I love how each one allows the other one to explain his point, pays attention, and allows the other one build their argument; that’s how respect looks like in a debate.
Which one of these men were directed by God, not science, to take the jab? Did God direct you to take the jab? No, he's given us direction for thousands of years in our immune system, not to! All biblical references tell us not to. In fact, it is there in black and white. Thank you, Lord!
I am amazed at how these gentlemen can just sit down and have a brilliant discussion with little to no moderation at all within each segment. They don't even accidentally fall over one another. The ability to do that not only requires one to be respectful and confident, but to have the trust that one's counterpart is also.
Jesus is a man made fairy tale figure that never existed in the real world.Jesus The imaginary god of the bible is a psychopathic mass murderer who hates humans. Humans are apes coming out of. Es live by rules because es are zoon politicon, animals who live in groups. The " love your neighbours " includes " hate the foreigners ". The bible says explicitly " kill non-believers ". The bible is a collection of immoral bullshit! .
This type of discussion is the only way forward,and I mean on all subjects no matter how controversial they are two each other.otherwise nothing gets sorted,and nobody becomes educated and tolerant to each other.But it seems that they are trying to not let it happen by making people to scared to even attempt it JMO
I loved the format, too often these debates become rather stale when each person speaks for 20 minutes and they are hardly allowed to discuss things with one another - the other lennox-dawkins debate was a lot more interactive but this was much better
I remember in the first debate, Dawkins lamented the fact that the debate was so heavily moderated and wanted it to be free-form. Looks like he got his wish this time around, and the results were unexpectedly good, especially considering political debates of recent years. This didn't seem like a debate at all; it seemed more like two friends having a civil, causal conversation. Maybe we should get a couple of Oxford professors to run for president🤷♂
I know Mr. Dawkins probably stays up at night wondering exactly how the mind could come from mere chance a create something that is productive. Mr. Lennox got him thinking for sure
@@aservant2287 Dawkins points out repeatedly his books that evolution by natural selection is NOT a "from mere chance" process. Yes, mutation is random. Natural selection, by definition, most certainly is not. Dawkins does not believe that the mind arose from "mere chance," and neither do other evolutionary biologists. It's a straw man and a false dichotomy.
@@Sneeky930 in natural selection what determines what will be selected? Only the strong survive and everything becomes extinct well can you explain why there are still apes and komodo dragons? Why hasn't humans evolved into flying people if things get more advanced. Truth is if there's an original coder than He's got rules and He'll expect you to live by them. Every came from nothing takes more faith than believing in God. Nobody will be able to say they didn't have a chance. All you see happening in the news is predicted in the bible. Believe what you want that's your choice.
@@Sneeky930It seems the process of natural selection is inherently intelligent, directional and purposeful. How can such a process materialise out of nowhere and all by itself?
Both Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Lennox are absolutely admirable in so many ways. An exemplary civilized way to have a productive, easy to listen dialogue. I hope they will continue this discussion for many years to come! Bravo!
Beautiful and honest debate. I like they could go back and forth in a profound and respectful manner without much interruption by the moderator. Thank you for posting.
@@hannibalbarca8521 nice.. so someone showing appreciation to both debaters and gratitude to the one who post the video, and your immediate response is profound insult??
not really, people who worship gods that drown babies and write an entire book about how to kill people, while forgiving them for being despicable themselves, needs to be debunked. the god of christian mythology is one of the sickest characters imaginable, and thepeople who worship him are just a sickminded.
This is a very emotional subject. The atheist even said as much. Yet these two men kept emotions in check and held each other accountable without criticizing one another. Impressive debate.
I'm sorry your wrong Dawkins hurled many insults at lennoxs not only beliefs but at john himself it's was shady behavior but John(the Christian)handled it with a smile.
The atheist? Which one? Dr Lennox is an atheist when it comes to every god but the Abrahamic one. Dr Dawkins is an atheist when it comes to every god, including the Abrahamic one.
@Rekaert My point being there is Only 1 true God the rest are just Satan and his angels Masquerading as gods. Lucifer for ex. Goes by many aliases you would find in all the biggest relgions
Sorry we have a true rational man, Dawkins, and an old believer in fairy tales!! No evidence of God my friend Johnny!! Poor old man is hopelessly deluded bullshitting away!!
It's because this debate takes place in the UK where people are trying to listen to ideas rather than trying to take sides and listen to two people "tOtAlLy OwN" each other.
@illyapopov5636: it seems that what you really enjoy is debates that end with neither side having won, and nothing is accomplished. "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins.
@@Merlinever I don't see it that way, you have a debate between two differing views and you are allowed to decide for yourself which side of the argument you agree with. While watching this I was constantly thinking back to the Presidential "debates" between Trump and Biden and my amazement (fear, actually) that one of the two was going to be the leader of the western world.
@@davidtuer5825: "I don't see it that way, you have a debate between two differing views and you are allowed to decide for yourself which side of the argument you agree with." The side I agree with is the one with the argument backed up by reason, logic, and verifiable facts of reality (please see my original comment above). "While watching this I was constantly thinking back to the Presidential "debates" between Trump and Biden and my amazement (fear, actually) that one of the two was going to be the leader of the western world." I admit that i had the very same fear; for at least the last four or five decades the choice we've been given when choosing the next president hasn't been between a good candidate and a better one, but between a horrible candidate and a slightly (hopefully) less horrible one; when Trump was elected, we got the slightly less horrible one; during his presidential campaign, Trump made a number of promises on very important issues - promises that got him' elected. But after having been elected, he did a 180 degree flip of most if not all of those promises or simply ignored them. For example, he had promised that if elected he would bring home all of our troops and stop fighting all of these endless, extremely expensive, useless foreign wars. Then, shortly after being elected, he issued a statement saying that he would bring home some unspecified number of our troops at some future, unspecified date. Later, he greed to send an ADDITIONAL 20,000 of our troops to Afghanistan. I can think of a long list of such betrayals, but it will take me some time to gather them along with the appropriate links for verification. The bottom line: Trump is far from the great savior that most people have deluded themselves into believing he is.
@@Merlinever Well, to be clear, my thought was, were these two the best you could find out of 360million? I chose to mention that debate to illustrate what a debate wasn't, I supported neither. But then I'm South African/ British and you might say I have no right to express a view on your country's choice of leader but your country is now the leader of the free world, your leader is our leader. But to revert to the origin of our correspondence, there could be no winner there, neither proposition is provable so you go with the one which seems most likely, or, like me you may find that even after such an articulate exchange of views by two brilliant minds I could not decide whether one was right and one was wrong. But I was left with a clearer idea of what the the issues were.
I agree, often with the more structured debates each side will make three or four points at varying levels, and then the opposite side will also make three or four points. Then it’s a matter of one side trying to unpack the entirety of the 4 points made while also defending their own 4 points from attack, so on and so forth. Often the finer detail gets lost in such debates, and it’s sort of more about who can pump out more arguments than it is about understanding the strength of the singular main argument. This debate was excellent at this, neither side ever really made more than one or two points before the other had a chance to come back and debate this position. It was more of a discussion than a debate in this regard, and it’s much nicer to listen to and much easier to understand.
To be fair, John Lennox is the only man I've ever seen/heard Richard Dawkins treat with some semblance of respect. I suspect it's because he understands how brilliant Lennox is. He belittles everyone else he debates on the subject.
What do you mean you disagree with Dawkins? You know that he is one of the world's leaders in his field? You'd have to know more than him about his topic of expertise for your disagreement to hold any weight. I think what you mean is what Dawkins says conflicts with your existing beliefs that you're unwilling to change.
@@dkruger9553 I could say the same for you, you hold beliefs you are unwilling to change.... I’ve read everyone of his books and have followed him many years. Yes he is considered an expert in his field and yes I do believe he is wrong. Gravely wrong. In his worldview this means nothing you’re no different than an ant that is stepped on.
@@mrt9689 I think you've misunderstood his world-view. We are unable to show the amount of empathy for the ant as we are able to show for other humans. It also sounds like you don't like his world-view because it's comfortable, which says nothing about how truthful it is.
@@fatezero1919 ...Lennox did seem to be welding the whiphand...a spanking is something Dawkins usually doesn't get from the lame and limp wrist liberal clergy he normally debates...but the tastiest morsel was Lennox force feeding Dawkins a full reversal on the existence of Jesus...talk about your "historical" HAThEist backpedals...In the Academy, Lennox has philosophical and scientific gravitas and Dawkins had to acknowledge it...
Me too. I really love this debate. The pursuit and purpose of debate should be focused on the truth only, not trying to justify one's opinion. Of course, when you debate you need to defend your position to persuade that your position is right and the other one is wrong, but you shouldn't be trying to win an argument just because you want to win in a debate. The purpose of debate is to investigate and test the truth, not the other way around. I'm just 16 minutes in with this video and I really like their attitude.
@@namgan93 GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) SO, THE EARTH (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form/manifestation in accordance with the universal fact that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is why the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
@@thelawless1523 His valid assessment ticks you off, eh? What I take away from this debate is the huge difference between mere intelligence and intelligence coupled with wisdom!
TV; I admire nobody such as this person no matter what his intellect that tries and attempts to discredit God. I consider such enemies of God a disgrace and do not honor such men at all.
Probably the best "debate" I've ever seen on the topic of God and atheism. Not least because they both used good arguments but also because it was more a discussion than a debate, although it was obviously a debate with very different viewpoints. Thanks for this great piece of content!!
You actually think RD thinks. RD believes we got the universe by "literally nothing." The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block According to L. Krauss, the universe consists of zero energy. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, the universe did not come about form "nothing", but zero energy. That is where creationists have it all wrong. They do not understand physics or even try to. I think that how the universe was created is less important than what we should do about it. How does believing in a god help mankind?
For me it’s a flawed debate because I think the two gentlemen exist in different sorts of worlds. Dawkins is a scientist not a philosopher, and Lennox is clearly more involved in the philosophical side of religion. It leads to a sort of problem whereby both sides struggle with an opposite side of the debate. Lennox couldn’t comprehend some of Dawkins scientific points and that’s a shame as it slows down the debate a lot. Dawkins was right when he labelled it an argument from personal incredulity. Similarly Dawkins struggled more with the philosophical side, about meaning and morality imo. Nice debate still, friendly and respectable.
