Another great episode. I think it’s nice to have a few of these responses to non-serious thinkers because like it or not a lot of people take them seriously
Lennox is a buffoon, even if he could mount a reasonable case for the necessity of some deistic prime mover (whose attributes would remain mysterious), he is willing to assert a patently mythological, provincial god, the origins of which can be traced historically to a polytheistic culture and whose appearance has antecedents millennia to 'his' arrival. A god which has had numerous makeovers and upgrades to suit all to human and much disputed characteristics. It's wholly disingenuous to propose a particular divinity and to have access to the mind of an entity for which eligibility as a candidate has not yet been established as even possible, let alone sufficient or necessary.
Divine Command theory doesn't equate to objective morality (it does give an out for theodicy... It simply allows the theist to say that what appears to be evil from a mere mortal perspective is actually serving a good from a god's eye view). If good is whatever god deems it to be, then we are beholden to that god's prescriptive (subjective) moral injunctions.
@@mausperson5854 Lennox had no problem with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or Peter Atkins. Was Lennox just lucky or are all superstar atheists bigger buffoons?
If our minds are truly an untrustworthy product of random, unguided processes, then religion, not science, should be the first thing we throw out the window. Religion has no safeguards or falsifiability features. Science, on the other hand, is our best toolset for separating bad explanations from good ones. Science is an imperfect process done by imperfect minds, but it forces us to learn true things by striving mercilessly to prove ourselves wrong.
Oh man! I’m an atheist who goes way back in the online Christian atheist debate wars. John Lennox for me has always been the most insufferable of the apologists. His good natured sounding avuncular tone turns out to be the slimy overlay on what is just a sophistic used car salesman for Christianity. He’s not remotely intellectually honest. I’m glad you guys caught him out early on that initial anecdote . Lennox, does this every bloody time: he always has his anecdote about his cleverly getting the better of some unnamed atheist (or sometimes named atheist). it’s always to make himself the clever victor and of course we never hear the actual other side of the story if it ever even happened or not. What galls me the most is the way he constantly plays up up his scientific mathematician bona fides, all in-service of assuring his Christian listeners that “ I’m a sophisticated scientist so of course Christianity is compatible with science and don’t let the atheists tell you otherwise.” And then he makes all sorts of disingenuous moves in service of this claim. Like I remember one time he was crowing about how his Christianity was perfectly compatible with his science, because Christianity isn’t simply about Blind Faith. No, you see Christianity makes “testable claims.” For instance claims about how your life will be changed if you follow Christ. Of course “testable claims” in this instance is merely the same type of “try it and see for yourself” claims for literally every thing you can imagine - psychic reading, tarot cards, Healing crystals, every New Age nostrum you can find at the local psychic fair, every cult every religion comes with the same level of “testable claims.” This of course, ignores the very specific way science tests claims that distinguishes it from all of these informal ways of trying things out that do not have control controls for all sorts of variables like bias effects, etc. In other words, he’s leaving out precisely what distinguishes science from what he’s doing. Precisely the method that distinguishes reliable knowledge from the type of woo he is peddling. But he knows that if he just crows about being a scientist, and uses terms like “testable” the willing listener will associate such terms with science and build his own mental bridge as Lennox actually made an argument “ testable yes I know that word they use it in science!” No one makes me want to gag more than listening to Lennox.
You wrote, "John Lennox for me has always been the most insufferable of the apologists." I have to disagree with you on this. His rhetorical gimmicks are just standard operating procedure with most Christian apologetics rhetoric. He's no worse than most Christian apologists.
@@steveg1961 I think it’s obvious I was speaking for myself . I simply cannot stand his faux avuncular, self satisfied, smug delivery. He’s doing sophistry, constantly trying to make the case that believing an ancient text account of a resurrection is consistent with being a scientist. Uses every sophistic trick in the book when it’s clear he knows what he’s doing.
Even if the clips were mostly not serious, the responses were terrifically interesting. I’ve even bookmarked this video to re-listen later, and this is the first SciPhi episode I’ve bookmarked. Great episode, guys.
Darwin’s “doubt” is often misconstrued by Christian apologists like Lennox (and Stephen Meyer who wrote a whole book on the topic). When read in context, it becomes blatantly apparent that Darwin wasn’t worried that his theory would lead to some sort of global skepticism. He was concerned that evolution might cause us to doubt (a) particularly abstruse metaphysical and theological beliefs, and (b) beliefs arrived at by ‘intuition’ rather than evidence-based reasoning. He did not worry that unguided evolution should lead us to doubt all of our beliefs in the way Plantinga and others have implied that it does.
No, Meyer's book does not spend much time on this particular doubt. Meyer's focus is entirely different. You might actually read Meyer's book and see which doubt he quotes and cites. Hint -- pages 6-18 in paperback edition.
It seems to me even WORSE to say, as the doctor, that God has cancer as well. Like tremendously worse. That's the worst answer to the pastoral question I can think of 🤣
That was the best quip, for sure. You know, I've been subbed to this channel for years and years but so rarely do I actually watch a video but I decided to listen to this one in part because I wanted to hear a different set of takes on Lennox, because I find him so swarmy and dishonest.
@@PhilHalper1 I actually downloaded them all after leaving my comment, but I'd like to leave a small critique. The naming/numbering scheme is inconsistent so it would be appreciated if you could keep those consistent. This makes organizing downloads easier but also catching up for those who can't watch regularly. Thanks!
I always thought Lennox was an intelligent theist, but his rejection of evolution relegates him to the level of Ken Ham/Ray Comfort with a fancy degree.
Putting whatever intelligence one has aside and believing in stupid shit despite it, is all the same as to believe stupid shit for being stupid! It's also why there are no "Intelligent theists" in any sensible sense!
@michaelnewsham...got to agree or it's possible he is intelligent but intellectually dishonest which I think is rather common amongst apologists... since they keep repeating the same old tired arguments despite having had it explained to them many times why the argument is bull.
One of the disingenuous elements of folks brining up doubt of Darwin is what he was doubtful of. His main issues were that he lacked a credible mechanism of inheritance, and appeared to not have finsihed reading Mendel before he died or at least didn't consider it. That was the main issue of him in his life time. A lot of it is just kind of preying on the fact that well, he made the theory. It got refined since then and unlike Biblical stuff, theories change to fit the evidence.
Unlike biblical stuff which actually is confirmed all the time by archeology and science in general darwinism really is bankrupt and in the fields of academia that have to do with evolution everybody seems to know Darwins ideas are bunk. That's why they, even dawkins escaped into just as rodiculous transspermia teritory
To claim that evolution explains everything by natural selection is a hasty generalisation and glaring overreach. In spite of macroevolution being reconcilable with theism and in spite of the advances in many fields that could provide support for macroevolution, within the scientific method, it remains controversial. The generalisations from microevolution to macroevolution are descriptive, do not follow logically within a consistent framework and lack explanatory power. New terminology is often invented in what appears to be a lack of a rigorous scientific approach. Macroevolution lacks the advantages of rigorous mathematical expression and the power of mathematical effectiveness. There seems to be little use of formulas and accuracy is unknown. It seems to describe nature directly and has many attributes of historical science. Theories are somewhat general and invoke simple-looking principles in a rather ad hoc manner. The relationship between punctuated equilibria, species selection, major transitions, historical contingency and the relationship between micro- and macroevolution are not unambiguously elucidated to form an integrated theory of evolution at large scales. The question arises as to whether these ideas represent something like ‘a heterogeneous grab bag of scientific ideas that are more or less useful in different contexts?’ (Turner & Havstad 2019)
John Lennox must be cast as Friar Tuck in future Robin Hood movies. This could be his greatest role as the chubby balding fellow who loves his food and wine too much, and is used as a comical counterpoint to the darkness of Robin Hood.
I find Lennox to be particularly insufferable. The entirety of our understanding must fit neatly between the interpretation of his preferred religious text. And it would seem he's not adverse to a little misrepresentation of what scientists actually say, I can't say I'm not surprised. Just say it with condescending authority, and keep reminding everyone of your " scientific credentials"
I suspect he's a Proddie Getting labelled with the wrong Cristian sect in sectarian Ireland is like a red rag to a bull. If he heard this said about him, would likely cause havoc to his old ticker
10:57 of course cats have thoughts. My cat knows that I am deaf on my right side and stands on his back legs to tap my arm on that side so he can get my attention and leads me to whatever his issue is that he needs me to deal with.
I agree. Not only can animals be shown to have thoughts but some of them seem to have a "theory of mind" where they try to anticipate the reactions of others.
@@ANKITKUMAR-kc2zwcan’t read George’s mind. But one example I can think of is a Dog who has made a mess in a room you haven’t discovered yet. But you can tell because he is acting “guilty” and being extremely deferential and coy or nervous. Implying the dog recognizes he fucked up. Can predict how you are going to feel about this. And is trying to socially engineer the situation
Despite Theists claim that Lennox is some sort of mathematical guru, he is in fact quite mediocre within that field. Like all apologists he ends up divorcing reason to maintain his world view,
"Despite Theists claim that Lennox is some sort of mathematical guru, he is in fact quite mediocre within that field." And Lenox wishes he had reached mediocrity in apologetics. He really is little to no better than the worst of his apologetic ilk.
