Can Science Investigate Miracles? John Lennox at the Veritas Forum
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ต.ค. 2012
- www.veritas.org/talks - At the Veritas Forum at Harvard, John Lennox explains how science can apply to the claims of faith. Do you believe faith is the sort of thing that can be tested scientifically? Would you accept the subjective experience of miracles as evidence? Let us know in the comments!
Full library available AD FREE at www.veritas.org/talks.
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!
I love John Lennox! He's my favorite uncle I never had. God bless him.
He is mine uncle too! I love Him
That's the right term for a greatest apologist, Uncle JL or Uncle lennox, lets call him now starting this time. 😁
#UncleJohnLennox
“Christians are afraid of the dark”
Christopher Hitchens
“Atheists are afraid of the Light”
John Lennox
"Deepity"-- Dan Dennett's daughter. The way in which it is true is not profound, and the way in which it is profound is not true.
REALLY! and why would Christians be afraid of the dark? what's lurking there? scared of ghosts, devils, demons,
talking snakes, your imaginary sky daddy watching you all the time.
@@greyeyed123 ironically making a seemingly profound statement.
The truth of a claim is not in how it’s said, but the reality behind it. How likely people are to believe it is strongly influenced by the way it’s said. Something can be both profound and true, not profound and true, not true yet seem profound, or not profound and untrue.
Yet if its not true is it really profound or only seemingly profound?
@@joshuamclean4588 Only seemingly. Hence the purpose of the term "deepity".
Atheism was not good for my mental health, I suffered great depression and alcoholism for 40 yrs, but when I came to God I recovered immediately.
I left claw marks on the gates of hell.
My atheist logic was not very critical. Today I see science pointing toward God, not away. And Dawkins is beginning to see the light too.
@orangefishblood Does he? Well why does he give us cancer then?
@@stagweberVMad according to the beatitudes of Jesus people who are suffering in this world are blessed. You might also be interested in reading this parable: Luke 16:19-31. And I have to add that not only those who are sick and poor will suffer in this world but also Christians. Life is not beautiful without hardships and trials.
It doesn't prove Christianity is right...
@@sasikantakuanr1525 you can't prove it's wrong
jonesgerard : 6 years later Dawkins should be at least deist by now, right?
What one would give to have both the intellect and common sense of this most lovely Christian man.
Here's common sence...i was taught to believe in God from a early age..As I got older..i wanted answers..i didn't know that the stories and principles in the bible was a guideline on how to live and treat people..The bible..For the Most part..Teaches...1) Love...2) Faith.. 3) Tithes...4) what is Prayer...As you get older and really start to explore life without RULES & FAITH IN WHATS RIGHT & WRONG...You then get murder..rape..bombing..stabing...robbing..killing..infadelities...and so ON...i find alot of this funny and sad at the same time...Because the Men & Woman in jail"...Find religion when locked up?...l know one thing...This world can not give..us the Word/BIBLE
...The way Bible is broke down..can"...That is hope for Tommoro...Faith to deal with the troubles of the world..As being human...we learn what the world is about...Through things that happen to use...From events we put ourselves in...Becuase of decisions we make...i simply believe we aren't suppose to know everything about God?...The Son...Or The Holy Spirt"...in marriage a Union blessed by God..Two people on one Accord"...Two people equally Yoked"...I love how people that don't believe in God"..When they see something..or experience something that's to much to deal with or except..They yell out" OH MY GOD?...Which God is that"...lol..The bible says...IF my WORD Fails..Heaven and Earth will Pass Away?...Those are Strong words from a God?..That created all we have For Today & Tommoro...Who says..simply being Human isn't Devine...Wow?? Life is No small matter...As we live we Perish...As we age we go back to the earth from were we can..The Dust of The Earth"...***ONE#1***
Fyodor48, Look into the teachings of Dallas Willard, Pastor snd Philosopher. Another giant.
And you forgot "smugness!!" John does not know there is a god, he just thinks there is one.