@@2fast2block RD doesn’t know how the universe came to be, and he’d rather hedge his bets with the side that has generally been on the ‘winning’ side in terms of explaining what we understand of the world. To say he believes anything else is strawmanning him
Regardless to agree or disagree with what they said ,l accept and agree with many who believe that their presentation of ideas and patience to hear and tolerate the difference of opinion Is really surprising and worth appreciation .
@@hansenbee123 Dawkins got schooled as he admitted Jesus Christs existed and is looking at Lennox like a student learning something. So I don't get what you mean by religious donkey with his legs tied?
To me it is remarkable that this planet is populated on one hand by individuals as well-spoken as these two and on the other hand by people whose vocabulary consists of about 150 words.
@@shirleymason7697Perhaps, but there is a vast difference between using the same appropriate words often when discussing a particular topic and having a limited vocabulary which causes few words and often the wrong ones to be used during all discussions on all topics.
@@Apokalypsiis What are you going on about? Others were mocking the vocabulary used here. I pointed out that they may have used a limited vocabulary here, but that it was appropriate.
and yall fools like to overcomplicate language to fulfill your own personified inquiries lmaooo their is no need to talk like this in basic conversation. simplicity is beautiful
You know it's a good debate when you're telling yourself "That's a good Point" "whoa that's a good point too" "Whoaaa that's another good point" "Whoaaaaaaaaa..."
@@rmr5044 Dawkins only makes good points if your willing to listen. Willful and intentional ignorance is a very real thing, you can't know or believe what you don't want to know or believe. Ignorance is not just what you don't know, it is also what you won't know. ~ AronRa To believe in god requires a very narrow mind and anything that contradicts your belief must be intentionally disregarded in order to maintain the belief. Christians believe the planet is 6000 years old when reality has proven the world is billions of years old, this is an extreme example of willful ignorance at it's best. If Kakashi wants to know what real philosophical fallacies are they should try reading the bible. Kakashi didn't hear any good points from Dawkins because he/she didn't want to hear anything that would contradict what they believe. Kakashi's ignorance is willful, therefore you might as well be talking to a wall or a rock.
@@rmr5044 To believe in atheism requires a very narrow mind and anything that contradicts your belief must be intentionally disregarded in order to maintain the belief. Carbon dating is proven many times flawed and it is built upon an assumption that the conditions on Earth were always the same. Your religion of Atheism is nothing more than a bunch of assumptions and whenever there is something contradicting, you call it anomaly.
@@rmr5044 You are blind believer of your religion of nothing, cant see the hypocrisy and errors of your sharatan speaker/"scientist" . Dont all that science of assumption on what were the conditions on Earth before go to your head. All the fathers of science were religios, they must be stupid also..... You know nothing, NOT one good argument, all based on blind faith.
As a Christian and scientist, I appreciate both men for talking around difficult points in our human thoughts. May God bless them, especially Dr. Lennox. May the good news of Jesus continue be shared through his teachings 🙏
As a Christian it was refreshing to see Richard Dawkins’ humility in this conversation. You can tell it by the way he would listen, answer every question, be honest in his beliefs. I really enjoy listening to him. He’s different than other atheist IMO
Many athiests run out of patience after hearing the same claims year after year. I guess that's the main difference between "many athiests" and Dawkins. Dawkins is in it to educate people.
@@Dennis19901 True. Now to be fair.. atheist say the same things over and over again too. I’m impressed however with Dawkins ability to stay calm and collected.
@@jared3235 "| atheist say the same things over and over again too. " Most of them, yes. But when someone makes the same arguments after another (many theists get their arguments from apologetic sites), the response to such an argument is going to be the same. If you hear the god of the gaps argument (a favorite one among believers) 100 times, how are you going to respond differently 100 times? This is an honest question by the way. I'm not excusing anyone getting arrogant or annoyed in responses.
@@Dennis19901 Good point. This is why I listen to these debate over and over again. These individuals are so smart and it’s a blessing to have them share their reasoning with us. It amazes me how much time people spend thinking about this subject.
@@jared3235 "This is why I listen to these debate over and over again." Same for me. I'm in it more for the reasoning they often use. I think some of those "famous athiests" for a lack of better term, use very beautiful reasoning
Believe me the only reason Dawkins is being respectful is that he knows he has a strong opponent. You should check out some videos of him at atheist conventions where he shows pictures of a crucifix and mocks to applause from his army of slaves.
This is definitely the best and most respectful debate between atheist and Christian … both men are adorable ❤ I can listen to them talking forever. Still I pray Richard will one day come to the truth. I pray for that 🙏
As a Christian I'm gonna say the truth, Richard admits that nothing will convince him of god jesus can comeback on judgement day he'll still not believe and the stars could write his name and he still won't believe
@@tomsmith2181 now I totally agree with you 😐 when I first watched the debates, I thought he was respectful and then I watched a few videos where he called all his debating opponents “fools”, I realized that he was just a liar
If you're claiming your religion is "the truth", then present your evidence that proves it to be the truth, ensuring that evidence dismisses all other gods.
When it first showed the narrator, I was like "holy crap, it's Tom Green", then they showed him again and I realized it wasn't him. I was simultaneously disappointed and relieved.
Really great discussion. I love both these speakers and the points they have made .I don’t mean to disrespect Any speaker but as an Agnostic I like the points which Professor Lennox made than that of Professor Dawkins . No disrespect to both these speakers .
One is right and one is wrong. There is nothing disrespectful about choosing which debater you think is correct. For my part I cannot imagine how anyone watching honestly and objectively could think Lennox won, or even had an intelligible argument.
@@billscannell93 He spoke a lot and people would conclude the one who spoke the most won. As I said on another comment, I felt as eloquent of arguments that were made by Dr. Lennox, I felt his conclusions were not correct. He arguments were the seeming there is a God or therefore this must be God. The God of the gaps argument was quite apparent.
@@CAMM-CynthiaM I don't think that was the case at all. In fact, I don't see how you can call Lennox's arguments eloquent when they held no meaning. He kept insisting on diverting the topic of conversation from the scientific view of the universe to magical resurrections, virgin births and other strange and wonderful (frightening?) things that never happened, would never happen, could never happen. Religion scares me. It scares me to hear an obviously bright man insist on insane things.
You can't use rationality to get someone out of a position if they haven't used rationality to get themselves in that position. Belief in gods is irrational, thus rationality has no bearing on their belief. It is true, according to them, no matter how useless the 'evidence' is.
I am so impressed with John Lennox. The intelligence and candour in his replies was great. Continuously challenged Dawkins’ thoughts and I also commend Dawkins for his cadence and points which were fair. I believe John won this debate with excellence and pure genius. Frankly I understood every point he has made so far, half way through the vid.
@@lepidoptera9337 Really you don’t think John Lennox is intelligent? A professor of mathematics at oxford, published and successful author, and a well regarded philosopher. And you’re a line cook at Burger King. Talk about the dunning Kruger effect…
@@Ace-pb8iu John Lennox is mostly a self-serving Christian apologetic. He hasn't published anything of importance in mathematics. Somebody hired him for some unknown reason on a lifetime position and now they are stuck with a worthless professor at Oxford. :-)
The first debate video about God's existence that I understood from start to finish. These two are very clear in their words that even a person like me with no background of what they are talking about can understand clearly.
I think the arguments in part were fuelled by emotion in places but there were sections on the final 3rd of this debate where I think Lennox was guided by the Holy spirit and articulated very well. Great discussion.
I'm not sure. One thing I do know is we are in a constant battle with our own flesh. That includes allowing our own ego and carnal wisdom to overcloud the quiet voice within...namely The Holy Spirit.
@@Superpowerless1 it’s a shame the Holy Spirit felt the need to guide a man in a useless debate as opposed to guiding millions of starving children to clean drinking water and food.
@@Superpowerless1 so what part of our job involves preventing earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, disease and all the other natural disasters of the natural world that humans couldn’t possibly influence. I guess all those millions of dead babies were just part of God‘s plan.
Nobody knows a god even exists, so you can't just say he's bigger than humans. You can't even say a god exists. (Which is why "bury god" is silly from the atheist side too: to bury something it'd need to first exist and be alive.) Until someone presents strong, logical evidence of a god, the entire conversation is just one group irrationally believing while the other group wishes the first would care about truth.
@@majm9309- How about the 4th dimension , that does it for me ! If the past is eternal then how could the present be here OR if not then how can nothing be something! There's an EMANATOR needed asat ! 👁️🎱🌈😹
@@johnbyrnes7912 Remind me: what did your "emanator" come from? Nothing. Because I once heard someone ask "how can nothing be something?" Basically either (a) everything or (b) not everything has a cause. If A, an uncaused god cannot exist. If B, a god isn't needed (any given thing might be uncaused). So the fact remains that we just don't know. In fact the same sort of logic you're using (if past is eternal, how could present be here?) which indicates that impossibility _also suggests uncaused things magically existing forever_ would be impossible, yeah? Either way our expectations break if we learned the actual truth. And that should be obvious, given you *retreated immediately* from the topic of "god" and ended up with an "emanator". You seem to already admit you don't know to some degree, I just think you should be honest and back up to where the evidence actually gets us, which is basically nowhere.
One of them(Dawkins) was talking about god. Lennox was too busy building Straw Man arguments and other logical fallacies so he never got around to proving any gods exist. That’s how religious apologists have been failing for thousands of years.😏
@@FourDeuce01 Proving or disproving God wasn't the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate was the relationship between science and belief in God. So many of Lennox's topics and questions dealt with the a philosophy of science and how Dawkin and Lennox have different philosophies of their science but not so much difference science. Again the question is Has Science Buried God? Not has science proven God or has science disproven God?
@@timsmith9503 Until somebody proves any gods exist, there is no relationship between science and belief in god. BTW, science doesn’t need to prove or disprove any gods. The burden of proof for gods is on the people claiming they exist.
