I was an atheist, untill I discovered the rich intellectual Christian history… and the touch of God’s loving embrace. This conference feels like a family meeting. Much appreciated.
If I was on the panel, my response to the 1st question would be,"The Guardian isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. No response needed.Next question!" And I'm an agnostic!
William Oarlock Brilliant as in 'best arguments', most intouch and so on. I'll bet you just didn't understand him. And no i don't mean his accent. Go watch his debate with Dawkins. Richy got served.
Joe Lackey Not as *interesting* as how many pastors, philosophers, engineers, theologists and scientifically illiterate laymen can pass for zoologists, geochronologists, paleobiologists and physicists, though.
+Forcing Google+ Makes Me Feel Better About the Spying philosophy is the study of epistemology, logic (which by the way, everybody seems to forget that logic is a product of philosophy and not science), metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics. I see no reason why these are meaningless. These are all real stuff.
I can appreciate how Dr. Lennox points out that intelligent scientists can make false assertions without any kind of thoughtful "proof" or argument for that assertion. Also, although all of these men do not agree with certain scientists about their being a God and Jesus being God, they do not mock others for their beliefs, even when they make small jokes. I appreciate when people keep it respectable in their disagreements.
+J Danner If more people shared your idea on respectful disagreement we would have a much more fruitful intellectual community. Best wishes to you good sir.
C. D. Broad said it best: "The nonsense written by philosophers concerning science is exceeded only by the nonsense written by scientists concerning philosophy."
Albert Einstein stated "the existence of the human thumb is reason enough to believe in God"....in his book Ideas and Opinions... just sharing to offer up that we can debate the issue maturely with rigorous dives of our intellect. unlike most negative remarks that are just name calling
@@ric929 That's (allegedly) Newton, but definitely not Einstein. Not that it means much, as he makes no argument and is not an authority in the subject.
@@Reashu I believe it's in Einsteins book idea's and opinions which I have which also cross referenced a Wall St Journal or N Y Times newspaper article from the 1920s. Old notes off the top of my head from when Studied apologetics. I can go look it up from my old paper if u would like. Einstein was certainly no Christian but had stated on many many occasions that he's a theist even got mad in the newspaper article when people used some of his remarks to say that he did not believe in God
@@ramigilneas9274 yes that's the common opinion of those that use him to support a non-theistic view.. Read his Wall Street Journal interview from approx. 1930. He specifically states in that interview that it bothers him when people use him to by claiming he does not believe in any God. That is an important interview that the people I mention above always seem to avoid...He was a theist. I never claimed he ascribed to any personal religion. He is also famous for responding to a students' question on what else is there to be learned when he responded, "We should learn about prayer". I think I am not exact on the quote but you can find it if you look. His book "Ideas & Opinions" also alluded to his willingness to allow for the possibility of a transcendent Got. If I remember correctly. I am not claiming he was religious or in full acceptance of any organized religion but he was definitely a theist. If you look at all his quotes instead of just the times he was against the idea which I definitely agree happened several times throughout his life.
@Lepi Diptera Given the option of accepting your opinion or the evidence of Intelligent Christians ranging from Isaac Newton to Francis Collins, I’ll go with the latter. ;-)
He sparkles more on certain occasions. But he's stretched his intelligence wider than most, so languages as well as sciences. He gives talks in German, used to in Russian, does Bible teaching as well as debating on sciences, when his main thing is mathematics 🙂
22:20 *science of belief* “[Hawking said to his wife] _’Cosmology is a religion for intelligent atheists.’_ That’s a terribly interesting definition. Modern cosmology for the atheistic scientist does provide a kind of metaphysical alternative to God-the multiverse becomes a kind of God surrogate that explains the fine tuning of the cosmos, it explains the origin of the universe. It _really_ does fill a sort of religious or metaphysical function for some of these thinkers.” Zizek: “Physicists like Stephen Hawking silently pass over the burning questions which actually occupy center stage in current politico-ideological debates.” [...] Science today effectively does compete with religion, insofar as it serves two properly idelogical needs, those for hope and those for censorship, which were traditionally taken care of by religion [...] In a curious inversion, religion is one of the possible places from which one can deploy critical doubts about today’s society. It has become one of the sites of resistence.”
1:51:32 *prosaetry* “When Simon Peter took a sword to swipe the head off the high priest’s servant, he wasn’t very good and he cut his ear off. Now by the way if I might say something about that-I believe Jesus put the ear back on-but you would be very poetically dim not to see what’s being said: _If you take up weapons to defend Christ or His Message you cut the ears off people in a big way.”_
Ah, gotcha! Nice! I need to go back to hear their answer. Then again, I guess that was when they brought up the "problem" with a Historical Adam & Eve!! Thanks!
1:20:00 to 1:26:00 roughly, spoken well to understand why people don't have to omit everything when there is an uncertain in the periphery information.
It's funny how no one in the comments here, who opposes the ideas talked about in the video, backed up their claims with evidence. That's because they don't have any.
19:37 *no problem with evolution* “Theologically I guess I don’t see the problem. My difficulty with the story would be as you say, the way it was presented, _’This is the first time that humans beings had sex with Neanderthals!’_ It sounds like a soap opera, obviously they’re going here for the headline value, the sensationalism of it and so forth and it seems to me that that’s typical of the way the press handles science.”
Thr bronze age book of Daniel as a searchlight for knowledge and wisdom ! Really ? I think like in Daniel he should put that wisdom ? to sleep until the END TIMES that are never ending !
It's actually not even Bronze Age. The Book of Daniel is 2nd century BC, which means it was written three to four centuries after the Iron Age ended. What you are witnessing here is a people who are almost a millennium behind the rest of the world intellectually at that time. Today, of course, they are a century or two ahead of the world.
Words matter some words matter more than others. Two such words that are often confused and do much harm were God is concerned are faith and religion. Note that Peter does not say be prepared to give and answer for the faith that is in you but the hope. Religion is simply an action that people preform with regularity. We can and should pray religiously, we should attend a service religiously, but we should not mistake either for receiving the grace of God. Lots of people do these things and are not under grace. Christianity is a matter not of behavior but of new life; spiritual life, and as such to describe a Christian we need to go beyond behaviors. We need to understand what spirit is as compared to the intellect of a man. Scripture often refers to the heart and when it does we understand it is not pointing to an actual organ but to the core of our mind, that which underlies and drives the intellect, the will. To change a mans mind you need to change this aspect of the mind, mere intellectual assent will not manage it. While religion is clearly focused on works which are of the intellect Christianity differs and is focused on the heart and newness of life. In that respect to refer to it as a religion is misleading. Good behavior is great but it wont provide newness of life. As for how this life is achieved because after all we are very achievement focused, it comes about by faith. For most reading this comment faith will be seen as belief perhaps specifically the belief in God. For others it will be a blind belief, being without reasons and this lecture/video is directed at causing faith to be strengthened by reason, but as I already noted faith is not a matter of the intellect and Christians need to be very carful when equating salvation to knowledge; There is a great gulf between knowing God and knowing about God. There is value in both, but one saves and the other merely informs. The thief on the cross had little time to come to knowledge he simply found, came to faith and for most that will be a mystery. For most separating the mind into intellect and will is equally a mystery. Scripture says that salvation comes by grace through faith and as such understanding faith the mechanism of new life is essential to describing Christianity. What faith is not, is belief; scripture does give many clues for us to come to an understanding. We know that Peter was told by Christ when He asked who do people say I am and followed with the question who do you say I am, Peter answered by faith rather than by anything reveled to him by men, meaning through the intellect. Faith is knowledge, but not of an intellectual nature, it lays at a deeper level of the mind, in the spirit. We also see Peter just a short time later have his faith tested and he betrays Christ three times though his believes are unchanged. Fears can over come faith and scripture says we are not given a spirit of fear, so it would be reasonable to think faith and fear both reside in the same place of the mind. Atheists like to think of themselves as being to rational to except God and that those that do are week, yet no one questions phobias and the power they exert on a person. Clearly they drive us beyond the power of the intellect; therefore it should be obvious that we are not subject to our intellects and salvation happens at a place deeper within us, again the spirit. Sin also lives in this deeper place and like faith affects the mind beyond intellect. Sin is accompanied by unbelief, while faith belief. Sin affects behavior/works again just as faith does one for the better the other for selfishness. Sin brings death and faith life so clearly sin and faith are the antithesis one to the other. Another clue concerning the nature of faith is in origins; beliefs come by learning, faith according to scripture comes by hearing Gods word, " so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God". This was recorded in Greek and the translation seems to be pointing us to the bible. Scripture is rich and necessary, but many that read it never find faith there. Is there an error then; what about the Atheist that says I had faith once, I read the bible cover to cover many times. Greek has two words to define communications one referring to a written form and the other to what is spoken, Rhema and logos. Sometimes Yeshua is referred to as the Logos, but this is the written form of word. In the passage that speaks of faith and its origins the word is Rhema a spoken word and this comes by God which is entirely consistent with Christ's teaching when He said My sheep hear My voice. So the journey begins with hearing God speak to you and this causes your mind to accept not believe but truly, factually, absolutely, undeniably, know, God as a reality at a deeper level than intellect. This awareness of God draws you to seek Him and that leads to relationship even to love and we walk ever closer to Him which changes everything about our lives, but not through an effort or personal strength. Just as any human friend can offer comfort, advise, encouragement, and these will have an impact on our lives, so to can God.That is Christianity. These are good teachers and this is a good video worth watching and full of truth but better when seen with the fullness of mind rather than just the intellect.
I thought JP had far too much air time. A big shame. What a chance to see William Lane Craig and John Lennox share the same stage together, to listen to some historical anecdotes and some apologetics, but for it to be hijacked by JP. He spoke more than anyone else! This was a major let down for me. Hugely disappointed.
I've seen comments here claiming they present no evidence this lecture. Well, first of all, most of these questions are posed as asking for a response to _the new atheist arguments and assertions that Christianity and science don't mix._ Reconciling science and Christianity does not entail providing evidence for Christianity, although they do provide moderate amounts throughout. In particular they circle back on the teleological argument quite a bit, which I find is quite a compelling argument by logical standards. They spend a lot of time refuting at least the more easily defeasible new atheist arguments, stuff like the multiverse, for example. They do touch on evolution, too, which I think the most sufficient argumentation I've heard from any of these three on evolution is from Dr. Craig. He's got a sort of famous bit in debates where he sites Barrow and Tiplek's The Anthropic Cosmological Principal, where they write that there are 10 steps that happened on the way to human evolution that are so improbable that for each of them to have occurred, so much time would have passed by that the sun would have already ceased to be a main sequence star. So, if evolution did happen - it's practically a miracle, and therefore evidence for God's existence! When it comes to the historical Adam and Eve, I find Lennox gets stuck. I am a Christian and was greatly dissatisfied with his avoidance of the question. I don't know why in this case he couldn't just say, on evaluation of evidence, that he doesn't know but holds to faith that there was an original human couple. He has sufficient philosophical and historical grounds for believing in Christ as His savior, and so can trust in a historical Adam and Eve if he so chooses. I think Adam and Eve is not where the money is - it's all on Jesus. Belief in Christ does not necessitate a literal original human couple. For goodness sake, Adam in Hebrew means "MAN" and Eve means "LIFE." Those names are symbolic, no? The scientific evidence right now does not correlate with a singular human pair, although the pool size of the first humans has reduced significantly over the years, so who knows what direction that could go. I hold an open mind to their being an original human pair, but as with Dr. Craig I find no trouble in there being an original pool of humans. All in all, this is still a great discussion although I wish they would have gone into depth and really pushed each other where disagreements arose - an open forum like that would be fascinating.
