens is guilty of this. How could an intelligent designer make the universe as X, is subtly saying, " If I were God I would Do Y not X" or "A God would do Y not X" ie he claims to know what God Would Do in a given circumstance.
It’s not the same, no.
He’s observing the universe as it is, supposedly created, and criticising the alleged creator.
@@curbroadshow I don't really understand what he wants though. It comes off like he is claiming if god was real we would all be immortal super beings that never suffer and always win. My problem with this is that if two beings of immortal unlimited power that have free will have a dispute everything is destroyed but them and chaos reins. You have two beings that now hate each other and neither can destroy the other, that is tyrannical for god to let such a thing happen. If he separates them it's tyrannical. The only way in my minds for all to be appeased is death.
@@curbroadshow i cant think of something more narcistic criticising Creator who created this world and gave you life and free will so crazy
@@adrianoadriano7772 So prove that the universe had a ‘creator’ and you might have a point.
@@curbroadshow first law of biology nothing cant make something.....so something most create something to exist as far as we know right?
Who is here 2025
To think Dr. Lennox had just a day notice before this debate shows how blessed and smart he is. I am so impressed
These comments have no substance. This is a fullscreen video.
I'm sorry I'm open to anyone's opinions but I've never heard anyone make more sense about this world than Christopher hitchens 👊☮️❤️
Did you say make "sense??" Can you tell me how he makes sense as an atheist that you are?? I'm not saying to verbally attack religion. Be Logical
“But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.””
Mark 14:61-62 NIV
@larrydesmond1787 Hitchens said that Jesus never claimed he was the Son of God. Here it is.
Hitch had more class intelligence and style than many civilizations
@RUSSIAN ROBOT
Only those who are delusional think that XD
RUSSIAN ROBOT
That’s a very weak argument. Where is your evidence????
RUSSIAN ROBOT
1: There is no evidence for God.
2: Personal Experience is not evidence for God, as only the person who went through the experience can verify it. How are we to believe them? For all we know, they are lying/delusional or both.
3: Those who believe in God are, in fact, controlled and persuaded by beliefs/dogma/agenda/ignorance/delusion and more.
4: Atheism is the lack of belief, get it right.
5: Personal/Direct experience is the WORST evidence, as it is only evidence for those who actually experience it (and that’s assuming they weren’t mistaken).
6: As science has been finding out more things about the world, the more it becomes apparent that your God is false. Deal with it.
mommy, please tell me a disney fairy tale before i go to sleep;
okay honey: 'once upon an ancient time, in a far far away middle east kingdom;
lives most of the illiterate goat herders who hallucinates a book called the holy bible...
'
.
if the christian god is great, then why waste time with the debates?!
.
and check this one out...!
th-cam.com/video/H8E-5p3DdUc/w-d-xo.html&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3hnH139Q33DV9A6-_1K8Z3Z63OUJLu9DAGkLT-vsvB_HIKdA2wK0d08jE
@@jz5jo Mommy, tell me a story. Okay, hun. Once upon a time, space, time, matter, and energy all came from nothing for no reason at all - and from nothing at all. The big bang, which created the universe, was so fine-tuned by nothing - that if every subatomic particle in the universe was a zero, you could add every atom, too, and the number still couldn't be completed. Life began from non-life; order from chaos; non-intelligence created intelligence; nothing created everything. Wow, mommy, that's a heck of a story. Ah, but there is more, hun. Atheists, in their infinite brilliance, have to hold to a hypothesis called the multiverse to get away from inconvenient truths regarding the universe (despite there being no evidence - or any way to test it.) Mommy, do people believe that? They sure do hun. Wow, that's too much of a fairy tale for even me!
wow how come i didn't realize how cunning and deliberatly misleading hitchens was.
"I bring not peace but sword" meant his followers would be persecuted and killed for their beliefs. He obviously knew what it meant. how dishonest
That seems to be the common atheist approach is to take things out of context in the Bible and then say oh explain this. That's like picking one line out of hitchens book and claiming it's all bulshit. It's just lazy
Why then Jesus says: "if you dont own a sword then sell your coat and buy a sword?"