@@FourDeuce01 I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. I think what I mean is, a person needs to think about what scientific study can and can't do, that's what I mean by philosophy of science. Now I grew up learning through school that the question does God exist is not a scientific question. But again, this debate isn't about does a God exist or not, it's has science buried God? I agree that there is no relationship between science and belief in God, which is why I think the answer to the debate question is no. Because to answer yes to question is to then say there is a relationship between science and belief in God. My position is to say that science doesn't even have the ability to study the topic of God, let alone proof, disprove, or bury. Which is why what I like about what Lennox has to say here is that it, to me, comes across as what science studies has no relationship to belief in God because they are unrelated. That's a problem for Christians and Atheist who claim that they can somehow defend their position using scientific method.
@Tim Smith “this debate isn’t about does a god exist or not.” Au contraire. If nobody can prove any gods exist, there’s no point in debating whether science has buried god. Atheists don’t need to defend their position. Theists need to prove any gods exist.
You don't need intrinsic meaning or purpose to use logic. He even addresses this in the debate, i.e., he points out that the ability to engage the world in factual, logical terms would likely be selected for since it helps organisms survive. God, in this context, just strikes me as a superfluous explanation: doesn't mean there isn't one, but our ability to construct and evaluate truth statements doesn't seem to require a supernatural explanation. Organisms incapable of doing this didn't get a chance to reproduce.
Arthur Francis D. Murphy: Why should an opponent in a debate not be attacked for speaking in approval and promotion of systems of belief that treat lies as truth, myths as reality, and encourage delusional behavior?
Man do I love Lennox. I used to be an atheist and would have seen the is debate so very differently. But now as a Christian I cannot be more on Lennox’s side. He’s so brilliant in the way he shows the blind spots of the atheist worldview. What a blessing this guy is.
Man must always be left in doubt. Otherwise he would have no Free Will to choose. To believe or not to believe. He is shown enough, but not too much. He is left free to disbelieve.
Romans 9:18-21 would disagree with you. Belief or disbelief for each individual is dictated by God. The Bible mentions this consistently throughout. If anyone is right about Christianity, it is the Calvinists. Free will is nothing but an illusion if God is omniscient.
@@loganleatherman7647 Clavin? You mean the chap who wrote "that man has choice and that it is self-determined" and that his actions stem from "his own voluntary choosing."
22:38 I dont understand how DNA could have come from matter back then, why cant it do it now? Information could only be created from information. I cant see it any other way.
It is not possible to generate DNA with its full functionality just from the atoms of CHON, because there are introns and exons, that have very sophisticated splicing and what not functions.
the name of what you just said is "argument of personal incredulity" it can't do it now, because it requires a slow and gradual process called evolution, which takes millions and billions of years
Kelvin Domingos hopefully you don’t believe in some sort of chemical soup that created the first life. I never said that you said that, I’m just curious what you believe about the first life.
39:45 I believe that Dawkins cannot imagine that a God so great would bother with our mundane thoughts is because Dawkins cannot fathom the idea of being so great yet being so bothered by someone of less greatness. I believe that somewhere in there, there is desire to believe but I pray that the pride within him cracks enough to let the light of God in. Nonetheless, the debate was lovely to listen to. I appreciate both men and have gratitude for both, more so John, who has helped me transform my own beliefs.
These are very weird assumptions about the thoughts of another. And they don't fit Dawkins at all. His argument there is based not on an emotional stance but on a logical one. He takes the observation that a Human wouldnt give any thoughts of looking out for every ant of an very specific ant Hill and being mad when the ants don't do as he wants them to and expands that to the relationship between god and humans. in the great scheme of things the lives of people dont matter at all compared to the universe. even much less than an ant Hill does compared to earth. Now I would also make an assumption about you, which is that you just Interpret his Character in such a way because your own Standpoint on that subject is very clear and in your mind undoubtetely set in stone. And as Dawkins thinks the complete opposite, you infer into his thinking that deep down he is on your side. That way your side wins after all. If you dont agree with me here at all, thats how your comment feels. If I might give you another analogue example of how that Sounds, your comment is exactly the same like an atheist telling theists that deep down they know there is something wrong with the believe in a god and that they know he is not real and actually they only tell others about their secure belief to cope with their doubts. I do not think that is Something you would agree with or like. It very much implies that your opponent thinks of you as a less sophisticated person like a parent of a child telling you "well, he just doesnt know better"
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 You can only make that point if you haven't similarly simply grown up in atheistic household. Not saying you did, but if you did not it is hypocritical.
Very nice debate I have ever listened to,The resource persons were very pleasant decent and meritorious. The audience also paid their attention very attentively. Thank you all.
@adharmawardhana7328: Only an audience of mindless sheep pays "their attention very attentively" without ultimately siding with one of the people in the debate over the other. Otherwise, what's the point of having the debate? If nothing is decided, noting is gained.
Such a wonderful debate between the two. John Lennox is the best christian apologist. "In the beginning there was a Word the Word was with God and the Word was God" . John 1:1.
Dawkins is head knowledge, whereas Lennox is head knowledge & heart knowledge. To know God, a person has to have a heart conversation. 🙏 for Mr Dawkins to have a heart conversion. ❤️
@@jsar5409Actually when christians talk about heart they are talking about the soul. Its not actually emotions but the soul open to the possibility of love who leads to an attitude as of Lennox.
Everything enters through the mind (or head, as you say), but some things eventually must sink down to the heart in order to reveal their true meaning. We can only 'see' the one true God by learning to use the space between our mind and heart. If something is all mind, it remains just cold hard fact (much like scientific fact) and God dies (or is killed) in such an environment. Such things and facts can be written down on paper, contained in a test tube or recorded in some physical shape or firm. On the other hand, if something is all heart it is like romantic love (or evangelical Christians), totally irrational. The knowledge of an objective good and evil is discovered only in the space between mind and heart and this freedom of knowing has been granted to the human race alone. No other species in the universe can or will have such ability. The freedom to question ones own existence is truly a gift. It is in itself the ultimate act of love granted us by the one true God. Without it we can never truly love Him (or anyone else).
I appreciate that the two of them can be professional and intelligent and respectful but part of me wonders if anyone is ever persuaded to change their preexisting point of view from one of these. Listening to the interviews of the audience members at the end made me think that maybe these really do have value to those who are still questioning. I'm glad John Lennox and Richard Dawkins have a good enough rapport that these debates can happen. More power to them.
@@francoisona For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18
@@stephenpeppin5537 Substituting verses for thoughts - The paragon of Christians' reasoning skills. Stephen, I know this indoctrination is not something you can grow out of easily. Been there but learn to think for yourself. Ok let's try this. Gita is a hindu charity worker. She spends every breathing moment of her life helping others spending any little money she earns alleviating suffering, helping the poor with no care for herself and what she wants. When you ask her why she says: ' it makes me happy to see people happy'. She does not accept Jesus into her heart. She accepts Vishnu and other gods. Question for you: does Gita deserve eternal suffering/ be abandoned by god? 'No one goes to the kingdom of my father but through me' sorta thing. Is the fate that according to your faith awaits her fair?
@@francoisona For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. Romans 2:13-15 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. 1 Corinthians 4:4,5
@@stephenpeppin5537 That’s not clever, Stephen. That’s intellectual cowardice. Pure and simple. You hide behind verses so as not to express a view. I think that’s all very pathetic really. The single most important pillar of your faith is that you must accept your hippy Jesus as your personal saviour. Isnt that the deal. I die and you telll me how great I am to have died (never mind that I came back to life)? If the word salad above is to be construed as an exception to that, it means that your bible contains lies and your christianity counts for nothing. One can live not believing in your lord and still get to have eternal life. This is what your religion has reduced you to Stephen, staying silent and hiding behind meaningless waffle so as not to engage what you clearly saw as an injustice to Gita. I guess I should say well done for not throwing her under the bus but it costs you your intellectual integrity in the process. Like I said; Quite pathetic. Really. Dont respond if you’re going to quote more word salad to masquerade your ineptitude to think for yourself as some kind of selective erudition.
@@erikhviid3189 I am amazed that you can find sense in Darwinist atheist Dawkins preaching of an illusion of design. The crap does not even present an illusion of making sense. "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." Atheist speculative biologist Richard Dawkins T
@@piertinence the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and for creation ZERO. So my best guess will be, that it is a question about proper education. The laryngeal nerve and endogeneous retro viruses are two VERY strong proofs of evolution. The fossil record and comparative anathomy are other proofs. So education, education and education. No fairytales and imaginary sky-daddy.
@@erikhviid3189 No, a Darwinian evolutionary creation myths no verifiable evidence. It is based on litanies of speculative hogwash largely obtained by sucking on old bones. Darwinist evangelist Dawkins preaching that wonderful creatures like peregrine falcons, bald eagles, birds of paradise, peacocks etc., would only be presenting Atheist Dawkins coined the word designoid over 20 years ago but it has not made it to any recognized dictionary since no definition that would make sense could be found..
@@erikhviid3189 "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." Atheist speculative biologist Richard Dawkins The concept of an illusion of design does not even present an illusion of making sense.
20:45 - He says that the more sophisticated a mechanism is, the more likely it is to point towards an agent instead of a complex mechanism, but doesn't really explain the relationship between sophistication and the need for an agent.
He later has an analogy, the watch is blind and automatic but it was design by something, it doesn’t exist just like that, there must be an intelligent mind designing all of this and fine tuning…
@@PaulHattle To believe in the God of the Bible makes it easier because He gives you all assurance about eternal life & He gives you true peace. The hard thing is to follow Christ is to be hated in this world. And in the end you have to be ready to die for your faith. (When persecution will grow) ”“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” John 15:18-19
@@johnnycharisma162 one mans success really took you so low that you resulted in being insulting and childish?🤣🤣🤣! I am praying that you are no older than twelve.....! Sad and sorry indeed!
The majority of John Lennox arguments boils down to personal incredulity. I'm so glad he's not in charge of science curriculum in schools. "I believe god did it" would be the beginning and ending of every chapter.
How so? He isn’t straw manning Dawkin’s scientific explanations and understanding of the universe because he’s a mathematician. They both seems come to a mutual understanding that science gives room for evidence that the universe was created.... but how or by whom is the question. Both of them are using evidences based off of science, personal experience, logic, and reason but are coming to two very different conclusions. Of course Lennox has his own ideas about creation... but science has its own set of beliefs too.