@@lepidoptera9337 Because we have significant hope that that dead man rose from the dead. The explosion of the church of believers who genuinely committed themselves to the idea that this man was somehow God incarnate is enough to raise an eyebrow. The testimonies of the disciples that they had encountered Christ in His risen form, the fact that the letter to the Corinthians had established creeds already when it was only written about 20 years after Christ's death... That, plus a little step of faith, is why I committed to following this man. In essence, I am "betting my money" on the dead man because I don't believe He is actually dead. I have hope for the redemption of this world through his resurrection.
Dawkins asked for confirmation that Lennox really believed water turns into wine and bread turns into flesh out of charity for the poor professor. If it's blood, does it have DNA in it...or...blood cells...or...His answer was that he believed Jesus over Dawkins, but what he really meant was that he believed what was written in an ancient book over his own eyes and brain. How can you not be embarrassed to hold such a belief?
The stars were created not on the 4th day made is past tense in Genesis,different from make or create hence proves the week is not literal Genesus 1 31 Genesis 3 1 Genesis 5 1 prove made is something God already done 4th day God put lights in the firmament,does not say first created lights This is God's creation week,not neccesarily a normal week You don't ever see a plant growing and producing fruit in 1 day Job mentions pleiades constellation which is 100m years old God's sabbath day isn't literal for God,he has finished his new creation and no longer is creating new things even to this dayso why should the other days be literal. Hence we can accept the Big Bang and old Earth Adam and Eve were not immortal since tree of life is there Why do snakes have poisonous fangs or other creatures like scorpions or why do venus fly traps have meat diet? Genesis 1 31 "Very good" does not mean perfect this context bc how come Adam was not immortal if perfect is flawless? Animals can not sin therefore Romans 8 applies to humankind God said "let the beasts reproduce to their kind" never commands animal marriage and sexual immorality exists Ephesians 5 11 God can not have the appearence of evil therefore animals can not sin and they can't commit sexual sin bc God can not tempt anyone to evil so predators aren't sinning when they kill each other God would have adressed the issue and said animal's are married but that doesn't happen,and he cant have the appearance of evil or tempt or command evil Hence Theistic Evolution is possible predators are not corruption made by Adam,sin entered the world through Adam and death sin to all men,not animals,animals can not sin but they still die.
If the so called “light” were real, there would be no fear of this light because it would be indisputable. The problem is there no evidence what so ever for the existence of God. If God were real, he would reveal himself. Unfortunately God, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are to busy being impossible. They don’t exist other than in the minds of the irrational children. This is why believers are called Gods children, because you have to have the mind of a child in order to believe into adulthood. Brainwashing children to believe is necessary, only a person with a weak mind believe in God. Be well.
1:21-32 My objection is that if the human race came into being via genetic mutation, doesn't it by definition have to originate at ONE genetic mutation? Or Mutative Event? "One" is considerably less complex than "2000" right? How do you arrive at a minimum population for humans that is 2000? When they arrived via mutation to begin with... Does that mean that 2000 individuals spontaneously mutated into humanity? It kind of has to be 'one' And that's also a problem of speciation in general. At some point you have to have the "one" lynch pin mutation that leverages the creature into a different species. And in the case of sexually reproducing creatures you always start with that new species population at one... At each mutative event.
blacksheepwall79 but aren't mutations either bad for the organism, or neutral? Often or every time, it is simply gene switching, utilising already existing, even dormant, information. The likelihood of humans appearing out of a mutation is absurdly, just mathematically impossible!
The problem with Neandertals is that their body ratio matches that of apes and not of humans. The body ratio of every human being upon Earth is the same, no matter the heighth or proportion of the individual.
Quite the zinger at the 24 minute mark lol. I think religion will bounce back if it's surrounded by philosophers/historians rather than nut bars as it most commonly is today. Atheism is science and science gives us so much almost endlessly, but it's arrogant to think that science creates objective truths. So, philosophy needs to more important in the conversation.
Gets awkward around 1:07:43 when Craig says DNA shows Adam and Eve didn't exist, and says theists can't get around that, and then Lennox tries to do just that. Love it when theists argue about the truth of their crazy religion and it becomes clear to anyone (theist and atheists) that they are just wishful thinkers ignoring the reality that their religious claims are obvious nonsense. God's not not dead.
+Eric A Speaking what you do not know. I don't think true Christian thinkers ever claim they have ALL the answers to the questions about life and its beginning...
+Scd Observer But the things they do claim to know they claim to know via a special apparatus only they have access to. Methinks their divine inspiration is simply bullshit. It's sad because WLC is a brilliant man. I imagine it was a bit like Newton's contemporaries who worked with him on scientific projects that then out of nowhere he'd start spouting off his inane philosophies/theologies.
+Eric A Why is it okay for atheists to say "I don't know" when it comes to matters such as the beginning of the universe from nothing, but not for christians with regard to certain problems such as the one mentioned?
+Soldierbrutis95 portillo I don't have any information about the metaphysical state of the world before the big bang and neither do you. I make no claim on the matter. In terms of DNA we know quite a lot, so a Christian who says something that has a logical conclusion which contradicts what we know has explaining to do. It's as simple as that.
+Forcing Google+ Makes Me Feel Better About the Spying Have you run the probabilities on DNA coming together by random chance? I think I'll trust and Oxford mathematician over you all the same.
"Leading thinkers" who believe that God sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself so that mankind might be saved from his hate, through his love...brilliant.
God sacrificed his son to clean our sin to give us eternal life.God is clean he can't live with sin around him he can't allow sin to live forever that's why he sent Jesus to clean us coz he loved us so much he couldn't let sin separate us forever now just by believing Jesus as your savior you become clean of any sin.
Betty JESUS So, basically, you believe in the moral concept of killing people to somehow account for the wrongdoings of others. Now, this is just me, but I find the very idea revolting - as well as contrary to everything I consider important about morality.
GnomefroJesus chose to be sacrifice for our sin and God allowed it because it is the only way for our salvation. Jesus came to this world to die for us willingly, God did not kill him.his love for us brought him to this weicked world. God is not a killer. No devil crucified Jesus we did, we are the killers but he prayed for us on the cross, he forgave us coz we are not aware of what we were doing, because we were in darkness but now when we accept jesus into our life he becomes our light and we can easily be aware of his presence and we can understand his word. sauniz1 if there was a better person than Adam who would obey God 100% he would have been created first but there is none so we all are weicked that's why we needed christ who lived a holy life , now through jesus we are all holy
jannmutube This God of yours is immensely hateful being in that he punishes all of us for the transgressions of two people. Most of us for all eternity!!! Not even the worst of the dictators on this world as as cruel as him. He is worse the Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong-Un combined. He is not bound to any specific actions. He could just let bygones be bygones and forgive us. Instead, he chooses to make this completely sickening ultimatum to us "believe in the Son or be tortured for all eternity". He is a psyhopathic cunt! But the whole christian world view of salvation and redemption is a farce. Why? Because there really is no original sin. The story about Adam and Eve in the Bible is an obvious MYTH. How could a story involving primordial man, a rib-woman, a mythical time and place in the distant past, a talking snake and and god, a tree of knowledge and of good and evil, cherubs etc. be a taken for a real historical event? There are many different literary genres in the OT, of which some are non-historical. The OT includes MYTH, SAGA,LEGENDS, ethiologies, history, annals, reports, anecdotes and novella. (Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard - Mercer dictionary of the Bible - Genre in the old testament page 323). The earlier the story, the more likely it is to be fictional. Man has evolved through long natural processes and there never has been a historical couple called Adam and Eve who could have “fallen”. Man’s “sinfulness” (imperfection) is natural, because he emerges out nature without the capability of reason, understanding or compassion with nothing but the stiff instincts for survival in his psyche. The concept of original sin was created (in the form we know it) by Augustine 400 years later. Jesus himself not once alludes to any kind of original sin in the gospels. There was no original sin for Jesus to die for.
I can't stand how Hugh Hewitt kept interrupting the speakers RIGHT BEFORE they were going to make their big point. Often a speaker was building up to summary answer and got cut off. So, the weaker part of his answer is given, but the climactic thunderbolt is prevented from being thrown. I'm sure Hewitt is a good radio host, but this is A DIFFERENT FORMAT. Also, why couldn't he get the hints that the speaker had more to say? Also, Hewitt kept pressing the anthropological issue when clearly none of them were experts on the topic. Yet, he wouldn't allow Craig to finish his responses even though he's probably the most knowledgeable person on the stage regarding the topic (as can be seen from his 21 lectures on the topic of Creation and Evolution in his Defenders class). Next time get some one else to do the interview.
I think they should have invited a real scientist and discuss matters with that person. This was just a propaganda event .... Apologetics to the camera, nothing more ...
IF YOU CANT GET SOMETHING FROM NOTHING THAT MEANS THERE CANT BE A GOD . BECAUSE A GOD , ANY OF THE THOUSANDS OF GODS IN HUMAN HISTORY , HAD TO COME FROM SOME PLACE . DID GOD ALWAYS EXIST ? THAT IS NO MORE POSSIBLE THAN GETTING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING .
Science only doing 2 things: 1. Doing the research about things that already been created by God. Example: Science did not created the sun, but science only doing the research everything about the sun like how far it's from earth, how hot it was, whether it has axis, what are the purposes of its light, etc etc. 2. Doing the exploitation with the sources that already been created by God. Example: Science created satelites and later they invented Internet. But science use the materials that created by God like steel and other metals to build the satelites. For TV transmission and Internet, science use the wave that already been created by God. Still, science cannot understand the metaphysic world. Science just making people understand how things works. Sure, science is good for mankind, but still we have to believe 'the super power' who created the world including created human, animal, plant, planet, wind, oxygen (for us to breathe) and even all the scientists themselve (which are human) are also created by God.
i wonder what jesus would have said about slavery? these people would have to say that he would go along with the rest of the bible (including the new testament) consensus on slavery - ie, it is morally permissible.
He would have accepted man's freedom to choose. How does this show that He believes it to be morally permissible? The alternative, which you seem to be inferring, is that He takes away our free will, and forces us (in this case) to never make slaves of each other. Isn't that advocating what you are arguing against?
***** no, i'm saying that both the old and new testaments condone slavery and those christians who believe in biblical inerrancy would say that jesus would therefore condone slavery as well.
