Peter Singer vs John Lennox | Is There a God? Debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- In the land Down Under, two intellectual titans go head to head over an age-old question: Is there a God? Oxford scientist and Christian apologist John Lennox takes on bioethicist and philosopher Peter Singer, one of the most controversial and influential atheists of our time. Fixed Point's Larry Taunton moderates the debate in the handsome Town Hall of Melbourne, Australia Singer's home city.
At times philosophical, at times deeply personal, "Is There a God?" is a fascinating debate that grapples with difficult subjects such as suffering, justice, and more - right down to the most fundamental questions of existence: "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?"
"Given what we know about the world now, belief in a deity - particularly a deity of the Bible - is irrational." - Peter Singer
"Just as rationality can be used but cannot ultimately be explained without God, the same is true of morality." - John Lennox
Excellent and thought-provoking
John Lennon: "Imagine no religion."
John Lennox: "No."
John Lennon: "Imagine no religion."
John Lennox: "Imagine no atheism"
Peter Stringer: "Imagine no resurrection too".
Lennon "Imagine no possesion"
his bank account: "nope"
@@curiousgeorge555
Imagine no atheism.
No Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin.
Imagine this all came from nothing, it's easy if you're clueless like Lennon was.
No god. And no amount of mental gymnastics is going to produce one. Spiritual space is empty, vacant, unoccupied. Hello! Anyone there? ...... Nope.
Singer in this debate flounders
1:18:29 "Let's try and look at the logic of it. If Jesus actually was God, the question that I'm faced with is: _what was God doing on a cross?_ And I can begin to see here that if this is true then God has not remained distant from the problem of suffering and evil but has himself become part of it."
Yes. He doesn't ask us to do anything he wouldn't do himself and he came in the flesh like us and overcame the world. His yolk is easy and his burden is light.
@@meta4zs
Immoral nonsense
:Indeed. "A God all merciful would be an unjust God."
Je suis
The Gift of Language
In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," [6] says the Lord.
God had a way out.
We don't.
John Lennox is a true man of God
A true man of something that doesn't exist?
Public Intellectual what doesn't exist? Nothing? Like you believe lol
wadgy Lennox is a true man of God - or morons as theyre sometimes known
Dds You have to wonder at Lennoxs ability to reason. He asserts that Hitler and Stalin were both brutal dictators and atheists.
To illustrate the flaw in his logic it was pointed out that they both had mustaches too - to which he replied ''I dont see what mustaches have to do with it!
wagdy12
Agreed! Great stuff. God Bless you all.
Lennox spent much of his time on the benefits of being a Christian and that he would not like to live in a world without a Christian god, but that’s obviously not evidence that there is one, so it’s irrelevant to the subject of the debate. I appreciate that both debaters were respectful, sincere, and more focused on seeking truth than scoring points with their fans.
Did you watch the debate though?😕
I agree. He's quite entertaining, but in the end offers very little substance to his claims. His closing statements always seem to expose him: He can't emotionally accept a world without a god, so he doesn't.
He's a mathematician not a biologist, but that doesn't excuse his lack of understanding about the basic concepts of emergent properties, synergy, etc.. To argue that rationality can only come from rationality is just silly.
He didn't address suffering except to say, sadly, he has no answer, and his counter to the observation that people are mostly of the same religion as their parents, was to suggest there's no 'genetic' connection..? He's usually not so obvious with his strawmen, but that was also pretty silly.
His most compelling points are emotional, there has to be justice, there has to be an ultimate purpose and someone up there loving and guiding us to an afterlife, so there is.
@@markoshun "To argue that rationality can only come from rationality is silly."
Can you tell me where rationality come from??
"His closing statement always seems to expose him: He can't emotionally accept a world where there is no God, so he doesn't."
This just shows your lack of comprehension on your part. I guess you should read Albert Camus and Friedrich Nietzsche and see what your worldview entails if you are to live it consistently. All his argument are sound and logical. Please address his argument instead of attacking strawman and ad hominems. You atheists are basically dishonest.
"He didn't address suffering....." That's not the topic of the debate. And in fact, classical Atheists has stopped using that argument because it's weak and incoherent. If they claim that there's suffering, they'll have to prove that an all powerful God isn't morally obliged to permit suffering. And they'll have to prove that suffering is evil, which already contradicts your worldview. Please you atheists should learn an argument before engaging.
To say that people are Christians because they were raised in a Christian home is a genetic fallacy. This has been debunked times and times again. Only irrational atheists(New atheists) brings this up. It's like saying there are only Muslims in a Muslim country when there are in fact atheists. That automatically collapses that argument. You're literally saying there's no free will, yet implying freely that there is no free will. Y'all atheists should try to be logical for once. Everytime I see your comments, you always appeal to emotions 🥱
And that's all you took away from the entire talk? How sad! It's not your mind that has a problem with this: it's your heart. Not your intellect, but your morals.
@@markoshunyou also need to account for suffering, and youi can't. You can't even say who made you! You're an accident, you say. What utter nonsense! You are not a biologist either - so you don't get a say - you can't rationalise? You have the temerity to claim that Lennox can't provide validity because he's a mathetician? So only biologists eh? Not astrophysicists or applied mathematicians, or geologists? You have decided who gets to speak? You think you're very clever, but your comments are extremely foolish. You're not as smart as you think you are, my friend. You just expose your bias - your problem is not intellectual, it's moral! You can listen, yet never hear, learn but never reach wisdom! Deeply sad.
Love listening to John Lennox. And I am happy seeing some sensible civilized debates such as these rather than looking into the crap I find in twitter and TH-cam comments by irrational thugs.
You of all people, who represent yourself with an image of a crusader, have the nerve to talk about "irrational thugs" in the You Tube comments section?! Presumably, if you are that invested in your faith, you are the epitome of an irrational thug in the You Tube comments section, and would be willing to slay innocent people because they don't worship the invisible man in the sky that you do and because they challenge your irrational and illogical beliefs. Remember what Pope Clement II said about the slaughter of the Christian jihads(the crusades): "god wills it".
But how does Lennox explain the reason we can have wet farts? Is he
claiming god the intelligent designer designed us to have wet farts?!
@@DrMontagueAsk God that on Judgment Day!
@@justin10292000 they are quite prepared to debate everything else about how this god operates why won't they discuss why god designed us to defecate, break wind, and soil our pants . You have answered the question, you state ask god yourself, do he did design us to defecate dirty filthy substances,to break wind and stink,to crap our pants by accident, and you call it an intelligent design!
@@DrMontague yeah if Adam and Eve didn't eat the apple, we wouldn't have stuff like that
I know, if I thought I was going to spend eternity in heaven, it would be hell. Eternity is one hell of a long time. I don't want it. Also, I was millions of years dead before I was born and it didn't bother me then.
I'm sure I could invent an interesting heaven, it is just that worshipping some pompous deity for eternity isn't that.
While it is true there was a time you didn't exist, the idea of you existing gave someone incomprehensible, unimaginable, unconditional love. And that they would want that for eternity.
@@roqsteady5290Don't go to heaven to worship the creator, there are others there that love you and wish to be with you for eternity.
@@justinmann9440 What people want and get are two different things.
@@justinmann9440 What makes you think that? Sounds like you have constructed your own religion and afterlife from your own feelings and wishes, loosely based on cultural indoctrination. Have you got a hell too?
Science, the Universe, The God Question
I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. Ravi Zacharias debate Peter Singer & Dr. Peter Atkins at Cornell University
Libertarian Prince what about Dr. William Lane Craig and Frank Turek or even Lee Strobel?
@Timothy Mostad how did you come to that conclusion and what is your proof?
it would be boring I have no idea how atkins became a doctor, ive listened to him , he is crazy and i just watched this debate and singer just doesnt have enough information on religion as lennox showed.
Atkins can't hold these guys coats.
@Timothy Mostad Sorry, I don't feed trolls. Bye Bye.
I wish someone would let Lennox know that talking in an incredulous tone of voice with a supercilious smile on your face doesn't constitute making an argument.
I also wish someone would inform the audience of the same thing. He is charismatic and so when he says something witty, the audience falls into the trap of thinking that he has won the point despite not presenting an unchallengeable claim.
What was Singers argument with an evidence or proof?
Of course, there's a GREAT SOMEONE who created everything, seen and unseen, things that cannot be explain even by science it's because of GOD THE GREAT CREATOR and not the CREATURE!
Isn't it a mistake to reason that everything for which you have no explanation MUST be explained by the existence a Great Someone, rather than just saying "Yeah, we don't know yet"?
Why would we think that the rest of our questions would not be answered by science, given enough time?
Yep yep and Amen 😇💟
I think john speak very smooth and warm voice, even though i dont agree with him.
Lennox makes much effort to put on equal foot atheism and theism, for instance, by saying both are faiths. That's an equivocation and an intentional one -I allow myself to suspect- to create the image that both positions are mere choices of equal value. Both indeed entail incompatible worldviews, but atheism is simply the lack of faith because it's the recognition that the best evidence for the existence of a personal god doesn't live up to our current standards of proof -that which we use for evaluating every other claim. Furthermore, he uses the phrase "blind leap of faith" to describe perfectly reasonable hypotheses, such as the primordial soup. What a capacity for cynicism!
The primordial soup idea is ridiculous.
@@lawrence1318 why is that so?
@@skeptcode Best if I refer you to the TH-cam clip: James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained - Science Uprising Expert Interview
@@lawrence1318 I’ve seen the content of these guys. They make videos and write books because they mostly can’t publish papers in reputable journals that allow their arguments and evidence to stand the scrutiny of fellow researchers-not TH-cam viewers, whose opinions carry little to no weight. I wonder why.
@@skeptcode Look up the reference I gave you. Don't be lazy.
it always puzzles me...how can a religious person explain things with complete assurance, things that simply THEY CANNOT KNOW BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE STILL UNKNOWN. No amount of babblings can explain things which are still unknown.
So we don't know of the improbability of the creation of the universe and how perfectly fine tuned it was? Too the point that Atheist couldn't even chalk it up too probability because it would have made them sound stupid... so what did they do then? Oh yeah they invented the idea of the multi-verse which has zero evidence lol.
The universe is the evidence that there is a God
Same old Lennox argument.
1. Claims his belief is based on evidence.
2. Fails to provide any evidence.
3. Claims he provided evidence.
Also, despite his repeated claims he is a mathematician not a scientist, and that becomes more obvious with every statement he makes about science. And given his numerous logical fallacies I have to question his mathematics credentials as well.
The University of Oxford does not question his credentials. Who the hell are you?
@@rubiks6
Thanks for your argument from authority fallacy. Lennox is a mathematician by qualification, he is not an expert in philosophy or the sciences. Just because someone is an expert in one field it doesn't then follow that we should consider they are experts in every field, that is another fallacy, this time the fallacy of composition.
@@HughJaxident67 - What argument _from_ authority? The authoritative figure, John Lennox, *_is_* the subject of this discussion. The man is the subject here. Get it?
OP assassinated the character of Dr. Lennox. I defended his character. I have not *_cited_* John Lennox but discussed his person.
As for John Lennox's qualifications, even atheistically biased Wikipedia agrees with me, not you.
"John Carson Lennox is an Irish mathematician specializing in group theory, a *_philosopher of science_* and a Christian apologist."