@@brookemoore8369 "science has its own set of beliefs too". No, that is not how science is done. If it can't be proven, then the 'belief' (hypothesis) is tossed out. If it can be proven, why call it a belief?
Oren Arieli Because they both come to the same conclusion.... The universe was created. Science gives way towards understanding how it was created by evidence, but it does not know right now how it was created because the evidence for that isn’t available. Therefore, science “believes” or “has faith” that one day it will have the evidence. Of course, based upon facts, logic, and reasoning.
All the great scientists, the philosophers, theologians are painstakingly climbing up the unsurmoutable mountain of the real truth , and when the time they reached the apex they are greeted there with Christians and offer them a cup of coffee.😊 ❤
To me both the thiests and athiests seem to jump on the very conclusion without credible evidence. I think mankind has simply not yet advanced enough to generate experiments which 100℅ proof the creators presence or absence. Hence both the arguments of the professors make sense. The distinction comes from their personal belief. I believe mankind will find the answer if they don't kill each other. And yes I am an Agnostic. And if there is a God which will be proved I do not think it will be in any way similar to the God of Christians, Muslims etc. This is my belief.
@@georgemissailidis3160 Jesus Christ. John 14:6 KJV - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
This is so comforting to listen to two giants making productive conversation in such an aesthetic way; who wins over another appears to be a secondary consideration. If you ask me, GOD needs no one to speak for the recognition is distinctive veracity in the university they are in the verbal row. The signs are everywhere; if you don't want to see them, then this is not about forcing and compelling. No compulsion is in the religion. These debates must continue to open the minds of people in order to comprehend the notions - alien to you - so that you could see what is wrong and true. What matters is the verisimilitude, eventually -- and both sides believe in that. Period.
I came here to watch this debate after struggling with God on a huge personal issue if suffering. I’m not struggling with suffering in general - theoretically. No! I personally am suffering and have been for a long time going through trials and tribulations as a Christian woman who’s serving God faithfully every day and lives a single and celibate life dedicated to Jesus for more than 5 years. The fact that my suffering has been repeatedly ordained by God is incomprehensible to me, yet that’s what the book of Job demonstrates: God ordains suffering for His faithful followers. I’ve seen this PREACHED from the puppet, and it’s extremely theoretical and not personable. John is the best minister. John, how you deconstructed Christianity and explained EVERYTHING difficult so brilliantly is so profound. What can I say? I’m leaving this debate a STRONGER believer, and you, John, are God’s glory on display, indeed! Thank you.
Before I get crucified, pardon the pun, I'm agnostic, so I have no bias. I just want to know one thing, why is it that that Richard Dawkins always looks angry and bitter but Prof Lennox looks happy bubbly and cuddly (I just wanna pinch his cheeks!) lol I would love to talk to Professor Lennox ONLY because I just feel like if, for example, I made a scientific mistake, Richard Dawkins would be pissed off and call me an idiot rather correct me, and then finish off by telling me I'm petty 😂😂😂😂😂
Well even if you believe Lennox is delusional, he does have a hope beyond this life; whereas Dawkins has a nihilistic, ultimately purposeless viewpoint that often leads to despair... cheers!
Socrates probably also felt a bit bitter when he was forced to drink poison for impiety. Victorious lynch mobs and their faith-based leaders tend to be a happy bunch when they're given free reign to con, coerce, and control others. If you were sent back in time with the mission of convincing primitive people that no, the phenomenon of lightning and thunder aren't indicative of the gods' anger, they're natural things explicable through a more refined understanding of meteorology and careful observation, you might start to feel a twinge or two of bitterness as well, especially if "corrupting the minds of young people" was among the charges brought against you. People even in 2020 continue to make the very old error of anthropomorphization, attributing human-like characteristics to non-human forces or things. The idea that whatever forces created the universe would share in common with humans things like jealousy, hate, or love, is on its face ridiculous as much as thinking earthquakes or floods happen because your country allows gay people in the military. People believe this shit by the hundreds of millions. Is it any wonder materialists are often a sullen bunch?
@@marianskodowski8337 Do you mean Dawkins has something hide? Well, if you do then it is usually the case with Atheism. Christianity allows a person to come into the light because God is light!!
@chrisdeep8417: Mankind made all gods with their own minds and in their own image, so what's wrong with using one's mind to determine if there is any proof or evidence to support belief in any god?
With respect, your comment here is exactly what the problem is. You didn't preface your statement with _"It is my belief that..."_ you stated it as if it were a fact. But you failed to attach the all-important ingredient in such a claim, evidence to prove it to be true.
@ with respect tony this is the actual problem..too many cowards. Not enough men and women with enough courage to proclaim the TRUTH with BOLDNESS 💥💥💥🔥🔥🔥
FunKing Customs he was being facetious. Devils advocate. He giving him the benefit of the doubt and argued the ridiculous points of it . A few seconds later he said, "there is no such evidence of that."
@@cbritt7637 Not at all, he reversed his stance because he knew that what Lennox was saying about the 'majority of historical scholars affirming the historic truth of Jesus' existence' was legitimate. So wisely "I take that back!!!"
@@cbritt7637 yer... nah... and I'm not christian either but he done fucked up there..CLEARLY.. don't give atheism a bad name by saying something different to what ACTUALLY happened.. don't dumb yourself down *sigh* A blind man could see that!
@- I think 'people who are much smarter' than I am call it an inference to the best explanation. Why did the early Church continue to grow, even amongst heavy persecution and possible death? Why did hundreds claim to see Christ after his death on the Cross?
Watching this after I watched Dr. Tour vs Dropout Dave. Gotta give it to these two for keeping the debate civilized. I can sense the mutual respect they have for each other.
@@gzoro8645 Richard actually already revealed his argument on this topic in THIS debate. He said: “I don’t care!” That’s Richard’s argument. Is it scientific, historical, philosophical? No. It’s EMOTIONAL and arrogant and ignorant. And it only reveals just how much Richard is OBSESSED with God but angry at God for the fact that God is concerned with Richard’s sin. Так же как мы выросли в СССР, где нас убеждали: у нас в стране Бога нет… Почему? Потому что коммунисты боялись Бога.
@@francoisona seems like you made this same comment in another thread. Sounds like you are trying to disparage theists without really saying anything at all
@@jestanuthername 1. 'Another thread' observation is irrelevant. 2. Ooh believing in talking animals isn't stupid? Ok Ron do explain. Do you believe the events in the Garden of Eden happened? That should be fun.
Very true and also very ironic. For it is molecular biology (the extension of microbiology) that is starting to shed light on exposing his false theories on selfish genes and blind watchmakers. References: see Dawkins Vs. Dennis Nobel at IAI and the origin of life lectures by Prof. James Tour.
Actually, molecular biology is not an extension of microbiology, it's a subset of it. And it certainly does not contradict the explanation of the selfish gene theory.
It's not arrogant, it's true. The view Christianity provides, I can only describe as petty and small-minded. It doesn't do justice to the grandeur of life and the intricacies of the universe to suggest that human life's nothing more than a game to see whether you worship Jesus for eternity or roast in hell after you're dead.
jmcsquared also the fact that you think that when you don’t follow Jesus is eternal punishment is astounding. Scripture says that after we return to the new earth that the wicked will be like ashes under your feet. Meaning you shouldn’t just fear a god that can destroy your body and not your soul. But fear one that destroys both. So no he’ll isn’t eternal. It’s the annihilation of sin and the souls of sinners where they cease to exist. Basically what Dawkins thinks happens after death will really happen but in the process they will feel temporary pain and suffering of the ripping of their souls. Which will entail the end of the wicked and satan’s existence. I guess atheists like Christopher Hitchens win in that aspect because they will have full separation from god.
@@jmcsquared18 In 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, Paul writes that God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the “wise”, emphasizing that true wisdom comes from God, not human understanding….
Such a good debate. From 40 mins in you could tell they were really listening to each other's points. Wish Lennox asked the omnipotent question better though at 1:02:50
The answer to the omnipotence question is that the brokennesss and sin we see around us is not actually a deficiency in our design but the cause of free will in our design. So God being omnipotent didnt create a faulty product but endowed us with free will. We then chose to use this free will to destroy oursleves.
@@nathanvarghese. but he didn't answer the question in our design. If there is faults on people design if they are mentally or physically disabled or born with conditions...why? Why did God do this?
24:00 - Would it really be impossible to believe that the cells were evolved and generated by natural forces, if you also assume that's the way God intended it to be?
@@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot Yeah but the question was about belief, not scientific proof. There are loads of things we can believe without evidence, but instead based on personal and/or logical rationalizations. But I do agree with you, but only because there is no credible or authoritive consensus on the definition of God.
@@IsakAidee I believe in many things without evidence. If you tell me you own a dog, I would be inclined to believe you as many people own dogs. If you said you owned a fire-breathing dragon, I would require evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot Lack of evidence is not an evidence either. That is the whole point. The point of Dawkins is, there will NEVER be an evidence, which is quite radical but it is his beliefe rather than fact. We are not talking about dragons or dogs. We are talking about ultimate cause, is there a logos or not. And there is no answer, it is all about belief based on the knowledge gathered, including science and history and that is the point Lennox is puting forward, Christianity has evidence and it is up to you to believe it or not.