Peter Miller Yeah, I think you need understand the nature of those statements. The first 10 laws of Moses are moral truths (i.e. The Ten Commandments), but the rest were just specific rules for those specific people at that time. Slavery was a far more attractive option in that time than it would be now. It fit with the culture and system they lived in, and you'd have to read more into slavery into the Roman empire to feel Philemon. It is made perfectly clear that it would be better if no were slaves by emphasizing human dignity, human worth, and so on. They didn't endorse, but tolerated it because it was beneficial for people to be slaves sometimes (many times); that's why they set up guidelines on how to treat slaves. That's why Paul said to love Onesimus like a brother.
DifferentGuy4 is your argument that god did indeed advocate slavery in both old and new testaments, but it was a different kind of slavery - not nearly so bad?
Peter Miller Leaving aside the question of biblical inerrancy, I am unaware of any passage that condones slavery. What we see, in fact, is a framework of regulations dealing with this particularly abhorrent human practice, universally prevalent in the ancient world. Two of the biggest catastrophes in Jewish history, (their enslavement by Egypt and some centuries after, by Babylon) is shown to be a punishment by God. This in itself should show the reader that God views slavery as something bad.
To the point of theistic evolution being a guided unguided process. I do not think his explanation of theistic evolution is very good. What we believe is that God designed the system of rules that govern the universe including evolution. Then He pushed play and to a large degree just watches the show. To the point of an actual Adam and Eve. There was a time when there were not homo sapiens. Today there are homo sapiens. So, unless you think a cave woman popped out a horse of homo sapiens there had to be a first male and a first female homo sapiens.
Well, I think it was Dawkins, who answering a question about what students, who went to another Christian University should do, he said they should leave and go to a Proper one; that is the case here. Science and Religion are totally incompatible and irreconcilable.
Rob Ward What's said without evidence can be discarded without evidence. You have no justification for the claim that God is necessary for objective morality or meaning.
Rob Ward Which, the first or the second? To the first, normative intuitions about rational belief. I seriously doubt you deny this epistemic principle. To the second, my experiences asking theists to support the claim, and their inability to do so.
Rob Ward No that's very obviously not argument. That's a single conditional statement that you've simply asserted without justification. Objective means independent of the propositional attitudes anyone takes towards a thing.
Rob Ward Clearly, you need a class in sociology. Every culture has its own morality. If you look at your book of fables, it promotes slavery, genocide, sacrifices, selling women into sex slavery, and blind obedience. Are those the "morals" you hold so close?
1. in computing we have 1 & 0 true and false that is also text... 2. argument for christianity. There is no other believe which offers a solution for humans where one can be saved by accepting & beliving and not own works be be saved. ALL RELIGIONS require that one has to work his way up and perhaps one havs done enough to gain salvation. Only the Bibel says that we are SVADe by grace and not our own works. Epheser 2, 8 Denn aus Gnade seid ihr errettet durch Glauben, und das nicht aus euch, Gottes Gabe ist es;
ethos calendar _"2. argument for christianity. There is no other believe which offers a solution for humans where one can be saved by accepting & beliving and not own works be be saved."_ I'm not sure why that would be an argument for the truth of Christianity, but you realize that the bible contradicts itself on that point right? Moreover, the doctrine you are proposing is not that of Jesus, but of Paul. Jesus actually says that he's not come to change the law and that the law and the prophets will continue to apply till judgment day.(I am of course using "Jesus said" in the loosest possible sense here - that of what the character Jesus in the bible says. I don't believe he even existed.) James also emphasizes works. It's therefore meaningless to say that "Christianity" as a whole has your view of the faith vs works contradiction. _"ALL RELIGIONS require that one has to work his way up and perhaps one havs done enough to gain salvation. Only the Bibel says that we are SVADe by grace and not our own works."_ Not really true. The ancient mystery religions, of which Christianity is a Jewish variant, were all about getting saved due to having certain insights.(And usually also a baptism, or something akin to it, like Christianity also has), but again, I don't understand why, if you happened to be right, this would make Christianity more likely to be true. Or for that matter, why would it be a good thing that nothing you do matters and that you're being judged merely on the fact of whether you can manage to get yourself to believe in ancient stories about magic?
Stand up speak what needs to be said 3days ago. I made the biggest! Web eves done because my son at 13 was bit to piece ' By everybody in power he is been locked away from me and everybody he loved this Started whit his father. Stephen david eggert. Has hurt him in away that my child that he does desire love he wanted nothing but to understand why he didnt love me after everybody in his life took a piece of him in everyway a mother could never. Speak of. Then he looked other places to fill that pain he found the wrong group and the night mare started now i am a mother that wont let my son become a king at what he becomes this boy is so smart that he has out smarted them all now my son need anther chance to turn this around and will show everybody that he is fauor by god and will become very importion to all of people because u cant help but to love him he is now in boy school because he believed thirs new freind that were 19 tn21 yrs old lead him down a road of all these promise that woukd help him our 7 and8. Graders are being targeted for gangs and dealing their drugs for them so they go down for them well they found the wrong mother i even ran one guy all the way to to tenn he know tn never to return as for my son goes i asked his probation oficer will he be safe at boy scool his word i quote i have send over a 100 boys thier and only 2got RAPED well i dont know about the other parentS out thier but i cant let that go i wiil get'hime ov of thier and it iS GOING TO TAKE SEVER MOUTS TO GET HIM THE WRITE LONG TERM Treatment that he needs so this stopes now my point is i put out 3billion messages asking for help because just think about this what about thd neyt kid gets put their and does get RAPED i cant live with that these are our kid and we gnt peaple in power who has got lazy and dont give a damn about our kids parents everywhere if got a battle like this pkeare contact me we will stop this our kids will come home or go get the write help they need god bless u all i whll fiht to win
such a great talk, thanks for uploading the video! if only people were less dishonest like the guy below me, but I know that people need to insult other peoples' worldviews normally, especially when it comes to atheists. (from experience, I say that lol) thanks for the video, and I don't see many logical flaws here.
Hmmm so what's the point of this video? All it proves is that "leading Christian thinkers" have no problem arguing about something they dont event understand. This is just pigeon chess.
***** Why would I need a proof? You don't have any demonstrable evidence, nothing to support what you assert. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
***** A proof is a mathematical construct with the value of true. Your terminology poor. Further, you can not support what you assert. You are trying (and failing miserably) to assert a false dichotomy. Support your assertion, or stop asserting it.
Lennox seems like a nice guy, and knowledgeable in his own field, but he’s awful here. His answer to WLC’s formulation of the Adam and Eve objection was painful to listen to.
It’s actually not, he is positing a singularity event as per big bang, Resurrección etc. scripture says Eve came from man. Once again an event not detectable by methodological naturalism, once again God is right and everyone else is wrong.
"leading christian thinkers" says it all. Seeing as how no new argument has been forth in decades, maybe centuries, the best you could title this, is leading christian historians. I don't recall any theological breakthrough in my lifetime, and to be honest I don't even know what it would look like. Given their opposition to such things as stem cell research, gay marriage and contraception, I'd be hard pressed to to even credit them with the term "lead". If christians want to prove themselves as thinkers, let alone lead thinkers, they need to contribute to something that benefits our species. A good start would be to acknowledge climate change, and dispense with their ridiculous view that humans can't affect the planet, and it'll be god via judgement day that brings on any significant change. Another step would be to drop the bloody Obama antichrist campaign. Every time I hear a christian make this claim, or anyone being the anti-christ for that matter it makes me cringe. Forgetting the absurdities surrounding their Obama problems, these claims of demons, devils and anti-christs sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic off his meds and high on acid. Its preposterous. Do they listen o themselves make these wild mythical claims?? Another issue they might want to tackle is the systematic rape and torture of young children and the subsequent cover ups and excuses they try and muster to avoid responsibility for these horrific and vile actions. And if they have time left over maybe address their morally bankrupt opposition to homosexuals. This truly sickens me, not only do they not understand the simple fact that what other people do with their own lives is A) None of their f"n business and B)Has no effect whatsoever on them personally. If their truly is a god that teaches you to go out of your way not only to hate certain people, but to be vocal about it and preach it to other people and their children, than he/she is a moral monster and is not worthy of a single thought let alone life long devotion by billions of people. Leading christian thinkers, good grief.
Then you have a problem with certain Christians. You're trying to paint all of us with the same brush as if we're all carbon copies of each, devoid of any variability in our beliefs and experiences. It's as if we're monstrous robots hellbent on some unholy cause to force people to conform to our beliefs. Clearly this isn't the case. Secondly, we do listen to ourselves make "wild, mythical claims". I suppose your referring to the fact that the God created the universe, which in my opinion seems to make more sense than having the universe appear from literally nothing. I don't know which Christian is claiming that Obama is the antichrist, but I agree that people need to relax with calling people the antichrist. No one is worshipping Obama, no one is calling him God, etc. Those people don't read the Bible, and that's an example of fanaticism. You make it seem that the "systematic rape and torture of children" is something unique to Catholic priests, and that only Catholic priests cover it up. I think you're intelligent enough to see the fallacy there. Lastly, regarding homosexuality, it's true that Christianity and belief in God warrants belief that homosexuality is morally depraved, in the same way that lying, murder, and sin in general is. I don't see why you target only a Christian's opposition to homosexuality, when it's just another part of his beliefs. By your logic, we shouldn't have a belief on anything because A) It's none of our f'n business and B)Has no effect whatsoever on us personally. I mean, if our loved ones are murdered, is that truly personal? I mean, we're still here, right? So it shouldn't bother us. It's also none of our business because that exchange happened between the killer and the victim, not you or I. The fact of the matter is that God doesn't command us to hate anyone. The fact that you even say that is a clear indication that you've never read the Bible in it's entirety and that you base your view on Christianity on personal experience with less-than-savory Christians. So yes, these are leading thinking Christians dealing with the problems posited by the New Atheist Movement. And the fact you can automatically denounce these men as rapists and bigots is probably the most intellectually dishonest thing I've seen in a while. I don't usually respond to internet comments when it comes to politics or religion because it usually a gigantic waste of time, but your comment was so ridiculous that I couldn't resist.