Or why Jesus says that whoever lives by a sword will die by the sword which is not even true as many soldiers, criminals, guards, etc had weapons but died from old age or illness or accident?
Why Jesus said that one who betrays him then it would be better for that one if he was not even born but later he says all 12 of his followers will sit with him Jesus on the trrone, eat and drink with Jesus and judge people. We know one of them betrayed him so how can it be better to not even be born if he is going to eat and drink with Jesus on throne of God and rule others?
You see, it does not add up.
@ nothing changes the fact that hitchen distorted jesus' words so I don't understand your point.
I'm not a christian so I won't spend time explaining things to you but you can google those questions and find out. trust me it's been 2000 years since many people thought these things if they didn't answer christianity wouldn't have this history.
@@gabrielbatistuta6326 It has not been 2000 years, and I dont trust you.
@ ???
John Lennox is such a boss.
Actually he's an ultimate prat
@@suatustel746 ur corny af if u think that
@@suatustel746And you? What are you? What do you think others say about you? What do they think of your character?
Perhaps being a prat might not be so bad by comparison.
@@Radio_entelechy l don't need to you answer you since you lack of critical thinking!!!!!
Yes he is a wonderful speaker, well prepared and fluent. But I do wish he would relate some evidence of the existence of his god. I know the evidence thing is tiresome, but that is the first requirement for a person who asserts a position with certainty. Revelation, narrowly used by those who have the luxury of being subject to a revealing event, just will not do. Neither will faith do. Nothing Dr Lennox says can be evidence in the strict, everyday, normal, ordinary sense of what he posits. But an entertaining speaker he is to be sure.
Hitchens isn't even worthy of being on the stage, as he is condescending and rude, and instead of actually intelligently debating any view point with solid data, he misrepresents the data with leading statements and questions, and follows such up with insults directed towards those that disagree with his conclusions. This is not the way of professional scientific debate, yet, he calls himself a scientist. Hardly...and not only this, but to add to why he shouldn't be on the stage is he doesn't believe in equal dialog, for he frequently interrupts both Lennox and the host, while both show him courtesy to express his views. He should return the favor and respect, but he cannot given his condescending arrogant nature. With that said, two scriptural references come to mind...1) those professing to be wise are fools, and 2) don't cast peals to swine. He isn't ready for it. His heart is hardened for some reason.
While your statements are true, condescension never justifies further condescension.
When did he contradict himself?
When did he call himself a scientist, and why do you think this is a scientific debate?
"Those professing to be wise are fools"
@ Isn't the whole point of this debate to analyze the idea of "God" through a scientific lens?
@@tankbuggeru Read my comment again, and if needed listen with an objective ear instead of listening with subjective bias...and I am sure you will notice it. I posted to this 2 years ago, and I am not going to listen to the podcast again, but I recall him contradicting himself clear as day, I just don't remember where it was...but certainly you do not expect me to listen to it again to point out what I wrote above.
@@christopherbravo1813 science is objective. Hitchens suffers from subjective bias, and is therefore incapable of objective study.
Hitchens listening to Lennox and removing the cap from his pen to write, with a vengeful look on his face. HAHA love it.
Changing "Venegeance is mine says the Lord" to Hitchens saying it, wow, that was very clever. You're certainly a man to be feared and reckoned with. Too bad it was Hitchens fat bloated ass face & body that turned into a cancer stick and was blown away, too bad before Hitchens had has chance to do it to God. Stephen Hawking, so very sorry about that, him saying "God is DEAD!" and now God saying to all of us, "Hawking is dead." Both probably destroyed in hell by God. I like to destroy people who spend their whole life trying to destroy me. Yep, both have been destroyed in hell.
@@trustinjesus1119 Why bother? The God is almighty. Nothing can destroy such a powerful being. If he exists - he don't need your faith to exist, because there was a time when the weren't any believers in the world (no people at all). Children are also dying because of cancer. Do they also want to destroy God? You are totally mad. Probably you even see some logics in your words.