@@TimthePhilosiraptorExhale english is not first language so cant execute my sentences properly sometims.i will try my best if you look around nowaday all those young people just say they are athiest as its trend now and it make them look more modern.if you ask them why they dont believe in god they say because scientists said there is no creator. No earth can not sustain without rain cycle. another example is gravity whithout gravity we could be sucked into space . if life could sustain without rain and gravity then it could sustain without anything then we does not need anything .then it could sustain on moon or mars and all planets around us.yet we havnt found a single microbe anywhere else. Yes this is designed universe.i cant give you direct prof of physical creator with science if i could then he wouldnt be creator because he created science itself.he gave us freedom and freedom of chioce thats one reason i can say we cant see him.if he would be here and actively controll our life it wont be some free world we live in today.we might see him after we die you might see too but wont be able to comeback to tell other.same other millions of athiests died can not come back and correct you. there is enough evidence to support it in nde stories.you can watch videos on youtube there are tons of them.those people swear by their life that they felt presence of creator when their bodies were lifeless but they allways turn down by mainstream scientists by calling them delusional.well you can deny anything if you want to. those people can not provide evidence what they witnesed but they can just tell story what they witnessed. so its matter of belif for others. sure there is mind behind usiverse.good example i can give you which points to its existence if look at lunar or mars surface its full of gigantic craters.on the other hand our earth's atmosphere burns meteors in mid air before they hit us.then we come to dna,laws of physics,laws of thermodynamics,moon,sun as infinite energy source. Well now you can say it all happened by accident and its there because we are here to question and universe came out of nothingness. But why there is something rather than nothing. According to you everything is here in order for no purpose then i think there is no point having an arguement because you can always say it just happened. dont know what is more delusional believing in creator or in nothingness. Big problem is secience can not expain everything. I will continue to believe in designed world until science can provide enough good evidence for its claims. Other day i was watching another interview of richard dawkins on his book god's delusion.at some point he said by looking at gene coding it seems like its well design and it could be done by another intelligent life may be aliens.well it sound like a stuborn a child who does not want believe in an idea of creator but ready to believe in alien or anything else.does not make sense.its just all to prove others wrong and does not matter how many theories they have make up to do it so.but its very easy and simple to say it all happend by accident and came out of nothing so there no point of an argument.but for me there not enough evidence to believe it all came out nothing and set itself in order to support life.anyways if it could be that easy to prove that its not created universe these debates wont be here for ages and all those debate videos you watch on youtube.
@@Psartz "whithout gravity we could be sucked into space" - did you just said that gravity keeps us from being sucked out by vacuum? LOL. That's a flatearther point. "he created science itself" - if god was real, all science, "design" and everything else wouldn't matter, since his magic defies it all. You know what, it's pretty easy to prove the globe, but we still have flat Earth debates going on. Stupidity has no limits, bruh.
@@FourDeuce01 well he is an Oxford Mathematician who are you ? just because he has certain religious beliefs that doesn't make him not brilliant and his points are actually quite good
@@ricmatt05 He should stick to math. Philosophy isn’t his subject.🤡 From your comment, philosophy isn’t your subject either. You can’t judge whether his points are good until you learn some logic.
I love how each one allows the other one to explain his point, pays attention, and allows the other one build their argument; that’s how respect looks like in a debate.
Me too! It's a respectful debate.
totally agree, and it's essential for meaningful debate where everyone (listeners) benefit.
What's your personal stance on the matter?
Yes today's society could learn a lot from how these two men discuss and engage with one another.
Which one of these men were directed by God, not science, to take the jab? Did God direct you to take the jab? No, he's given us direction for thousands of years in our immune system, not to! All biblical references tell us not to. In fact, it is there in black and white. Thank you, Lord!
I really want to thanks these people who didn’t clap & just listened silently
British audience.
I clapped. Lol
@@ENFPerspectives oòoòòo
I really want to thanks these people who didn't clap & just listened silently...
🙏😎🙏
British audience...
🙏😎🙏
I am amazed at how these gentlemen can just sit down and have a brilliant discussion with little to no moderation at all within each segment. They don't even accidentally fall over one another. The ability to do that not only requires one to be respectful and confident, but to have the trust that one's counterpart is also.
Jesus is a man made fairy tale figure that never existed in the real world.Jesus
The imaginary god of the bible is a psychopathic mass murderer who hates humans.
Humans are apes coming out of.
Es live by rules because es are zoon politicon, animals who live in groups.
The " love your neighbours " includes " hate the foreigners ".
The bible says explicitly " kill non-believers ".
The bible is a collection of immoral bullshit!
.
This type of discussion is the only way forward,and I mean on all subjects no matter how controversial they are two each other.otherwise nothing gets sorted,and nobody becomes educated and tolerant to each other.But it seems that they are trying to not let it happen by making people to scared to even attempt it JMO
They're also very learned, it comes with civility
Even Jesus, The Nailed, knows faith is worthless if you can't move mountains by voice-command.
I loved the format, too often these debates become rather stale when each person speaks for 20 minutes and they are hardly allowed to discuss things with one another - the other lennox-dawkins debate was a lot more interactive but this was much better
I remember in the first debate, Dawkins lamented the fact that the debate was so heavily moderated and wanted it to be free-form. Looks like he got his wish this time around, and the results were unexpectedly good, especially considering political debates of recent years. This didn't seem like a debate at all; it seemed more like two friends having a civil, causal conversation. Maybe we should get a couple of Oxford professors to run for president🤷♂
I know Mr. Dawkins probably stays up at night wondering exactly how the mind could come from mere chance a create something that is productive. Mr. Lennox got him thinking for sure
I like this form much better than most formal debates with allotted times to speak and what not. I think this is much more productive.
@@aservant2287 Dawkins points out repeatedly his books that evolution by natural selection is NOT a "from mere chance" process. Yes, mutation is random. Natural selection, by definition, most certainly is not. Dawkins does not believe that the mind arose from "mere chance," and neither do other evolutionary biologists. It's a straw man and a false dichotomy.
@@Sneeky930 in natural selection what determines what will be selected? Only the strong survive and everything becomes extinct well can you explain why there are still apes and komodo dragons? Why hasn't humans evolved into flying people if things get more advanced. Truth is if there's an original coder than He's got rules and He'll expect you to live by them. Every came from nothing takes more faith than believing in God. Nobody will be able to say they didn't have a chance. All you see happening in the news is predicted in the bible. Believe what you want that's your choice.
@@Sneeky930It seems the process of natural selection is inherently intelligent, directional and purposeful. How can such a process materialise out of nowhere and all by itself?
What a day and age we live in where people like me can see a debate like this from Oxford.
As compared to being burned at the steak
@@lutkedog1 I’d have my steak medium rare thanks.
@@Lagerfanny-g7e
Sorry there is going to be a little blood :)
@@lutkedog1 can I have it raw?
@@cygnus-x
Nope just burnt at the steak.
Both Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Lennox are absolutely admirable in so many ways. An exemplary civilized way to have a productive, easy to listen dialogue. I hope they will continue this discussion for many years to come! Bravo!
@ReynerNatahamidjaja
Lennox is too stupid to understand science!
Lennox is unable to distinguish between reality and fairy tales!
.
Lol
Beautiful and honest debate. I like they could go back and forth in a profound and respectful manner without much interruption by the moderator. Thank you for posting.
Santiago Garcia-Balcarce that’s because you’re shallow asshole
@@hannibalbarca8521 What lol? That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
@@hannibalbarca8521 hahahahahah
@@Luke-ih1oc lol
@@hannibalbarca8521 nice.. so someone showing appreciation to both debaters and gratitude to the one who post the video, and your immediate response is profound insult??
with the Irish and English accents its like two wizards talking about life
Debate starts at 5:36.
Many thanks
Thanks 😁
Amazing 🔥
I really like that they don't interrupt each other
That's English gentleman-ness
Me too
@@englishenglish444 gddeededse. V
Very refreshing
@@englishenglish444 att
This is how every debate should be carried on.
Polite, respectful and intelligent.
Thank you for posting this.
@ANDY LUMEH © I bring you Gold. Post is for writing thoughts and opinion about the video, NOT for preaching. Please go to church for this.
Also, a debate in which they've both actually READ EACH OTHERS' BOOKS.
not really, people who worship gods that drown babies and write an entire book about how to kill people, while forgiving them for being despicable themselves, needs to be debunked. the god of christian mythology is one of the sickest characters imaginable, and thepeople who worship him are just a sickminded.
@@HarryNicNicholas You have a darkness in you.
I have to take issue with the use of the term intelligent here
This is a very emotional subject. The atheist even said as much. Yet these two men kept emotions in check and held each other accountable without criticizing one another. Impressive debate.
I'm sorry your wrong Dawkins hurled many insults at lennoxs not only beliefs but at john himself it's was shady behavior but John(the Christian)handled it with a smile.
The atheist? Which one?
Dr Lennox is an atheist when it comes to every god but the Abrahamic one. Dr Dawkins is an atheist when it comes to every god, including the Abrahamic one.
@@Rekaert Dude there is only 1 God
@@joshuabrzezinski2828 Not if you're a pantheist. Then there are many, no?
@Rekaert My point being there is Only 1 true God the rest are just Satan and his angels Masquerading as gods. Lucifer for ex. Goes by many aliases you would find in all the biggest relgions
I could watch these two debate ALL DAY. Not a lot of ego, tons of substance and great points.
It was a good debate. I remain an atheist, and happily so.
Sorry we have a true rational man, Dawkins, and an old believer in fairy tales!! No evidence of God my friend Johnny!! Poor old man is hopelessly deluded bullshitting away!!
Dawkins no ego?
There is zero substance in what Dawkins says, he's pro pedophilia and cannibalism. Anti science top to bottom.
How can you think they both made great points?
I have apreciated a lot that none clapped hands
It's because this debate takes place in the UK where people are trying to listen to ideas rather than trying to take sides and listen to two people "tOtAlLy OwN" each other.
John Lennox.Wipe that smirk of your face and try to give an intelligent answer
Who maje your head bold
@@orlandoalmeida1161 His intelligence is matched with wisdom. Ticks you off, doesn't it?
Yeah, these are the kind of debates that I enjoy, unstructured, and a simple back-and-forth discussion.
@illyapopov5636: it seems that what you really enjoy is debates that end with neither side having won, and nothing is accomplished.
"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong." Richard Dawkins.
@@Merlinever I don't see it that way, you have a debate between two differing views and you are allowed to decide for yourself which side of the argument you agree with. While watching this I was constantly thinking back to the Presidential "debates" between Trump and Biden and my amazement (fear, actually) that one of the two was going to be the leader of the western world.
@@davidtuer5825: "I don't see it that way, you have a debate between two differing views and you are allowed to decide for yourself which side of the argument you agree with."
The side I agree with is the one with the argument backed up by reason, logic, and verifiable facts of reality (please see my original comment above).
"While watching this I was constantly thinking back to the Presidential "debates" between Trump and Biden and my amazement (fear, actually) that one of the two was going to be the leader of the western world."