***** WOW!! Talk about attacking a straw man there. First your claim that I haven't read the bible in it's entirety shows that you haven't read it. I've read the old and new testament beginning to end 3 separate times. And as i said, this was the catalyst that started my path to humanism. Had you have actually read it, you wouldn't have written most of what you just posted. It is a vile book, that promotes everything from slavery to genocide. And I'm not saying it makes some obscure reference, it outlines in great deal the rules of owning slaves, and the amount of money you must pay to a womans father if you are caught raping her. Next your comment that god created the universe makes more sense than the universe came from "literally nothing" tells me A) You don't know what science is actually talking about in regards to origins, and B ) You haven't thought your own claim through. Simply asserting that god created everything is not an answer, not by a far shot, it has no explanatory power, it doesn't explain how any of this is possible, and why. It basically says it was magic. No more. How did your god come to be? How does he supposedly have all this power and why did he create anything to begin with. Claiming "god did it" is not an answer, it opens the door to countless questions that can't be explained. Now for your claim that science says everything came from "nothing" is the automated christian response to try and discredit science. I strongly suggest you read "a Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss to explain to you what we mean by nothing. Now to be clear, we don't actually know how everything came to be, it may be that there was no beginning that the universe has always existed or perhaps it's cyclical. But saying "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer in regards to the questions of origins. At least were exploring and researching this topic as opposed to saying god did it and leaving it at that. Again your attack on homosexuality and comparing it to murder and lying is reprehensible. Religion is the main force behind denying gay people basic human rights. Keep in mind that it's not a choice and we have found a gene that controls sexual preference (xq28 on the x chromosome discovered by Dr Dean Hamer) and that homosexuality is present in over 1500 species, it seems terribly ignorant and hate filled to condemn people for their lifestyle. Why do you care so much? I thought christians were supposed to be tolerant and loving? This is certainly not the case. Lastly you claim that I'm trying to paint all christians with the same brush. This is not the case, there are so many thousands of denominations of your religion that none of you can agree on even defining your god. You all pick and choose the parts of the bible that supports your views, and discard the parts that are so disgraceful that you try and cover up and not teach. If you accept the bible as the inspired word of god than you must accept all of it, from Balaams talking donkey-Numbers 22:30, to David killing 200 men and bringing their foreskins to the king so that he might marry his daughter-1 Samuel 18:27. This book is packed with immorality and heinous crimes against our species that is baffling to me that anyone could possibly regard this as truth, especially as the scriptures have been shown to contain drastically inaccurate historical events, and people, loaded with contradictions from the virgin birth to the resurrection and all of the books written by anonymous authors. Now it's obvious you haven't read your bible, so I'm guessing you've never read any of the apocryphal writing, or any of the dozens of other non canonical gospels that were excluded for the final draft. I could go on and on, but I'll see what you have to say so far. Oh and this idea of "sin" is a christian idea, and one that has plagued people with guilt, shame and self loathing for centuries. Teaching children they are born sick and with sin, and they are not worthy unless the beg, and grovel for forgiveness because the fictional characters ate fruit from a forbidden tree without knowing the difference between right and wrong until after they ate, is absurd. Even more so if you actually believe in Adam and Eve. We are human, we make mistakes and we screw up from time to time, but to label this as sin and threaten people with eternal torture and agony is despicable.
S L Baltimore Well said .Have you heard of the rebound effect ? With the emergence of ''new atheism ''this phenomenon has been identified . Basically , when threatened with common sense or reason or evidence indoctrinated christians hold on even stronger to their dopey beliefs! I think it has something to do with the wiring in the human brain. god help us !
Ross Fraser HAHA!! So would I! I was raised catholic, and I don't remember any parables, or anything positive, but I do remember having nightmares, and crying and being totally freaked out that I was going to hell. Oh and that I was responsible for jesus' suffering and death. When I left the religion at 16, I was kicked out of my house an I changed high schools from catholic to public, and the hardest part was letting go of the hell concept. Its absolutely child abuse, and organizations like the "good news club", and "child evangelism fellowship" which are now in public schools all over the states, has a curriculum that consists of 2/3rds being about hell. Theres a documentary about it on here. I think its repulsive and pathetic that religion knows its story is so weak that they have to get children under the age of ten, otherwise they start to develop their critical and rational faculties and than religion is powerless. Thats also why they prey on poverty stricken areas, jails, rehab programs etc.... Its reprehensible.
Definitely. What does he keep apologizing for? There is no compromise with the Word of God. The oxymoron is that all universities in America were founded by Christians but now the benefits afforded by the belief in God teach relativity that denies God.
While there is much to praise in this discussion, especially in the way in which this trio sees off some of the more naive presuppositions, common myths about what Christianity is supposed to entail, and blunt elementary logical errors that are all too typical of the so-called 'new atheists', their basic theology must, I believe, be rejected. The mistake they all make is to presume that the issue of the existence of God can safely be regarded as a merely probabilistic theory. In brief, we are being asked to believe in God because God becomes the best and most probable explanation for things in the way anything else might be (though not, thankful, merely relating to the things in the so called 'gaps'). This simply _cannot_ be the right approach. Creation _ex nihilo_ cannot be understood as a merely probabilistic process. _That__ way of thinking is the correct approach for science as it finds the mechanical causes among things. The creator _ex nihilo_ cannot be merely another (quasi-mechanical) cause among others, either more or less plausibly. This creator can't be just another mechanical causal element, even the leading one, that operates and competes in the same causal playing field as others. The God of Christianity cannot be merely the master cause _in that sense._ This would reduce God to being no more than a 'Big Invisible Thing', as one (far better) theologian put it, a being that surreptitiously twiddles the knobs of creation now and again, every time, say, a new species comes along. This would render God a mere CEO of creation, as _I_ like to put it, a mere master puppeteer. The alternative? An older theological picture in which God's existence is first proven by deductive argument (not merely made more likely by by more or less convincing inductive argument) and then shown by extensions of such argument not to be limited by the constraints that characterise contingent being. Also, in this picture, creation is not merely a _process,_ best explained by God, but rather the outpouring of God's grace and wisdom. (Thus the 'Logos'.) In this older and better picture, miracles, although in some sense remaining interventions, become not violations of natural law (as Hume understood them) but complete by-passings of it. On this picture also, God is not a cause that is in mere competition with other possible causes but the 'final cause' of things (in the broadly Aristotelian sense of being 'that to which everything else is directed') and the 'primary cause' of all worldly causes. I realise, of course, that I leave this alternative picture of Christian theology undeveloped and unargued here. Hardly surprisingly! It would take time. But I would contend that this is how arguments relating to God's existence _should_ seen if God is to be seen in accordance with the best tradition of Biblical understanding of the issue and theology is to avoid descending into something that is merely quasi-scientific 'best fit' stuff.
I have not seen a new Christian thinker who could as much as tie his shoes himself. Intelligent people do not join the ranks of amateur clergy anymore. :-)
Shifting the topic, eh? If you'll notice, I responded to your clearly false insinuation that the age of an idea is a factor in its truth. I haven't heard a response about that from you, so I'm glad my post has gone unchallenged. Furthermore, I don't think you're "waiting" at all for any answer, as you have already shown that you can't take seriously the ideas of literal professional philosophers. The fact that you don't even respect them as thinkers, when their peers do, means that you have much more deeply seeded problems than I can help with. Maybe next time, if you want to be taken seriously, you will try to converse with a little more respect so that others may respect what you have to say.
Well, have you a proper and better logical argument? Do you live your life to the fullest and try to understand what being a human means? Or are you just another human that lives whatever is in front of you and does not try to understand your purpose? Have you read the bible in its full understanding? Do you know of any of Christ's teachings? Have you ever gone to a church? Can you define ''logical flaws'' in a deeper understanding? DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU ARE ALIVE TODAY? DO you know why you are able to ask these questions? Can you explain where does the moral law come from? Have you ever considered people who have had experiences regarding God, Christianity or any other religion? Can you prove they are insane? Can you prove YOU are sane enough? Please, if you are going to post an argument in the internet, make it a better argument than this poor thing I have read '' Logical flaws, bronze age (?)''. You say these things, but you do not put a deeper though to it in your own words, making it a weak argument.
Volmire1 "the age of an idea is a factor in its truth" Really? So, in your poorly constructed argument, truth is about who said it first, not what they can support? Don't be daft! You can't philosophise your deity into existence, no matter how hard you try, so please, just stop asserting nonsense.
I was an atheist, untill I discovered the rich intellectual Christian history… and the touch of God’s loving embrace. This conference feels like a family meeting. Much appreciated.
Hawking: religion is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark. Lennox: Atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light.
Good Lord... what a richness of argumentation & genius we have in these gentlemen.
If I was on the panel, my response to the 1st question would be,"The Guardian isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. No response needed.Next question!"
And I'm an agnostic!
Also, how do they know they had sex?
Lennox.
Absolutely brilliant as usual.
So true
William Oarlock Brilliant as in 'best arguments', most intouch and so on.
I'll bet you just didn't understand him. And no i don't mean his accent.
Go watch his debate with Dawkins. Richy got served.
William Oarlock Pfft.
William Oarlock Lennox is very funny and he makes jokes out of the atheists.
William Oarlock My arguments are at least as good as anything you've said.
That's my point.
High knowledge and positive debate! I appreciate Prof. Lennox especially for his depth of Biblical knowledge and understandable comments.
All of us will have to stand before God one day. Even the atheist.
Interesting how many scientists can pass for "philosophers" just because they write a book about how they don't believe in God.
Joe Lackey Not as *interesting* as how many pastors, philosophers, engineers, theologists and scientifically illiterate laymen can pass for zoologists, geochronologists, paleobiologists and physicists, though.
Joe Lackey What qualifies one to be a philosopher...philosophy as a discipline evolved into natural philosophy...aka science.
+Forcing Google+ Makes Me Feel Better About the Spying philosophy is the study of epistemology, logic (which by the way, everybody seems to forget that logic is a product of philosophy and not science), metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics. I see no reason why these are meaningless. These are all real stuff.
philosophy as a discipline did not evolve into science, lol
@@KinguCooky In what world? Perhaps the one of 1721, not 2021.
Just watched this on U Tube. Excellent speakers. Enjoyed it.
I can appreciate how Dr. Lennox points out that intelligent scientists can make false assertions without any kind of thoughtful "proof" or argument for that assertion. Also, although all of these men do not agree with certain scientists about their being a God and Jesus being God, they do not mock others for their beliefs, even when they make small jokes. I appreciate when people keep it respectable in their disagreements.
+J Danner If more people shared your idea on respectful disagreement we would have a much more fruitful intellectual community. Best wishes to you good sir.
+Ferinus Thank you, sir!
very well said, have the same thoughts about it. ☺
+Linda Marie Thank you, madam
That isn't how being a scientist works, you have people look it over
Wonderful panel, fantastic debate!!! Thank you, i thoroughly enjoyed it
C. D. Broad said it best:
"The nonsense written by philosophers concerning science is exceeded only by the nonsense written by scientists concerning philosophy."
Albert Einstein stated "the existence of the human thumb is reason enough to believe in God"....in his book Ideas and Opinions... just sharing to offer up that we can debate the issue maturely with rigorous dives of our intellect. unlike most negative remarks that are just name calling
@@ric929 That's (allegedly) Newton, but definitely not Einstein. Not that it means much, as he makes no argument and is not an authority in the subject.
@@Reashu I believe it's in Einsteins book idea's and opinions which I have which also cross referenced a Wall St Journal or N Y Times newspaper article from the 1920s. Old notes off the top of my head from when Studied apologetics. I can go look it up from my old paper if u would like. Einstein was certainly no Christian but had stated on many many occasions that he's a theist even got mad in the newspaper article when people used some of his remarks to say that he did not believe in God
@@ric929
Nope, Einstein didn’t believe in a personal god and called believing in heaven and hell childish.