- Wikipedia
"Christianity is most admirably adapted to the training of slaves, to the perpetuation of a slave society; in short, to the very conditions confronting us today. The rulers of the earth have realized long ago what potent poison inheres in the Christian religion. That is the reason they foster it; that is why they leave nothing undone to instill it into the blood of the people. They know only too well that the subtleness of the Christian teachings is a more powerful protection against rebellion and discontent than the club or the gun." ~ Emma Goldman
This Lennox is so easy to defeat! "Whatever evolution can or cannot do, it is a mechanism. And the whole point of this category mistake is this." Now, he establishes without evidence that there is a "mistake". "That the existence of a mechanism that does something is not of itself an argument for the absence of an agent that designed the mechanism." LOL! One need not argue for the absence of an agent any more than one needs to argue for the absence of elves. It is YOU, "dr." Lennox, who needs to show that the mechanism requires, i.e. cannot exist without an agent!
"Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life itself." Stupid statement. Evolution as per this discussion is a process OF LIFE. No life, no evolution. Perhaps Lennox doesn't understand the definition of the word.
"Semiotic, language-like structure does not arise by natural processes." That's a deceptive statement, designed to lure the reader into thinking that evolution is somehow dependent on language. It's not. It's chemistry and physics, and those things do of course arise by natural processes. Precisely how the first DNA came into being is just one of many scientific mysteries, along with dark energy, dark matter, etc. that honest men are trying to solve. They're not content to just slap the word "god" onto them and be done with it.
This guy is so very well practiced in lying and deception. I'm tiring of this, but I hope I've opened the eyes of anyone who believes this guy is anything but a con artist.
Total crap!
The law of biogenesis
You can’t have the fact of evolution without the fact of abiogenesis.
The game is over before its even started
@@paddingtonbear6815 "You can’t have the fact of evolution without the fact of abiogenesis." Yes, no life no evolution. That's exactly what I said. So glad you see things my way. "The game is over before its even started" Um no, if the game were over, there'd be no "you" to have silly points of view. The game starts when the clock begins to tick, not before.
Life is a complete mystery there is not one person on this planet who knows what it is, let alone find its origin, we cannot even explain the law of gravity, .....or energy, and consciousness!
The empirical evidence science has found in the laws of nature is, that life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Biogenesis is a LAW.
if evolutionists had a truthful factual look at the evidence it would open minds up to see the FACTS, and that would be burdensome for their logic to rationalise their dogma.
Evolutionists pursue their belief with as much passion as a fundamental creationist, following Darwin and his high priest Dawkins
The theory of evolution uses Science to support it, thru bias ad hoc speculations that has no consensus. Even amongst its adherents it is allowed to postulate anything regardless of its relevance, as long as it supports the ideology.
Because you will not allow a “divine foot” in the door you have to create a belief that life came from non life, (the laws of thermodynamics anybody?) Another of your high priest and professional atheist Christopher Hitchens said “ What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
God is truth, to John's point the numerical values of the universe give true explaination of how it works by way of sceince... Numbers don't lie... Creation is the absolute truth of the existence of God. Numbers cannot create... But are the result of creation, and a reflection of God's character of Truth....
Numbers don't HAVE to create. They simply describe. There is no need for a creator. The principles of maths would still exist without any mind to describe them. One unit added to another unit would still equal two units. The actual words used to describe maths require a mind, but the truths that they describe do not.
Again, the fact that there may have other religions/sect who claim on an event similar to the resurrection of Jesus, this does not mean that the resurrection of Jesus could not have possibly happened or that all these similar resurrection claims are equally supported. The amount of evidence required by atheists for them to believe in the resurrection are either unreasonable (like Jesus appears to all people) or would negate that the resurrection is miraculous (by requiring that there has to be a natural explanation).
Even if Christians can prove that Jesus was resurrected, so what? His resurrection does not make any claims made by him or about him true. Lazarus was supposedly resurrected and so were all the dead in Jerusalem. Jesus's resurrection is as irrelevant as his mother's virginity.
Peter Singer you are the best.
😂
😂
Science is proving God/designer to be more and more true
😂😂😂😂😂
@@Blickdastardly33 yes
God has not worked hard for all the power that he possesses. He hasn't earned it. He possesses it by default. It's like a free gift to Him. So, what's so great about God.
:It's too obvious that there is a creator of sorts. Science leads right back to God. Some scientists don't want to be judged and chastised, however. ...Pride...False Witness...Even the faithful are guilty in some way.
How do you know?
@white christian So you are suggesting origin of human made out of dust or clot of blood or clay? Is that more plausible? Not to mention the extinction of homo erectus and ancient animals, you are deluded and dumber.
There is no evidence of a supernatural personal God creator type being.
Wishful thinking does not make it true.
John Lennox could be a commentator in movies of nature. very pleasant voice. It's like he is from the LOTR-world.
too bad he is steeped bull shite
Rob Darling . Kinda like your mama.
Maybe he is from that world, in which case he should be arguing for the literal truth of Tolkien's books. Logically, he might as well.
Movies of nature? Lol. Dweeb
He sounds like a cartoon
What an amazing discussion. One of my favourite debates so far.
Yekkt how about the fact that matter cannot create rational intelligibility? Lol
@Yekkt sucks to be you lol
Yekkt th-cam.com/video/ac9pF32gRxU/w-d-xo.html
Here is some empirical evidence for the existence of the supernatural.
Yekkt these stories can be confirmed in the real world. Seeing Hindu gods or anything of the sort cannot be confirmed in the real world. Be careful discounting these.
Yekkt what’s a Christian NDE? Any NDE at all that can be confirmed Is what we are interested in. For example, the lady having an out of body experience and seeing a blue shoe on the roof of the hospital and then reporting that to the doctors.
Just because the evolution of the human mind was not directed toward truth but toward survival doesn’t necessarily imply that the human mind cannot arrive at truth.
how snob is that statement 1:10:52 ! when you realize that you just made billions of humans « irrational »! in fact, the vaste majority of humans who have ever existed on earth did have some sort of religious beliefs…
It's so refreshing to see two gentleman have a civil debate and discussion on this topic.
We all admit we don't know what happens after we die. We can't know.
In the history of the world, no god has ever spoken a single syllable!
Jesus Rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees.
Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist.
All religions say they are the TRUE religion.
All religions are man made.
All religions are all lies.
Yes. All religions were formed by humans. There is some evidence that even early hominids had some form of religion, as evidenced by how they buried people. It wasn't until the dawn of civilization that religion really flourished. Even the Sumerians had a form of religion. Religion really took off with Judaism. It was then, for the most part, that the monotheism had it's beginning. Religion diverged into different branches (different beliefs) based on geographical dispersion. The Jews had their god, the Hindus had there god, so forth and so on. Those religions branched out as well. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. Even today new religions pop up. Christianity has diverged (ex. Protestants, Catholics). In the 20th century you have Mormonism and Scientology, to name just a couple. Religions will continue to be created, but most will have their roots in existing religions. Religion is like a virus. It mutates and adapts to the social expectations of the time.
The major religions of the world were brought into existence through LIES.
beyondallreligion.net/2012/03/20/religion-based-on-a-bedrock-of-lies/
@@donaldlaxner8212 nothing happens after death , when u die it's over the end
Great faith!
Atheism is unpopular in the world, only about 16% are atheists, in 2100 there will be 9% atheists cause of low birthrates and few converts. Atheists = white male with a high salery.
www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/22/the-worlds-most-committed-christians-live-in-africa-latin-america-and-the-u-s/
news.osu.edu/one-thing-youll-find-in-the-obits-of-many-long-living-people/
www.bluezones.com/2017/07/religion-may-reduce-stress-increase-longevity/
blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scientism/
What Is Your WHY - Team Fearless
m.th-cam.com/video/56Qu3MY5EnU/w-d-xo.html
Fearless Motivation Instrumentals - Good Morning
m.th-cam.com/video/Ynuq1kGZjiY/w-d-xo.html
The only diferent is that one tells the truth and the other tells lies one is getting rich tax free and the other is teaching sciece with proof. and evvedents
Singer really did the "Who created God?" objection! Tell me you dont understand the cosmological argument without telling me you dont understand the argument.
Everybody is nihilist until enemy dies, after that life is just smiles.
Cosmological argument is tuned by brainless wisdom of halfbred theologians. It has logical sequence of no-brainer, because one has to be idealist or purist to consider it as science defying. Its logical for atheist or unbelievers to say who made watchmaker, because point made was so simplistic and burden of proof is on cosmos. Who claims it has any relevancy in theoretical physics?
Nobody cares about theology or 'natural' order of things when learning about history, why claim scientific nature is any different?
One set of rules for each phenomena is how world abruptly ends when our new reactor type blows us into future for example. We have little actual applied science beyond making wheels so that horses can carry more weight.
Our stoic friends would comprehend our world with little pain of lost accomplishments, as they would see problematic approaches and holes in our rational approaches we are not understanding, as world we see is all we see.
Complaining about somebody adding new accomplishment to true god standing behind christian god is just boring. How about we discuss like atheists do. Comprehend questions as questions, not arguments that have to be applied to ancient 'wisdom'.
Please provide your variant of your best attempt to replicate dofus from evangelical era and make points without referencing natural order of things.
Apologies in advance, this ended up longer than expected.
Why is this a problem? the cosmological argument is based on fallacious premises. There are many variants, but at their base they go something like this: 1. every effect had a cause, 2. the universe is an effect 3. therefore the universe has a cause and then it is argued that therefore the universe requires an uncaused cause (god). it must have had a cause, Here are some of the problems with this argument:
Cause effect relationship is rooted in time (cause before effect) and we can only observe them within our space time experience. Thus if the universe did have a beginning (which we do not know, the big bang does not claim that before there was nothing and science assumes the law of the conservation of energy and matter), time also has a beginning, thus temporal cause and effect breaks down without time. Therefore premise 1 only applies to effects within time and does not apply to premise 2.
William Lane Craig added to this argument another set of premises that an actual infinite cannot exist so the universe must have had a beginning. Again, this is fallacious as 1. we do not know if an actual infinity can exist or not, and believing in god normally implies belief in an eternal heaven / hell, so it is hypocriticial of someone who preaches an eternal (i.e. infinite) reward or punishment to claim that an infinity cannot exist, 2. this would apply strictly to time in this case as the next premises are that the universe cannot be infinite so must have a beginning, i.e. temporal events, but them this would also apply to time itself (i.e. time itself must have a beginning since infinity cannot exist so time itself cannot exist for infinity), and we cannot be so pretentious as to claim to know how things work in the absence of time.
Finally, even if this argument is sound, it only gives you an impersonal creator, something that kicked everything off. So this still leaves 2 gaping holes. 1. why must the cause of the universe be uncaused, cannot there be an infinite regress of creators? (this is what I think you objected to) and 2. how does this bring you any closer to a specific religion's god, which intervenes (inspires scripture, performs miracles, answers prayers, etc.)?
@@brianvell Bro do you go outside LMAO. All you had to say was who created god's mind.
@@brianvellyou’re completely missing the point here. You can raise objections to the cosmological argumente, but dude is arguing correctly that the “why god doesn’t need a begining” is a silly one (and it is!). That’s all.