His first argument is just the “Brain in a vat “ stuff . He also does the usual ‘ sitting next to someone on a flight” stuff that all apologists do. If you watch his debates you will find that at heart he IS a creationist , he thoroughly dislikes evolution as it completely negates his idea of god created us in his image. He like to play the bumbling friendly uncle but in fact he is vicious , condescending and dismissive of his ‘ science colleagues ‘ He is much more intelligent then them because he is a mathematician. BTW he is not a ‘top’ Cambridge/ Oxford mathematician , look for his published work , you will find little of any note. His professor status is not THE Cambridge , he has some sort of position at Templeton which is not a mainstream college it is an Christian apologetics factory.
I think Lennox does teach us something important that happens with people all around the public sphere: marketing. You can say any old opinion, pretty much in the same words it's always stated in, but with enough marketing your voice can be taken to be more valuable than the next guy's. While I hate the spread of misinformation like Lennox likes to do... goddamn I need to market myself better as a professional 😂
Based upon how far math has evolved through the centuries compared to general philosophy, I allways thought all mathematicians were eager to find any contradiction in an idea and are also consistent then to highlight and correct it when found. All the mathematicians I met during my education lived up to this standard. Then I met this one mathematitian who had developed a little theory in my field of physics. I will not go in any details to leave this guy anonymous, since he publishes every now and then. He persuaded my boss to have the experiment to verify/falsify his theory carried out in our lab. I was to prepare the experiment, a colleague of mine was to then carry it out with me. The mathmatician was there to participate, for he brought the models manufactured according to his theory. We knew upfront, that his theory was based on a severe reduction of possible physical influences, so the outcome of the experiment to proove his theory useful shouldnt have any effects showing up to be dominant that could only be explained by the physical influences his theory ignores. Guess what, the experiment showed exactly those kind of effects to be dominant. So what did he do? After all, he was publishing and promoting his theory for more than a decade by then. Well, he actually tried to sabotage his own experiment by decalibrating the measurement devices, whenever we were not looking. For the most important device, working optically, he just blocked the light path during recording by stepping in the way, pretending to be sooo interested. He was also playing clumsy and allmost destroyed a measurement device by placing it so that it had to fall to the concrete floor soon afterwards. We were lucky to prevent the fall - the device was worth the equivalent of a small automobile. Afterwards, when we dicussed the results that we still were able to get out of the experiment not matching his theory, we layd out to him that the only explanation left for the measured effects is exactly those physicality that his theory lacks and hence the predictions his theory makes are useless to the most degree. He was far from accepting this. Instead he added a small correction term to his theory, so that it would match again the results of one specific measurement run, still ignoring the others, declaring them to be carried out sloppy. For him, the math working was more important than the physics understood. We departed, reminding him that non of our names are to appear on any of his future publications in planning. Today, his flawed theory is still his main source of income - he managed to sell it to the military of his country and other industry endeavours there. One can say he is successful in a way, but one cant say he is an good scientist. He shares more than this one thing with Lennox: He was also allways smiling when lying.
@@petermeyer6873 Thank You, it was a great read. It's a real shame that people like that are able to prosper and monetize their deceptions. Personally it disgusts me...
@@petermeyer6873 Frauds are one thing, but at least for me the study of maths was very helpful to reason myself out of faith. In particular it was foundations and axiomatic reasoning, I figured a God who could be known by reason is therefore not atomic and is thus open to scrutiny, which was not withstood.
The problem with scientific theists, is that they imagine god to be a smarter version of themselves. Making laws and fine tuning and taking ‘time’ to do things. Where was the workspace? Why didn’t god create everything at once?
The scientific theory of evolution didn’t end with Darwin. The scientific community has learned a lot about evolution since Darwin. We now have the field of genetics and mapping the genome of apes, monkeys and humans.
You are saying a lot of nothing. 1. WHAT has been learned? 2. Mapping the genomes of apes, monkeys and humans has led to... What? (And don't give me that 93% or whatever similarities nonsense. It's been proven that the degree of similarity doesn't prove anything when it comes to tracing a line of descent.) 3. Show a complete evolutionary account of how the apes supposedly evolved into modern homo sapiens. Complete with complete actual skeletons. Not bone fragments that were then wishfully slotted into the so called evolutionary line up. I'm still waiting after 50 years to see such a thing n
@@thetabletopskirmisher So you’re wrong about the 98%, the only people that deny that are science denying creationists. The majority of the scientific community accept the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Kenneth Miller PhD who is a Christian was a witness in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trail showed where modern humans separated from apes. Also endogenous retro viruses prove evolution so does morphology, taxonomy, homologous structures, biology, zoology, and cladistics. You obviously are ignorant of biology. You should have learned this in high school.
@@thetabletopskirmisher Also the co-founder of the human genome project Francis Collins who is an evangelical christian has a website called Biologos that explain why evolution is true. He created it to explain to creationists why scientifically they are wrong. Maybe check it out and educate yourself. Evolution is a scientific theory.
I like how Daniel Linford brought up cladistics in regard to categorization - and what words mean when used in this context. Saying we evolved from monkeys is, in that sense, no different than saying we evolved from fish - because in the context of cladistics, by definition, no descendant branch can ever evolve out of the branch that it started in in the first place. Of course, as Linford points out, we didn't evolve from any existing species of monkey (and we didn't evolve from any existing species of fish). Most directly, Homo sapiens evolved from Homo heidelbergensis - which doesn't change the fact that both Homo sapiens and Homo heidelbergensis are "monkeys" and "fish" in the purely cladistic sense. No species can ever evolve into something outside of its clade - this is purely definitional, in regard to what clades and cladistic categories are.
Love listening to all of you! We will be having Joe Schmid on our channel on 13th of July. We would really love to have Alex, Dan and you (Phil) on as well.
@@daniellinford9643 @PhilHalper1 Thank you both for accepting the invite! I will send streamyard link to both of you as soon as I schedule the stream. Dan, I cannot see your email, I can send the streamyard link to Phil (or even Joe) who can forward it to you. Really excited to have you all come on the channel! Looking forward to it.
Hi Phil, i really liked this reaction video. I wonder what would actually be there for them to say if they are not always all about misrepresentations ,reducing the things, obscuring the much much larger part
Lennox just thinks that because he’s from Oxford in the CS Lewis tradition, he’s a genius. He’s a supercilious, ignoramus… Peter Atkins showed him up as an idiot years ago, yet the right wing still insists he’s a champion. He speaks in fallacies & circular arguments all the time…
Thanks for reminding me about Peter Atkins. I must go back and re-watch that "debate." His cranky intolerance for people like Lennox always lifts my spirits.
@@Hustada Yes. This is absolutely about politics. Did you miss the part about how the religious right wants creationism taught in science class in public schools? Was the fact that Louisiana can now display the ten commandments in public schools completely lost on you? How about the book bans in the US for "vulgarity and violence"? (The subtext of which pertains to any content about LGBTQ or slavery.) Well, that was a knee-slapper because liberal activists were successful in getting the bible banned from libraries and schools in a number of states🤣🤣
@@tsolum4126 he said “the right wing still insist he’s a champion”. A more accurate interpretation would’ve been “Christians(or believers)still insist he’s a champion”. I lean right, am agnostic, and don’t espouse said beliefs. Ideas, when popular, can and do lead to political shifts, I’ll agree with that, but I’m sick of people equating atheism and agnosticism with left wing values. It’s not an accurate or fair correlation.
‘i make the spirit of angels dance upon the waters of my spacetime mind.’ lennox doesn’t really speak/communicate like a real mathematician. i am a mathematician, as was my father, and has been my family business for 400 years. lennox does not speak like us, with poetic elegance . he doesn’t speak ‘mathematically’. his mind disorganized, dimly lit. lennox isn’t a mathematician, he’s a person that forced himself into a field where he is complete mediocrity. he doesn’t have the mind. i can hear it in his flow of thought, how he fails to organize the cosmos. a true mathematical mind organizes reality elegantly, expresses it with poetic mastery. i can easily prove god with math. q.e.d.
Hello Phil, In one of your debates i heard u say in 1998 Hawkins and Penrose retracted their statement about singularity. Can you send me the link i cant find it. Thank you
I think you are confusing Hawking publishing his No Boundary Proposal, which contradicst the singularity in 1983 journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960
Lennox has reached a level of prestige that allows him to be not shy of openly giving illogical reasoning hidden very well in a small story convoluted enough to hinder most people from looking through. In the very first story in this clip ending with the computer he puts it right in the open for us, when he concludes: "...if you knew that it (the computer, which is prooven to work!) was the endproduct of a mindless, unguided process, would you trust it? So what he is asking is to distrust prooven facts just because they can be predicted by explanations (like theories, physical laws) that you dislike. This is an example of a postmodernistic way of constructing reality by personal preference.
Peter, your argument engages in the most obvious example of circular reasoning. It assumes the "proven fact" is a "proven fact" and then uses it as evidence to attack the critique.
@@nunca789 Oh dear, nunca, dont you know how thought experiments work? Lennox himself brought the thought experiment up. He defined the premise, that the computer works as a prooven fact, not me. If you want to argue with the help of a thought experiment, you cannot change the premises, you have to go with them and see where this leads to: Either a valid conclusion from or a contradiction to the premises. All Lennox achieved as a conclusion was, that humans like him tend to distrust things whenever they dislike aspects of them. There is neither circular reasoning on his nor on my behalf. His error was to overlook, that the distrust and dislike are in no way a contradiction/disproove of the premise, they are just irrational. He appealed to feelings disguised as ratio. Furthermore Lennox overlooked that feelings are purely subjective. Subjectivity of feelings is one of those things he has chosen to ignore in most of his arguments in order to hold up his claim of his worldview beeing the only correct one holding absolute and objective values. In answer to your second post: This is about logic, not about whatever you see as grace. What do you even consider to be the "merits of this discussion"?