@@ramigilneas9274 yes that's the common opinion of those that use him to support a non-theistic view.. Read his Wall Street Journal interview from approx. 1930. He specifically states in that interview that it bothers him when people use him to by claiming he does not believe in any God. That is an important interview that the people I mention above always seem to avoid...He was a theist. I never claimed he ascribed to any personal religion. He is also famous for responding to a students' question on what else is there to be learned when he responded, "We should learn about prayer". I think I am not exact on the quote but you can find it if you look. His book "Ideas & Opinions" also alluded to his willingness to allow for the possibility of a transcendent Got. If I remember correctly. I am not claiming he was religious or in full acceptance of any organized religion but he was definitely a theist. If you look at all his quotes instead of just the times he was against the idea which I definitely agree happened several times throughout his life.
what a great ensemble of intelligent
christians... discussing both theist
and atheist worldview in a civil and
engaging way..
I have yet to see an intelligent Christian. ;-)
@Lepi Diptera Given the option of accepting your opinion or the evidence of Intelligent Christians ranging from Isaac Newton to Francis Collins, I’ll go with the latter. ;-)
"Because Philosophy is Psychology misspelled to most people." ahahahahahaahaaa so true
Imagine if Hitler didn’t use Christianity to condemn the Jews….
Love these brilliant brethren
John Lennox is much more intelligent than I've ever noticed previously.
He sparkles more on certain occasions. But he's stretched his intelligence wider than most, so languages as well as sciences. He gives talks in German, used to in Russian, does Bible teaching as well as debating on sciences, when his main thing is mathematics 🙂
JP Moreland is a beast
Except on evolution and the historical Adam and Eve
Moreland is 💯💯💯
22:20 *science of belief* “[Hawking said to his wife] _’Cosmology is a religion for intelligent atheists.’_ That’s a terribly interesting definition. Modern cosmology for the atheistic scientist does provide a kind of metaphysical alternative to God-the multiverse becomes a kind of God surrogate that explains the fine tuning of the cosmos, it explains the origin of the universe. It _really_ does fill a sort of religious or metaphysical function for some of these thinkers.”
Zizek:
“Physicists like Stephen Hawking silently pass over the burning questions which actually occupy center stage in current politico-ideological debates.” [...] Science today effectively does compete with religion, insofar as it serves two properly idelogical needs, those for hope and those for censorship, which were traditionally taken care of by religion [...] In a curious inversion, religion is one of the possible places from which one can deploy critical doubts about today’s society. It has become one of the sites of resistence.”
We are living in an amazing time that we have refuge from the insanity of the world.
gorgeous minds . loved it. Thank you once again
1:51:32 *prosaetry* “When Simon Peter took a sword to swipe the head off the high priest’s servant, he wasn’t very good and he cut his ear off. Now by the way if I might say something about that-I believe Jesus put the ear back on-but you would be very poetically dim not to see what’s being said: _If you take up weapons to defend Christ or His Message you cut the ears off people in a big way.”_
I was so happy! They answered my twitter question!
Really? Which question was yours?
J Danner What is the hardest question an atheist can come to them with?
Ah, gotcha! Nice! I need to go back to hear their answer. Then again, I guess that was when they brought up the "problem" with a Historical Adam & Eve!!
Thanks!
+J Danner "What is the Hardest Question posed by the New Atheists? Follow up: are Christians dodging the answer?" 1:07:43
Thank you, "Volmire1"!
I had caught it earlier, but I do believe that this is a tough question worthy of my time as a Christian.
1:20:00 to 1:26:00 roughly, spoken well to understand why people don't have to omit everything when there is an uncertain in the periphery information.
It's funny how no one in the comments here, who opposes the ideas talked about in the video, backed up their claims with evidence. That's because they don't have any.
Self-refuting argument. Congratulations.
19:37 *no problem with evolution* “Theologically I guess I don’t see the problem. My difficulty with the story would be as you say, the way it was presented, _’This is the first time that humans beings had sex with Neanderthals!’_ It sounds like a soap opera, obviously they’re going here for the headline value, the sensationalism of it and so forth and it seems to me that that’s typical of the way the press handles science.”
starts at 16:00 :)
It would be good to see Stephen Meyer here aswell
Levi Lavel
Yeah, they should have, I would love to see him in more theological settings.
It would be similarly 'good' to see a "space" within 'aswell' ...
They have a master of arts degree in Christian Apologetics!
I wanna see Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Dr. John Lennox & Hugh Ross Ph.D at Biola University
Scratch Hugh Ross, put in Kent Hovind ;)
Uncle Brizz I agree.
@@unclebrizz1053nahhh
is there a transcript of this?
Thankfully there is not. Small mercies.
willzer808 yeah, we can't have these dang theists with their logic saving our slaves from their dogma!
Crabby Lobster "Christian Logic" "Christian Biology" "Christian CPR"
The Multiverse is the very definition of a God of the Gaps argument... A "Multiverse of the Gaps" argument if you will.
Right?
Does anyone know what's the name of the scientist mentioned about 48:14? Charles something?
I just can't stop myself from laughing when I see John Lennox bombarding these so called new atheists.
Jesus loves you
Shining bright like 3 diamonds!!!! Mental monster truck rally 😂
Lennox is the best
Thr bronze age book of Daniel as a searchlight for knowledge and wisdom ! Really ? I think like in Daniel he should put that wisdom ? to sleep until the END TIMES that are never ending !
It's actually not even Bronze Age. The Book of Daniel is 2nd century BC, which means it was written three to four centuries after the Iron Age ended. What you are witnessing here is a people who are almost a millennium behind the rest of the world intellectually at that time. Today, of course, they are a century or two ahead of the world.
The very first question that should have been asked is: is it mathematically logical to say 3 = 1 ?
Starts at 14:50 . you're welcome
Words matter some words matter more than others. Two such words that are often confused and do much harm were God is concerned are faith and religion. Note that Peter does not say be prepared to give and answer for the faith that is in you but the hope.
Religion is simply an action that people preform with regularity. We can and should pray religiously, we should attend a service religiously, but we should not mistake either for receiving the grace of God.
Lots of people do these things and are not under grace. Christianity is a matter not of behavior but of new life; spiritual life, and as such to describe a Christian we need to go beyond behaviors. We need to understand what spirit is as compared to the intellect of a man.
Scripture often refers to the heart and when it does we understand it is not pointing to an actual organ but to the core of our mind, that which underlies and drives the intellect, the will.
To change a mans mind you need to change this aspect of the mind, mere intellectual assent will not manage it. While religion is clearly focused on works which are of the intellect Christianity differs and is focused on the heart and newness of life.
In that respect to refer to it as a religion is misleading. Good behavior is great but it wont provide newness of life. As for how this life is achieved because after all we are very achievement focused, it comes about by faith.
For most reading this comment faith will be seen as belief perhaps specifically the belief in God. For others it will be a blind belief, being without reasons and this lecture/video is directed at causing faith to be strengthened by reason, but as I already noted faith is not a matter of the intellect and Christians need to be very carful when equating salvation to knowledge; There is a great gulf between knowing God and knowing about God. There is value in both, but one saves and the other merely informs.
The thief on the cross had little time to come to knowledge he simply found, came to faith and for most that will be a mystery. For most separating the mind into intellect and will is equally a mystery. Scripture says that salvation comes by grace through faith and as such understanding faith the mechanism of new life is essential to describing Christianity.
What faith is not, is belief; scripture does give many clues for us to come to an understanding. We know that Peter was told by Christ when He asked who do people say I am and followed with the question who do you say I am, Peter answered by faith rather than by anything reveled to him by men, meaning through the intellect. Faith is knowledge, but not of an intellectual nature, it lays at a deeper level of the mind, in the spirit. We also see Peter just a short time later have his faith tested and he betrays Christ three times though his believes are unchanged. Fears can over come faith and scripture says we are not given a spirit of fear, so it would be reasonable to think faith and fear both reside in the same place of the mind.
Atheists like to think of themselves as being to rational to except God and that those that do are week, yet no one questions phobias and the power they exert on a person. Clearly they drive us beyond the power of the intellect; therefore it should be obvious that we are not subject to our intellects and salvation happens at a place deeper within us, again the spirit. Sin also lives in this deeper place and like faith affects the mind beyond intellect. Sin is accompanied by unbelief, while faith belief. Sin affects behavior/works again just as faith does one for the better the other for selfishness. Sin brings death and faith life so clearly sin and faith are the antithesis one to the other. Another clue concerning the nature of faith is in origins; beliefs come by learning, faith according to scripture comes by hearing Gods word,
" so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God".
This was recorded in Greek and the translation seems to be pointing us to the bible. Scripture is rich and necessary, but many that read it never find faith there. Is there an error then; what about the Atheist that says I had faith once, I read the bible cover to cover many times. Greek has two words to define communications one referring to a written form and the other to what is spoken, Rhema and logos. Sometimes Yeshua is referred to as the Logos, but this is the written form of word.
In the passage that speaks of faith and its origins the word is Rhema a spoken word and this comes by God which is entirely consistent with Christ's teaching when He said My sheep hear My voice.
So the journey begins with hearing God speak to you and this causes your mind to accept not believe but truly, factually, absolutely, undeniably, know, God as a reality at a deeper level than intellect. This awareness of God draws you to seek Him and that leads to relationship even to love and we walk ever closer to Him which changes everything about our lives, but not through an effort or personal strength.
Just as any human friend can offer comfort, advise, encouragement, and these will have an impact on our lives, so to can God.That is Christianity.
These are good teachers and this is a good video worth watching and full of truth but better when seen with the fullness of mind rather than just the intellect.
Craig, Moreland and Lennox on the SAME TALK? I haven't listened to this yet but I think it is going to be epic :D
Why wasn't Ravi Zacharias in this?
Dr. Kent would be a great addition
So good...
excellent talk !!
This is so great!!
I thought JP had far too much air time. A big shame. What a chance to see William Lane Craig and John Lennox share the same stage together, to listen to some historical anecdotes and some apologetics, but for it to be hijacked by JP. He spoke more than anyone else!
This was a major let down for me. Hugely disappointed.
I've seen comments here claiming they present no evidence this lecture. Well, first of all, most of these questions are posed as asking for a response to _the new atheist arguments and assertions that Christianity and science don't mix._ Reconciling science and Christianity does not entail providing evidence for Christianity, although they do provide moderate amounts throughout. In particular they circle back on the teleological argument quite a bit, which I find is quite a compelling argument by logical standards. They spend a lot of time refuting at least the more easily defeasible new atheist arguments, stuff like the multiverse, for example. They do touch on evolution, too, which I think the most sufficient argumentation I've heard from any of these three on evolution is from Dr. Craig. He's got a sort of famous bit in debates where he sites Barrow and Tiplek's The Anthropic Cosmological Principal, where they write that there are 10 steps that happened on the way to human evolution that are so improbable that for each of them to have occurred, so much time would have passed by that the sun would have already ceased to be a main sequence star. So, if evolution did happen - it's practically a miracle, and therefore evidence for God's existence!