@@NoxAlbelCan’t tell who you are agreeing with.
I like John Lennox a lot, the clarity of his exposition. Always a pleasure to hear.
If he has had a wet fart in public he will become an atheist, that is he will not believe in a supernatural intelligent designer
As an atheist, let me acknowledge, with the highest possible praise, John Lennox vocalizes cogent hypotheses and objections every atheist should hear. Though I believe many of them are unfalsifiable, they are some of the best examples of reasonable critiques of non-belief.
You are not an atheist. Just a man looking for fate 🙂
@@Johnnyquid20 you’re not a theist. Just another man, fearful of death, caught in a daydream.
@@flameless4644 I fear nothing my friend 😉
@@Johnnyquid20 I fear god
Yeah, he's better than ray comfort, but he still talks a lot of shit. Many of the flaws are quite subtle though and takes a careful analysis to identify them.
disappointed at Singer's simply declaring a position without putting forward any explanation, much less proof.
Difficult to prove a negative.
Can you give us any evidence of a god? It doesn't look like it.
It is deeply refreshing to hear this topic discussed without rancor, talking over one another or cheap jokes.
44:38
Oouu man , this debate
Evidence evidence evidence ,
Fact fact fact
Plain simpel and beautiful and elegant
Much more beautiful and elegant then this comment
I still haven't heard any evidence.
What does evidence mean? Evidence doesn't include the absolute belief in something, it only gives rise to it.
As a Christian I can say there is compelling evidence for evolution, however bring up origin of life and it's dead in the water. So depending on how stiff necked you want to be, does that then destroy all of evolution? Of course not, however it offers a sizeable problem to the honest person who will not resort to a God of the gaps argument, or in this case a science of the gaps.
Now with regarding evidence, there's an entire field of archeology to look at, to which many secularist archeologists will say supports the Bibles historic narrative. I'll go a step further and say it's become a general consensus that the events of the Bible is historical, given all of the various bits and pieces they have dug up over the last 4 years.
The field of apologetics can also offer bits and pieces of historical evidence, as the topic itself strictly regards giving an answer to problematic questions.
Lastly, Christian eschatology should be the cherry on top. As someone so learned in theology as you are I assume by your attitude, you would know that the Bibles narrative is God gave man 6000 years before Jesus Christ returns to rule for 1000 years, the signs of the time of the Lords coming is prevalently told throughout various texts of the Bible. Signs of the times are playing out and setting up in front of our eyes. We are almost 2000 years after Christ died. We have the agenda 2030 timeline, but we also have Gods agenda coming to tear it down. Wormwood in the book of Revelations is coming. Apophis is coming around in 2029, while all the elites are building deep underground bunkers.
The signs of the times indicates we are in the last 10-20 years of the Bible timeline. Now is not the time to be an atheist, when the evidence in support of the Bible is overwhelming. But the Bible said, the hearts will grow cold, and as were the days of Noah, so will be when the son of man returns. Jesus said himself, will he find faith when he returns? The atheistic worldview is increasing, just as the Bible said it would.
Now you can continue on your way, or you can give God another go. Perhaps you will be a tribulation saint, you'll wake up when Gods wrath is poured upon the earth for the sake of the wicked, and fire and brimstone will rain down just like Sodom and Gomorrah (evidence for that too). If you know what the Bible says, maybe you will recognise it when it happens, and though you don't believe it now, you open yourself up to be corrected in the future.
The evidence in support of the Bible is incredible. Even the notorious Bart Erhman who specialises in the New Testament who is atheist, believes 100% that every author believed 100% in what they were saying. It's not made up, but based on events that actually happened.
It's the supernatural events that cause people to stumble, yet the biggest importance of the Bible is believing that Jesus was raised from the dead. Believing is the fundamental principle, yet here you are on the other side of the fence, cast out from eternal life unless you repent in your heart and come to the Bible.
The gift is free, yet you are too stubborn to see it's plausibility because you have your own definition and standard for evidence.
Maybe listen again with an open mind.
If you go in thinking everything you think has to be true, you'll never give a second thought to what's being presented.
The evidence is creation itself. The intelligibility of the universe, the Bible backed by Jesus and Jesus backed by His resurrection, which is backed by multiple eyewitness testimonies and the conversion of thousands of God's chosen people to Christianity.
If the resurrection didn't happen, neither would the conversion of those Jews who already believed they were God's chosen people.
There of course is plenty more that points to an intelligent creator of the universe, such as logic itself being immaterial, and outside of time and space, like God, yet I'd wager you still believe logic exists.
25mins in...i notice the high priest of positive atheism.....is wearing a black dog collar...ok i'm stoned.
The answer for suffering and evil....Jesus Christ on the Cross. Suffering has a termination point in Christ for those who belong to Him. The whole world groans under the weight of sin just as all mankind does.
We and the world are bound together because when Adam fell the whole human race fell along with the world that was given to him to steward.
The ANTIDOTE is the Cross. God takes a Tree and places himself upon it and bears in his body all evil, all suffering, all sin and pastes it upon that Tree and seals it with Innocent Blood and he covers ALL of it. Every stain of the world is absorbed in its flow.
This then becomes the New Tree of Life because of the One who hangs upon it. His body is then laid into a grave and it is buried into a tomb. He then rises to vindicate His claims and to prove His power over death and the grave.
God does what man most desperately needs. God makes up for mans inability and lack. This is Gods Gift to mankind. He provides the cure to the malignant cancer, and he just didn't send anyone to do it....He sent the One He loves most of all. His beloved Son.
SO, be very, very careful what you do with Jesus and what you say about him and what you believe about Him. If God went to such lengths to do this you best be sure he has made the WAY ultra clear and comprehensive.
You must come on HIS terms not on your own. Atheist, you cannot accuse God for lack of evidence. He will say to you that you were not only inundated with an abundance of inescapable evidence, but you are evidence yourself, and you rejected clear reason and chose to be an unreasonable fool...now look at the mess you've made. Instead of Gods rationality you chose man's fallible hypothesis. What shall God do to the person who has trampled His Son underfoot?
Thank you for this presentation and the work you've done to bring it.
I don't believe in God, but I know by experience that religious people tend to be less selfish, more caring. For example religious people contribute to charity more than non-religious people, a lot more. Religious commit less crime than non-religious people, a lot less.
@@seanleith5312 Sean I have 2 questions if you don't mind answering. Why do you think religious people are less selfish & more caring? And why don't you believe in God?
@@mkmason2002 To your first question, the conclusion is from both personal experience and publicly available statistics. As to why, I am not sure. If I have to guess, that's because caring for others is part of their religious believe. To your second question, I don't believe in God because I was born and grew up in secular environment for most of part of my life. However, from an observer's point of view, l would say, if I have a choice for a society, I choose religious people over non-religious people.
@@seanleith5312 I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. At 16, I realized it was more of a business than a faith based on the Bible. The opulence of the Vatican and Pope, as the world was full of poverty and the worship of one man, {pope} seemed evil to me and I left the church. I didn't sense God there, only to follow rules and rituals. I decided God wasn't real. I became an agnostic and later worked in the Communist party, an atheist org. 3 yrs later I met 2 Christians and they answered all my questions directly from the Bible and I then realized that God did exist and that He died to pay for my sins so that He could forgive me and give me eternal life should I place my faith in His work on the cross and I became a Christian. We all have different roads to find God. God knows your heart and He knows what it will take to undo the wrong information that you have been given. If you truly want the truth, let me encourage you to sincerely ask God to reveal Himself to you. I PROMISE He will. He did for me. peace
What did Peter Singer say at 57:58~58:01?
If there is this God He sure is an EVIL entity. What good has He ever done for the awful human that He created?
Lennox will not entertain the fact that the bible is unreliable. He believes the gospels & Paul, even though Paul said that he never met Jesus & only knew of him through the old testament & dreams. The author of Luke & Acts is unknown & can't be relied upon to be historically accurate as he used a lot of Mark, which we know is an allegory, not a historical document.
Read Michael Licona about historicity of Gospels
@@educontreras96 Mike is as unreliable as the gospels that he thinks are true. The "historicity" has been accepted by scholars, almost universally, for a while now. That is, they are all anonymous & were written between 70 - 120CE, and were based on Mark's allegory. And they are not factually accurate.
How does this debate not have a billion views by now? This was epic. This might be my new favorite debate. Both sides had top notch arguments, each thoughtfully responded to the other's arguments and rebuttals, and each was very humble and respectful of one another. I was utterly amazed, actually, with how quickly these speakers came up with pertinent and relevant responses to each other--complete with quotes that the Australian audience could also relate to--in such a short period of time. My mind is blown right now. These are the kinds of discussions we all should be having with one another. The only reason I come down on the side of John Lennox is because I have discovered Christ due to evidence and experience before seeing this debate; if I had not, and came to see this debate with no belief one way or the other, I might call this a draw (but for the way that Lennox somewhat threw off Singer by his question regarding his atheist faith based on his heritage, and Singer's answer for the child's question was very telling and highly depressing), and would be very interested in conducting further research to see where it led. Great debate, awesome moderation, and wonderful civility by everyone. Thank you for hosting and sharing this amazing talk, Fixed Point Foundation.
megalopolis2015 I don't think Singer committed a genetic fallacy. That would require that Singer discredit Lennox's beliefs solely due to their origin, namely his cultural experience growing up in a Christian household. What Singer did well was point to the fact that religious belief has a close correlation to prevailing culture. This is observable across the world with various geographic regions having a predominant religion.
Gym: There is a certain pattern that correlates religious viewpoint to familial and cultural upbringing. It is usually easy to tell when someone is just saying things because their parents believed in them, rather than having reasons of their own. One example is that those young people would merely parrot the Bible, rather than actually defend their faith. Another is them changing their beliefs once their circumstances change, such as going to a secular university. However, there are many multitudes of examples of how people changed their beliefs not to impress others, but because they learned what they knew to be true. Some will even die for those beliefs--without killing anyone in return. Some people have had dreams of Jesus without knowing who His is, or of Bible verses they were never exposed to. I, myself, am a much less dramatic but still significant example of how I went against my upbringing, not to rebel, but because I discovered Christ and opened myself to having relationship with Him. In case you were wondering, it was not peer pressure, as prayer partners and church came much later.
nope😂
is god real .. is a black or white question .. there is nothing in between. so how can you say that singer had ANY good point? havent you yourself said that you came to god through science? so singer is obviously ignorant .. not smart enough or a liar! there is no room for him having good points!
singer is a sad proof of how dumb humans can be! if someone calls himself a scientist and is older than 50 and still havent found god through science .. what doest it tell you about him?
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you” - heisenberg
hey! it's not that important debate! people are tired of seeing such debates lately that is all the same,no good conclusion!
Is there a god?
I don't know.
Watch, listen and Understand the truth, my friend.
Good answer.
@@Honestandtruth007 i can hear your chains from here.
@@Honestandtruth007 What truth? There wasn't much in this video. I've read the Bible. Not much in there either. Can you direct me to this truth?
Robert Paulson Jesus Christ is the truth and the way. I’ll guarantee you if you pray and ask him with an open heart he will answer your prayers. It maybe today, tomorrow or in 10 years. He has done the same for me.. and there was no other explanation but Jesus answering them.