I admit that i had the very same fear; for at least the last four or five decades the choice we've been given when choosing the next president hasn't been between a good candidate and a better one, but between a horrible candidate and a slightly (hopefully) less horrible one; when Trump was elected, we got the slightly less horrible one; during his presidential campaign, Trump made a number of promises on very important issues - promises that got him' elected. But after having been elected, he did a 180 degree flip of most if not all of those promises or simply ignored them. For example, he had promised that if elected he would bring home all of our troops and stop fighting all of these endless, extremely expensive, useless foreign wars. Then, shortly after being elected, he issued a statement saying that he would bring home some unspecified number of our troops at some future, unspecified date. Later, he greed to send an ADDITIONAL 20,000 of our troops to Afghanistan.
I can think of a long list of such betrayals, but it will take me some time to gather them along with the appropriate links for verification.
The bottom line: Trump is far from the great savior that most people have deluded themselves into believing he is.
@@Merlinever Well, to be clear, my thought was, were these two the best you could find out of 360million? I chose to mention that debate to illustrate what a debate wasn't, I supported neither. But then I'm South African/ British and you might say I have no right to express a view on your country's choice of leader but your country is now the leader of the free world, your leader is our leader. But to revert to the origin of our correspondence, there could be no winner there, neither proposition is provable so you go with the one which seems most likely, or, like me you may find that even after such an articulate exchange of views by two brilliant minds I could not decide whether one was right and one was wrong. But I was left with a clearer idea of what the the issues were.
I agree, often with the more structured debates each side will make three or four points at varying levels, and then the opposite side will also make three or four points.
Then it’s a matter of one side trying to unpack the entirety of the 4 points made while also defending their own 4 points from attack, so on and so forth.
Often the finer detail gets lost in such debates, and it’s sort of more about who can pump out more arguments than it is about understanding the strength of the singular main argument.
This debate was excellent at this, neither side ever really made more than one or two points before the other had a chance to come back and debate this position. It was more of a discussion than a debate in this regard, and it’s much nicer to listen to and much easier to understand.
If people in the world can talk and agree to disagree like this the world would be a better place
Although I disagree with Richard, I wish every christian / atheist could have dialogue like this. Love watching these two debate.
To be fair, John Lennox is the only man I've ever seen/heard Richard Dawkins treat with some semblance of respect. I suspect it's because he understands how brilliant Lennox is. He belittles everyone else he debates on the subject.
@@kalehorvath agree kale
What do you mean you disagree with Dawkins? You know that he is one of the world's leaders in his field? You'd have to know more than him about his topic of expertise for your disagreement to hold any weight. I think what you mean is what Dawkins says conflicts with your existing beliefs that you're unwilling to change.
@@dkruger9553 I could say the same for you, you hold beliefs you are unwilling to change.... I’ve read everyone of his books and have followed him many years. Yes he is considered an expert in his field and yes I do believe he is wrong. Gravely wrong. In his worldview this means nothing you’re no different than an ant that is stepped on.
@@mrt9689 I think you've misunderstood his world-view. We are unable to show the amount of empathy for the ant as we are able to show for other humans. It also sounds like you don't like his world-view because it's comfortable, which says nothing about how truthful it is.
Two very different people with very different views, still sound like old mates at the pub
but with hundreds of other folks and blokes eavesdropping on very word...
Lennox owned dawkins tho
@@fatezero1919 ...Lennox did seem to be welding the whiphand...a spanking is something Dawkins usually doesn't get from the lame and limp wrist liberal clergy he normally debates...but the tastiest morsel was Lennox force feeding Dawkins a full reversal on the existence of Jesus...talk about your "historical" HAThEist backpedals...In the Academy, Lennox has philosophical and scientific gravitas and Dawkins had to acknowledge it...
@@fatezero1919 he really didn't
@@fatezero1919 how tho?
This is one of the greatest back-and-forth discussions I have ever heard.
You must be a Christian for thinking this was a good debate
@@francoisona yeah. I think it was kinda boring. I hoped for more
@@francoisona And why do you say that? Why do you think it was NOT a good debate?
@@francoisona NAAA SURELY AN IDIOT
@@MrDaiseymay 🤭
Such a respectful and great conversation between great minds!
One of the best debates I have ever heard! Civility and mutual respect combined to produce a wonderful experience.
Me too. I really love this debate. The pursuit and purpose of debate should be focused on the truth only, not trying to justify one's opinion. Of course, when you debate you need to defend your position to persuade that your position is right and the other one is wrong, but you shouldn't be trying to win an argument just because you want to win in a debate. The purpose of debate is to investigate and test the truth, not the other way around. I'm just 16 minutes in with this video and I really like their attitude.
Because for a second Lennox makes believe that believing in talking snakes isn't stupid. Newsflash : it is.
@@francoisona he doesn't say believing in talking snakes is reasonable, but in God. If God is reasonable, then anything can be possible - logic.
@@namgan93 GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) SO, THE EARTH (A PLANET) is a MIDDLE DISTANCE form/manifestation in accordance with the universal fact that E=MC2 is F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is why the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 Yeah but can you stick out your tongue and touch your eyebrow?
I admire both of these men, the way they present themselves, the way they speak, thought.
is that what u taking home? "these men are so nice"
ikr
@@thelawless1523 His valid assessment ticks you off, eh? What I take away from this debate is the huge difference between mere intelligence and intelligence coupled with wisdom!
TV; I admire nobody such as this person no matter what his intellect that tries and attempts to discredit God. I consider such enemies of God a disgrace and do not honor such men at all.
I hear Dawkins expressing a bitter notion about who God is and since he feels this, it is easier for him to dismiss God all together.
Probably the best "debate" I've ever seen on the topic of God and atheism. Not least because they both used good arguments but also because it was more a discussion than a debate, although it was obviously a debate with very different viewpoints. Thanks for this great piece of content!!
You actually think RD thinks. RD believes we got the universe by "literally nothing."
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block According to L. Krauss, the universe consists of zero energy. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, the universe did not come about form "nothing", but zero energy. That is where creationists have it all wrong. They do not understand physics or even try to. I think that how the universe was created is less important than what we should do about it. How does believing in a god help mankind?
@@cynic150 @2fast2block is having an internal crisis. He can’t accept getting fooled.
For me it’s a flawed debate because I think the two gentlemen exist in different sorts of worlds.
Dawkins is a scientist not a philosopher, and Lennox is clearly more involved in the philosophical side of religion. It leads to a sort of problem whereby both sides struggle with an opposite side of the debate.
Lennox couldn’t comprehend some of Dawkins scientific points and that’s a shame as it slows down the debate a lot. Dawkins was right when he labelled it an argument from personal incredulity.
Similarly Dawkins struggled more with the philosophical side, about meaning and morality imo.
Nice debate still, friendly and respectable.
@@2fast2block RD doesn’t know how the universe came to be, and he’d rather hedge his bets with the side that has generally been on the ‘winning’ side in terms of explaining what we understand of the world.
To say he believes anything else is strawmanning him
Regardless to agree or disagree with what they said ,l accept and agree with many who believe that their presentation of ideas and patience to hear and tolerate the difference of opinion Is really surprising and worth appreciation .
Debates must be conducted in this manner . Wow highly appreciated.
I LOVE watching these two spar. It's very much almost like watching a UFC or any sort of combat sport, but on an intellectual level
Yeah, almost 😳
if one fighter was connor mcgregor and the other a drunk religious donkey with its legs tied up yes.
@@hansenbee123 Haha I was going to say Dawkins is kind of the Iron Mike of this one, then.
@@hansenbee123 Dawkins got schooled as he admitted Jesus Christs existed and is looking at Lennox like a student learning something. So I don't get what you mean by religious donkey with his legs tied?
@@billscannell93 More like paper Mike cause he got ripped up.
How great would be if we could watch the 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate, or other great minds from earlier centuries here on TH-cam.
To me it is remarkable that this planet is populated on one hand by individuals as well-spoken as these two and on the other hand by people whose vocabulary consists of about 150 words.
If you bothered, you might find that on average … these two mostly used 150 words.
@@shirleymason7697Perhaps, but there is a vast difference between using the same appropriate words often when discussing a particular topic and having a limited vocabulary which causes few words and often the wrong ones to be used during all discussions on all topics.
@@Apokalypsiis What are you going on about? Others were mocking the vocabulary used here. I pointed out that they may have used a limited vocabulary here, but that it was appropriate.
@@just_me2797 ah, my bad. Replied to you instead of the creator of this thread.
and yall fools like to overcomplicate language to fulfill your own personified inquiries lmaooo their is no need to talk like this in basic conversation. simplicity is beautiful
This was an excellent discussion!
16 mins in and this has to be the best debate format i have ever seen in my life. OMG, i love this!
You hate it or do you love it?
@@newonebro5767 He loves it
You know it's a good debate when you're telling yourself
"That's a good Point"
"whoa that's a good point too"
"Whoaaa that's another good point"
"Whoaaaaaaaaa..."
At what point did John Lennox made any good point?
@@rmr5044
Dawkins only makes good points if your willing to listen. Willful and intentional ignorance is a very real thing, you can't know or believe what you don't want to know or believe.
Ignorance is not just what you don't know, it is also what you won't know.
~ AronRa
To believe in god requires a very narrow mind and anything that contradicts your belief must be intentionally disregarded in order to maintain the belief. Christians believe the planet is 6000 years old when reality has proven the world is billions of years old, this is an extreme example of willful ignorance at it's best. If Kakashi wants to know what real philosophical fallacies are they should try reading the bible. Kakashi didn't hear any good points from Dawkins because he/she didn't want to hear anything that would contradict what they believe. Kakashi's ignorance is willful, therefore you might as well be talking to a wall or a rock.
@@rmr5044
Yes, I was agreeing with your comment to Kakashi. I just added to it lol. I know your on Dawkins's side.
@@rmr5044 To believe in atheism requires a very narrow mind and anything that contradicts your belief must be intentionally disregarded in order to maintain the belief. Carbon dating is proven many times flawed and it is built upon an assumption that the conditions on Earth were always the same. Your religion of Atheism is nothing more than a bunch of assumptions and whenever there is something contradicting, you call it anomaly.