When it comes to the historical Adam and Eve, I find Lennox gets stuck. I am a Christian and was greatly dissatisfied with his avoidance of the question. I don't know why in this case he couldn't just say, on evaluation of evidence, that he doesn't know but holds to faith that there was an original human couple. He has sufficient philosophical and historical grounds for believing in Christ as His savior, and so can trust in a historical Adam and Eve if he so chooses. I think Adam and Eve is not where the money is - it's all on Jesus. Belief in Christ does not necessitate a literal original human couple. For goodness sake, Adam in Hebrew means "MAN" and Eve means "LIFE." Those names are symbolic, no? The scientific evidence right now does not correlate with a singular human pair, although the pool size of the first humans has reduced significantly over the years, so who knows what direction that could go. I hold an open mind to their being an original human pair, but as with Dr. Craig I find no trouble in there being an original pool of humans.
All in all, this is still a great discussion although I wish they would have gone into depth and really pushed each other where disagreements arose - an open forum like that would be fascinating.
Jesus is dead. Why are you betting your money on a dead man? He ain't no running no races anymore. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Because we have significant hope that that dead man rose from the dead. The explosion of the church of believers who genuinely committed themselves to the idea that this man was somehow God incarnate is enough to raise an eyebrow. The testimonies of the disciples that they had encountered Christ in His risen form, the fact that the letter to the Corinthians had established creeds already when it was only written about 20 years after Christ's death... That, plus a little step of faith, is why I committed to following this man.
In essence, I am "betting my money" on the dead man because I don't believe He is actually dead. I have hope for the redemption of this world through his resurrection.
@@winterlogical That's not hope, Dude. That's delusion.
Dawkins asked for confirmation that Lennox really believed water turns into wine and bread turns into flesh out of charity for the poor professor. If it's blood, does it have DNA in it...or...blood cells...or...His answer was that he believed Jesus over Dawkins, but what he really meant was that he believed what was written in an ancient book over his own eyes and brain. How can you not be embarrassed to hold such a belief?
Why does it matter if it's ancient or not?It proves nothing,pointless claim.
The stars were created not on the 4th day made is past tense in Genesis,different from make or create hence proves the week is not literal
Genesus 1 31 Genesis 3 1 Genesis 5 1 prove made is something God already done 4th day God put lights in the firmament,does not say first created lights
This is God's creation week,not neccesarily a normal week
You don't ever see a plant growing and producing fruit in 1 day
Job mentions pleiades constellation which is 100m years old
God's sabbath day isn't literal for God,he has finished his new creation and no longer is creating new things even to this dayso why should the other days be literal.
Hence we can accept the Big Bang and old Earth
Adam and Eve were not immortal since tree of life is there
Why do snakes have poisonous fangs or other creatures like scorpions or why do venus fly traps have meat diet?
Genesis 1 31 "Very good" does not mean perfect this context bc how come Adam was not immortal if perfect is flawless?
Animals can not sin therefore Romans 8 applies to humankind
God said "let the beasts reproduce to their kind" never commands animal marriage and sexual immorality exists
Ephesians 5 11 God can not have the appearence of evil therefore animals can not sin and they can't commit sexual sin bc God can not tempt anyone to evil so predators aren't sinning when they kill each other God would have adressed the issue and said animal's are married but that doesn't happen,and he cant have the appearance of evil or tempt or command evil
Hence Theistic Evolution is possible predators are not corruption made by Adam,sin entered the world through Adam and death sin to all men,not animals,animals can not sin but they still die.
“Atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the light”
Says the kid who needs attention because he didn't get enough from his Mom. ;-)
If the so called “light” were real, there would be no fear of this light because it would be indisputable. The problem is there no evidence what so ever for the existence of God. If God were real, he would reveal himself. Unfortunately God, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are to busy being impossible. They don’t exist other than in the minds of the irrational children. This is why believers are called Gods children, because you have to have the mind of a child in order to believe into adulthood. Brainwashing children to believe is necessary, only a person with a weak mind believe in God. Be well.
And the light is Jesus Christ.
1:21-32 My objection is that if the human race came into being via genetic mutation, doesn't it by definition have to originate at ONE genetic mutation? Or Mutative Event? "One" is considerably less complex than "2000" right? How do you arrive at a minimum population for humans that is 2000? When they arrived via mutation to begin with... Does that mean that 2000 individuals spontaneously mutated into humanity? It kind of has to be 'one' And that's also a problem of speciation in general. At some point you have to have the "one" lynch pin mutation that leverages the creature into a different species. And in the case of sexually reproducing creatures you always start with that new species population at one... At each mutative event.
blacksheepwall79 but aren't mutations either bad for the organism, or neutral? Often or every time, it is simply gene switching, utilising already existing, even dormant, information. The likelihood of humans appearing out of a mutation is absurdly, just mathematically impossible!
So I was tabbed out while listening to this...And by 5 mins in, I realized I was listening to Kermit the Frog hype up Christian Apologists X-D
The problem with Neandertals is that their body ratio matches that of apes and not of humans. The body ratio of every human being upon Earth is the same, no matter the heighth or proportion of the individual.
Whose rear did this bullshit come from? :-)
Lawyer let John finish he’s on point answering question but his lawyer framework does not allow him to listen maybe?
There is no fine tuning!
.
Does gravity exist without matter?
Quite the zinger at the 24 minute mark lol. I think religion will bounce back if it's surrounded by philosophers/historians rather than nut bars as it most commonly is today. Atheism is science and science gives us so much almost endlessly, but it's arrogant to think that science creates objective truths. So, philosophy needs to more important in the conversation.
Great and very informative.
23:44 HAHAHAH kyot ni lennox
31:44 HAHAHAHAH
35:12
1:00:00
41:00
Gets awkward around 1:07:43 when Craig says DNA shows Adam and Eve didn't exist, and says theists can't get around that, and then Lennox tries to do just that. Love it when theists argue about the truth of their crazy religion and it becomes clear to anyone (theist and atheists) that they are just wishful thinkers ignoring the reality that their religious claims are obvious nonsense. God's not not dead.
+Eric A Speaking what you do not know. I don't think true Christian thinkers ever claim they have ALL the answers to the questions about life and its beginning...
+Scd Observer But the things they do claim to know they claim to know via a special apparatus only they have access to. Methinks their divine inspiration is simply bullshit.
It's sad because WLC is a brilliant man. I imagine it was a bit like Newton's contemporaries who worked with him on scientific projects that then out of nowhere he'd start spouting off his inane philosophies/theologies.
+Eric A Why is it okay for atheists to say "I don't know" when it comes to matters such as the beginning of the universe from nothing, but not for christians with regard to certain problems such as the one mentioned?
+Soldierbrutis95 portillo I don't have any information about the metaphysical state of the world before the big bang and neither do you. I make no claim on the matter. In terms of DNA we know quite a lot, so a Christian who says something that has a logical conclusion which contradicts what we know has explaining to do. It's as simple as that.
+Forcing Google+ Makes Me Feel Better About the Spying
Have you run the probabilities on DNA coming together by random chance?
I think I'll trust and Oxford mathematician over you all the same.
" I believe in fairies. "
is not a scientific statement!
"Leading thinkers" who believe that God sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself so that mankind might be saved from his hate, through his love...brilliant.
God sacrificed his son to clean our sin to give us eternal life.God is clean he can't live with sin around him he can't allow sin to live forever that's why he sent Jesus to clean us coz he loved us so much he couldn't let sin separate us forever now just by believing Jesus as your savior you become clean of any sin.
not his "hate" but his punishment for OUR sins... go read a book..
Betty JESUS So, basically, you believe in the moral concept of killing people to somehow account for the wrongdoings of others. Now, this is just me, but I find the very idea revolting - as well as contrary to everything I consider important about morality.
GnomefroJesus chose to be sacrifice for our sin and God allowed it because it is the only way for our salvation. Jesus came to this world to die for us willingly, God did not kill him.his love for us brought him to this weicked world. God is not a killer. No devil crucified Jesus we did, we are the killers but he prayed for us on the cross, he forgave us coz we are not aware of what we were doing, because we were in darkness but now when we accept jesus into our life he becomes our light and we can easily be aware of his presence and we can understand his word. sauniz1 if there was a better person than Adam who would obey God 100% he would have been created first but there is none so we all are weicked that's why we needed christ who lived a holy life , now through jesus we are all holy
jannmutube This God of yours is immensely hateful being in that he punishes all of us for the transgressions of two people. Most of us for all eternity!!! Not even the worst of the dictators on this world as as cruel as him. He is worse the Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong-Un combined. He is not bound to any specific actions. He could just let bygones be bygones and forgive us. Instead, he chooses to make this completely sickening ultimatum to us "believe in the Son or be tortured for all eternity". He is a psyhopathic cunt!
But the whole christian world view of salvation and redemption is a farce. Why? Because there really is no original sin. The story about Adam and Eve in the Bible is an obvious MYTH. How could a story
involving primordial man, a rib-woman, a mythical time and place in the distant
past, a talking snake and and god, a tree of knowledge and of good and evil,
cherubs etc. be a taken for a real historical event? There are many
different literary genres in the OT, of which some are non-historical. The OT
includes MYTH, SAGA,LEGENDS, ethiologies, history, annals, reports, anecdotes
and novella. (Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard - Mercer dictionary of the
Bible - Genre in the old testament page 323). The earlier the story, the
more likely it is to be fictional. Man has evolved through long natural
processes and there never has been a historical couple called Adam and Eve who
could have “fallen”. Man’s “sinfulness” (imperfection) is natural, because he emerges out nature
without the capability of reason, understanding or compassion with nothing but
the stiff instincts for survival in his psyche. The concept of original sin was created (in the form we know it) by Augustine 400 years later. Jesus himself not once alludes to any kind of
original sin in the gospels. There was no original sin for Jesus to die for.
I can't stand how Hugh Hewitt kept interrupting the speakers RIGHT BEFORE they were going to make their big point. Often a speaker was building up to summary answer and got cut off. So, the weaker part of his answer is given, but the climactic thunderbolt is prevented from being thrown. I'm sure Hewitt is a good radio host, but this is A DIFFERENT FORMAT. Also, why couldn't he get the hints that the speaker had more to say? Also, Hewitt kept pressing the anthropological issue when clearly none of them were experts on the topic. Yet, he wouldn't allow Craig to finish his responses even though he's probably the most knowledgeable person on the stage regarding the topic (as can be seen from his 21 lectures on the topic of Creation and Evolution in his Defenders class). Next time get some one else to do the interview.
I raised my hand. =P
Great
I think they should have invited a real scientist and discuss matters with that person.
This was just a propaganda event .... Apologetics to the camera, nothing more ...
IF YOU CANT GET SOMETHING FROM NOTHING THAT MEANS THERE CANT BE A GOD . BECAUSE A GOD , ANY OF THE THOUSANDS OF GODS IN HUMAN HISTORY , HAD TO COME FROM SOME PLACE . DID GOD ALWAYS EXIST ? THAT IS NO MORE POSSIBLE THAN GETTING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING .
Your keyboard is broken. Please fix it. :-)
Wow John called the new atheists communist..
The cosmos formed naturally!
.
" scripture "
The bible starts with lies and it does not get any better!