I am so unimpressed with Singer and just assumes morality is a given, and how he doesnt understand why the universe cant be eternal.
Say who. The universe could easily be eternal nobody knows
Jesus said some here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God. Shortly thereafter when Jesus rose from the dead we read in Matthew about the Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appeared to Peter, James, and John. They were given a vision of the Kingdom of God. When Jesus rose from the dead, His Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven was then established.
When will Lennox get his mathematical brain to accept that atheism is not a faith-based position. It is the rejection of a claim that a god or gods exist. It is not a "belief", nor a "world view". He gets challenged on this in every debate I've seen him take part in but continues to promulgate this incorrect assertion.
Why do you reject a claim? Do you reject a claim in a vacuum?
He can't help himself.
@@TheGospelAssociates Why the hell don't you reject the claim. Do you think there are invisible onions. If I told you to believe in them, would you?
@@toni4729 the amazing thing is, belief in God is not a wishful thinking. It is evidenced based. Believing in an invisible onion wouldn't be a problem if it can be proven.
@@TheGospelAssociates But an invisible onion can't be proven anymore than God. Simple as that. Neither exist. You can't say they do. Proving it is utterly impossible.
It's like saying nourishing your brain after it's dead is going to keep it alive so you can contact your dead friends and see JC. Your body may burn or rot away but how are you going to nourish your brain. You can't even run a computer or phone without some sort of power but you expect to be about to chat with your old relatives after your dead. How?Where's the power going to come from?
Rather poor debate. For Lennox to say "the resurrection is proven, like some scientific theories" is complete and utter nonsense. There is zero proof of the resurrection. All we have is a book written decades after the supposed event just saying that this "thing" happened. For an extraordinary claim like that, i'm going to need solid evidence.
I don't have all the answers (as anyone doesn't actually have them), but I'm certain that what you mean by "a book" written some years after the presupposed resurrection is not a book: there are 4 books about Jesus, and more than 20 letters to other churches. However, those 4 books, the Gospels, were written by 4 different people with some years of difference. For example, Mark was the first to write about Jesus, and then you have different views of the same story of Jesus in the other three Gospels. Sometimes people try to accuser Christianity by saying "they say different things". And it's half true: no one really wrote a complete biography of Jesus' life, but they still talk about the same person, with the same key events, for example his resurrection. I don't know how much help can I give you by saying that not only the Gospels talk about Jesus' life. If you may have questions, or you think I'm talking gibberish, I'm all ears.
@@risingsun3545 Sure, the 4 books, or even more (the Gnostic gospels). Understand that the synoptic gospels (mark,luke,matthew) are all thought to be from the same source. And also, that it is theorized that the church suppressed certain accounts (eg, the gnostic gospels) in order to put forth a particular story. But whatever, this is mere quibbling. My main point is the N books don't give any solid evidence of the extraordinary claims presented (resurrection, virgin birth, etc). Not even close to how we judge the standard of evidence for scientific theories. And for Lennox to say that there *is*, is really egregious intellectual dishonesty.
@mtman2 Yeah, i'm not going to bother reading a book by some christian apologist that goes into contortions to try and prove something that can't be proven. I've never seen anything come close to proving something like the "resurrection". But if you have some specific proof in mind, please cite it and we can discuss.
@mtman2 Oh no worries, feelings aren't hurt. But do understand that i've been studying and thinking about this stuff for *decades*.
I've listened to the arguments of many of the apologists: Dinesh D'Souza, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Frank Turek, William Dembski, etc, etc. I spent my K-12 education in Catholic school, i've read the Bible backwards and forwards. And the Koran, and the Vedas, and the Sutras,.. So to say that all i have to do is read some book and i'll be convinced? When i've read N w/o success? Reading N+1 is likely to fail. Understand the notion of "precedence". I have many books on my reading list, and not very much time; i'm not going to waste it on the contortions of some other poor, deluded soul.
But again, for the umpteenth time, if you have some *specific* proof you want to give me that Christianity is *true*,
a paragraph or two that you can post here, i'd be happy to take a look. And again, it's not that i'm lazy or spoiled, it's that my
time is limited, i can only read so much.
@mtman2 Oh brother where art thou! Dude, you just went off the deep end. Your ramblings are now certifiable. Do you think the Earth is flat? And who *really* shot JFK? But seriously, you're not buying this "2nd coming July 2020" are you? Please don't do anything stupid, like sell your house, or worse...
Where is the evidence
So, Lennox only was able to explain that there COULD be a god, and Singer explained how the universe can exist without need for a god. Fact is, we can't know for sure if there is some intelligent source that set things in motion.
He explained why HE believes we don't need a god
Singer sings falsehoods! Misquotes scripture.... Cannot give an answer for suffering in the evolutionistic world... He himself doesn't know much about the Bible.. Hence he knows nothing abt the inspiration of the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit!
I would like to be a believer, but John Lennox didn't convince me at all. Laying some cheep arguments, just wishful thinking and at the end, saying that Christianity gives him so much, just like describing why he choose some insurance company, coz they give him so much benefits...
Big up Peter Singer 🤝🤝🤝... I think John Lennox Here is making some wishful claims & unfalsifiable claims... Wonderful debate......
For the last time Lennox, the universe didn't 'create' us. And we do accept that we don't know the answer to the origin of life (abiogenesis) nor do we claim to know the events that led to the Big Bang, but you claim to know how all this came about based on a book written by desert dwellers in an obscure location and when asked to prove, you recite the vaguest line ' in the beginning there was God' and therefore it explains everything. How is that, in any sense, logical? And talking about Ford's discovery of a combustion engine and a car, it is simply what we observe when gas is allowed to expand in a closed chamber. Combustion of gas, fire and expanding gases are all natural phenomenon, so how on earth can you compare a natural phenomenon to a supernatural one and says perfectly reasonable to believe in a sky daddy? And please, no one 'believes' in atheism it is just the rejection of a claim that there is a god ,that's a straw man's fallacy. Hence, by misrepresenting the atheists position you've clearly demonstrated that you have absolutely no understanding of the position you're debating against and tieing natural phenomenon with supernatural and claiming, without any demonstration what so ever, that this proves the existence of God shows your just an irrational biased and illogical Christian apologetic.
So basically you say we have no proof of how life was created and you as well have no proof.. but our no proof is a lesser than yours because you say so.. ignorance is not bliss my friend.. I’ll pray for you... 🙏🏽😇
@@jayrocky9067 Pray? What's that supposed to do? And no, your "proof" is not less because I say so....it's because you haven't demonstrated anything and are a hypocrite by calling me ignorant. What access to information do you have that no one else does? And if you're going reply with "God" just don't even bother. Keep believing because that's what you want to believe.
@@jayrocky9067 yes, please petition your invisible wizard with a magical incantation to elicit favor on our behalf. 🙏 Surely that will be effective here in the real world, and is not at all delusional or insane.
@@jayrocky9067 ...and you should read the original post again because your reply demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.
Well said
Peter Singer tore apart every fabric of Lennox threadbare arguments with surgical precision the whole while without breaking a sweat.
During the big bang, science states that to have such compression of the matter to cause such an explosion would have a Temperature of trillions of degree's, I'm wondering what could have servived that awesome temperature ? When only a few hundred degrees kill's all living organisms. ??????????
So do you agree with him about the origin, or lack thereof, of the universe?
he did a fantastic job, imo.
Peter: I don't have faith.
John: That is faith Peter, don't you believe it?
Peter: owh wel oh....
It is absolutely not a faith. John would have had faith shoved down his throat from the day he was born.
Faith =/= belief. Faith usually means unconditional trust, belief and devotion in something bordering on the irrational but perhaps not quite. When you say "i have faith in x" you are saying that, despite how unlikely it may seem that x is going to turn out to be true, you believe it will out of some sense of devotion to x.
Example:
"I have faith my buisness will succeed"
"I am confident my buisness will succeed at some point in the future even though it might not seem that way now"
It can also mean being strongly confident in something, though you might have reasons to think otherwise.
Example:
"The soldier had faith his battalion would survive even though they were outnumbered by the enemy"
'Owh wel oh...' is the sound you make when you're desperately trying not to be rude to someone who's just said something profoundly idiotic.
@@dogsdomain8458 No, there's a complete difference. When you have faith in a buisness working you don't just sit back and watch it fail, you will do something about it. You will make the effort to make it work and with a soldier, he's not going to stand out in front of bullets saying they can't hurt him now, is he? Wake up.
@@toni4729 EVERY SINGLE WORLDVIEW in existence is based on faith, basic a priori beliefs accepted without proof. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. The entire scientific enterprise itself is based on faith presuppositions which cannot be "proved."
How can someone say the universe has no creator and its got no cause. How can someone suggest that there is no God. One only has to consider the beauty, rationality and sophistry of nature....just look around you and you'll see that God exists. To suggest that God doesn't exist is like looking at a beautiful car and suggesting that it created itself.
No it's not
99.9999999% etc of the universe is inhospitable to humans. We inhabit a planet on the spiral arm of a typical galaxy, it really isn't about us
How can someone look at our complete lack of evidence of any gods and just believe in a completely terrible idea?
* Theism is _actually_ theists looking at reality and reaching a faulty, irrational belief like that.
* Atheism _does not_ involve claiming "the universe has no creator". The majority of atheists admit we don't know how the universe was caused or if it has a cause.
But...do you even care? _I_ care about truth. Yet constantly as I talk with theists it's so hard to get them to address these problems -- that makes it seem like they just don't care about truth at all. When something I believe is criticized, and especially when someone has evidence it's wrong, I listen. I care. But when someone says they believe in something and they themselves know they can't prove it (which you've shown: by distracting off topic instead of proving a god exists with evidence) then that mostly just convinces me that they've been misled by a horrible idea that nobody should believe.
- "There are but two possibilities: (1) Life originated from undirected processes; or (2) Life originated from directed processes. Scenario (1) is impossible for the reasons stated below. Whenever you have two possibilities if, you prove one to be impossible then you have necessarily proved the other to be *certain*.
Atheists often accuse Christians of adhering to a “god of the gaps” fallacy; that we adhere to an argument from incredulity. However, nothing could be further from the truth. We do not argue that we do not understand how undirected life origination happens and therefore God. We affirmatively state and prove that undirected life origination is absolutely impossible.
Why is it impossible for life to arise from undirected processes? To begin with, it is statistically impossible. It is generally accepted that odds greater than 1:10^50 are so remote as to be impossible. Assuming arguendo that it is even possible for molecules to assemble themselves into cell membranes and to cooperate to develop life processes, and further that they could posit and develop the ACTG(u) language carried in DNA, it must be noted that the simplest moneran known to man has a DNA sequence that is a little over 218,000 letters long. Let’s round it down and also discount the (U) in the DNA coding. Bending over backwards in favor of the atheist, the odds of assembling the sequence of DNA needed to govern the operation and reproduction of the simplest moneran are 1:4^218000. Rephrased to base-10, we are at 1:1.607*10^217060.
Also, let's assume arguendo that the “consensus” age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. That works out to 4.35*10^15 seconds. Let’s also assume that the “consensus” of subatomic particles in the known universe is correct at 10^86. That is 4.35*10^103 particle-seconds from the beginning of the universe to this day. Every subatomic particle in the universe would have to engage in 3.69*10^216957 *ordered experiments* (where no two experiments were identical) *per second* from the beginning of the universe to *now* to find the DNA sequence of the simplest moneran.