@@petermeyer6873 I did not hear Dr. Lennox contend that the computer was a "proven fact" -- that wasn't his "thought experiment." As a matter of word meaning and usage, it makes little sense to say a "computer is a proven fact" anyway. Thus, it appears your comment misapprehends the thrust of his point. Your comment about logic and "grace" may not be directed to me, as I did not mention grace anywhere, I don't believe.
1:19:00 i don't _think_ there is an afterlife, the scientist in me says it's not going to be a thing, but the artist in me thinks that this universe - this planet - this country - i live in is going to an awful waste if i can't get to experience as much of it as possible. i find it hard to accept that the universe is this ASTONISHING indescribable beautiful place and i only get to see east croydon. google says i have visited 53 cities, i would like to visit them all, even the toilet cities. that would be my afterlife, to make a sketch everywhere i went. i live in england, i haven't even been to scotland. never mind alpha centauri.
Dan hit the nail on the head regarding both Lennox (who is a rank amateur) and Plantinga (who is a qualified professional) when it comes to naturalism and rationality...Plantinga's argument is a false dichotomy and he should know better.
One of these days, I’d really like to see one of these apologists even attempt to actually argue why “justice” as they are implicitly understanding it should even be regarded as a good or desirable thing in the first place. Frankly, I don’t think that it is. Because their version of ‘justice’ is truly just eye-for-an-eye retribution causing harm for its own sake. If God’s justice was akin to the justice system in the Nordic countries, that would at least be somewhat desirable. But most Christians reject that possibility outright in my experience.
@@Mrguy-ds9lr you think most Christians think Hell is both temporary and purely rehabilitative, and reject retributive justice as a concept and think God does as well?
I'm glad your reply wasn't attacking, but mine was, apologies. You have to start at the beggining,no? I'm referring to the justice, and eye for eye belief. And your understanding of it. Could you give me a litte more context on that? Wo said it? When, like what dispensation?
@@Mrguy-ds9lr honestly, I don’t really understand what you’re asking me to provide. Can you please clarify? I regard the concept of purely retributive “justice” as inherently immoral, as it ultimately just reduces to causing suffering for its own sake. I don’t think punishment should ever be regarded as an end in itself, only as a means TO an end.
A short refutation of Plantinga's argument against Naturalism: Like the human brain in general, our cognitive faculty is a prediction engine. We use cognition to predict whether or not a behavior will produce a desirable outcome. Our desires are generally well-aligned with survival and reproduction. We want to avoid pain, death, social ostracism and we desire food, sex, social support, etc. Since our desires are adaptive, a cognitive faculty that allows us to better and more reliably satisfy those desires will be adaptive.
I'm sure that is quite pedestrian to Plantinga and other apologists, and something they find inadequate. I instead emphasize that just because we aren't necessarily designed to know true things doesn't mean we can't come to know true things, or that we must always be second guessing ourselves. The EAAN is like believing that if you can only walk in a straight line, you also can't look side to side or behind you.
The thing is that truth-tracking CAN often be advantageous for survival, but even if it wasn't, there is no problem with it being just a by product of brains that can already think. The EEAN is just such a weak argument. If its proponent argues that evolution leads to global scepticism and they accept evolution, they should bite the bullet and admit that they can't use their reason to infer God's existence from the observable world. Instead, they suppose that God exists because it would make them feel better if they could think that they know some stuff. The argument is total crap.
I've always found Daniel to be quite a lot. Bit of a conversation hog and maybe mentions his degrees and studies more than is germaine. But he's gotten a lot better. Still room to grow but his commentary is highly relevant and helpful here. Alex is a goddamn gem, and Phil, your channel is operating at a really great pace here. The vids debunking Craig were my first window in, and I've watched some subsequent podcasts like this. Lots of "reaction" vids running around these days that feel like 'content for content's sake' but I think here and there it's appropriate as long as the higher quality stuff is the focus.
Alternative theories to avoid or explain the beginning of the universe (the eternal universe, multiverse, self-contained universe, cyclical universe and a universe out of nothing) overreach and lack credibility. Functions for life demonstrate clear evidence of foresight, coordination and goal-direction, which are all unmistakable signatures of intelligent design. Explanations based on prebiotic abiogenesis are futile. Origin-of-life research points to a Creator. Macroevolution (albeit not incompatible with theism) fails to provide a consistent theoretical framework to explain, for example, a viable mechanism to generate a primordial mechanism for abiogenesis, the origin of the genetic code, the genetic information required for life, the abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record.
Lenox who has done what again? Like, there is some published papers he wrote right? How many? Like all apologists who wave around some PHD or whatever I suspect that Lennox failed in his profession so turned to doing apologetics. He would be an unknown had he stuck to his field.
@@sh0k0nes Yes, yes, yes! I have been making that point for years. If they do not invoke God as evidence in their scientific papers, then their scientific credentials are IRRELEVANT, and they are just another soap-box preacher.
I think it was PZ Meyer's who expressed Dan's eloquent point more atheist's should make: religion is a failed research program. That is what the history of science illustrates. When natural philosophers attempted to apply literal "Biblical" claims to the world and failing miserably. Excellent responses from ALL.
Very enjoyable, thanks. Lennox is popular with Christians as an authority but since most of his science-minded colleagues aren't Christians, he's a cherry-picked PhD.
As long as we're talking about religious mathematicians, I would love to see you guys talk about Frank Tipler. Sift the science from the fantasies, so to speak.
Would I trust an unguided natural process to deliver reliable information? Well, as a species, we used the relative positions of the stars to navigate and feed ourselves for millenia. So, yeah, I sort of would trust unguided natural processes. Of course, that probably just double proves god or something.
1:15:00 when religists say "justice" and "judgement" don't they mean _revenge_ though, i mean isn't "justice" just pointing out that a wrong has been committed, it's "punishment" that follows, that is the justice religists talk about - revenge for doing wrong.
Those blind processes have been optimized for survival by winnowing away genetic lines which produced sub optimal minds. Given the reliability of naive realism over aeons of course we provisionally trust the conclusions a sound mind arrive at. Buttressed with the scientific method our confidence level in methodological naturalism is the best we have as a pathway to knowledge/justified true beliefs.
There's not a conflict between science and the metaphysical beliefs of scientists. God concepts may occupy a non overlapping magisteria to scientific findings, which is as it should be. You can be religious as all get out but if you're a published scientist in any field you won't see you religious convictions represented in your academic work, simply because it's not pertinent to any hypothesis (being unfalsifiable). Theists like Michael BeHe in his theological writing will use his work in evolutionary biology to argue for intelligent design but he doesn't mention intelligent design in his peer reviewed academic work as - Laplace is claimed to have quipped to Napoleon - we have no need for that hypothesis in the sciences.
Right , and that methodological naturalism isxexactly the observable phenomenon that the creator hypothesis was formulated to account for and explain. do athiests offer any competing hypothesis? Or are they only concerned exclusively with the siliencing of ideas instead of contributing any?
@@gregsanich5183 Theism doesn't offer any explanation other than unsupported claims for authorship, which would itself require explanation if it were detectable. You can't just define an entity into existence and expect the claim of even the possibility of candidacy to be met with anything but scepticism, until some tangible evidence is provided.
@@mausperson5854 huh, this is weird. I can't read your whole msg bc you tube isn't responding to me hitting the "read more" button. It won't let me open up your comment so I can only read the 1st 4 lines of it. Idk why that is, did I get kyboshed, I wonder?
@mausperson5854 .....OK, it seems the problem sorted itself out....weird. The observable phenomenon of the existence of reality is real enuf, and there most certainly is an explanation for it. . . . Whether we are ever able to discern conclusively what that explanation happens to be or not, is a different story ofc. But it's human nature to be inclined to explore the unknown. Athiests seem to prefer that we not wonder or speculate about the possibilities, and advocate for us to just embrace ignorance and be satisfied with settle for "I don't know". And while that is certainly their perogative, I don't see that approach as conducive to the advancement of our knowledge and understanding of reality. If mankind had always taken that approach, we would still be stuck in the stone age and have never figured anything out.
If I only would get a cent every time Lennox appeals to authority...I maybe could afford to build as many real straw men as he keeps making up...but thats hard to prove, because its close to infinity devided by infinity.
Nor ever got his degree! More like the village idiot they let run around on campus make believing they are a graduate student, or faculty... for being a harmless sap.
The conceptual foundation of the scientific method (of the demonstrative method) originates in the Hellenistic age. It is surprising that this is not yet very well understood, but it would be enough just to note that it is the same 'founders' of Science, in the sixteenth century (Copernicus), as in the seventeenth (Newton himself in the Scholi, etc.), who wrote this (sometimes a little confusingly), that the origins of their theses were found in... the library (...).
It’s one of the great tragedies of our time that 19 year old conspiracy reaction tiktokkers ideas are preserved with perfect fidelity, yet so many profound thoughts of our great intellectuals are obscured within the echoing chasms of ambient webcam mics or compression artifact ridden wireless headset audio.