Obviously none of these guys has ever ever read the bible.
Of course there are other planets.
But we do not know if there is life outside this planet.
.
Science only doing 2 things:
1. Doing the research about things that already been created by God. Example: Science did not created the sun, but science only doing the research everything about the sun like how far it's from earth, how hot it was, whether it has axis, what are the purposes of its light, etc etc.
2. Doing the exploitation with the sources that already been created by God. Example: Science created satelites and later they invented Internet. But science use the materials that created by God like steel and other metals to build the satelites. For TV transmission and Internet, science use the wave that already been created by God.
Still, science cannot understand the metaphysic world. Science just making people understand how things works. Sure, science is good for mankind, but still we have to believe 'the super power' who created the world including created human, animal, plant, planet, wind, oxygen (for us to breathe) and even all the scientists themselve (which are human) are also created by God.
i wonder what jesus would have said about slavery? these people would have to say that he would go along with the rest of the bible (including the new testament) consensus on slavery - ie, it is morally permissible.
He would have accepted man's freedom to choose. How does this show that He believes it to be morally permissible?
The alternative, which you seem to be inferring, is that He takes away our free will, and forces us (in this case) to never make slaves of each other. Isn't that advocating what you are arguing against?
***** no, i'm saying that both the old and new testaments condone slavery and those christians who believe in biblical inerrancy would say that jesus would therefore condone slavery as well.
Peter Miller
Yeah, I think you need understand the nature of those statements. The first 10 laws of Moses are moral truths (i.e. The Ten Commandments), but the rest were just specific rules for those specific people at that time. Slavery was a far more attractive option in that time than it would be now. It fit with the culture and system they lived in, and you'd have to read more into slavery into the Roman empire to feel Philemon. It is made perfectly clear that it would be better if no were slaves by emphasizing human dignity, human worth, and so on. They didn't endorse, but tolerated it because it was beneficial for people to be slaves sometimes (many times); that's why they set up guidelines on how to treat slaves. That's why Paul said to love Onesimus like a brother.
DifferentGuy4 is your argument that god did indeed advocate slavery in both old and new testaments, but it was a different kind of slavery - not nearly so bad?
Peter Miller Leaving aside the question of biblical inerrancy, I am unaware of any passage that condones slavery.
What we see, in fact, is a framework of regulations dealing with this particularly abhorrent human practice, universally prevalent in the ancient world.
Two of the biggest catastrophes in Jewish history, (their enslavement by Egypt and some centuries after, by Babylon) is shown to be a punishment by God. This in itself should show the reader that God views slavery as something bad.
They lost me with Neanderthals but coming from WLC isn't surprising at all .
To the point of theistic evolution being a guided unguided process. I do not think his explanation of theistic evolution is very good. What we believe is that God designed the system of rules that govern the universe including evolution. Then He pushed play and to a large degree just watches the show.
To the point of an actual Adam and Eve. There was a time when there were not homo sapiens. Today there are homo sapiens. So, unless you think a cave woman popped out a horse of homo sapiens there had to be a first male and a first female homo sapiens.
Well, I think it was Dawkins, who answering a question about what students, who went to another Christian University should do, he said they should leave and go to a Proper one; that is the case here.
Science and Religion are totally incompatible and irreconcilable.
I so not answer prayers!
.
I wonder if they try that old pitiful moral argument.
Rob Ward What's said without evidence can be discarded without evidence. You have no justification for the claim that God is necessary for objective morality or meaning.
Rob Ward Which, the first or the second? To the first, normative intuitions about rational belief. I seriously doubt you deny this epistemic principle. To the second, my experiences asking theists to support the claim, and their inability to do so.
Rob Ward No that's very obviously not argument. That's a single conditional statement that you've simply asserted without justification.
Objective means independent of the propositional attitudes anyone takes towards a thing.
So then, Rob Ward, are you going to support this claim that "God is necessary for objective morality"? Or is this something you take on faith?
Rob Ward Clearly, you need a class in sociology. Every culture has its own morality. If you look at your book of fables, it promotes slavery, genocide, sacrifices, selling women into sex slavery, and blind obedience. Are those the "morals" you hold so close?
1. in computing we have 1 & 0 true and false that is also text...
2. argument for christianity. There is no other believe which offers a solution for humans where one can be saved by accepting & beliving and not own works be be saved. ALL RELIGIONS require that one has to work his way up and perhaps one havs done enough to gain salvation. Only the Bibel says that we are SVADe by grace and not our own works.
Epheser 2, 8
Denn aus Gnade seid ihr errettet durch Glauben, und das nicht aus euch, Gottes Gabe ist es;
ethos calendar
_"2. argument for christianity. There is no other believe which offers a solution for humans where one can be saved by accepting & beliving and not own works be be saved."_
I'm not sure why that would be an argument for the truth of Christianity, but you realize that the bible contradicts itself on that point right? Moreover, the doctrine you are proposing is not that of Jesus, but of Paul. Jesus actually says that he's not come to change the law and that the law and the prophets will continue to apply till judgment day.(I am of course using "Jesus said" in the loosest possible sense here - that of what the character Jesus in the bible says. I don't believe he even existed.) James also emphasizes works. It's therefore meaningless to say that "Christianity" as a whole has your view of the faith vs works contradiction.
_"ALL RELIGIONS require that one has to work his way up and perhaps one havs done enough to gain salvation. Only the Bibel says that we are SVADe by grace and not our own works."_
Not really true. The ancient mystery religions, of which Christianity is a Jewish variant, were all about getting saved due to having certain insights.(And usually also a baptism, or something akin to it, like Christianity also has), but again, I don't understand why, if you happened to be right, this would make Christianity more likely to be true. Or for that matter, why would it be a good thing that nothing you do matters and that you're being judged merely on the fact of whether you can manage to get yourself to believe in ancient stories about magic?
" The resurrection of Jesus. "
Jesus is a no show in history.
.
Lennox is unable to distinguish between reality and fairy tales.
Stand up speak what needs to be said 3days ago. I made the biggest! Web eves done because my son at 13 was bit to piece '
By everybody in power he is been locked away from me and everybody he loved this
Started whit his father. Stephen david eggert. Has hurt him in away that my child that he does desire love he wanted nothing but to understand why he didnt love me after everybody in his life took a piece of him in everyway a mother could never. Speak of. Then he looked other places to fill that pain he found the wrong group and the night mare started now i am a mother that wont let my son become a king at what he becomes this boy is so smart that he has out smarted them all now my son need anther chance to turn this around and will show everybody that he is fauor by god and will become very importion to all of people because u cant help but to love him he is now in boy school because he believed thirs new freind that were 19 tn21 yrs old lead him down a road of all these promise that woukd help him our 7 and8. Graders are being targeted for gangs and dealing their drugs for them so they go down for them well they found the wrong mother i even ran one guy all the way to to tenn he know tn never to return as for my son goes i asked his probation oficer will he be safe at boy scool his word i quote i have send over a 100 boys thier and only 2got RAPED well i dont know about the other parentS out thier but i cant let that go i wiil get'hime ov of thier and it iS GOING TO TAKE SEVER MOUTS TO GET HIM THE WRITE LONG TERM Treatment that he needs so this stopes now my point is i put out 3billion messages asking for help because just think about this what about thd neyt kid gets put their and does get RAPED i cant live with that these are our kid and we gnt peaple in power who has got lazy and dont give a damn about our kids parents everywhere if got a battle like this pkeare contact me we will stop this our kids will come home or go get the write help they need god bless u all i whll fiht to win
such a great talk, thanks for uploading the video!
if only people were less dishonest like the guy below me, but I know that people need to insult other peoples' worldviews normally, especially when it comes to atheists. (from experience, I say that lol) thanks for the video, and I don't see many logical flaws here.
Hmmm so what's the point of this video? All it proves is that "leading Christian thinkers" have no problem arguing about something they dont event understand. This is just pigeon chess.
They understand that their way of life, and methodology of thinking is long dead. So they fight to cling to the fearful dogmatism that they promote.
***** That sounds like a personal problem, you may need help if you are too weak to cope with defining yourself.
***** We make our own purpose, it's called being an adult, you should try it, instead of relying on superstition.
***** Why would I need a proof? You don't have any demonstrable evidence, nothing to support what you assert. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
***** A proof is a mathematical construct with the value of true. Your terminology poor. Further, you can not support what you assert. You are trying (and failing miserably) to assert a false dichotomy. Support your assertion, or stop asserting it.
Lennox seems like a nice guy, and knowledgeable in his own field, but he’s awful here. His answer to WLC’s formulation of the Adam and Eve objection was painful to listen to.
It’s actually not, he is positing a singularity event as per big bang, Resurrección etc. scripture says Eve came from man. Once again an event not detectable by methodological naturalism, once again God is right and everyone else is wrong.
"leading christian thinkers" says it all. Seeing as how no new argument has been forth in decades, maybe centuries, the best you could title this, is leading christian historians. I don't recall any theological breakthrough in my lifetime, and to be honest I don't even know what it would look like. Given their opposition to such things as stem cell research, gay marriage and contraception, I'd be hard pressed to to even credit them with the term "lead". If christians want to prove themselves as thinkers, let alone lead thinkers, they need to contribute to something that benefits our species. A good start would be to acknowledge climate change, and dispense with their ridiculous view that humans can't affect the planet, and it'll be god via judgement day that brings on any significant change. Another step would be to drop the bloody Obama antichrist campaign. Every time I hear a christian make this claim, or anyone being the anti-christ for that matter it makes me cringe. Forgetting the absurdities surrounding their Obama problems, these claims of demons, devils and anti-christs sound like the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic off his meds and high on acid. Its preposterous. Do they listen o themselves make these wild mythical claims?? Another issue they might want to tackle is the systematic rape and torture of young children and the subsequent cover ups and excuses they try and muster to avoid responsibility for these horrific and vile actions. And if they have time left over maybe address their morally bankrupt opposition to homosexuals. This truly sickens me, not only do they not understand the simple fact that what other people do with their own lives is A) None of their f"n business and B)Has no effect whatsoever on them personally. If their truly is a god that teaches you to go out of your way not only to hate certain people, but to be vocal about it and preach it to other people and their children, than he/she is a moral monster and is not worthy of a single thought let alone life long devotion by billions of people. Leading christian thinkers, good grief.
Then you have a problem with certain Christians. You're trying to paint all of us with the same brush as if we're all carbon copies of each, devoid of any variability in our beliefs and experiences. It's as if we're monstrous robots hellbent on some unholy cause to force people to conform to our beliefs. Clearly this isn't the case.
Secondly, we do listen to ourselves make "wild, mythical claims". I suppose your referring to the fact that the God created the universe, which in my opinion seems to make more sense than having the universe appear from literally nothing.
I don't know which Christian is claiming that Obama is the antichrist, but I agree that people need to relax with calling people the antichrist. No one is worshipping Obama, no one is calling him God, etc. Those people don't read the Bible, and that's an example of fanaticism.