As you add to those odds by raising them to the power of the odds of: (a) DNA itself forming; (b) within a cell membrane since water is caustic to it; (c) the cell membrane itself forming; (d) with the correct mix of left-handed amino acids [and none right-handed]; (e) in such a manner as to have the correct food to metabolize; (f) with the correct temperature; (g) with the correct pH; one can clearly see that the odds rapidly exceed a number of one in ten raised to the power of a number of zeroes in it that exceed the number of subatomic particles in this universe. Impossible. To an absurd degree.
The impossibility of unintelligent chemicals positing and implementing the DNA language cannot be stated numerically; the odds are one in **infinity**. Chemicals are unintelligent. It is ipso facto impossible for them to cooperate. If you wish to make chemicals reflect intelligence, then external intelligence must be applied. DNA itself is the irrefutable calling card of God.
That said, let’s proceed to other things that make undirected life origins impossible. Each and every action whereby an element, molecule or life form proceeds from the simple to the complex requires the application of external intelligence. Physical laws make this an absolute. Matter within a system proceeds from the complex to the simple, and not the other way around. This physical law can be suspended - but only by the application of external intelligence; e.g., heat soda ash, silica and lime to 1200 degrees Celsius for a measured period of time and you produce glass. Blow air into the center of a blob of glass and cool it in a controlled fashion, and you produce a bottle. However, this law cannot be suspended by undirected processes. Therefore, intelligence is a requirement for taking the simple and fashioning it into the complex.
While this law appears easily suspended in such thing as nuclear fusion, no actual suspension of physical force absent the application of external intelligence has ever been observed. Physical laws are much less easily suspended as complexity grows. In other words, the more complex the outcome becomes, the more intelligence is needed to effectuate the complexity. This is most truthful in progressive evolutionary speciation - one species adapting to some outside factor to become a more complex species. There is a reason that this we have never observed this: It’s impossible.
How does a creature go from being sightless to having eyes? How would an organism know that it needed this adaptation? How would an organism know how to implement such an adaptation? It would not. Therefore we are assuming a serendipitous random mutation to something vastly more complex. However, virtually all observed mutations are harmful or even fatal. A serendipitous mutation to a higher species has never been observed. Has evolutionary speciation ceased?
“Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate” - William of Ockham. Creation adheres to Ockham’s Razor because it requires the creative intelligence to intervene a limited number of times to originate the universe and life and populate the Earth. Abiogenesis and progressive evolutionary speciation both require an infinite number of serendipitous, sequential and progressively more complex suspensions of physical laws, all without any intelligence to guide them, to accomplish its goal. The more simple explanation is likely the correct one.
The doubts as to Creation are unreasonable, and are usually accompanied by an attempt to burden-shift from proving one’s assertion of abiogenesis (and the denial of God's existence is implicitly an assertion of abiogenesis) to forcing the Christian to prove creation in order to rebut a presumption of abiogenesis. However, every time we take up the mantle and do so, the evidence is usually rejected without any consideration, much less serious consideration. This notwithstanding the fact that any doubts of its veracity or of the conclusions reached are certainly unreasonable.
While Christians are tarred with the “god of the gaps” fallacy, it is more apropos to say that atheists are in reality adhering to a “godless of the gaps” fallacy, whereby it is held that “I don’t understand how God can exist, therefore not-God.” Or, perhaps more appropriately, “I don’t like the idea of God or how He runs His universe, therefore not-God.”
Faith to the Christian has nothing to do with merely conceding His existence. It has to do with trusting His veracity and His goodness and His Word and acting on that trust. I could give the arguments that God - the Living God as depicted in the Bible - is the only possible Creator and that Jesus is exactly who He claims, but this post is very long as it is.
Thank you." - John F. Tamburo
I’ll never understand when a theist says he can talk and hear their god and can’t answer why there’s so much evil in the world. Why can’t you ask your god for answers. Why doesn’t the loving god help kids who are molested but just watching and punishing the person later? Why doesn’t god answer prayers of parents of childrren who are dying from cancer ?
Those are the products of the direct influence of demons in peoples lives and minds, sometimes leading to possession (which I think is what is happening in most severe cases of the lowest of the low). The question you have to start with then is, why did God let Lucifer become Satan? Why’s the first sinner, cast out of heaven, allowed to roam and maintain a degree of power on earth, the same place His prized creation lives?
Well, here’s what I make of it (the Bible never necessarily makes it ultra clear why, only states what happened): Do you let evil people into your home? If a known murderer came knocking on your door, would you go “Oh, hey, come on in!” Or even just a thief? Or someone who’s just rude and lied to you a lot? Odds are low. So, God isn’t particularly big on letting evil people into His good, clean house. It would be hard to view Him as Holy if He was. As the Only Perfect Thing in existence, He, understandably, also can’t trust us unless we trust in Him. Because if we don’t trust in Him, we have to be trusting in something, and it’ll be something imperfect. This is why He calls Himself Jealous, and only He can be justified in that feeling. Because He actually meets the standard of perfection we all subconsciously reach out toward amidst jealousy, envy, and other unrighteous products of looking in the wrong place for the right thing.
I am 62 years old...still waiting for evidence of a god(s)
Lawrence Eason you’ve been given evidence, you just don’t want to accept it. Just admit this and move on. We all have choices to make in this life.
@@asmallfarmhomestead3657 yes we do. And as the great David Hume said "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" I continue to challenge theists for evidence...and any good reasons to believe
@@lawrenceeason8007, the fact that you're still asking for evidence further proves that you don't want there to be a God.
Up to you, but don't whine about going to Hell. The choice was yours.
@@dazedmaestro1223 not really asking. Although if someone ever submitted actual, solid evidence for a god that would be revelatory. It's more of a challenge to theists...that there isn't any really GOOD reason to believe in such a thing
@@lawrenceeason8007, If I present you solid evidence, will you actually look at it and study it? I can tell you, it's irrefutable.
Jesus never died. He is alive and soon he will come.
We are very near to the end of the human history. World's current affairs pointing out that we are very near to the end.
Coming of Jesus will be the sign of the last time. It is one of the biggest sign.
He died on the cross but he rose from the dead on the third day. The flesh died but God rose him from the dead. Jesus is God in the flesh. There were 500 eye witnesses that Paul even told you to question because some of them were alive. If it were a legend it wouldn’t work because it happened within months of the resurrection and legends take at LEAST two generations to start.
He died on the cross, even the Talmud, Jewish historian Josephus and Roman historian Cornelius attests to that. It is the most established historical fact in human history.
There is no such thing as morality and ethics demands reason, which is supporting atheism. Lennox tried to trap Singer by forcing him to admit that Atheism is a belief, which of course everyone knows, it is not.
Singer: “I’m not arguing that the existence of a universe is strictly incompatible with a creator… I’m simply arguing we have no need to believe in such a creator” 46:45
Exactly… you feel like you don’t need God, which is why you don’t believe. Not because you think he can’t be real. lol
1.13:43 - - Mr Lennox, who is nice man for sure, just made the claim that Christianity makes "much more sense of the world" than atheism or other religions so lets summarise that belief.
1. That there is a supernatural , timeless , formless, omniscient , omnipotent , omnipresent deity that pre-existed eternally before 13.8 billion of years ago, who made the trillions and trillion of suns, planets , galaxies but chose just this one planet as his chosen one. 99.9 % to the umpteenth power of all the cosmos is LETHAL to us . Our own planet is 71% salt water also deadly for us, much is too hot or too cold for us to live in. Our own sun will one day explode and take all the planets with it - some design eh? 99% of all creatures that have lived on the planet have gone extinct - some design.
2. That he chose one area/tribe within that planet for his special message , which some people in the world havent heard thousands of years hence. When God flooded the planet , he killed people who have never been exposed to the Word let alone disobey it , INCLUDING babies in their mothers womb.
3. He then chose Humans to have to write his message down as instructions, for a pathway in some after life concept we have never been able to show has any foundation, entry into some eternal theme park, and this came from decades of Aramaic oral traditions/Midrash written 30-60 years after the events ( from a language he knew in advance would die out) and into another language, Koine Greek, and that mere humans would try and copy the earliest manuscripts and make corrections in the theology along the way with all the problems that causes.
4. We dont have the originals or anything close to the NT originals , they are gospels are anonymously written and the names and professions were added much later.
5. We know that extra verses and stories were added along the way i.e. last twelve verses of Mark , the woman taken into sin in John etc are not in the earliest and best versions we have. Humans have made up stories and inserted them over the years.
6. The books were hand picked to reflect the Nicene Creed concept of who Jesus was and yet they STILL contradict themselves all over the place on the major events of Jesus life, with some things that just cant be reconciled.
We dont have any reliable contemporary eye witness sources other than the Bible for any of the supernatural claims so its the bible being used to prove the bible and that is circular reasoning.
7. Contained in Gods word are firmaments , dragons, 7 headed beast, talking Donkeys , walking on water, a man living in fish for three days without any oxygen, talking serpents who BTW dont have vocal chords or ears to hear the reply, turning water in wine, god sending 42 bears to kill 42 children who mock Elijah's bald head, the burning bush, the sun stopping in the sky to continue a slaughter, the whole Matthew narrative at the resurrection with 3 hours of darkness, rocks splitting, the spirits getting out of the graves and talking to people in town, an earthquake none of which got mentioned by any other writer , including the other gospel writers please note, Jesus being born at the time of Quinirius who started his governorship of Syria in 6CE, but also he was born when Herod the Great was alive and he died 4 BC so thats a mere 9 years out - I COULD GO ON ......
But for John to say the all the above makes MORE sense than scientific discoveries and good healthy use of skepticism ( not cynicism) just goes to show what a powerful belief system he has be brought up in.
Um this comment contains fallacies and unexamined assumptions such as:
A The fallacy that physical size and finite vs eternal durations of time are measures of value and importance.
B That since the universe is headed towards maximum entropy and humans are mortal and surrounded by risks of physical danger & death, that therefore the universe wasn't designed.
C Pejorative wording like eternal "theme park" that creates inaccurate caricatures of concepts of the afterlife.
D Claiming that differences of certain details in new testament narratives negates the validity of the whole.
E Referring to the Bible as one source unto itself when it is actually a collection of different sources.
F Interpreting some of the poetic and figurative language in the Bible literalistically an then ridiculing it as absurd.
G Implying theism and/or belief in the Bible is mutually exclusive with skepticism.
H The overall assertion that because of the above, positing intelligence as a better explanation for the existence of the universe as opposed to mindless unguided natural processes, is false.
@@Ojack33 lets investigate your post.
a) not sure I made any such claim as my knowledge of the universe being anything, apart from there, in minimal.
b) that's a non sequitur - we don't know if we are heading for maximum entropy and therefore the universe wasn't designed, but we can deduce that if it was designed for life , then thats an immeasurable amount of capricious waste .