Methinks you misinterpret ‘smugness’ for ‘confidence’. There is no law/rule one must be excessively humble when defending your views. For example I could assert that Mr Dawkins is the epitome of a rude/smug individual, two (I am being specific) of my acquaintances whom are atheist think Mr Dawkins a despicable debater, I defend him saying, this man is passionate in his views (wrong of course) and he has every right to defend his corner in his inimitable way.
To finish, John has his critics even Christian ones, they think he has penchant for, ‘why use five words when you can say the same thing using a hundred !! Cut the man some slack, he is just a ‘wordy academic’ . I urge you to listen to what he is saying, do your research and then comment from a point of ‘being informed’ rather than!
Dude, I think your wrong, but, hey! You are entitled to your viewpoint.
@@Fyodor48 Yes I should have used the word "arrogant" not smug, he speaks
as if he knows there is a god, no modesty here, it is a slam-dunk belief in
a supernatural being that has only hearsay evidence written in old books
god/gods have never been proven, that's why we tell you to use the faith system, basically lying to yourself.
Just telling a friend that you are praying for their recovery helps the mental state . When you feel someone cares, you have more will to fight what effects you. Like having a smart person in a lab coat that seems sympathetic helps some that believe doctors have some science magic.
"Ask and you receive."
"Form follows thought."
What happens in the world comes from thought and desire.
Thy will, not my will.
Will and thought cannot be determined from the physical world. No one has ever found a thought in a brain.
At least Lennox is truthful about the solely subjective nature of the prayer experience.
I think the better word was personal, because he didn't mean to imply that it was merely in his mind and that it was his opinion. He meant to suggest that it objectively happened to him and only to him, and they every person's experience will vary.
It's not subjective when it involves other people, dunderhead
@@classycactus8449 Convenient.
Love Lennox. Silly thumbnail bordering on clickbait though ;-)
Reading his book: Gunning for God.
Such an excellent book. Anti-theists should read it too. God bless professor Lennox. 🙏
John Lennox: Religion is good for society, then there are miracles!
Amen.
It depends how we defines these. Cause we can see thm properly otherwise usually.
I see athiests as picking out only what suits their faith and using it as a defence to their naturalism. Whay made me such a devout Christian is the fact that I studied naturalistic views and found that I'd need more faith to be an atheist than a theist. I wasn't influenced by any religious teaching. It's like night and day to me.
Life itself is a miracle, one cell meats one cell and hear you are. That's a miracle 🙏
This guy is genial.
See that's the problem we think only in the physical and not in the spiritual just like when Jesus walked the Earth and proformed miracle and people still questioned
John Lennox is living proof that Science and Faith in God are compatible
The wrong question. The actual question should be: Where have all the miracles gone?
According to various religious text there were no shortage of people who could perform miracles between 5 and 2 thousand years. Funny that ask people, who claim to be able perform miracles, to perform one under scientifically controlled conditions and they run a mile.
Does John Lennox agree with Joseph Atwill treatment of the Gospels as literature rather than history, if he does, why ?
What? Joseph Atwill is no scholar. He isn’t any more credible than Zecharia Sitchin. His works have been crapped on by actual scholars. He is a businessman. Caesars Messiah is a silly conspiracy theory.
Wow, head on.
He is referring to Prof Andrew Sims, former President of Royal College of Psychiatrists. Faith Delusional? 2009.
My ex girlfriend came to my rescue while i was dying of dehydration. When she found me i had yellow puss seeping from my eyes and froth in my mouth. She told me as soon as she entered the many hectare camp ground with 6 ,000 people in attendance. She had an overwhelming need to find me. She said somthing called out in her head. You gotta find Joe right NOW !
The doctors at the camp told her i may die during the night.
Thats one of 3 miricals I've been in. I have also had my house haunted. Does the father exist, hmmm , no I need more evidence 🤣😂😃😆😂🤣😂😅🤣
Bruh I'm totally confused😳
If it is real it is measurable if it is not real it is not measurable.
So wouldn't that make the person agnostic, since going by your analogy, there is a possibility of the accused is guilty but there's no 100% certainty? So if an atheist does not automatically accept that there is no God when choosing his/her position, then they are choosing a position where the existence of God is a possibility. That is agnosticism.