@@trustinjesus1119 Calm yourself when writing these comments brother, having Jesus in your username while cursing and disparaging someone does not add up. We all were enemies of the Lord at some point, we are supposed to conduct ourselves with grace as the Lord did when he brought us into repentance. Anger and bitterness will not help any cause.
Your apparent pleasure in the deaths and suffering of others, even atheists who insulted God, shows that you do not have the heart of a true Christian. God does not hate, he is good and merciful. Hell does not exist and eternal damnation does not wait for even the worst of humanity. God forgives all.
@@EVSmith-by9no how is it the non believer's fault if he can't witness miracles in his lifetime? to a 21st century man, life shall always be a mystery. How is it his fault that he wasn't alive when Jesus was bringing people to life infront of the ones that later believed in him ? Do you think he will be sent to hell for just not knowing the right answer to existential questions in life?
1:20:07 "If you didn't know the laws of nature, you'd believe that everything was a miracle"
EXACTLY. We know more now from a scientific perspective than people did 2000 years ago.
Is it not possible that events attributed to gods (any belief system), miracles or plagues etc were actually misattributed to their deity through lack of understanding?
A power higher than ourselves must be conceded if we cannot do what nature is able to do easily.
@@vanessamartz7596 we are capable of doing and understanding things now which would have been conceded to a higher power 2000 years ago and yet we are still very terrestrial and of the natural rather than the supernatural realm.
The idea that a higher power 'must be conceded' when we lack understanding relies on the idea that we know everything that we are capable of knowing when this is demonstrably untrue as pursuit of knowledge and understanding is an ongoing endeavour.
We haven't stopped learning.
I am aware that I do not know everything on any given subject and somebody, somewhere will always know something that I don't so the idea of filling in gaps in my own understanding with 'I don't know therefore = God' is not a logically satisfying answer.
Me not knowing something is not proof that the answer is unknowable or that the supernatural must be invoked as the only possible solution.
@@LittleMAC78 So, when do we know that we know everything we are capable of knowing? Until then, we must Concede a higher power.
@@vanessamartz7596 there are not only two options.
Just because something isn't black does not make white the only other possible colour.
I think all of us should remain open to learning new things and be willing to accept if and when we are proven wrong, believers and non believers alike.
@@LittleMAC78 Black is the absence of color while white is a mix of all colors. White is the proof black doesn't exist.
Good Debate. I'd say both are extremely intelligent teachers.
The difference is that Christopher Hitchens is 100,maybe 200 years above the teach of proffesor Lenox. Read he's new book:2084.
@@LMFAORomania Lennox wrote 2084, your comment is a little confusing.
Not really a debate. There not even talking to each other.
What's intelligent about a grown man that thinks a 5 yr old's-level of fantasy is reality?
@@fleshanthos this! How can you say you are a scientist and then say "i belive in a god"
How great can One be when One's all that is...
infinitely so...
RUSSIAN ROBOT
You talking to yourself?
People arnt on that same level of thinking. They would rather go under mountain than over it.
We lost a Gem, highly critical thinker, articulation, brilliant vocabulary, irrefutable reasoning and logic and charming as ever. Christopher Hitchens ❤
Praise God for his Wisdom is the Ultimate
I would love to see matt Dillahunty from atheist experience have a discussion with Lennox.
@- definatly, it would be fun to see that though
why hitchens makes claims dilly does not.
Peterson has a great yarn with Dillahunty
Lol no, other way around
@@emojidinosaur7300 i just like dilahunty's style, i have nothing against hitchens, on the contrary that was a pretty good discussion.
Since Hitchens died in 2011, I wonder when this was recorded.
2008.
HILLARY 4 PRISON
Idk. Before 2011 probably
@@colejames423 Definately.
Cole James I think it was recorded around 2012.
2020 enyone?
No
That is the current year
Here here.