Therefore its far far more likely that we are a cosmic happy accident rather than 400 billion galaxies being made that we can't even get to our nearest planet, let alone any of the galaxies .
c) I dont care if think the term theme park is pejorative, it is used to show the ridiculousness of the primitive concept of the after life and heaven and hell for which , yet again please note, you have no proof, nada, zippo. I note you take offence to my term but offer up nothing to show I'm wrong -thats very telling. If your response is well it COULD be made by a deity then I could also quote Matt Dillahunty and say universe creating pixies did it. Both have equal proof.
d) you are right and wrong. It cant be fully correct if there are things contained that contradict themselves. I am not saying that it doesn't contain elements which are likely true, but even if places and people did exist , that has no baring if the supernatural events took place does it? Additionally if 9 things in a book are true it doesnt necessarily follow that the next one is, especially if it invoked supernatural goings on.
e) You misunderstand me . What I was pointing out is that outside the bible we dont have any other contemporary, independent , reliable non biased to the subject matter sources, not that the bible itself isn't made up of some sources. We only have Josephus in the first century who mentioned Jesus twice , once to say he was the brother of James and then a fiercely disputed passage which most biblical scholars, even god believing scholars, accept it looks like it has had the hand of later Christian scribes editing it which I am very happy to show why that is.
f) well how do we ascertain what sentence is true, what is allegorical , what is metaphor, what is just apocalyptic language? etc . God has an important message, so important in fact that he comes down in human form , dies , and from then on, the stories are retold orally in Aramaic, a dead language for 30-65 years , before they are written down in another country most likely, in Koine greek. With all those fallible game of Chinese whispers going on? Really, that is how god wanted to preserve the word? really?
The eyewitness to Jesus life were illiterate day labourers and fishermen who couldn't read or write, so who was taking down all his sermons exactly?????
g) not sure what you mean , but what I do say is theist are all for rationalism, skepticism and evidence based decisions .........right up and until that method comes into conflict with their belief system and then its the latter that take precedence.
h) cant understand you last sentence. But all I will say is , we dont have any evidence for god in reality. We have stories in a series of contradictory, anonymously written books by people that didn't know where he sun went at night, that we can prove have been rewritten and yet based on that we are supposed to believe? That seems like conformation bias and a large dose of gullibility to me. Cant prove you are not right, but I will withhold that belief until such time that some good evidence is presented.
Here is rub, we have been discussing this for Millenia .......the very fact that we are cast doubt on a god existing , watching on as we kill each other for rival beliefs why he plays the longest game of hide and seek, ever.
Any god, that doesnt materialise in a detectable way is indistinguishable from one that doesnt exist.
@@jonfromtheuk467 I'll address point B in the interest of narrowing the focus. Otherwise it's like drinking from a fire hose and too time consuming.
Well according to most cosmological evidence it certainly looks like we are headed towards maximum entropy. But that's actually not a quibble we need to have for the purposes of this particular discussion. Whatever you want to call it, we are headed to a state of the universe where human life as we know it will be extinguished. You are using this physical mortality and then claiming because we are finite and mortal and we live in a vast universe with regards to size & duration to conclude that therefore there's no God. That simply doesn't follow. (In fact the size and duration of the universe had to be the way it is for carbon based life to arise, but that's a separate point)
Furthermore, you'd have to know God's purpose for the universe first before you could conclude that the design is faulty and not fulfilling that purpose. And logically, obviously, things like billions of years, trillions if stars, finite resources etc would not apply to the monotheistic concept of God, who is infinite and eternal etc. On Pont B your premises simply don't lead to the conclusion that therfore God doesn't exist.
@@Ojack33 you said I have concluded there is no god - what I have actually said I haven't been convinced by any of the arguments offered so far. I'm open .
You said "you'd have to know God's purpose for the universe first before you could conclude that the design is faulty and not fulfilling that purpose" see this is exactly what i mean -you just defined god into existence and claim without ANY proof that this deity is "infinite and eternal".......see how you are smuggling in god at every stage ?
And the claim comes from a series of discordant , anti scientific , anonymously authored books written by people who didnt know where the sun went at night.......
@@jonfromtheuk467 There's a whole separate argument for the nature of God being the greatest conceivable being. A person can only deal w so much on a TH-cam comment section. So that's my definition of God. We are discussing whether that God exists.
You saying ur unconvinced is incomplete. What you seem more persuaded by is that mindless unguided processes are responsible for the universe and that requires some justification.
Your 3rd option is complete agnosticism, but that's obviously not your worldview from all that you've said.
John Lennox is the only Christian apologist I respect and enjoy watching. He's wrong of course, but he's wrong in such a likeable way.
I like how sure you are he's wrong. Nice to see someone who lived to see the creation of the Universe.
Marius Enache nice to see someone delusional
JokeR xxx atheist logic: I’ll call this guy delusional and pathetic which means I win the argument harhar.
Mega big brain. V
@@victorteodor641 I was being flippant. I'm not sure he's wrong - but unlike him, I'm not so foolish as to make a claim such as, "There is a god" or, "There is no god" without good evidence.
There's plenty of evidence as far as I'm concerned. But either way, I would encourage you to decide one or the other and not sit on the fence in perpetuity 🙂
Dr Singer has a good point. Why does God: If He Is God, Allow Evil, War, Disease, Famine & Natural Destruction Take Place? Dr Singer is an example of the age old biblical debate. Is man allowed free choice? Obviously, if we read Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and to keep it.
16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.
This is the original proposition. God gave man-Adam a garden/paradise. All had to do was believe God was telling the truth. But he was free not to believe God aka (call him a Liar.) Do what you will and choose death and do evil.
But Adam and Eve (created later after God told Adam the law) Exercised free will to ignore God and reject his guidance and law. We listened to a Liar. By listening to the Liar aka Devil/Satan he became our Father and We Became our own gods. If you look at all the religions? Manlike beings are the idols & gods. That we worship.
Genesis3:4 The serpent said to the
woman, “You surely will not die! 5“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
As God said: JPS Tanakh 1917
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever!” So we and Devil are the gods of this world. Dr Singer you are a Modern Adam! God is a Liar. He does not exist or is not your Atheistic god. God can not blamed for the awful world you testify too.
I have son that is severely bipolar. I have shown him nothing but love. Sent him to Ivy-league colleges. He has everything money can buy. But he says he hates me and my wife. He will never come to our house again. But he does when he is desperate. But still blames us for i suspect giving him an unhappy illness.
You Dr Singer are like my son. You hold God responsible for all the evil men do.
Romans 1:29 They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, and malice. They gossip
Romans 1:30and speak evil of one another; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud, and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; 31they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. 32They know that God's law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them.
Don’t blame God for man /Adam exercising his Free Choice! Man chose to be god of this world. Just like you Dr Singer chose to believe what you believe. If you hate this world? Man made this bed. Let him lie in it!
Like Hamlet said to Horatio: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
The assumption here is that if there is a God then God would not allow evil to occur in any form or at any time. The problem with this assumption is that we cannot say that evil exists unless there is something that is good. If there is something that is good then there is something that is best. If there is a real "best" then there must be a God. So, whether you believe there is an ultimate purpose for evil or not, just to say there is evil one must assume there is a God. So, evil points toward God, not away from it.
This is Epicurean Paradox , “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?"
This is not the debate that Judaism is familiar with. They view the debate that it is argued by a supreme prosecutor Satan. If you read Job. The case of being argued by Satan
Job 2: 1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
2And the Lord said to Satan, “From where do you come?”
Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it.”
3Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause.”
4So Satan answered the Lord and said, “Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. 5But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!”
6And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life.”
7So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes.
9Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!”
10But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.
The argue is not whether good triumph vs evil or what is good?
Satan knows what good is. God is good. The case the prosecutor Satan argues is the same case he argued against Christ when he tested Christ for 40 days in the wilderness.
God created mankind and it’s impossible for mankind to not disobey and to not do evil. The case against humans is we are a flawed creation.
As Epicurus Paradox stated God is not omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient. God made a mistake creating mankind and he is the same mistake God made creating Satan. In other words if God makes mistakes it proves Satan’s case against man a most of God’s creation. Angels also rebelled and disobey God like the original father Adam.
God is our savior but he was obligated to save mankind through his Son Christ. Christ’s test and temptation had to prove 1 human could obey God without his hedge of protection. Why does God permits evil? Why does God permit good? It is illogical for there to be good and not the opposite evil. Simple Newtonian Law of Physics. Like gravity: What goes up must come down. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
A physician can not heal unless there is a disease. You can not know what love is if you don’t know the opposite is hate. If you give life, the opposite is take life away. Is one better than the other? If we do not know murder is good or evil then why have a debate of good vs evil at all? The Ten Commandments are they worthy of death? God decided they were. Since He is the Law Giver they are the primary laws. Love God and Worship only God is the most important? Because the Devil advocate in Garden of Evil did what? Satan succeeded in
deceiving man and getting man to disobey God, call God a liar and this process Satan got man to obey and worship him. By obeying or believing Satan? Mankind became Satan’s seed or children.
Genesis 3: 14And the LORD God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; on your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life:
15And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and (between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.)
Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
John Lennox puts his fellow Protestants to shame. He talks about things that other Protestants do not want to think about, such as an honest view of history.
That's because he is a high Anglican. high Anglicans are more like Catholics than protestants, although still heretics in our view. People like C.S. Lewis and John Lennox are much more challenging to the new atheists because unlike someone like William Lane Craig, you are right, there are places Lennox will go where Craig simply won't. His thoughts on the divine nature, transcendence, and the rational/logical intelligibility of the universe are topics most protestants either don't wish to or don't bother to explore.
hes an expert in matths but not in reality. theres no mathematical symbol for god
So peter singer has hope in the next generation. Isn’t hope a show of faith? I think he does have faith. Not in God but in humanity. He has faith that the next generation would learn from past mistakes and ensure they don’t happen again. He has faith that the next gen would lessen suffering. He says hope, but in hoping something, you are showing faith that it will go the way you want things to go. He mentions blind faith when it comes to the Christian belief, but isn’t he showing blind faith in humanity?
Yes, everyone has faith in this world, including atheists : unbelievers just replace their Creator with humans, animals or objects. So, please, don't believe atheists when they say that they have no faith.
@@rachelanne2968 Trust != Faith. Faith is always blind, trust relies on experience or proof
@@gehrig7593 Faith and trust are the same thing, according to the dictionary, so I trust its definition of faith much more than the atheistic one =)
So complex to tell who win so i base who the most bald of them will enjoy my vote.
I also have this faith that bald people are more intelligent being 😂😂😂
Lennox got own in this one
@@henpines By what standard?
Jesus Himself said "I have come to set people against each other". Religious debate certainly does that. Is that but one more piece of proof of Jesus' Deity ?
All ideologues comes with that message though, don't they? And the conflict includes, but is not limited to, debate. Jesus says one's own relatives and household will become *enemies* because of the spiritual fight between Christ's followers and enemies.
Jesus' rash apocalyptism is yet more proof of the irrational roots of Judeo-Christian faith, not of its mature universality. It took centuries upon centuries of painful darkness to mould this deeply superstitious tradition into the decent, free society of the West.
«أَنْتَ يَا رَبُّ فِي الْبَدْءِ أَسَّسْتَ الأَرْضَ، وَالسَّمَاوَاتُ هِيَ عَمَلُ يَدَيْكَ.