At one time in my life I did pray..if only possible God will show Himself to His unbelievers..but noo..He made us with morals and conscience innate in us..tho we sinned, we are given free will to do or not to do His will! Jesus is coming soon..that em sure of💜
If u want believe in god that fine but if u believe in Christianity then it will be your blind believe....
@@sasikantakuanr1525 There is a reason some scholars are Christian’s. It’s clearly not due to historical or ontological ignorance. You should spend more time studying history, and ancient texts in order to see why it is that many people are Christian’s.
@@sasikantakuanr1525True Christians are Christians because they have a relationship with God. It isn't by blind faith or intellectual belief. It's because God has revealed Himself to us and we have a personal relationship with Him.
Incorrect. Both Atheism and Theism are statements about the claim that a God exists. Theists accept this claim. Atheist reject this claim. But this does not automatically mean that Atheists accept the claim that no God exists.
In the same way as a jury only addresses the question of guilt (not innocence). If a jury finds someone not guilty they do necessarily accept that they are innocent, only that the prosecution has failed to prove their case.
Yes stems from "no one is innocent".
#UncleJohnLennox
Agnostics (like Dawkins) may not have faith but atheists do.
If you understand that there is no way to prove that God is not, then you assert that God is not, then you must accept it as an article of faith rather than reason.
The resurrection is a fact of history? Explain please
Eye witness accounts
Did he say yes or did he say no ??
Yes, if you use forensics, no if you demand that the miracle be repeatable.
You're describing agnosticism not atheism. Atheism=no God or gods.
Also, good reasons for believing in God are plentiful, and there is new evidence every day. I find myself increasingly skeptical of the motives of atheists.
Is not historical history or stories usually written by the winners? and they would not lie, would they??
I would like to know when Dawkins claimed that religion "has no benifit"..??..I believe his position has always been, that it may very well have a benifit to people, in making them feel safe, loved, relaxed...ect....but that does not make it true
Yes, but Lennox was probably suggesting that the research done by Sims demonstrated that it had a positive impact on society behind mere emotions.
dawkins never claimed religion has "no benefit." he has claimed that religion is highly unlikely to be true, and an agnostic or freethinking position is the most sensible and rational one. lennox, as many religious people, have misquoted dawkins.
In the thumbnail he looks like he's crying.
Hi Michael,
The point Dawkins is making in that context, is that, as you say "it hinders scientific discovery", and is a negative thing for society. Dr Lennox in this clip is quoting a book written by a psychiatrist, about weather or not religion is good for your mental health.
The book is called, "Is faith delusion?;why religion is good for your health".By Andrew Sims. As i said, religion may be of some benifit to mental health, but that does not make it true. And that is Dawkin's position.
No. Dawkins, from what I have gathered, suggests that religion has only negative impacts on the world. That is to say there is no good in religion. I have heard him admit that it can be beneficial to a person's happiness, but I am assuming that Sims was suggesting that it has an actual, tangible, practical application. I think that Christianity is good from all perspectives, but religion, in general, has more ambiguous effects.
@@classycactus8449 I'd prefer to base my life round what's rel, and not the "nicest" story.
Sadly, Dawkins's logic is fundamentally flawful.
Human imagination, ignorance and expressed words are not physical evidence but only of themselves.
John Lennox has obviously never heard of Occam's razor
Yes it can. It's called debunking them.
Ok fedora
On what are you basing this information? If Lazarus got up, the young man who fell asleep and fell got up, the little girl got up, if Jesus got up, if the dry bones got up, why don't you believe? I am so glad I grew up in Harrison Plaza Projects, rather than in Project Veritas.
The honesty of science, science does not say the is or is not a god, it says it does not know. What science does says is there is not enough evidence to make a statement, it also says so far the universe does not need a god to achieve the universe as provided by religion or the science conducted so far. There are some individual scientists that say therein no god. You will notice there is no university degree in atheism but absurdly a degree in theism which of course is nauseating and incompetent to boot.