You make it seem that the "systematic rape and torture of children" is something unique to Catholic priests, and that only Catholic priests cover it up. I think you're intelligent enough to see the fallacy there.
Lastly, regarding homosexuality, it's true that Christianity and belief in God warrants belief that homosexuality is morally depraved, in the same way that lying, murder, and sin in general is. I don't see why you target only a Christian's opposition to homosexuality, when it's just another part of his beliefs. By your logic, we shouldn't have a belief on anything because A) It's none of our f'n business and B)Has no effect whatsoever on us personally. I mean, if our loved ones are murdered, is that truly personal? I mean, we're still here, right? So it shouldn't bother us. It's also none of our business because that exchange happened between the killer and the victim, not you or I.
The fact of the matter is that God doesn't command us to hate anyone. The fact that you even say that is a clear indication that you've never read the Bible in it's entirety and that you base your view on Christianity on personal experience with less-than-savory Christians.
So yes, these are leading thinking Christians dealing with the problems posited by the New Atheist Movement. And the fact you can automatically denounce these men as rapists and bigots is probably the most intellectually dishonest thing I've seen in a while. I don't usually respond to internet comments when it comes to politics or religion because it usually a gigantic waste of time, but your comment was so ridiculous that I couldn't resist.
***** WOW!! Talk about attacking a straw man there. First your claim that I haven't read the bible in it's entirety shows that you haven't read it. I've read the old and new testament beginning to end 3 separate times. And as i said, this was the catalyst that started my path to humanism. Had you have actually read it, you wouldn't have written most of what you just posted. It is a vile book, that promotes everything from slavery to genocide. And I'm not saying it makes some obscure reference, it outlines in great deal the rules of owning slaves, and the amount of money you must pay to a womans father if you are caught raping her. Next your comment that god created the universe makes more sense than the universe came from "literally nothing" tells me A) You don't know what science is actually talking about in regards to origins, and B ) You haven't thought your own claim through. Simply asserting that god created everything is not an answer, not by a far shot, it has no explanatory power, it doesn't explain how any of this is possible, and why. It basically says it was magic. No more. How did your god come to be? How does he supposedly have all this power and why did he create anything to begin with. Claiming "god did it" is not an answer, it opens the door to countless questions that can't be explained. Now for your claim that science says everything came from "nothing" is the automated christian response to try and discredit science. I strongly suggest you read "a Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss to explain to you what we mean by nothing. Now to be clear, we don't actually know how everything came to be, it may be that there was no beginning that the universe has always existed or perhaps it's cyclical. But saying "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer in regards to the questions of origins. At least were exploring and researching this topic as opposed to saying god did it and leaving it at that.
Again your attack on homosexuality and comparing it to murder and lying is reprehensible. Religion is the main force behind denying gay people basic human rights. Keep in mind that it's not a choice and we have found a gene that controls sexual preference (xq28 on the x chromosome discovered by Dr Dean Hamer) and that homosexuality is present in over 1500 species, it seems terribly ignorant and hate filled to condemn people for their lifestyle. Why do you care so much? I thought christians were supposed to be tolerant and loving? This is certainly not the case.
Lastly you claim that I'm trying to paint all christians with the same brush. This is not the case, there are so many thousands of denominations of your religion that none of you can agree on even defining your god. You all pick and choose the parts of the bible that supports your views, and discard the parts that are so disgraceful that you try and cover up and not teach. If you accept the bible as the inspired word of god than you must accept all of it, from Balaams talking donkey-Numbers 22:30, to David killing 200 men and bringing their foreskins to the king so that he might marry his daughter-1 Samuel 18:27. This book is packed with immorality and heinous crimes against our species that is baffling to me that anyone could possibly regard this as truth, especially as the scriptures have been shown to contain drastically inaccurate historical events, and people, loaded with contradictions from the virgin birth to the resurrection and all of the books written by anonymous authors. Now it's obvious you haven't read your bible, so I'm guessing you've never read any of the apocryphal writing, or any of the dozens of other non canonical gospels that were excluded for the final draft. I could go on and on, but I'll see what you have to say so far. Oh and this idea of "sin" is a christian idea, and one that has plagued people with guilt, shame and self loathing for centuries. Teaching children they are born sick and with sin, and they are not worthy unless the beg, and grovel for forgiveness because the fictional characters ate fruit from a forbidden tree without knowing the difference between right and wrong until after they ate, is absurd. Even more so if you actually believe in Adam and Eve. We are human, we make mistakes and we screw up from time to time, but to label this as sin and threaten people with eternal torture and agony is despicable.
S L Baltimore Well said .Have you heard of the rebound effect ? With the emergence of ''new atheism ''this phenomenon has been identified . Basically , when threatened with common sense or reason or evidence indoctrinated christians hold on even stronger to their dopey beliefs! I think it has something to do with the wiring in the human brain. god help us !
S L Baltimore I would love to see a'' christian '' teenager somewhere sue the arse off his or her parents for child abuse .
Ross Fraser HAHA!! So would I! I was raised catholic, and I don't remember any parables, or anything positive, but I do remember having nightmares, and crying and being totally freaked out that I was going to hell. Oh and that I was responsible for jesus' suffering and death. When I left the religion at 16, I was kicked out of my house an I changed high schools from catholic to public, and the hardest part was letting go of the hell concept. Its absolutely child abuse, and organizations like the "good news club", and "child evangelism fellowship" which are now in public schools all over the states, has a curriculum that consists of 2/3rds being about hell. Theres a documentary about it on here. I think its repulsive and pathetic that religion knows its story is so weak that they have to get children under the age of ten, otherwise they start to develop their critical and rational faculties and than religion is powerless. Thats also why they prey on poverty stricken areas, jails, rehab programs etc.... Its reprehensible.
I understand reality is harsh but why would you go into manmade delusions..
There is no creation!
.
First guy was cringe ...i threw up in my mouth .....
William Lane Craig is the leading expert on nothing. Cheers to that.
+Forcing Google+ Makes Me Feel Better About the Spying And the post above is a leading example of having absolutely nothing substantial to say.
+Scd Observer Let's have an infinite regress of such comments. Yours qualifies.
Forcing Google+ Makes Me Feel Better About the Spying You are a reductionist. I am not. Goodbye.
+Scd Observer Useless comment. I'm leaving you to clean up this mess. zZz
15 minutes of garbage glorifying
The narrator is annoying
Definitely. What does he keep apologizing for? There is no compromise with the Word of God. The oxymoron is that all universities in America were founded by Christians but now the benefits afforded by the belief in God teach relativity that denies God.
A light of ignorance...
The bible does not " teach ".
.
Have you ever read the Bible? It does teach.
@joannquaid6037
Unlike you I have read the bible!
It " teaches " to kill!
Why do you trust bronze age goat herders?
.
A singularity is supernatural. GG Christianity.
That's a flat contradiction,isn't science about the natural realm so you admit the singularity proves the supernatural exists?
While there is much to praise in this discussion, especially in the way in which this trio sees off some of the more naive presuppositions, common myths about what Christianity is supposed to entail, and blunt elementary logical errors that are all too typical of the so-called 'new atheists', their basic theology must, I believe, be rejected.
The mistake they all make is to presume that the issue of the existence of God can safely be regarded as a merely probabilistic theory. In brief, we are being asked to believe in God because God becomes the best and most probable explanation for things in the way anything else might be (though not, thankful, merely relating to the things in the so called 'gaps').
This simply _cannot_ be the right approach. Creation _ex nihilo_ cannot be understood as a merely probabilistic process. _That__ way of thinking is the correct approach for science as it finds the mechanical causes among things. The creator _ex nihilo_ cannot be merely another (quasi-mechanical) cause among others, either more or less plausibly. This creator can't be just another mechanical causal element, even the leading one, that operates and competes in the same causal playing field as others. The God of Christianity cannot be merely the master cause _in that sense._ This would reduce God to being no more than a 'Big Invisible Thing', as one (far better) theologian put it, a being that surreptitiously twiddles the knobs of creation now and again, every time, say, a new species comes along. This would render God a mere CEO of creation, as _I_ like to put it, a mere master puppeteer.
The alternative? An older theological picture in which God's existence is first proven by deductive argument (not merely made more likely by by more or less convincing inductive argument) and then shown by extensions of such argument not to be limited by the constraints that characterise contingent being. Also, in this picture, creation is not merely a _process,_ best explained by God, but rather the outpouring of God's grace and wisdom. (Thus the 'Logos'.) In this older and better picture, miracles, although in some sense remaining interventions, become not violations of natural law (as Hume understood them) but complete by-passings of it. On this picture also, God is not a cause that is in mere competition with other possible causes but the 'final cause' of things (in the broadly Aristotelian sense of being 'that to which everything else is directed') and the 'primary cause' of all worldly causes.
I realise, of course, that I leave this alternative picture of Christian theology undeveloped and unargued here. Hardly surprisingly! It would take time. But I would contend that this is how arguments relating to God's existence _should_ seen if God is to be seen in accordance with the best tradition of Biblical understanding of the issue and theology is to avoid descending into something that is merely quasi-scientific 'best fit' stuff.
I have not seen a new Christian thinker who could as much as tie his shoes himself. Intelligent people do not join the ranks of amateur clergy anymore. :-)
Leading christian thinkers using logical flaws to assert dogmatic bronze age mythology, because they know science eclipsed their methodology. How sad.
Criticizing a view for its age is known as the fallacy of Chronological Snobbery and serves somewhat discredit your unsupported insult. Thanks.
Volmire1 Show me one of these "thinkers" that does not use improper methodology, or logical fallocy.... waiting...
Shifting the topic, eh? If you'll notice, I responded to your clearly false insinuation that the age of an idea is a factor in its truth. I haven't heard a response about that from you, so I'm glad my post has gone unchallenged.
Furthermore, I don't think you're "waiting" at all for any answer, as you have already shown that you can't take seriously the ideas of literal professional philosophers. The fact that you don't even respect them as thinkers, when their peers do, means that you have much more deeply seeded problems than I can help with.
Maybe next time, if you want to be taken seriously, you will try to converse with a little more respect so that others may respect what you have to say.
Well, have you a proper and better logical argument? Do you live your life to the fullest and try to understand what being a human means? Or are you just another human that lives whatever is in front of you and does not try to understand your purpose? Have you read the bible in its full understanding? Do you know of any of Christ's teachings? Have you ever gone to a church? Can you define ''logical flaws'' in a deeper understanding? DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU ARE ALIVE TODAY? DO you know why you are able to ask these questions? Can you explain where does the moral law come from? Have you ever considered people who have had experiences regarding God, Christianity or any other religion? Can you prove they are insane? Can you prove YOU are sane enough?
Please, if you are going to post an argument in the internet, make it a better argument than this poor thing I have read '' Logical flaws, bronze age (?)''. You say these things, but you do not put a deeper though to it in your own words, making it a weak argument.
Volmire1 "the age of an idea is a factor in its truth" Really? So, in your poorly constructed argument, truth is about who said it first, not what they can support? Don't be daft! You can't philosophise your deity into existence, no matter how hard you try, so please, just stop asserting nonsense.
Sad