If you think it’s worth doing please take the needful time and make a reaction video to a video titled . The video is replete with misrepresentations, false assumptions and all the likes of it.
@@PhilHalper1for some odd reason TH-cam wouldn’t display the link that I have tried to send many times now. The video is titled “THIS is why Science cannot explain reality(ultimately) “and the content creator is Abdullah al Andalusi.
Very good discussion. I spend too much time watching Christian apologist and Creationist videos .. probably for the same sort of reason that people are fascinated with train wrecks .. or maybe that's just me. I feel like I have got back some of the IQ points I have lost.
Lennox's reasons for believing in his god are no more abstruse or genius than that of the lowliest yokel calling in to The Atheist Experience to have his doodad handed to him by the end of his call. It is sad to see the moment when reality and Lennox part ways.
Q: First of all what are you guys drinking? A: Alcoholic beverages, of course! Makes us feel smarter. Everyone feels smarter after drinking a few brews.The more you drink, the better you think.
(((^_^;) The artifacts of a swastika is flobby with stazzle and a jumble that tumbled. That is a skeleton, human heart, signature, internal combustion engine, animation of the big bang and a wave. That unify the universe you can't do with math. A swastika is the simplest rendering possible for those artifacts and needs to be saved.
This idea that Christianity and/or European culture gave us science falls apart when you consider Ibn al-Haytham and the Islamic golden age. Even the likes of Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, or Christiaan Huygens cited the works of Ibn al-Haytham during the scientific revolution. And Ibn al-Haytham was not a lone luminary: he expressed views that are thought to be shared by other Islamic figures of the time. I think it is fair to say that science was born in Islamic societies, not in Europe.
I don't think so. The Greeks were doing science long before. But that isn't to deny that the Islamic golden age made serious efforts to improve science, like the idea of controls, for example which I think dates back to Ibn al-Haytham
f(^ー^; We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
I have a suggestion!!!! More of this taking the enemies of reality apart! 🤗 I didn't invest $1600 on certified A class face palm protection for no reason!!!
1:22:18 The other thing I'd point out is, even if God has a plan that requires suffering, why couldn't he have made it so the only people in those roles are p-zombies who don't actually suffer?
what i've always found stupid is, religists should have god blessed lives - and they don't, but maybe they are being tested with suffering, and that atheists should suffer - but MY life has been brilliant, so what is going on? and surely if you get punished or rewarded in the afterlife, who gives a monkeys what happens in this life, anyone can do anything they want and they will wind up where they are meant to be anyway. religion confuses me.
They always want to talk about a human today in the 21th century, with universities and space travel and all that technology. We were still the Homo species, when we first discovered fire 1 million years ago, when we were just like orangutans and chimpansees in the savannah. We were humans 400.000 years ago when we made first buildings, we were humans 10.000 years ago before agriculture. So humans going to space is just one seconds ago in evolutionary history. Before that, yes we were no different than monkeys, orangutans and chimpansees. Humans were not the humans as today and now, proportionally we were like apes, monkeys nd orangutans.
35:00 either god had a universe "in stock" which was already created, or he had "nothing in stock" which means he created the universe from - nothing. i don't see how religists are in any better position than atheists, in fact quantum fluctuations in the vacuum state (me an artist too) is more plausible than the invisible man.
(^^; This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
it made sense to our ancestors that 'God divide the waters' .. the bottom part becomes the sea when God later stretched out a pancake piece of real estate; the top part becomes the blue sky/firmament of water where clouds and rains come from
Lennox confused? Does he believe that there are *laws* of nature or does he believe in miracles? Both can’t be true. If miracles can happen then the perceived laws of nature are a prank by god(s).
1:15:00 that's quite an interesting point, if i am an atheist but i make up some BS idea of how fantastic things will be in the afterlife, is that immoral? to comfort or console someone with a pack of blatant lies i myself don't believe, is it immoral to tell someone, yeah, the afterlife is 72 virgins a bottle of jonnie walker 1870 and a tesla. religists do this all the time, and they also do the opposite - have you read the comments left on religious pages regarding dan dennett's passing? jeez what pool filth the christians have on their team.
Again it's annoying when philosophers try to be historians, either on a theist of atheist side. Like, Alex Malpass just doesn't have the expertise to answer the question of how science began. He just doesn't. Philosophers need to stay in their lane.
(・・;) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of '76 by The Alarm.
🌍 A world where things worked but there were *no* laws of physics might appear to be god-controlled. A world where chemical reactions always do the same under the same conditions doesn’t imply god, but it does make a god unnecessary as an explanation.
The discovery that the universe had a beginning and the abundant scientific evidence for fine-tuning is best explained by theism. The phrase ‘global fine-tuning’ refers to fine-tuning of initial conditions, fundamental forces and other physical laws and constants for an expanding universe and the formation of galaxies, stars and planets. The phrase ‘local fine-tuning’ refers to the protection of the earth by the planetary giants, Earth’s life-sustaining capabilities, water and its miraculous properties for life, Earth’s rare habitability fine-tuned for life and scientific discovery. The phrase ‘biological fine-tuning’ is linked to the ‘Argument from Irreducible Complexity and the Argument from Biological Information.
Another great episode. I think it’s nice to have a few of these responses to non-serious thinkers because like it or not a lot of people take them seriously
indeed, thanks for the comment
Lennox is a buffoon, even if he could mount a reasonable case for the necessity of some deistic prime mover (whose attributes would remain mysterious), he is willing to assert a patently mythological, provincial god, the origins of which can be traced historically to a polytheistic culture and whose appearance has antecedents millennia to 'his' arrival. A god which has had numerous makeovers and upgrades to suit all to human and much disputed characteristics. It's wholly disingenuous to propose a particular divinity and to have access to the mind of an entity for which eligibility as a candidate has not yet been established as even possible, let alone sufficient or necessary.
Divine Command theory doesn't equate to objective morality (it does give an out for theodicy... It simply allows the theist to say that what appears to be evil from a mere mortal perspective is actually serving a good from a god's eye view). If good is whatever god deems it to be, then we are beholden to that god's prescriptive (subjective) moral injunctions.
@@PhilHalper1LOL 😂 only in your dreams!!!
@@mausperson5854 Lennox had no problem with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or Peter Atkins. Was Lennox just lucky or are all superstar atheists bigger buffoons?
If our minds are truly an untrustworthy product of random, unguided processes, then religion, not science, should be the first thing we throw out the window. Religion has no safeguards or falsifiability features. Science, on the other hand, is our best toolset for separating bad explanations from good ones. Science is an imperfect process done by imperfect minds, but it forces us to learn true things by striving mercilessly to prove ourselves wrong.
Of course, if we apply your logic, then the untrustworthy mind came up with your suggestion. Right?
The fact that Christains are taken in by Lennox's smooth talk shows how gullible they are
Most Christians are very gullible agreed. Still they have ways to go to match the churchians of scientism in terms of gullibility
Oh man! I’m an atheist who goes way back in the online Christian atheist debate wars. John Lennox for me has always been the most insufferable of the apologists. His good natured sounding avuncular tone turns out to be the slimy overlay on what is just a sophistic used car salesman for Christianity. He’s not remotely intellectually honest.
I’m glad you guys caught him out early on that initial anecdote . Lennox, does this every bloody time: he always has his anecdote about his cleverly getting the better of some unnamed atheist (or sometimes named atheist). it’s always to make himself the clever victor and of course we never hear the actual other side of the story if it ever even happened or not.
What galls me the most is the way he constantly plays up up his scientific mathematician bona fides, all in-service of assuring his Christian listeners that “ I’m a sophisticated scientist so of course Christianity is compatible with science and don’t let the atheists tell you otherwise.”
And then he makes all sorts of disingenuous moves in service of this claim.
Like I remember one time he was crowing about how his Christianity was perfectly compatible with his science, because Christianity isn’t simply about Blind Faith. No, you see Christianity makes “testable claims.” For instance claims about how your life will be changed if you follow Christ.
Of course “testable claims” in this instance is merely the same type of “try it and see for yourself” claims for literally every thing you can imagine - psychic reading, tarot cards, Healing crystals, every New Age nostrum you can find at the local psychic fair, every cult every religion comes with the same level of “testable claims.”
This of course, ignores the very specific way science tests claims that distinguishes it from all of these informal ways of trying things out that do not have control controls for all sorts of variables like bias effects, etc.
In other words, he’s leaving out precisely what distinguishes science from what he’s doing. Precisely the method that distinguishes reliable knowledge from the type of woo he is peddling.
But he knows that if he just crows about being a scientist, and uses terms like “testable” the willing listener will associate such terms with science and build his own mental bridge as Lennox actually made an argument “ testable yes I know that word they use it in science!”
No one makes me want to gag more than listening to Lennox.
But even those few testable claims can be falsified by any apostate, leaving all Christian predictions to be either falsified or (edit: un)falsifiable
You wrote, "John Lennox for me has always been the most insufferable of the apologists."
I have to disagree with you on this. His rhetorical gimmicks are just standard operating procedure with most Christian apologetics rhetoric. He's no worse than most Christian apologists.
@@steveg1961 imo his smugness and obesity is more striking than the slithering snake that is Kent Hovind
@@steveg1961
I think it’s obvious I was speaking for myself . I simply cannot stand his faux avuncular, self satisfied, smug delivery. He’s doing sophistry, constantly trying to make the case that believing an ancient text account of a resurrection is consistent with being a scientist. Uses every sophistic trick in the book when it’s clear he knows what he’s doing.