Ok boomer
That´s how it went by me to. As was realy an evolutionist and knew before my twelth (1972) what DNA was. My mother bouth me endlessly scientific books popular scientific ecyclopedia etc because beside strips it wa the only thing I red, but then a lot. later I recieved a book ´Èvolution or creation',I wasn´t agree with everything but it started me to investigate everythig about it as also everything about prophesies and I still do. Every new discovery gives more trust into the bible and creation.
Would you accept the subjective experience of miracles as evidence?
No
By definition, no, science can not investigate the supernatural.
That is why holy spirit has a zillion different one way only.
It depends on how you define "science". He said supernatural testimonies could be examined using forensic science, but it's difficult to investigate supernatural events if being repeatable is a condition, because each miracle is different. Even if someone came with an xray showing cancer in the lungs, and then someone prayed for that person and they were healed such that a new xray showed no cancer, that's not scientific as some would define it because you can't repeat it in the same person. You could, however, use forensics to look at conditions before and after and then arrive at a conclusion. Would someone who doesn't believe in miracles accept that as scientific evidence? I don't think many would.
fanatic , so called scientist lennox !!
Lennox picks the exmaple of a one shot event and says that is why science cant examine theism. But notice he uses that to dismiss the scientifi method. Well that is disingenuous because there are theists claiming that there are many events happening regularly that they believe proves the existence of god, such as prayer, miracles, God speaks to me etc etc. I know that at least one of those, prayer has been subjected to scientific examination and proven that is does not work.
Hi Righteous Paladin,
Just because there is no way to prove there is NO God, does not mean you can factully assert that "there is no God". All you can reasonably say, is that there is no evidence yet, or good reason to think there is one.
Once again, this is not an "article of faith", this is simply being sceptical, and waiting for the evidence to come in. There is no need to "believe"... an athiest simply waits for the evidence.
Law > Science
No, science can’t investigate miracles, since things that aren’t can’t be investigated.
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI : i know: i had the same with Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter...
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI : i know!
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI : i’m into “ TH-cam keeps me bombarding me with video’s of adults reasoning like children and i don’t know how to avoid it. “
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI : if I would get a dollar for each one, I would be rich!
SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI : planet earth.
Yude be surprised
The “benefit” of religion is to put their “trust” in something that can’t be proven. In virtually ever other aspect people can put “trust” in real-world phenomena and their consequences. Such phenomena can be empirically investigated with real-world methods and technologies. “True” conclusions directly related to empirical data can be reasonably relied upon. A good basis for “trust”. Religious leaders have for centuries carried out a program to equate “faith” to trust but they are essentially opposites. Trust is built on evidence. Faith is based upon unsubstantiated belief. Faith is in the absence of evidence. Treating them as the same thing is deception. Even though one might find in a dictionary under the definition of “faith” the use of “trust” as a synonym. It’s in the dictionary because that’s how people often use the terms as equivalents. But conceptually they are opposites.
Why do you always have to defend God.. All he needs is to come down here and talk to us... And then instead of this debates we would all be utilising our time with new inventions..
@@titaniumspecial4207 there will be no ressurection but you are allowed to keep hoping...
If you see him, are you sure you wouldnt believe you saw a hallucination?
God speaks to many , many people , hour after hour and day after day .
He is most certainly not silent.
The Supernatural is just that.
Beyond the comprehension of even the sharpest minds upon earth.
That is why Jesus said that unless we believe simply , as a child , we will not enter the Kingdom.
Our intelligence ( or lack of it ) hinders our daily walk of faith.
God bless .
Without a god there is no morality. Without morality human behaviour degrades rapidly. That is why people want others to believe in a god. Nietzsche the great atheist writer predicted the ideologies of the 18th & 19th century and their utterly murderous tendencies. After all, without a moral code even murder is not wrong.
@@titaniumspecial4207 Too bad at the time there were no cameras. Just people who said other people saw things.
No. if you say "a-theist" it does not mean "not believe in God" but "believe in no God".
do not put the "not" before the the "believe" because the "a" is for the "theo" term. therefore atheist = belief that there is no God.
and NOT this:
does not believe in God.