هِيَ تَبِيدُ وَلكِنْ أَنْتَ تَبْقَى، وَكُلُّهَا كَثَوْبٍ تَبْلَى، وَكَرِدَاءٍ تَطْوِيهَا فَتَتَغَيَّرُ. وَلكِنْ أَنْتَ أَنْتَ، وَسِنُوكَ لَنْ تَفْنَى »(عب 1: 10-12)
Jesus is Lord
What’s there to debate? Nobody ever managed to prove any god exists yet.😈
Wonderful watch. In his opening statement he mentions that "if God needs no first cause we out to be able to say the universe needs no first cause." But wouldn't that help prove God? that he has no first cause, and he gave everything its first cause. The watch has first cause because it was created. The universe and us have first cause because we were created. God Bless all of us!
Any thinking person sees how weak Lennox’s points are. He repeatedly tries to equate what ought to be with what is.
God is a desired entity, not an observed one.
Another of his major arguments is "I can't belief that evolution is random, thus GOD"
And because something is desired doesn't mean it's beyond the realm of existence. As Collins put it, if the desire can't be met in this world, then its fulfilment must be transcendent
@@cyrusademola1326There's an infinite amount of things that are desired and not beyond the realm of possibility. To assert that one in particular exists is a logical fallacy.
God can be both desired and observed.
I'm not rejecting religion. I'm fine with it. I just simply do not believe in a or any God. This doesn't make me a bad person, I enjoy helping others. I have my own personal morals. I just don't believe in God.
Im a believer and No, that doesnt make you a Bad person..infact Nobody should be judge with regards to what they choose to believe or not to believe..
You're right. The Bible doesn't say that unchristian people are bad indeed. I know some people that tell other that they're all evil, but it's not true, even for Christians
@@risingsun3545 the statement in God's Word is very clear and doesn't differentiate between believer and unbeliever.
Romans 3 : 9What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous,
not even one.
11There is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”c
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”d
“The venom of vipers is on their lips.”e
14“Their mouths are full
of cursing and bitterness.”f
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery lie in their wake,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”g
18“There is no fear of God
before their eyes.”h
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin.
God clearly gives you a choice.
@@hahaimatree8343 excellent choice of words... Character.
As with every other apologist I have listened to, Lennox has done an anemic job of trying to explain the unexplainable, the greatest problem Christianity faces, that of suffering.
The usual themes:suffering is a test; the crucified Jesus suffers with us; suffering is our penance for original sin; we suffer but with it comes hope - suffering here will be made up for in the next life of heavenly bliss - all challenge believability.
Interestingly, I have heard at least one apologist say there is suffering in heaven as well. Does it ever strike the Christian as ludicrous to assert these things?
If god exists, he is nothing short of a cruel game player, enjoying the suffering which he alone could assuage, much as a misguided boy delights in pulling the wings off living insects.
Why this stupendous level of suffering - wouldn’t a fraction of what we endure be sufficient for his reasons?
Lennox speaks about the comfort of hope people have, but does he not see what an exclusive club that is? Where is the hope for non- Christians as they suffer terribly under the same god’s action/ inaction?
Since modern man emerged from Africa approximately 100,000 years ago, untold numbers of humans have suffered and died without even knowing the God-of-the-bible existed.
It boggles the mind that Christians convince themselves to believe, no matter what.
Suffering and a way of perseverance, learning and growing and a dream for reaching perfection is still a much better explanation than suffering has no point or purpose at all.... at least it's an answer and a hopeful one at that while Atheism doesn't have an answer for it at all....
@@StallionFernando A reason for suffering (from the non- Christian perspective) is not required. It just is. It is part of the randomness- and that’s fine. Our job, as self-aware human beings, is to ameliorate as much suffering as we can- for ourselves, and other living things (including the planet).
Christians, who declare there is an omnipotent, loving god interested in personal relationships with his creation, have an uphill battle in defending why others should believe in a being who ultimately causes the immense suffering he watches every moment of every day.
Plenty of nonsense are the reasons Christians parrot.
On one hand Christians say they can’t know the mind of god, while on the other they are very certain in asserting that God has a definite, as well as good, reason for suffering.
Atheists don’t pretend to have *the* answer to the greatest question there will ever be- how did this reality come to be? We will, imo, never know. It’s exciting to live with the mystery. Each day we live is to be lived with appreciation because it’s the only one we are certain exists. You live for the next world, this is only a way-station to a ‘better’ existence. How sad.
Suffering becomes much easier to understand once you realize this is a reality of duality and what that means along with free will.
Here's a question I ask not sarcastically: You say it boggles your mind that Christians can convince themselves to believe no matter what. You also say humans walked out of caves 100,000 years ago in Africa. Why do you believe that? Is that an independently verifiable belief? Does it require blind faith in what you've read in books? Kind of similar to what Christians do with their Bible?
The idea we evolved from single cell organisms over time and eventually from primates and then eventually walked out of Africa 100,000 years ago relies on the process of Macro-evolution being true. Yet, no one has ever observed this process. No scientist even claims to have observed it. So why do you believe this process can happen first of all, and then certainly happened countless times in the past to result in single cell organisms evolving into the various complex life forms we see on Earth today, including ourselves?
Do you even really *know* that Earth is 100,000 years old in the first place? The dating methods used by mainstream academia are very debatable... and there are 12 different methods they could use. Some support the idea Earth is billions of years old, while some support the idea it's only a few thousand years old.
For what reason do you accept the methods that indicate it's billions of years old? I mean, other than the fact it's the mainstream consensus to do so which isn't really a valid reason for believing something... as it would just be a bandwagon fallacy.
I ask because most people who criticize Christians for believing the words written in a book written by men they haven't even met... do the same thing with a different book, without awareness of it.
Sure, the books you believe may say "SCIENCE" on the cover, but does this really mean it represents what the scientific method shows in real life when applied honestly, objectively, and without bias?
At least Christians are aware of their faith. They don't falsely conflate their faith with science like Scientism Dogmatists do.
If you don't know what a Scientism Dogmatist is, its someone who blindly believes the current academic consensus on faith alone, without the need/ability to independently verify.
Dogmatic Scientism is completely antithetical to science. Yet, most people conflate them in their minds and don't realize how to differentiate between the two. The end result is most people end up thinking "science" means blind faith in academia.
In reality, science is just a method of discovery requiring no faith... including no blind faith in academia.
@@lightbeforethetunnel There is far greater likelihood that scientists’ current theories about our world are correct, than the belief held by Christians that supernatural (anything) exists - for which there is zero evidence. It is an unfalsifiable myth.
Casting doubt onto the dependability of scientific observations and data (from various fields of science), as well as trying to equate the anonymous, at times fanciful, biblical writings with the contents of science tomes, is a desperate attempt to suggest that you have a ball in the game. There is no comparison.
Scientists would be the first to say they know nothing with 100% certainty. There is no final answer. Current theories are added to, or scrapped entirely based on new findings. This does not mean ‘well then, god’.
@@jennifer97363 I actually haven't said anything about my beliefs. I haven't said whether I believe the Bible or not... or anything about my beliefs because it's irrelevant to my point. I'm also not arguing the Bible is true just because you seem to be a Scientism Dogmatist.
Nothing you've said has refuted my argument that Scientism Dogmatists are doing exactly what Christians do... both groups blindly believe what others have written in books on faith alone.
You also haven't refuted my point that doing so is dogmatic, not scientific. Science is about doing everything you can to prove yourself wrong, not defend your pre-existing beliefs no matter what.
How much have you done to determine if your pre-existing beliefs in the current consensus are wrong? Any? Or do you just blindly believe it because it's the consensus? That would be Dogmatic Scientism. There's nothing wrong with being a Scientism Dogmatist but it's good to be aware of it. You can believe whatever you want, I don't care.
I explained how dogmatism and science are completely antithetical to each other and you haven't refuted that either.
All you did was confirm my point by explaining WHY you trust the claims of scientists and how they would know things... along with your assumption that scientists would be the first to admit when they don't know something, etc.
It's very typical of Scientism Dogmatists to claim "scientists would be honest, wouldn't be corrupt, wouldn't be biased, etc..." Scientism is not unaware of the limitations of the scientific method (such as corruption, bias, false presuppositions, etc). Real science is aware these things can apply to any consensus and it could therefore be wrong.
It's circular reasoning. I'm sure Christians likely think those who wrote the Bible would be more likely to be right, as they'd commit the same circular reasoning to confirm their own bias too. This is how all forms of dogmatism work.
Anyhow, you seem to want to be turning this around on me and my beliefs... when I haven't even mentioned them... or you want to make your dogmatic beliefs seem more reasonable than Christian's Dogmatic beliefs.
When my view is that all forms of dogmatism and blind belief are bad and antithetical to real science.
Prof. Lennox is stubbornly insular in his world view.
No, he stands by his principles. You just don't agree with him.
@@Paul-qr7hu Yes he stands by his insular principles.
Lennox beliefs not necessarily means he was right .Thats all what he believed .
Same for Peter, he has a lot of faith that God doesn’t exist
Off topic, but how lovely is Lennox? I bet he's a great Grandad.
He looks like santa! :)
Noone can mess with Prof. Lennox. He's too clever. He and Ravi should team up together. That would be a lethal duo for Team Jesus!
His_ Redeemed Team Jesus sounds like a gang of octogenarian pedophiles.
Kasper You sound like an unintelligent person who has nothing else to say but hate. You know what you call those people? Haters. You know what else they are? Losers...
KobeFan12452 Stop melting, snowflake. It was a joke. Given some very recent infamous incidents that do not reflect very well on the Christian faith, Team Jesus does sound like a gang of octogenarian pedophiles.
KobeFan12452 And it is my great pleasure to inform you that you sound like the second coming of Einstein.
Kasper Your just full of childish statements aren’t you? I’m assuming your still a child as with every other Atheist. Mind you I don’t mean age, no no, I mean mental intelligence. Anyways, your making a very good case of sounding like a fool.
Lennox is a very well spoken man but he ultimately does what all religious people do. He bends over backwards to try and explain his presuppose belief. Jesus dying and suffering means as much as me running a 50k. Yea it's an immense suffering but it will not last forever. And in this case I don't have the huge benefit of being the son of God.
It's completely ridiculous to think that Jesus suffering for a short time is comparable to a normal human suffering, is asinine. If any human were the creator of the universe, they would be able to experience anything, anytime without any real consequences. Ever see groundhog day? Bill Murray dies a sorts of deaths because there are no actual consequences.
As a human this should be enough logic to get off this Bible story and on to reality.
I can answer that question: No.
No there is not. And if there is, it abandoned us and doesn't want anything to do with us. So stop worshipping it or expectating it to do anything.
Thanks for your ministry guys! I’m learning a lot.. You are such a blessing. Hope your channel grows more and reach more people. To the ends of the earth..
Ministry?
Lennox - 1:33:53 min - "... that child is of an *infinite* value because it bears the image of it's creator...."
I wonder how would he explain the millions of children starving to death every year then ? According to statistics, there are over 2.4 billion christians in the world today and over 10 million people starving to death each year. Simple calculations say that ten million people need a dollar a day to survive, therefore 365 days a year time 10 million = 3.65 billion dollars a year . Divide that by 2.4 billion christians in the world and you'll get 1.5 dollars each.