@QuintEssential-sz2wn Do you remember the old "usenet" discussion groups back in the day? I participated in those too, many years ago.
Even if the clips were mostly not serious, the responses were terrifically interesting. I’ve even bookmarked this video to re-listen later, and this is the first SciPhi episode I’ve bookmarked. Great episode, guys.
Darwin’s “doubt” is often misconstrued by Christian apologists like Lennox (and Stephen Meyer who wrote a whole book on the topic). When read in context, it becomes blatantly apparent that Darwin wasn’t worried that his theory would lead to some sort of global skepticism. He was concerned that evolution might cause us to doubt (a) particularly abstruse metaphysical and theological beliefs, and (b) beliefs arrived at by ‘intuition’ rather than evidence-based reasoning. He did not worry that unguided evolution should lead us to doubt all of our beliefs in the way Plantinga and others have implied that it does.
thanks for the comment, very well made.
No, Meyer's book does not spend much time on this particular doubt. Meyer's focus is entirely different. You might actually read Meyer's book and see which doubt he quotes and cites. Hint -- pages 6-18 in paperback edition.
@@nunca789 are you referring to the Cambrian “explosion “?
"... but the good news is, I've got cancer as well!" 😂 I lost it there, too funny😂
thanks
It seems to me even WORSE to say, as the doctor, that God has cancer as well. Like tremendously worse. That's the worst answer to the pastoral question I can think of 🤣
That was the best quip, for sure.
You know, I've been subbed to this channel for years and years but so rarely do I actually watch a video but I decided to listen to this one in part because I wanted to hear a different set of takes on Lennox, because I find him so swarmy and dishonest.
@@ThePharphis thanks, glad you liked it. please do check out the other video in the Scihie series th-cam.com/video/e8vB3ZyS3dY/w-d-xo.html
@@PhilHalper1 I actually downloaded them all after leaving my comment, but I'd like to leave a small critique. The naming/numbering scheme is inconsistent so it would be appreciated if you could keep those consistent. This makes organizing downloads easier but also catching up for those who can't watch regularly.
Thanks!
I once called him a fool when he's talking about religion and a Christian apologist was outraged without being able to tell me why.
I always thought Lennox was an intelligent theist, but his rejection of evolution relegates him to the level of Ken Ham/Ray Comfort with a fancy degree.
Putting whatever intelligence one has aside and believing in stupid shit despite it, is all the same as to believe stupid shit for being stupid! It's also why there are no "Intelligent theists" in any sensible sense!
Evolution is a study of effects which do not have causes.
@michaelnewsham...got to agree or it's possible he is intelligent but intellectually dishonest which I think is rather common amongst apologists... since they keep repeating the same old tired arguments despite having had it explained to them many times why the argument is bull.
@@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279apologists are most definitely intellectually dishonest, otherwise they wouldn't be apologists. 🤷♂️
@@davidarbogast37 👍
lennox should dress up as father christmas. cos that's how religists see him.
One of the disingenuous elements of folks brining up doubt of Darwin is what he was doubtful of. His main issues were that he lacked a credible mechanism of inheritance, and appeared to not have finsihed reading Mendel before he died or at least didn't consider it. That was the main issue of him in his life time. A lot of it is just kind of preying on the fact that well, he made the theory. It got refined since then and unlike Biblical stuff, theories change to fit the evidence.
Unlike biblical stuff which actually is confirmed all the time by archeology and science in general darwinism really is bankrupt and in the fields of academia that have to do with evolution everybody seems to know Darwins ideas are bunk. That's why they, even dawkins escaped into just as rodiculous transspermia teritory
To claim that evolution explains everything by natural selection is a hasty
generalisation and glaring overreach. In spite of macroevolution being
reconcilable with theism and in spite of the advances in many fields that
could provide support for macroevolution, within the scientific method, it
remains controversial. The generalisations from microevolution to
macroevolution are descriptive, do not follow logically within a consistent
framework and lack explanatory power. New terminology is often invented in
what appears to be a lack of a rigorous scientific approach.
Macroevolution
lacks the advantages of rigorous mathematical expression and the power of mathematical effectiveness. There seems to be little use of formulas and
accuracy is unknown. It seems to describe nature directly and has many
attributes of historical science. Theories are somewhat general and invoke
simple-looking principles in a rather ad hoc manner. The relationship between
punctuated equilibria, species selection, major transitions, historical
contingency and the relationship between micro- and macroevolution are
not unambiguously elucidated to form an integrated theory of evolution at
large scales. The question arises as to whether these ideas represent
something like ‘a heterogeneous grab bag of scientific ideas that are more or
less useful in different contexts?’ (Turner & Havstad 2019)
Applying a hedonic calculus, I can confidently say that every time a new episode pops up in my feed, my positive utility spikes by over 9000%!
thats really kind of you to say, much appreicated
@@PhilHalper1:)
Please show your work. 😛
@@rembrandt972ify Ask Vegeta.
John Lennox must be cast as Friar Tuck in future Robin Hood movies. This could be his greatest role as the chubby balding fellow who loves his food and wine too much, and is used as a comical counterpoint to the darkness of Robin Hood.
well friar tuck was a nice guy though.
@@HarryNicNicholas Yes, in the way of affable know-nothings.
He'd be better dressed up as a leprechaun he's far better off as a magic 🎩
How about Triar Fuck?
@@RafalLabuda777 I'm a word nerd too and I like your play on words. Is it a bit too randy for this audience?
I find Lennox to be particularly insufferable. The entirety of our understanding must fit neatly between the interpretation of his preferred religious text. And it would seem he's not adverse to a little misrepresentation of what scientists actually say, I can't say I'm not surprised.
Just say it with condescending authority, and keep reminding everyone of your " scientific credentials"
hes a sanctimonius tosser
Seems to work well enuf for these guys .
One of the most gaseous of the windbags.
@@chrisgrill6302 Not a patch on Low Bar Bill, though.
I saw two neologisms on the Internet that sum Lennox up nicely.
"Smugnorant" and "condenonsensical".
John Lennox, the uncle you really don't want in your family.
fiddles while rome burns, metaphorically. is he catholic? i never had that much interest to fond out.
I suspect he's a Proddie
Getting labelled with the wrong Cristian sect in sectarian Ireland is like a red rag to a bull. If he heard this said about him, would likely cause havoc to his old ticker
a reason not to send your son to oxford
The discussion is about truth not agression and survival by killing others ...
10:57 of course cats have thoughts. My cat knows that I am deaf on my right side and stands on his back legs to tap my arm on that side so he can get my attention and leads me to whatever his issue is that he needs me to deal with.
I agree. Not only can animals be shown to have thoughts but some of them seem to have a "theory of mind" where they try to anticipate the reactions of others.
Can you elaborate? What is this theory of mind? What kind of anticipation you are talking about?@@George89999
@@ANKITKUMAR-kc2zwcan’t read George’s mind. But one example I can think of is a Dog who has made a mess in a room you haven’t discovered yet. But you can tell because he is acting “guilty” and being extremely deferential and coy or nervous. Implying the dog recognizes he fucked up.
Can predict how you are going to feel about this.
And is trying to socially engineer the situation
My cats spend a lot of time thinking about how to get more food. They're succeeding too.
Despite Theists claim that Lennox is some sort of mathematical guru, he is in fact quite mediocre within that field.
Like all apologists he ends up divorcing reason to maintain his world view,
We were indeed surprised at doing our homework. His academic output was a lot less than expected.
"Despite Theists claim that Lennox is some sort of mathematical guru, he is in fact quite mediocre within that field."
And Lenox wishes he had reached mediocrity in apologetics. He really is little to no better than the worst of his apologetic ilk.
@@andreasplosky8516 indeed
@@andreasplosky8516 ahahahaha XD
His first argument is just the “Brain in a vat “ stuff . He also does the usual ‘ sitting next to someone on a flight” stuff that all apologists do. If you watch his debates you will find that at heart he IS a creationist , he thoroughly dislikes evolution as it completely negates his idea of god created us in his image. He like to play the bumbling friendly uncle but in fact he is vicious , condescending and dismissive of his ‘ science colleagues ‘ He is much more intelligent then them because he is a mathematician. BTW he is not a ‘top’ Cambridge/ Oxford mathematician , look for his published work , you will find little of any note. His professor status is not THE Cambridge , he has some sort of position at Templeton which is not a mainstream college it is an Christian apologetics factory.
Lennox effortlessly exudes an avuncular condescending smugness.
Most beautiful 👋
As he destroys superstar atheists.
@@TBOTSS He truly is a legend in his own mind and maybe yours!
@@TBOTSS Only in your botched mind...
@@51elephantchang Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens?
I think Lennox does teach us something important that happens with people all around the public sphere: marketing. You can say any old opinion, pretty much in the same words it's always stated in, but with enough marketing your voice can be taken to be more valuable than the next guy's.
While I hate the spread of misinformation like Lennox likes to do... goddamn I need to market myself better as a professional 😂
Nothing more disgraceful than a lying mathematician.
Based upon how far math has evolved through the centuries compared to general philosophy, I allways thought all mathematicians were eager to find any contradiction in an idea and are also consistent then to highlight and correct it when found. All the mathematicians I met during my education lived up to this standard.