Takes a long time not to answer the question.
John Lennox doesn't want to accept the newly acquired growing knowledge and information about the world in which we live because in doing so dismisses a intelligent god designer .
The God answer is for lazy minded biased thinkers as god did it to replace evidential knowledge , yet when you ask a creationist can you then define what is a god, usually you get imaginary nonsense.
That's your misguided opinion and your silly assertion. You obviously have not listened to him very much. Nothing disproves God. You simply just don't WANT God to exist is all.
Ok in MATTHEW 12:40
It gives a clear understanding how Jesus was raised amongst the dead...
Just like Johan was in the belly of the fish 3 days so will the son of man be in the heart of the earth 3 days......ok understandable Jonah was alive then Jesus must of still been alive....
What gets me is......LAZARUS? I can't find anything on how or if he really was raised from death.....but I don't think he was dead cause in JOHN 11:4
it says Jesus said this sickness is not with death as it's object...
This sounds like Lazarus wasn't dead neither
The bible say that he stinketh, ie decaying and he was dead for 4 days
@@jimcunningham7341 Isaiah 26:14
14 They are dead; they will not live.
Powerless in death, they will not rise up.
For you have turned your attention to them
To annihilate them and destroy all mention of them.
@@jimcunningham7341 Resurrection.” Gr., a·naʹsta·sis, “raising up; standing up” (from a·naʹ, “up” and staʹsis, “standing”); Lat., re·sur·recʹti·o.
@@jimcunningham7341 Matthew 27:64
64 Therefore, command that the grave be made secure until the third day, so that his disciples may not come and steal him and say to the people, ‘He was raised up from the dead!’ Then this last deception will be worse than the first.”.....WHAT IS THE FIRST DECEPTION? Lazarus?
@@pearltears8039 the first deception was wot jesus was doing before the being taken to the cross
John Lennox admits there is no rational reason to believe miracles.
Thanks, John.
Wait. Are you suggesting that he made that assertion in this clip specifically? Because I didn't catch that. He said that it is impossible to test the claim of a miracle using experiments, because they are not readily replicable. There are plenty of things that all people have rational reasons to believe that they cannot test.
Here's an interesting reality, a decade or more ago scientists did some work in hospitals where they had a range of non-scientific healers practice their given voodoo on a series of patients who didn't have life threatening conditions. With out any irony those that did the worst were the patients who had christians pray for them. The scientists suggested that may have been the case because the patients may have perceived that their condition was worse than they thought, because they were prayed for, the honesty of science. Not that the scientist were speculating that any magic had happened but that the very act of praying over a person put fear in the patients.
Not necessarily. Agnosticism (and gnosticism) refer to what you know, whereas theism (and atheism) refer to what you believe and are not mutually exclusive. Knowledge being a subset of belief.
i.e. You could be an
Agnostic - Atheist
Gnostic - Atheist
Agnostic - Theist
Gnostic - Theist
Going back to my analogy.
You may find a person not guilty because the prosecution has not proved their case (Agnostic), or you may find them not guilty because the defence has proved them innocent (gnostic)
The term "A-theism", is the opposite of "theism"...which is to say, the "theist" believes there is a God, and the "a-theist" does not believe there is one...but neither can rationally assert certainty over what they believe.
What evidence do you see for the existance of a god? im constantly looking, and would genuinly like to know your thoughts. Cheers.
The evidence for or against a god is generally the same evidence but viewed from a different perspective. The atheist sees cells and says evolution created these through billions of years of natural selection and reproduction. The theist observes cells and sees a designer. So in that way it is hard to show the definitive proof one way or the other through scientific observation. The question should be - which process is more likely, and which process requires more evidence-less faith to believe? As we cannot prove how the big bang happened, but we can point to the laws of thermodynamics and other laws of nature to give indications. On the other hand the universe and our solar system in particular runs to an unbelievable level of specificity to house biological life. Can a random process like evolution be completely responsible for hyper complex non random life? Or is it more likely that there is intelligence in the universe that A. Started the process and B.started biological life. Personally I see both as valid viewpoints, intelligence more than likely had something to do with starting the universe, evolution may be apart of the process ( or some greater meta process we haven't discovered yet) to continue life.