Millions of lives of children he says are of *infinite value* could be saved by donating a dollar and a half a year. That is 12 cents a month or 3 cents a week.
Why is death by starvation still a thing with billions of good christians in the world ? Of course no one is perfect and I don't claim to be nowhere near perfection but maybe all those good christians may want to drop the "following Jesus" thing to a lower level.
Did you know that the price of probably two of those modern attack helicopters is sufficient to save 10 million lives of "infinite value" children a year ?
I agree with your reasoning, but I don't think we can blame only Christians for that.
There are people trying to help those in need, while managing to sustain their families as well.
Some of the greatest diseases of our age, I think, are selfshiness, narcissism
and greed.
I'd invite you to do the same calculation using the world population or the fortune of the ~2,153 billionaires in the world.
@@MrLeddy92 *"I agree with your reasoning, but I don't think we can blame only Christians for that. "*
Of course you agree, any sane person would. One thing you seem to be getting wrong there. My comment wasn't one of those "Holier than thou " thing but rather pushing the idea that if only a minuscule percent of what all those self proclaimed "followers" of Jesus was true, the world would be a much better place. Should be but it isn't . Which means they as just as full of BS like the rest of us.
The difference is that religious people in general love to think they're better than the rest because they " follow" Jesus. They are not and anyone in the right mind can see that. They just love to tell a story that makes them feel good.
I'd suggest you don't take it personally and try to defend Christianity based on what you think or do.
*...I'd invite you to do the same calculation using the world population or...* - You don't really get the point , do you ?
You see , the thing that if Jesus actually existed, arguably he was a good man. When I hear someone starting a sentence with " As a Christian..." , I hear "as a follower of Jesus" which ultimately means " As a good man that I am". Now that is a lie right there .
Do you really think the world would have the problems it has today if 2.4 billion people were good people ?
Do you think that being a christian means to prove god's existence in a debate, most likely you get well paid for ?
*Some of the greatest diseases of our age, I think, are selfishness, narcissism
and greed.* - Totally agree with that . Most people care much more about their image than the true self. That includes christians as well....
Vagabond_Shadow I got your point, man. I absolutely am anti-hipocrisy, just like you.
But the issue is not just on the surface. Despite many trying to help, there are many structural problems over society that legitimate poverty and exploration.
I cited the world population and the billionareis just to point out that the responsability for changing reality should be about “us”, not just “them”.
@@MrLeddy92 Billionaires should not give money if they dont want to, however self proclaimed Christians have a moral duty to help people, if that's what they believe.
Why do we have to drop Jesus as a priority that has nothing to do with doing good in the world
No religion no easy cash for the sheisters.
It just shows the arrogance of a christian that thinks he and his like are somehow special, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
It's frightening because of the consequences if you believe these things.
Peter's arguments are quite bad to say the least.
@Magari M, nice!
Such as? You give no examples.
@@alexnorth3393, Will you read them if I write examples?
@@dazedmaestro1223 I didn't notice any weak arguments from Singer, so I would be grateful if you'd point one out. Thanks.
The problem with Dr Lennox is that he asserts his views and expects the opponent and viewers to accept it as fact. There is no evidence of a resurrection, no-one has witnessed a resurrection, not then nor anytime thereafter. Why is that, because it didn't happen and will not occur.
th-cam.com/video/67uj2qvQi_k/w-d-xo.html
No way to know if there is a God unless a person receives personal revelation (a sacred spiritual experience) that confirms the existence of God, a Creator, and a Plan for us, a Purpose in Life leading to Eternity. All the logic and reasoning of the world will never bring the certain knowledge that there is a God. Such supreme and "real" truth comes by the Spirit. Those who shut and shield their hearts in unbelief to such experiences are doomed to walk in spiritual blindness all their lives, without ever knowing that "YES" there is GOD. Best wishes to true seekers of truth with an open heart and mind.
Unbelievably beautiful buddy
Absolutely agree. No one can come to the son unless the father leads him to the son. We know God by revelation. Full stop.
So the only way to truly know God is to be the lucky receptacle of divine providence? Augustine himself wrote much about the deterministic reality of this statement, that the knowledge and love of God comes through the grace he gives, and how much of an issue it creates as it essentially puts the responsibility of belief on God.
A personal revelation similar to the one that the apostol Paul had on his way to Damascus. Those are rare, most of the time, I say about 99.9999% of the time God expects you to believe on faith alone. If you had a personal revelation as such I would like to hear it or read about it here on the comments. Remember if you lie , you will go to HELL!!
Totally spot on.
If there was a being that was 13.8 billion years old or older. Our life times would note even be noticeable. Basically, we really don't even exist.
Just because ethics are human derived merely means that they are agreed upon by us. Take slavery for example, we have, well most of our species has, agreed that owning other humans is not ethical, however the Bible, supposedly written by the hands of men as directed by god, gives slavery the ethical seal of approval. Sure the Bible has improved upon slavery by encouraging slave owners to treat their slaves well, which would be in a slave owner’s best interest anyway, but that still misses the mark. Owning other human beings is not ethical.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Are you professing yourself to be wise? Not a fool by quoting this?
I'd love to see Lennox debate Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, or Dan Barker on Biblical morality. And, I'd like to see Lennox debate Bart Ehrmann on the contradictions in the Bible. Or debate David Fitzgerald, Richard Carrier, or Bob Price about the existence of Jesus.
Matt Dillahunty is not really a nice person to debate - He gets pretty aggressive, Bart Ehrman is a textual critic and Lennox is not - that would not be a fair debate and finally, Richard Carrier is laughed at in the academic community and is a Jesus mythicist, a theory that is widely disputed by both secular and christian scholars alike.
@@elanordeal2457 Ehrman also deals in deliberate overstatement rather than objectivity. He's a disgrace to his mentor.
@@traildude7538 Amen. Ehrman himself admits that he and Metzger basically agreed on everything when it comes to textual criticism, yet at least Metzger is much more nuanced and less click-baity when it comes to his works.
@@elanordeal2457 DIllahunty is only really aggressive on the Atheist Experience, not so much in his formal debates. The current hosts of AXP Forrest & Paul are the best hosts the show has ever had IMOP.
Richard Carrier is a perfectly respectable academic and Jesus mythicism has come more to the forefront recently, because the evidence for any single event in Jesus life is very sketchy. Outside of academia it is sort of irrelevant anyway, rather the question for most people isn't whether some apocalyptic prophet was hanging around 2K years ago, but whether someone who was the instantiation of god was around at that time. And there is absolutely no sensible reason to believe that.
@@roqsteady5290 Richard carrier is certainly not deemed a respectable academic. If a scholar has to fight for relevancy by being the guest on athiest mythvision channels or informal online debates, it often says a lot about the value of their work as they lack interaction with real and respected academics in peer-reviewed journals. The only people who praise Carrier are those who benefit from his agenda and love mythicism. You’re in your own right to believe in Jesus’ mythicism, but Carrier is not your token man if you want any real respect. He is often criticised for using out-dated sources and he even blew up and sent trolls after another blog site when Tim O’Neill (a literal *atheist* btw) called out his poor work. If a “scholar” like Carrier finds little to no interactions within academic footnotes or journals, it’s usually a big indication that their work offers no value and is not even bothered to be interacted with in any formal and respectable academia.
Science has its limits, says Dr Lennox. But will we claim we know what they are? Has that not been done in the past, only to have a flurry of discoveries after such a short-sighted proclamation?
Peter Singer profound love and compassion for animals would put any god to shame.
Clement Singh His profound love and compassion for animals is only matched by his lack of compassion for humans. You're right atheism is truly amazing!
People who loves animals also loves people, but people who hates animals also hates people. You are having a twisted sense of love!
You forgot the part where God created the animals, and the love that he is allowed to feel for them. Jesus Christ is the saviour. Bless you both.
ImAmJimJam Lawrence didn’t god flood the earth and destroy all animals except for two of each? Sounds like a lover of animals
@@clementsingh3700Thats a vast generalization. What would you say if I gave you examples and evidence of otherwise?
Hehhee "but Peter, you could be telling yourself a fairytale too" buuurn hehe ✌😇
The first statement from Singer (about Laplace) is a strawman fallacy. God being a first Cause prevents Him from being part of a causal model making of Him an uneffective scientific variable. That was Laplace's point. Gosh atheist arguments only sound impressive to atheists (and naïve believers). Thanks for playing Pr Singer.
Donald Nadeau You sound incoherent.
Donald Nadeau Not sure I'm getting your point, but like 99% of people you don't know how to read the bible.
1) We humans can only process time/space information.
2) bible relate to humans. It is a message from God TO humans.
3) whatever God was outside this frame (universe) doesn't relate to us.
4) the bible starts at THAT point in that whatever was between 0 and 1 can't be expressed through words.
You can find a hint to that idea in the fact that the bible starts with the letter "bet" which is also the number 2. One (or oneness or dimensionless) is super natural (it is what is before genesis). Information starts with differentiation (binary systems can describe the whole universe)
PS: In the original hebrew you don't need editing to go from sky to heaven. It is the exact same word to this day in modern state of Israel.
Donald Nadeau Ok, excluding latin and greek my baggage includes hebrew, french, english and portugese (fluent in all of them) and a little bit of talmudic aramaic, besides a Masters degree in applied mathematics.
The problem with the academic kind like you is that you're not adressing the theology's CLAIM. What's Laplace's context? Who is he adressing? Laplace's reasoning presuposes a certain notion of God. To make sense of a claim, you must clarify it's internal grammar. Historical contextualization is just a bunch of hypotheses which are unrelated to the internal context. What's the text's INTENTION (in the minds of those whom Laplace is adressing). What is the theologies' claim? The facts I described agree with (without being limited by) Aristotle's unmoved mover (which all abrahamic religions accept as a first grounding for God).
This in turn renders this notion of God completely detatched from causality relations. And as such totaly out of context in a scientific reasoning. Which in turn makes Singer's claim an ignorant one.
Donald Nadeau Nope, not supersticious theology. Just theology. Don't use a term if you don't know its meaning.
The complete context of the bible is irrelevant anyway. There is some common groung to all (even conflicting) theologies, and that's all we need. God is the necessary uncaused cause to all existence. As such He cannot be predicated.
In other words, what Singer claims is his reason for not believing, is actually something that most theologians with some knowlege ALSO hold. Thank you Pr Singer, I too don't invoke God as a scientific variable. Glad we agree.
Very convenient to basically place god outside the realm of knowledge or evidence. All an atheist is saying is they are unconvinced that god exists. Your position does nothing to convince.
Besides, your claim that god is a first cause is just an assertion, whether it is from you or the bible. Assertions are meaningless without evidence to back up the claim, but you have placed your god outside that evidence. Therefore, the atheists position is reasonable.
I don't know but I always support both atheist and theist.according to my intellects i think we can't say anything related to god ..belief on god , beleif on science are not different thing ,but science also helps to reach and understand the nature and perception of eternal god just like netwon said when he equated gravity....
According to me first a person should be SEEKER ,first experience and observe by yourself then choose and support a thing atheist or theist ...
Whatever the decision we made ,hope it help the world and save our beautiful planet from brutality of humans ..
Appreciate everything..
If u wanna find where is god ,start loving people u will find soon
~unknown