Then I met this one mathematitian who had developed a little theory in my field of physics. I will not go in any details to leave this guy anonymous, since he publishes every now and then. He persuaded my boss to have the experiment to verify/falsify his theory carried out in our lab. I was to prepare the experiment, a colleague of mine was to then carry it out with me. The mathmatician was there to participate, for he brought the models manufactured according to his theory.
We knew upfront, that his theory was based on a severe reduction of possible physical influences, so the outcome of the experiment to proove his theory useful shouldnt have any effects showing up to be dominant that could only be explained by the physical influences his theory ignores. Guess what, the experiment showed exactly those kind of effects to be dominant.
So what did he do? After all, he was publishing and promoting his theory for more than a decade by then. Well, he actually tried to sabotage his own experiment by decalibrating the measurement devices, whenever we were not looking. For the most important device, working optically, he just blocked the light path during recording by stepping in the way, pretending to be sooo interested. He was also playing clumsy and allmost destroyed a measurement device by placing it so that it had to fall to the concrete floor soon afterwards. We were lucky to prevent the fall - the device was worth the equivalent of a small automobile.
Afterwards, when we dicussed the results that we still were able to get out of the experiment not matching his theory, we layd out to him that the only explanation left for the measured effects is exactly those physicality that his theory lacks and hence the predictions his theory makes are useless to the most degree.
He was far from accepting this. Instead he added a small correction term to his theory, so that it would match again the results of one specific measurement run, still ignoring the others, declaring them to be carried out sloppy. For him, the math working was more important than the physics understood.
We departed, reminding him that non of our names are to appear on any of his future publications in planning.
Today, his flawed theory is still his main source of income - he managed to sell it to the military of his country and other industry endeavours there. One can say he is successful in a way, but one cant say he is an good scientist. He shares more than this one thing with Lennox: He was also allways smiling when lying.
@@petermeyer6873 Thank You, it was a great read. It's a real shame that people like that are able to prosper and monetize their deceptions. Personally it disgusts me...
@@petermeyer6873 Frauds are one thing, but at least for me the study of maths was very helpful to reason myself out of faith.
In particular it was foundations and axiomatic reasoning, I figured a God who could be known by reason is therefore not atomic and is thus open to scrutiny, which was not withstood.
Is it not disgraceful to hurl insults and ad hominem attacks -- while saying nothing meaningful on the merits of the discussion?
@@nunca789 Won't waste my time, bye...
The problem with scientific theists, is that they imagine god to be a smarter version of themselves. Making laws and fine tuning and taking ‘time’ to do things. Where was the workspace? Why didn’t god create everything at once?
The scientific theory of evolution didn’t end with Darwin. The scientific community has learned a lot about evolution since Darwin. We now have the field of genetics and mapping the genome of apes, monkeys and humans.
exactly
And it shows Humans cannot have evolved from primates, as there is simply not enough time to accumulate the 15%+ percentage of difference in DNA.
You are saying a lot of nothing.
1. WHAT has been learned?
2. Mapping the genomes of apes, monkeys and humans has led to... What? (And don't give me that 93% or whatever similarities nonsense. It's been proven that the degree of similarity doesn't prove anything when it comes to tracing a line of descent.)
3. Show a complete evolutionary account of how the apes supposedly evolved into modern homo sapiens. Complete with complete actual skeletons. Not bone fragments that were then wishfully slotted into the so called evolutionary line up. I'm still waiting after 50 years to see such a thing n
@@thetabletopskirmisher So you’re wrong about the 98%, the only people that deny that are science denying creationists. The majority of the scientific community accept the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Kenneth Miller PhD who is a Christian was a witness in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trail showed where modern humans separated from apes. Also endogenous retro viruses prove evolution so does morphology, taxonomy, homologous structures, biology, zoology, and cladistics. You obviously are ignorant of biology. You should have learned this in high school.
@@thetabletopskirmisher Also the co-founder of the human genome project Francis Collins who is an evangelical christian has a website called Biologos that explain why evolution is true. He created it to explain to creationists why scientifically they are wrong. Maybe check it out and educate yourself. Evolution is a scientific theory.
"The bad news is, you've got cancer. The good news is, I've also got cancer, so I'll suffer with you." Brilliant line, Phil!
thanks
I like how Daniel Linford brought up cladistics in regard to categorization - and what words mean when used in this context. Saying we evolved from monkeys is, in that sense, no different than saying we evolved from fish - because in the context of cladistics, by definition, no descendant branch can ever evolve out of the branch that it started in in the first place.
Of course, as Linford points out, we didn't evolve from any existing species of monkey (and we didn't evolve from any existing species of fish). Most directly, Homo sapiens evolved from Homo heidelbergensis - which doesn't change the fact that both Homo sapiens and Homo heidelbergensis are "monkeys" and "fish" in the purely cladistic sense. No species can ever evolve into something outside of its clade - this is purely definitional, in regard to what clades and cladistic categories are.
Love listening to all of you!
We will be having Joe Schmid on our channel on 13th of July. We would really love to have Alex, Dan and you (Phil) on as well.
I’d love to come on! Thanks!
love to , sure
@@daniellinford9643
@PhilHalper1
Thank you both for accepting the invite! I will send streamyard link to both of you as soon as I schedule the stream. Dan, I cannot see your email, I can send the streamyard link to Phil (or even Joe) who can forward it to you.
Really excited to have you all come on the channel! Looking forward to it.
Hi Phil, i really liked this reaction video. I wonder what would actually be there for them to say if they are not always all about misrepresentations ,reducing the things, obscuring the much much larger part
glad you liked it
Lennox just thinks that because he’s from Oxford in the CS Lewis tradition, he’s a genius. He’s a supercilious, ignoramus… Peter Atkins showed him up as an idiot years ago, yet the right wing still insists he’s a champion. He speaks in fallacies & circular arguments all the time…
Ad Hominem attack but you dont care... stupidity rules
Thanks for reminding me about Peter Atkins. I must go back and re-watch that "debate." His cranky intolerance for people like Lennox always lifts my spirits.
This isn’t about politics. There are plenty of right leaning people who disagree with Lennox here.
@@Hustada Yes. This is absolutely about politics. Did you miss the part about how the religious right wants creationism taught in science class in public schools? Was the fact that Louisiana can now display the ten commandments in public schools completely lost on you? How about the book bans in the US for "vulgarity and violence"? (The subtext of which pertains to any content about LGBTQ or slavery.) Well, that was a knee-slapper because liberal activists were successful in getting the bible banned from libraries and schools in a number of states🤣🤣
@@tsolum4126 he said “the right wing still insist he’s a champion”. A more accurate interpretation would’ve been “Christians(or believers)still insist he’s a champion”. I lean right, am agnostic, and don’t espouse said beliefs. Ideas, when popular, can and do lead to political shifts, I’ll agree with that, but I’m sick of people equating atheism and agnosticism with left wing values. It’s not an accurate or fair correlation.
I love seeing Alex triggered. Love the guy but it’s fun to see his dander up.
‘i make the spirit of angels dance upon the waters of my spacetime mind.’
lennox doesn’t really speak/communicate like a real mathematician. i am a mathematician, as was my father, and has been my family business for 400 years. lennox does not speak like us, with poetic elegance . he doesn’t speak ‘mathematically’. his mind disorganized, dimly lit.
lennox isn’t a mathematician, he’s a person that forced himself into a field where he is complete mediocrity. he doesn’t have the mind. i can hear it in his flow of thought, how he fails to organize the cosmos.
a true mathematical mind organizes reality elegantly, expresses it with poetic mastery.
i can easily prove god with math. q.e.d.
Nice! Always liked dunking on John “personal incredulity” Lennox.
I honestly never understood how he is so referenced by other theists. 😳
Hello Phil, In one of your debates i heard u say in 1998 Hawkins and Penrose retracted their statement about singularity. Can you send me the link i cant find it. Thank you
I think you are confusing Hawking publishing his No Boundary Proposal, which contradicst the singularity in 1983 journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960
Lennox has reached a level of prestige that allows him to be not shy of openly giving illogical reasoning hidden very well in a small story convoluted enough to hinder most people from looking through. In the very first story in this clip ending with the computer he puts it right in the open for us, when he concludes:
"...if you knew that it (the computer, which is prooven to work!) was the endproduct of a mindless, unguided process, would you trust it?
So what he is asking is to distrust prooven facts just because they can be predicted by explanations (like theories, physical laws) that you dislike. This is an example of a postmodernistic way of constructing reality by personal preference.
good pooint
We trust “unguided” computers all the time. I would trust it if it has been properly tested and shown to work!
Peter, your argument engages in the most obvious example of circular reasoning. It assumes the "proven fact" is a "proven fact" and then uses it as evidence to attack the critique.
@@nunca789 Oh dear, nunca, dont you know how thought experiments work?
Lennox himself brought the thought experiment up. He defined the premise, that the computer works as a prooven fact, not me. If you want to argue with the help of a thought experiment, you cannot change the premises, you have to go with them and see where this leads to: Either a valid conclusion from or a contradiction to the premises.
All Lennox achieved as a conclusion was, that humans like him tend to distrust things whenever they dislike aspects of them. There is neither circular reasoning on his nor on my behalf. His error was to overlook, that the distrust and dislike are in no way a contradiction/disproove of the premise, they are just irrational. He appealed to feelings disguised as ratio. Furthermore Lennox overlooked that feelings are purely subjective. Subjectivity of feelings is one of those things he has chosen to ignore in most of his arguments in order to hold up his claim of his worldview beeing the only correct one holding absolute and objective values.