Right with you
I em here
From my understanding this was the first debate between them and hitchens even admitted he lost this debate as a Christian I miss him cause he really challenged the Christian belief and really made people come up with very intelligent rebuttals even tho many Christians lost the debate aginst him
This was his second debate with Lennox.
Dumb, does Christianity make people this dvmb
Something that is both mysterious and unable to be demonstrated to exist cannot be said to be an explanation for anything. We explain things in terms of the known, not the unknown. It makes no sense to explain a mystery by appealing to a greater mystery. Just be comfortable saying that you don't know the answer. You don't have to jump on the first idea that comes along.
Zach....isn't having faith an admission that you don't know for sure?
@@davidrooney5223 That is what makes faith useless.
@@gloriaf6971No one cannot be without faith. Because the only certainty is in the past.
You say you know you put a cup on top of the table. But as far as the world is concerned, between the time it took you to reach the basement and back to the table and infinitue of possibilities exist that could displace the cup from the table.
Or in this case, even one, is enough to displace it.
You don't know if it will fall or will not. But given the amount of information you have, you say you 'know' it will not fall.
Because the chances of anything happening between that small amount of time is 'highly unlikely'.
But most certainly not impossible.
Thus Faith.
But consider, Lo. Spiderman decided to screw your cup over. You were wrong. It wasn't that you knew. It was that you had faith.
Faith is not useless when probability relies on faith. And you don't bother about the 99.9% chance of something not happening.
God is not as much a mystery in that He is God. Unable? Not required when you just need to look and see.
You are asking explanations from religion? We give you reasons and faith. Explanation is what science tries to provides you but falls short of the next step.
The problem is that, you cannot claim you don't love someone when you feel each and every effect of said love. To claim it is not so would be a lie. Thus to say we don't know the answer would be to lie. And we are not comfortable lying.
@@blackwiddowflainfrost6705 You are hilarious!😂 The fact that something happened and the cup was removed from the table doesn't change the fact that it was placed there by me. You are not thinking clearly at all. Get a grip!!
There's nothing like the circular reasoning of "God is great because he exists, and God exists because he is great!" Powerful statement, Lennox.
@Church of Atheism
There's nothing like atheists claiming the universe creating itself when nothing in the universe has been shown to create itself. And saying everything from nothing which violates the laws of conservation on the largest scale possible.
And atheists claiming believers don't know science as atheists brag about: solar nebula theory, inflation, Oort clouds, Kuiper belts, dark matter, dark energy and the crown atheist-jewels: multiverse and Boltzmann brain conundrum. Oh, and the firing of career scientists who offer naturalism-alternative.
Keep paying no attention to that man behind the curtain like a good little atheist-Dorothy.
I'd have more respect if you'd admit you dont want there to be a Creator than hide behind the you-don't-know-multiverse.
Oh, and tell everyone how you don't fear going to prison if you break the law [read: consequences in this life]
How do you know there is no afterlife nor consequences after this life is over ?
@castroy64 - How many people do you suppose your god is going to send to an eternity of torment? He can't provide a better solution? Sounds like the ultimate evil and not very imaginative to not provide a better solution, after all he can do anything.
@castroy64 So when you add them all up, you'll know how many lives you've dishonored by using them to try to make a point, that's just not there. Not a single one of those was "in the name of Atheism". Not one.
@@freightshayker I might get to unwrapping everything you've just said, and it's quite a lot. But you HAVE to explain that last part. Because right now I'm sitting in my chair scratching my head trying to figure out if you really believe your own last statement.
@castroy64 show me any atheist doctrine that says to kill all non-non-believers... You'll find no such thing. And what does this have to do with my original post?
Flowery , wordy rerun of the God of the gaps argument , scrupulously laid out by Lennox through the course of the debate.
Make no mistake…
Lennox is sharp.
I’m a Hitch fan till the end. I actually mourn him. But as far as IQs are concerned, Lennox is easily an equal. And the fact that he was able to join Hitch on stage in such an impromptu way is a testament to that. His views are so well-considered and thought out that he needs minimal, if any, prep.