@@rmr5044 You are blind believer of your religion of nothing, cant see the hypocrisy and errors of your sharatan speaker/"scientist" . Dont all that science of assumption on what were the conditions on Earth before go to your head. All the fathers of science were religios, they must be stupid also..... You know nothing, NOT one good argument, all based on blind faith.
As a Christian and scientist, I appreciate both men for talking around difficult points in our human thoughts. May God bless them, especially Dr. Lennox. May the good news of Jesus continue be shared through his teachings 🙏
As a Christian it was refreshing to see Richard Dawkins’ humility in this conversation. You can tell it by the way he would listen, answer every question, be honest in his beliefs. I really enjoy listening to him. He’s different than other atheist IMO
Many athiests run out of patience after hearing the same claims year after year.
I guess that's the main difference between "many athiests" and Dawkins. Dawkins is in it to educate people.
@@Dennis19901 True. Now to be fair.. atheist say the same things over and over again too. I’m impressed however with Dawkins ability to stay calm and collected.
@@jared3235 "| atheist say the same things over and over again too. "
Most of them, yes.
But when someone makes the same arguments after another (many theists get their arguments from apologetic sites), the response to such an argument is going to be the same.
If you hear the god of the gaps argument (a favorite one among believers) 100 times, how are you going to respond differently 100 times?
This is an honest question by the way. I'm not excusing anyone getting arrogant or annoyed in responses.
@@Dennis19901 Good point. This is why I listen to these debate over and over again. These individuals are so smart and it’s a blessing to have them share their reasoning with us.
It amazes me how much time people spend thinking about this subject.
@@jared3235 "This is why I listen to these debate over and over again."
Same for me. I'm in it more for the reasoning they often use. I think some of those "famous athiests" for a lack of better term, use very beautiful reasoning
I deeply respect these two very much. They were so respectful during the conversation. Serious truths stuffs about the big questions of life.
Believe me the only reason Dawkins is being respectful is that he knows he has a strong opponent.
You should check out some videos of him at atheist conventions where he shows pictures of a crucifix and mocks to applause from his army of slaves.
Exactly! Dawkins is a jerk.
@@bluegtturbo Post examples of this claim.
You clap because for a second Lennox made you believe that believing in talking snakes isn't stupid. Newsflash: it is.
@@francoisona It is a rare treat to read such an engaging and thoughtful refutation.
every debate is 1 or 1.30 hour long , can't they extend it to 3 ???
That's what I'm saying, they could talk for literal hours, so let them.
Yet they still wouldn't establish the whole 'God' thing because it is beyond our understanding, this is what dawkins fails to acknowledge or realise.
@@pleasepermitmetospeakohgre1504 hi objectified ignorance...
How are you babes..?
Look at what they sit, who the heck would be able to sit for a couple of hours.
This is definitely the best and most respectful debate between atheist and Christian … both men are adorable ❤ I can listen to them talking forever. Still I pray Richard will one day come to the truth. I pray for that 🙏
As a Christian I'm gonna say the truth, Richard admits that nothing will convince him of god jesus can comeback on judgement day he'll still not believe and the stars could write his name and he still won't believe
Not sure I would regard Dawkins as "adorable" (Lennox on the other hand I can sort of see).
@@tomsmith2181 now I totally agree with you 😐 when I first watched the debates, I thought he was respectful and then I watched a few videos where he called all his debating opponents “fools”, I realized that he was just a liar
If you're claiming your religion is "the truth", then present your evidence that proves it to be the truth, ensuring that evidence dismisses all other gods.
The fact that this channel only has 14k subscribers shows that few people actually take their own beliefs seriously.
Lmao because everyone know evolution is made up
@@howtodoit4204 Yet you have never read a single academic paper on it.
Far fewer even bother to explore.
When it first showed the narrator, I was like "holy crap, it's Tom Green", then they showed him again and I realized it wasn't him. I was simultaneously disappointed and relieved.
Lennox is the nicest guy ever.
i am an atheist. but i have to say he is so niceeee.
Ameeen... ☺️ He is so honest debater...
But a fool
@@chrisbuesnell3428 lol why’s that
But definitely not the smartest guy ever.😂
What makes me awe with this is the composure and class of these gentlemen.
Best way to "debate", a real conversation.
Really great discussion. I love both these speakers and the points they have made .I don’t mean to disrespect Any speaker but as an Agnostic I like the points which Professor Lennox made than that of Professor Dawkins . No disrespect to both these speakers .
The Philosopher MMA you miserable idiot
One is right and one is wrong. There is nothing disrespectful about choosing which debater you think is correct. For my part I cannot imagine how anyone watching honestly and objectively could think Lennox won, or even had an intelligible argument.
@@TrickyArmyMan Maybe because it's a debate and there's an expectation that Dawkins won't simply scoff and ignore him?
@@billscannell93 He spoke a lot and people would conclude the one who spoke the most won. As I said on another comment, I felt as eloquent of arguments that were made by Dr. Lennox, I felt his conclusions were not correct. He arguments were the seeming there is a God or therefore this must be God. The God of the gaps argument was quite apparent.
@@CAMM-CynthiaM I don't think that was the case at all. In fact, I don't see how you can call Lennox's arguments eloquent when they held no meaning. He kept insisting on diverting the topic of conversation from the scientific view of the universe to magical resurrections, virgin births and other strange and wonderful (frightening?) things that never happened, would never happen, could never happen. Religion scares me. It scares me to hear an obviously bright man insist on insane things.
A very interesting topic and a very nice discussion. I appreciate this two
@ANDY LUMEH © I bring you Gold.
😵😵😵
Nutty
You can't argue against belief, there just no point in it
.
Do you really believe that?
You can't use rationality to get someone out of a position if they haven't used rationality to get themselves in that position. Belief in gods is irrational, thus rationality has no bearing on their belief. It is true, according to them, no matter how useless the 'evidence' is.
I am so impressed with John Lennox. The intelligence and candour in his replies was great. Continuously challenged Dawkins’ thoughts and I also commend Dawkins for his cadence and points which were fair. I believe John won this debate with excellence and pure genius. Frankly I understood every point he has made so far, half way through the vid.
I really don't understand how this silly child called lennox can even be included in the league of freethinkers. ?
Grow up.@@thepalebluedot4171
This debate shows in a viscerally clear way the big difference between mere intelligence and intelligence coupled with wisdom!
I didn't find either intelligence or wisdom in John Lennox. So who was the merely intelligent third person in the discussion?
@@lepidoptera9337 Really you don’t think John Lennox is intelligent? A professor of mathematics at oxford, published and successful author, and a well regarded philosopher. And you’re a line cook at Burger King. Talk about the dunning Kruger effect…
@@Ace-pb8iu John Lennox is mostly a self-serving Christian apologetic. He hasn't published anything of importance in mathematics. Somebody hired him for some unknown reason on a lifetime position and now they are stuck with a worthless professor at Oxford. :-)
@Lepi Doptera What a coincidence that nobody can find either intelligence or wisdom in any of your comments.
@@viktordoe1636 I am simply stating facts. Religious people hate facts. ;-)
The first debate video about God's existence that I understood from start to finish. These two are very clear in their words that even a person like me with no background of what they are talking about can understand clearly.
They're British lol incredibly poignant
I could understand everything too, and English isn't even my first language.
I think the arguments in part were fuelled by emotion in places but there were sections on the final 3rd of this debate where I think Lennox was guided by the Holy spirit and articulated very well. Great discussion.
Why tf didn't the holy spirit help him articulate earlier?
I'm not sure. One thing I do know is we are in a constant battle with our own flesh. That includes allowing our own ego and carnal wisdom to overcloud the quiet voice within...namely The Holy Spirit.
@@Superpowerless1 it’s a shame the Holy Spirit felt the need to guide a man in a useless debate as opposed to guiding millions of starving children to clean drinking water and food.
@@borbafatt that's our job
@@Superpowerless1 so what part of our job involves preventing earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, disease and all the other natural disasters of the natural world that humans couldn’t possibly influence. I guess all those millions of dead babies were just part of God‘s plan.
Fantastic discussion, love the camaraderie between two sort of frenemies, so to speak, the respect is present
Science doesn’t have the ability to bury God. He is bigger than mere humans. He gives the choice to believe or not.
Nobody knows a god even exists, so you can't just say he's bigger than humans. You can't even say a god exists. (Which is why "bury god" is silly from the atheist side too: to bury something it'd need to first exist and be alive.) Until someone presents strong, logical evidence of a god, the entire conversation is just one group irrationally believing while the other group wishes the first would care about truth.
@majm9309 same for atheism
Logic roughly speaking doesn't represent whole of reality.
@@majm9309- How about the 4th dimension , that does it for me ! If the past is eternal then how could the present be here OR if not then how can nothing be something! There's an EMANATOR needed asat ! 👁️🎱🌈😹
@@johnbyrnes7912 Remind me: what did your "emanator" come from? Nothing. Because I once heard someone ask "how can nothing be something?"
Basically either (a) everything or (b) not everything has a cause. If A, an uncaused god cannot exist. If B, a god isn't needed (any given thing might be uncaused).
So the fact remains that we just don't know.
In fact the same sort of logic you're using (if past is eternal, how could present be here?) which indicates that impossibility _also suggests uncaused things magically existing forever_ would be impossible, yeah? Either way our expectations break if we learned the actual truth.
And that should be obvious, given you *retreated immediately* from the topic of "god" and ended up with an "emanator". You seem to already admit you don't know to some degree, I just think you should be honest and back up to where the evidence actually gets us, which is basically nowhere.
Still my favorite debate/conversation of all time on the topic of God!
One of them(Dawkins) was talking about god. Lennox was too busy building Straw Man arguments and other logical fallacies so he never got around to proving any gods exist. That’s how religious apologists have been failing for thousands of years.😏
@@FourDeuce01 Proving or disproving God wasn't the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate was the relationship between science and belief in God. So many of Lennox's topics and questions dealt with the a philosophy of science and how Dawkin and Lennox have different philosophies of their science but not so much difference science. Again the question is Has Science Buried God? Not has science proven God or has science disproven God?
@@timsmith9503 Until somebody proves any gods exist, there is no relationship between science and belief in god.