Miracles. Actual miracles. Origin of universe, life, and mind/ consciousness. Biden being elected.
Christian faith doesn’t like methods and sequencing, they constantly see little miracles while expecting big ones. The greatest for most, would be heaven. And without missing a beat, equally as acceptable is the destruction of this great planet.
No / it’s fourth dimension
John Lennox face palm @ 2:16
The question should have been phrased "Can science investigate something that didn't happen"
I don't think any reasonable scientist would waste their time.
_"The latest physics shows quantum mind can operate non locally ( outside time/space.)"_
In the reality we live in, there's no evidence of quantum minds at all. It's also highly misleading to call the evidence for non-local interaction "outside time and space".
_"Get with the current physics . Quantum biology is on fire these days with discovery."_
Quantum effects are part of the natural world. They don't get you to magic or disembodied minds. To suggest that they do is just asinine.
Gnomefro Quantum physics operating within the brain , producing mind, is well proven today, you can eat your own words along with Krauss.
Quantum physics is NOT classical physics, classical physics is dead.
"misleading to call the evidence for non-local interaction "outside time and space"."
No it isn't. Its perfectly reasonable and logical. Follow the evidence in science or run for the comfort of the new atheist dark age.
The atom model in your profile picture is about as accurate as your world view.
The atom model in your profile picture is about as accurate as your world view.
I thought Benny hill was dead.
No, he's busy being investigated by the Feds. This is John Lennox. :P
Science is not inductive as Lennox wants us to believe. Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, relegated this notion to the dustbin with rigorous logic.
That's a subjective statement
He did the exact opposite
@@stevencagle9640 Wrong. Logic is not subjective!
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Who? Popper?
Science uses all types of logic?
"I have to leave it there I'm afraid " yeah it is subjective , he can't prove a jot.
Three and a half minutes of saying fuck all.
"Veritas" means "truth" - a little arrogant don't you think?
Lennox is a word spinner. As far as the "goodness" of religion, I think we need to examine the net benefit of it. That is, it may give people a nice feeling, but it also gives them an excuse for the most vile behaviour. In fact even encourages that behaviour. You can't accept the one side, the "goodness", without also accepting the evil. Does the evil overbalance the good. I would suggest that the body count really favours the evil side.
Evidence to proof something that created by god is not similar to find evidences about God Himself. There is no way to proof and confirm God do exist because after the life of religious founder, God never reveal Himself. All the evidences were based on hearsay and indirect. And there are no more miracles observed today. God may be exist but we do not know which God is a real God.
John deluded Lennox
since he didn't have an answer to the question on this video, i guess the answer is no.
Steve Fowler Definition of miracle is something that cannot be verified by natural or scientific laws...
The answer was to approach it with forensic and historical sciences and not to run experiments over and over again, because a miracle is most often described as a divine event that violates, overrules, or overcomes the laws of nature and is most often a singularity that cannot be done (by mankind) over and over again anyways.
Jeffrey Emrick Atheists are asking for scientific proofs of God :)
He is right about the fact that we can’t test miracles the same way as for physical phenomana and that’s works against god because othetwise we would be very sure about his existence. That also makes harder to believe there is a god. God doesn’t seem to make miracles that makes clear it was a miracle, like for example we know we can’t grow limbs back (yet) and such a miracle never happened (yet).
There are many things that show god is highly unlikely and nothing that shows there is a high chance he exists
I have personally experienced what we term miracles. Answers to prayer, even when I did not intend to receive an answer! Can I prove it to you? Well, perhaps. You would have to believe what I told you happened. I am not sure that is possible. However, from the few I have personally experienced I can tell you that they are rare, at least the ones that are immediately recognizable. But they are undeniable and outside the realm of natural occurrence and probability. I was a computer scientist in my former, pre-retirement life and understand mathematics and logic very well. Not at the John Lennox level by no means but very well. I am very familiar with many facets of scientific endeavor. What I have experienced were very personal and well outside the realm of natural occurrence. They were extra-natural. I feel outrageously privileged to have had God interact with me in such a fashion. Why me? One of the first questions I intend to ask God when I finally meet Him.