In answer to your second post:
This is about logic, not about whatever you see as grace.
What do you even consider to be the "merits of this discussion"?
@@petermeyer6873 I did not hear Dr. Lennox contend that the computer was a "proven fact" -- that wasn't his "thought experiment."
As a matter of word meaning and usage, it makes little sense to say a "computer is a proven fact" anyway. Thus, it appears your comment misapprehends the thrust of his point.
Your comment about logic and "grace" may not be directed to me, as I did not mention grace anywhere, I don't believe.
1:19:00 i don't _think_ there is an afterlife, the scientist in me says it's not going to be a thing, but the artist in me thinks that this universe - this planet - this country - i live in is going to an awful waste if i can't get to experience as much of it as possible. i find it hard to accept that the universe is this ASTONISHING indescribable beautiful place and i only get to see east croydon. google says i have visited 53 cities, i would like to visit them all, even the toilet cities. that would be my afterlife, to make a sketch everywhere i went. i live in england, i haven't even been to scotland. never mind alpha centauri.
Dan hit the nail on the head regarding both Lennox (who is a rank amateur) and Plantinga (who is a qualified professional) when it comes to naturalism and rationality...Plantinga's argument is a false dichotomy and he should know better.
thanks for the comment
16:19 he even gets the analogy wrong, it wasn't Henry Ford that invented the motor car, it was Karl Benz in 1885...
One of these days, I’d really like to see one of these apologists even attempt to actually argue why “justice” as they are implicitly understanding it should even be regarded as a good or desirable thing in the first place. Frankly, I don’t think that it is. Because their version of ‘justice’ is truly just eye-for-an-eye retribution causing harm for its own sake. If God’s justice was akin to the justice system in the Nordic countries, that would at least be somewhat desirable. But most Christians reject that possibility outright in my experience.
Fanghur, your ignorance is showing🥱
@@Mrguy-ds9lr you think most Christians think Hell is both temporary and purely rehabilitative, and reject retributive justice as a concept and think God does as well?
I'm glad your reply wasn't attacking, but mine was, apologies. You have to start at the beggining,no? I'm referring to the justice, and eye for eye belief. And your understanding of it. Could you give me a litte more context on that? Wo said it? When, like what dispensation?
@@fanghur then we can move n to the concept of hell. But we must have a good foundational understanding of it.
@@Mrguy-ds9lr honestly, I don’t really understand what you’re asking me to provide. Can you please clarify? I regard the concept of purely retributive “justice” as inherently immoral, as it ultimately just reduces to causing suffering for its own sake. I don’t think punishment should ever be regarded as an end in itself, only as a means TO an end.
Lennox's conversations with other scientists remind me of Trump's "Sir" stories, that is, didn't happen, complete bollocks.
yep
A short refutation of Plantinga's argument against Naturalism: Like the human brain in general, our cognitive faculty is a prediction engine. We use cognition to predict whether or not a behavior will produce a desirable outcome. Our desires are generally well-aligned with survival and reproduction. We want to avoid pain, death, social ostracism and we desire food, sex, social support, etc. Since our desires are adaptive, a cognitive faculty that allows us to better and more reliably satisfy those desires will be adaptive.
I'm sure that is quite pedestrian to Plantinga and other apologists, and something they find inadequate. I instead emphasize that just because we aren't necessarily designed to know true things doesn't mean we can't come to know true things, or that we must always be second guessing ourselves. The EAAN is like believing that if you can only walk in a straight line, you also can't look side to side or behind you.
The thing is that truth-tracking CAN often be advantageous for survival, but even if it wasn't, there is no problem with it being just a by product of brains that can already think. The EEAN is just such a weak argument. If its proponent argues that evolution leads to global scepticism and they accept evolution, they should bite the bullet and admit that they can't use their reason to infer God's existence from the observable world. Instead, they suppose that God exists because it would make them feel better if they could think that they know some stuff. The argument is total crap.
I've always found Daniel to be quite a lot. Bit of a conversation hog and maybe mentions his degrees and studies more than is germaine. But he's gotten a lot better. Still room to grow but his commentary is highly relevant and helpful here. Alex is a goddamn gem, and Phil, your channel is operating at a really great pace here. The vids debunking Craig were my first window in, and I've watched some subsequent podcasts like this. Lots of "reaction" vids running around these days that feel like 'content for content's sake' but I think here and there it's appropriate as long as the higher quality stuff is the focus.
Thanks a lot for your comment and appreciate your feedback
I watched the same Gutsick Gibbon video as Dan, so it was nice when the cladistics part came up. :)
Lennox has a new book out:
"Grifting for God"
lol
He needs to sell his books.
Such a palpably self-satisfied man.
Not the faintest glimpse of scientific caution nor modesty to be had.
The key here is "MATHEMATICIAN." He needs to stay in his lane, keep his personal relationship with Jesus personal, and sit down.
Alternative theories to avoid or explain
the beginning of the universe (the eternal universe, multiverse, self-contained universe,
cyclical universe and a universe out of nothing) overreach and lack credibility. Functions
for life demonstrate clear evidence of foresight, coordination and goal-direction, which
are all unmistakable signatures of intelligent design. Explanations based on prebiotic
abiogenesis are futile. Origin-of-life research points to a Creator. Macroevolution (albeit
not incompatible with theism) fails to provide a consistent theoretical framework to
explain, for example, a viable mechanism to generate a primordial mechanism for
abiogenesis, the origin of the genetic code, the genetic information required for life,
the abrupt appearance of species in the fossil record.
Lenox who has done what again? Like, there is some published papers he wrote right? How many? Like all apologists who wave around some PHD or whatever I suspect that Lennox failed in his profession so turned to doing apologetics. He would be an unknown had he stuck to his field.
And how many papers on math and god? Zero
@@sh0k0nes Yes, yes, yes! I have been making that point for years. If they do not invoke God as evidence in their scientific papers, then their scientific credentials are IRRELEVANT, and they are just another soap-box preacher.
@@sh0k0nesi’ve written a paper on god and zero. Proving god with math. q.e.d.
I think it was PZ Meyer's who expressed Dan's eloquent point more atheist's should make: religion is a failed research program. That is what the history of science illustrates. When natural philosophers attempted to apply literal "Biblical" claims to the world and failing miserably.
Excellent responses from ALL.
Well I think everything I was thinking got covered as the discussion proceeded.
greta minds think alike I guess
50:00 penrose cyclic universe makes most sense, in it's basic form that each universe' death causes the next (and first) universe expansion.
Lennox has rhetorical skills and it's amazing how far you can get just knowing how to speak and speak confidently.
Very enjoyable, thanks. Lennox is popular with Christians as an authority but since most of his science-minded colleagues aren't Christians, he's a cherry-picked PhD.
Genetic algorithms are used constantly in computers fwiw. They are selected under pressure and we rely on them.
As long as we're talking about religious mathematicians, I would love to see you guys talk about Frank Tipler. Sift the science from the fantasies, so to speak.
oh interesting idea, maybe
Would I trust an unguided natural process to deliver reliable information? Well, as a species, we used the relative positions of the stars to navigate and feed ourselves for millenia. So, yeah, I sort of would trust unguided natural processes.
Of course, that probably just double proves god or something.
1:15:00 when religists say "justice" and "judgement" don't they mean _revenge_ though, i mean isn't "justice" just pointing out that a wrong has been committed, it's "punishment" that follows, that is the justice religists talk about - revenge for doing wrong.
Those blind processes have been optimized for survival by winnowing away genetic lines which produced sub optimal minds. Given the reliability of naive realism over aeons of course we provisionally trust the conclusions a sound mind arrive at. Buttressed with the scientific method our confidence level in methodological naturalism is the best we have as a pathway to knowledge/justified true beliefs.
There's not a conflict between science and the metaphysical beliefs of scientists. God concepts may occupy a non overlapping magisteria to scientific findings, which is as it should be. You can be religious as all get out but if you're a published scientist in any field you won't see you religious convictions represented in your academic work, simply because it's not pertinent to any hypothesis (being unfalsifiable). Theists like Michael BeHe in his theological writing will use his work in evolutionary biology to argue for intelligent design but he doesn't mention intelligent design in his peer reviewed academic work as - Laplace is claimed to have quipped to Napoleon - we have no need for that hypothesis in the sciences.
Right , and that methodological naturalism isxexactly the observable phenomenon that the creator hypothesis was formulated to account for and explain.
do athiests offer any competing hypothesis? Or are they only concerned exclusively with the siliencing of ideas instead of contributing any?
@@gregsanich5183 Theism doesn't offer any explanation other than unsupported claims for authorship, which would itself require explanation if it were detectable. You can't just define an entity into existence and expect the claim of even the possibility of candidacy to be met with anything but scepticism, until some tangible evidence is provided.
@@mausperson5854 huh, this is weird. I can't read your whole msg bc you tube isn't responding to me hitting the "read more" button. It won't let me open up your comment so I can only read the 1st 4 lines of it.
Idk why that is, did I get kyboshed, I wonder?
@mausperson5854 .....OK, it seems the problem sorted itself out....weird.
The observable phenomenon of the existence of reality is real enuf, and there most certainly is an explanation for it. . . . Whether we are ever able to discern conclusively what that explanation happens to be or not, is a different story ofc.