Crazy comment. Just shows how deluded people become from religion.
Leshkaka1, it's unfortunate that atheists don't think a lot...
John Lennox talks, but doesn't say anything.
You weren’t listening
@@butlerbees6639 I was.
@@briancummings7491 the entire 3 minutes was an answer. If you’re looking to cut to the chase for an answer to the question in the title of the video; start at 2:45 and listen.
Questions for the theists:
-Did god travel away from earth after he created life or is he still around?
-Does god occupy space(atoms/molecules)? If yes how many cubic feet? What is the density? If no then how can a non space occupying agent have power?
-Does god watch everything & everyone at once & remembers what everyone does or records each person on a DVD & plays it back later for us on judgement day?
-If god had the DVD technology 2000 yrs ago why didn't he put the holly book on DVD?
Zachary Higgins If God didn’t occupy space, does that mean Jesus was never a true God?
DonTheMessenger ever heard of the trinity?
Miracles don't happen unless I allow it PERIOD!!
He gave absolutely ZERO relevant input to this title. CAn't test a resurrection, um, ya, you could. AND, THAT's your only example. Utter nonsense.
What a load of waffle.The contortions believers have to go through to male the resurrection viable are farcical.
Talks absolute rubbish
Ok, his god is imaginary.
What a load of bollocks!
I'd like to see you try to debate against John Lennox then tell me if u think you can call it a load of Bollocks
Jay Girgis You're right Jay - how could I debate against an adult who believes in fairy tales? I'd try to ask him some straight, simple questions, like many of his questioners do at these type of events - but the problem is Jay, he never gives a straight answer! He talks religobabble bollocks. But don't take my word for it - check out just about any of his videos where he 'answers' (i.e. doesn't answer!) questions from the audience at the end. He has lots of tricks to 'not answer', but his favorite seems to be to field multiple questions at once (while giving an extremely dubious reason as to why) in order to fudge his answers between them and better dodge the difficult ones! Go on, check out your hero - I dare you.
Ian M I already have checked him out and he's no strawman like you make him out to be.And It's definitely fairy tales he believes in since it has overwhelming historical evidence like the eyewitnesses of the miracles of poppo or the writings of Josephus who wasn't christian
Jay Girgis "In Dyfed, twelve people watched a beautiful mermaid bathing in the water. She had the body of a beautiful human woman but a black tail splashed from behind her. This real mermaid sighting occurred in July of 1826 and was talked about for years after the occurrence."
Jay, this was reported in the local paper at the time and presumably you think this is 'overwhelming evidence" too? Let's just say we have a different standard of evidence - you believe what you want to be true and I want to believe what is true.
Ian M LOL, one man claimed he saw it and it was in the newspaper that is barely evidence. U consider one mans theory that lightning struck mud and no one was there to see it but it caused cells to grow and think
Dr. Lennox is deluded and halucination.
Dr. Richard is more rational.
I won't watch it, just want to say, that I don't care what John Lennox thinks about science, his views are antiscientific. Miracles don't happen
2:05 "Richard Dawkins notion that religion has zero benefits". Richard Dawkins agrees that religion has positive benefits. It is well known. Richard Dawkins is an honest scientist.
John Lennox is a smug liar. He sneaks in little bullshit comments like this all the time. It's dishonest and petty. He knows better.
Kadui Saui oh really... I thought Dawkins have said to ridicule believers...
Dawkins didn’t write how religion benefits us in his book the god delusion. All I read was that religion is the ultimate evil to society lol
James Veerdog.
What about (the devil delusion ) by david berlinski 😝
Suman Dulal what about it?
James Veerdog david berlinski Reply on the god delusion. I think you should read it too.
Typical Lennox behaviour. He uses the example of murder and some how uses it to support the idea of a resurrection!!! But his glaring error is: Humans exist, and murders are also an objective part of reality. A resurrection isn't. But in his mind, he cannot be wrong.