But it's human nature to be inclined to explore the unknown.
Athiests seem to prefer that we not wonder or speculate about the possibilities, and advocate for us to just embrace ignorance and be satisfied with settle for "I don't know".
And while that is certainly their perogative, I don't see that approach as conducive to the advancement of our knowledge and understanding of reality.
If mankind had always taken that approach, we would still be stuck in the stone age and have never figured anything out.
Yep, this.
If I only would get a cent every time Lennox appeals to authority...I maybe could afford to build as many real straw men as he keeps making up...but thats hard to prove, because its close to infinity devided by infinity.
lol
Yeah Mathematic and Religion does not compute, even I can see this.
Huh?
Explsin this.
What does math even have to do with religion exactly?
John Lennox heats his house by merely talking !
Lennox just sounds like an academic that never left the halls.
he'd be a great christmas pudding salesman.
what he just said doesn't sound like academia, it sounds like cheap apologetics. He didn't need a degree to do that
Nor ever got his degree! More like the village idiot they let run around on campus make believing they are a graduate student, or faculty... for being a harmless sap.
Good conversation. Thanks
your welcome
The conceptual foundation of the scientific method (of the demonstrative method) originates in the Hellenistic age. It is surprising that this is not yet very well understood, but it would be enough just to note that it is the same 'founders' of Science, in the sixteenth century (Copernicus), as in the seventeenth (Newton himself in the Scholi, etc.), who wrote this (sometimes a little confusingly), that the origins of their theses were found in... the library (...).
I thank you for the reasonable sound quality.
It’s one of the great tragedies of our time that 19 year old conspiracy reaction tiktokkers ideas are preserved with perfect fidelity, yet so many profound thoughts of our great intellectuals are obscured within the echoing chasms of ambient webcam mics or compression artifact ridden wireless headset audio.
Poetry.
Minor spelling errors in the description - "Introdcution" & "Comsology". Ignore me if you wish 🙂
I briefly toyed with the idea of mentioning it, but gave up. I am glad you had the energy.
I knew a harlot who was one, but she spelled it Cumsologist!
Someone had to be the dueche and say it.
Someone always has to be the dueche. ... always.😣
@@gregsanich5183 Um, am I unnecessarily worsening my reputation if I suggest 'douche' (in place of "dueche")? 😀
*douche
If you think it’s worth doing please take the needful time and make a reaction video to a video titled . The video is replete with misrepresentations, false assumptions and all the likes of it.
can you provide a link?
@@PhilHalper1for some odd reason TH-cam wouldn’t display the link that I have tried to send many times now.
The video is titled “THIS is why Science cannot explain reality(ultimately) “and the content creator is Abdullah al Andalusi.
@@shreynawani8321 ok ill take a look ,, we have a long list of videos we might cover so will have to see what we all want to do
it is *so embarrassing* that this is one of the best intellectual defense of Christianity 🤣🙄
Very good discussion. I spend too much time watching Christian apologist and Creationist videos .. probably for the same sort of reason that people are fascinated with train wrecks .. or maybe that's just me. I feel like I have got back some of the IQ points I have lost.
thanks
Lennox's reasons for believing in his god are no more abstruse or genius than that of the lowliest yokel calling in to The Atheist Experience to have his doodad handed to him by the end of his call. It is sad to see the moment when reality and Lennox part ways.
Q: First of all what are you guys drinking?
A: Alcoholic beverages, of course! Makes us feel smarter.
Everyone feels smarter after drinking a few brews.The more you drink, the better you think.
Let’s goooooooo 🤜 🤛
Great episode. Very glad Lennox and his bad arguments were addressed.
thanks, glad you liked it
These arguments are Great for me! In fact the greatest i have ever heard so far, this is stating what it is! 😮
thanks
(((^_^;) The artifacts of a swastika is flobby with stazzle and a jumble that tumbled. That is a skeleton, human heart, signature, internal combustion engine, animation of the big bang and a wave. That unify the universe you can't do with math. A swastika is the simplest rendering possible for those artifacts and needs to be saved.
This idea that Christianity and/or European culture gave us science falls apart when you consider Ibn al-Haytham and the Islamic golden age. Even the likes of Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, or Christiaan Huygens cited the works of Ibn al-Haytham during the scientific revolution. And Ibn al-Haytham was not a lone luminary: he expressed views that are thought to be shared by other Islamic figures of the time. I think it is fair to say that science was born in Islamic societies, not in Europe.
I don't think so. The Greeks were doing science long before. But that isn't to deny that the Islamic golden age made serious efforts to improve science, like the idea of controls, for example which I think dates back to Ibn al-Haytham
Lennox needs to read Nick Lane’s books on biochemistry.
Lennox is a smart man very proud that he is smarter than anyone he meets. At least he thinks he is.
Even a mathematician can't get the role of chance in evolution! Shocking. He missed the selection part.
yeah it really is shockingly bad
Nest of athest do besmich tong of truth. I no monky. Monky not do tong talk or fly plane.
f(^ー^; We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
50:00 this was a great explanation.
Quality+Entertainment=Phil Halper
thanks so much
I have a suggestion!!!! More of this taking the enemies of reality apart! 🤗 I didn't invest $1600 on certified A class face palm protection for no reason!!!
message received
@@PhilHalper1 🥳🥳🥳
1:22:18 The other thing I'd point out is, even if God has a plan that requires suffering, why couldn't he have made it so the only people in those roles are p-zombies who don't actually suffer?
what i've always found stupid is, religists should have god blessed lives - and they don't, but maybe they are being tested with suffering, and that atheists should suffer - but MY life has been brilliant, so what is going on? and surely if you get punished or rewarded in the afterlife, who gives a monkeys what happens in this life, anyone can do anything they want and they will wind up where they are meant to be anyway.
religion confuses me.
They always want to talk about a human today in the 21th century, with universities and space travel and all that technology. We were still the Homo species, when we first discovered fire 1 million years ago, when we were just like orangutans and chimpansees in the savannah. We were humans 400.000 years ago when we made first buildings, we were humans 10.000 years ago before agriculture. So humans going to space is just one seconds ago in evolutionary history. Before that, yes we were no different than monkeys, orangutans and chimpansees. Humans were not the humans as today and now, proportionally we were like apes, monkeys nd orangutans.
35:00 either god had a universe "in stock" which was already created, or he had "nothing in stock" which means he created the universe from - nothing. i don't see how religists are in any better position than atheists, in fact quantum fluctuations in the vacuum state (me an artist too) is more plausible than the invisible man.
Good stuff. Lennox is particularly obnoxious in this general space. He's such a pompous ass...
(^^; This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
I’ll bet that room had lots of padding. 🙄
@theunknownatheist3815 it's intelligently designed that only a lunatic can have a proper world view.
Just because John Lennox has that proper Brittish accent does not make him believable
absolutely
it made sense to our ancestors that 'God divide the waters' .. the bottom part becomes the sea when God later stretched out a pancake piece of real estate; the top part becomes the blue sky/firmament of water where clouds and rains come from
Lennox confused? Does he believe that there are *laws* of nature or does he believe in miracles? Both can’t be true.
If miracles can happen then the perceived laws of nature are a prank by god(s).
lol. Just like MGK dissing Eminem. Internet people attacking John Lennox on his own professional subjects
i dont think he talks about his own professional subjects at all in this video
I wish Alex spoke as much as Dan (well, more if I’m honest).
1:15:00 that's quite an interesting point, if i am an atheist but i make up some BS idea of how fantastic things will be in the afterlife, is that immoral? to comfort or console someone with a pack of blatant lies i myself don't believe, is it immoral to tell someone, yeah, the afterlife is 72 virgins a bottle of jonnie walker 1870 and a tesla. religists do this all the time, and they also do the opposite - have you read the comments left on religious pages regarding dan dennett's passing? jeez what pool filth the christians have on their team.
Hashamayim means both Heavens and sky. The meaning comes out of the context. It's fully certain that due to the context the term means Heavens.
Tehre is no e idence the ealry hebrews had any notion of outer space or the universe as we know it. So Hawmaiym should be taken to mean the sky,.
Again it's annoying when philosophers try to be historians, either on a theist of atheist side. Like, Alex Malpass just doesn't have the expertise to answer the question of how science began. He just doesn't. Philosophers need to stay in their lane.
What about mathematicians?
@@ThePresident001 of course, but lennox is so fragrantly ridiculous we need not spend any time on him.
(・・;) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of '76 by The Alarm.
🌍 A world where things worked but there were *no* laws of physics might appear to be god-controlled.
A world where chemical reactions always do the same under the same conditions doesn’t imply god, but it does make a god unnecessary as an explanation.
The discovery that the universe had a beginning
and the abundant scientific evidence for fine-tuning is best explained by theism. The
phrase ‘global fine-tuning’ refers to fine-tuning of initial conditions, fundamental forces
and other physical laws and constants for an expanding universe and the formation of
galaxies, stars and planets. The phrase ‘local fine-tuning’ refers to the protection of the
earth by the planetary giants, Earth’s life-sustaining capabilities, water and its miraculous
properties for life, Earth’s rare habitability fine-tuned for life and scientific discovery. The
phrase ‘biological fine-tuning’ is linked to the ‘Argument from Irreducible Complexity
and the Argument from Biological Information.
He's making lots of money.