BTW, science doesn’t need to prove or disprove any gods. The burden of proof for gods is on the people claiming they exist.
@@FourDeuce01 I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. I think what I mean is, a person needs to think about what scientific study can and can't do, that's what I mean by philosophy of science. Now I grew up learning through school that the question does God exist is not a scientific question. But again, this debate isn't about does a God exist or not, it's has science buried God? I agree that there is no relationship between science and belief in God, which is why I think the answer to the debate question is no. Because to answer yes to question is to then say there is a relationship between science and belief in God. My position is to say that science doesn't even have the ability to study the topic of God, let alone proof, disprove, or bury. Which is why what I like about what Lennox has to say here is that it, to me, comes across as what science studies has no relationship to belief in God because they are unrelated. That's a problem for Christians and Atheist who claim that they can somehow defend their position using scientific method.
@Tim Smith “this debate isn’t about does a god exist or not.”
Au contraire. If nobody can prove any gods exist, there’s no point in debating whether science has buried god.
Atheists don’t need to defend their position. Theists need to prove any gods exist.
Love these two. Fun dialogue that went no where as usual. Still entertaining.
Respect for both of those gentelmans, this debate was extreamly interesting
Love Dawkins trying to appeal to logic and reason even though he believes his brain is just chemicals firing with no intrinsic meaning or purpose.
Atheism is ultimately a circular argument that destroys itself.
That's the nature of Atheist belief, a circular argument that destroys itself.
May I ask, in your opinion, what is the brain? What's logic and reasonable about the brain to you?
You don't need intrinsic meaning or purpose to use logic. He even addresses this in the debate, i.e., he points out that the ability to engage the world in factual, logical terms would likely be selected for since it helps organisms survive.
God, in this context, just strikes me as a superfluous explanation: doesn't mean there isn't one, but our ability to construct and evaluate truth statements doesn't seem to require a supernatural explanation. Organisms incapable of doing this didn't get a chance to reproduce.
Wonderful to hear such a debate without personal attacks or vitriol.
Arthur Francis D. Murphy: Why should an opponent in a debate not be attacked for speaking in approval and promotion of systems of belief that treat lies as truth, myths as reality, and encourage delusional behavior?
Man do I love Lennox. I used to be an atheist and would have seen the is debate so very differently. But now as a Christian I cannot be more on Lennox’s side. He’s so brilliant in the way he shows the blind spots of the atheist worldview. What a blessing this guy is.
You clearly are ignorant to science. Shame on you.
@@toni4729 Don't you think it's a little odd to be mean to people on the internet you disagree with?
1:56 me talking to the cashier while my son is upset he didnt get chewing gum
Man must always be left in doubt. Otherwise he would have no Free Will to choose. To believe or not to believe. He is shown enough, but not too much. He is left free to disbelieve.
wise words brother
Romans 9:18-21 would disagree with you. Belief or disbelief for each individual is dictated by God. The Bible mentions this consistently throughout. If anyone is right about Christianity, it is the Calvinists. Free will is nothing but an illusion if God is omniscient.
@@loganleatherman7647 Clavin? You mean the chap who wrote "that man has choice and that it is self-determined" and that his actions stem from "his own voluntary choosing."
22:38 I dont understand how DNA could have come from matter back then, why cant it do it now? Information could only be created from information. I cant see it any other way.
It is not possible to generate DNA with its full functionality just from the atoms of CHON, because there are introns and exons, that have very sophisticated splicing and what not functions.
@@iznij3284 your comment is pretty much adding nothing to the OP's question.
@@thegreekdeal4747 it's not a comment addressing OP, it was perspective on video itself....I was not debating here to add or subtract anything..cheers
the name of what you just said is "argument of personal incredulity"
it can't do it now, because it requires a slow and gradual process called evolution, which takes millions and billions of years
Kelvin Domingos hopefully you don’t believe in some sort of chemical soup that created the first life. I never said that you said that, I’m just curious what you believe about the first life.
39:45 I believe that Dawkins cannot imagine that a God so great would bother with our mundane thoughts is because Dawkins cannot fathom the idea of being so great yet being so bothered by someone of less greatness.
I believe that somewhere in there, there is desire to believe but I pray that the pride within him cracks enough to let the light of God in.
Nonetheless, the debate was lovely to listen to. I appreciate both men and have gratitude for both, more so John, who has helped me transform my own beliefs.
These are very weird assumptions about the thoughts of another. And they don't fit Dawkins at all. His argument there is based not on an emotional stance but on a logical one. He takes the observation that a Human wouldnt give any thoughts of looking out for every ant of an very specific ant Hill and being mad when the ants don't do as he wants them to and expands that to the relationship between god and humans. in the great scheme of things the lives of people dont matter at all compared to the universe. even much less than an ant Hill does compared to earth. Now I would also make an assumption about you, which is that you just Interpret his Character in such a way because your own Standpoint on that subject is very clear and in your mind undoubtetely set in stone. And as Dawkins thinks the complete opposite, you infer into his thinking that deep down he is on your side. That way your side wins after all. If you dont agree with me here at all, thats how your comment feels. If I might give you another analogue example of how that Sounds, your comment is exactly the same like an atheist telling theists that deep down they know there is something wrong with the believe in a god and that they know he is not real and actually they only tell others about their secure belief to cope with their doubts. I do not think that is Something you would agree with or like. It very much implies that your opponent thinks of you as a less sophisticated person like a parent of a child telling you "well, he just doesnt know better"
Wow John Lennox has made my belief in God grow to new heights. Thank you Sir!
But he kept changing the subject and making wooly points. You already had a belief so I doubt you were open minded.
This says a lot more about you than it does about John Lennox, Harry.
What? how? Lennox's arguments were weak and quite frankly astoundingly childish for a man of his intellect.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 You can only make that point if you haven't similarly simply grown up in atheistic household. Not saying you did, but if you did not it is hypocritical.
@@teks-kj1nj One must explain why that is; not simply say they were.
Very nice debate I have ever listened to,The resource persons were very pleasant decent and meritorious. The audience also paid their attention very attentively. Thank you all.
@adharmawardhana7328: Only an audience of mindless sheep pays "their attention very attentively" without ultimately siding with one of the people in the debate over the other. Otherwise, what's the point of having the debate? If nothing is decided, noting is gained.
Such a wonderful debate between the two. John Lennox is the best christian apologist. "In the beginning there was a Word the Word was with God and the Word was God" . John 1:1.
Dawkins is head knowledge, whereas Lennox is head knowledge & heart knowledge.
To know God, a person has to have a heart conversation. 🙏 for Mr Dawkins to have a heart conversion. ❤️
Heart knowledge as you call it is emotion, and facts don't care about emotion lol.
@@jsar5409Actually when christians talk about heart they are talking about the soul. Its not actually emotions but the soul open to the possibility of love who leads to an attitude as of Lennox.
Everything enters through the mind (or head, as you say), but some things eventually must sink down to the heart in order to reveal their true meaning.
We can only 'see' the one true God by learning to use the space between our mind and heart. If something is all mind, it remains just cold hard fact (much like scientific fact) and God dies (or is killed) in such an environment. Such things and facts can be written down on paper, contained in a test tube or recorded in some physical shape or firm. On the other hand, if something is all heart it is like romantic love (or evangelical Christians), totally irrational.
The knowledge of an objective good and evil is discovered only in the space between mind and heart and this freedom of knowing has been granted to the human race alone. No other species in the universe can or will have such ability. The freedom to question ones own existence is truly a gift. It is in itself the ultimate act of love granted us by the one true God. Without it we can never truly love Him (or anyone else).
Professionally done! Theories vs Rationale
👍
I appreciate that the two of them can be professional and intelligent and respectful but part of me wonders if anyone is ever persuaded to change their preexisting point of view from one of these. Listening to the interviews of the audience members at the end made me think that maybe these really do have value to those who are still questioning. I'm glad John Lennox and Richard Dawkins have a good enough rapport that these debates can happen. More power to them.
You say this cause for a second Lennox made you believe that believing in talking snakes isn't stupid. Newsflash: it is.
@@francoisona For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18
@@stephenpeppin5537 Substituting verses for thoughts - The paragon of Christians' reasoning skills. Stephen, I know this indoctrination is not something you can grow out of easily. Been there but learn to think for yourself.
Ok let's try this. Gita is a hindu charity worker. She spends every breathing moment of her life helping others spending any little money she earns alleviating suffering, helping the poor with no care for herself and what she wants. When you ask her why she says: ' it makes me happy to see people happy'. She does not accept Jesus into her heart. She accepts Vishnu and other gods. Question for you: does Gita deserve eternal suffering/ be abandoned by god? 'No one goes to the kingdom of my father but through me' sorta thing. Is the fate that according to your faith awaits her fair?
@@francoisona
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. Romans 2:13-15
For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. 1 Corinthians 4:4,5
@@stephenpeppin5537 That’s not clever, Stephen. That’s intellectual cowardice. Pure and simple. You hide behind verses so as not to express a view. I think that’s all very pathetic really. The single most important pillar of your faith is that you must accept your hippy Jesus as your personal saviour. Isnt that the deal. I die and you telll me how great I am to have died (never mind that I came back to life)?
If the word salad above is to be construed as an exception to that, it means that your bible contains lies and your christianity counts for nothing. One can live not believing in your lord and still get to have eternal life.
This is what your religion has reduced you to Stephen, staying silent and hiding behind meaningless waffle so as not to engage what you clearly saw as an injustice to Gita.
I guess I should say well done for not throwing her under the bus but it costs you your intellectual integrity in the process. Like I said; Quite pathetic. Really.
Dont respond if you’re going to quote more word salad to masquerade your ineptitude to think for yourself as some kind of selective erudition.
A real pleasure listening to a debate filled of wisdom. They both listen attentively and answered with great respect for each other's options. Thanks
Dawkins just interessted in how much religious BS Lennox will come up with.
@@erikhviid3189 I am amazed that you can find sense in Darwinist atheist Dawkins preaching of an illusion of design. The crap does not even present an illusion of making sense. "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." Atheist speculative biologist Richard Dawkins T
@@piertinence the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and for creation ZERO.
So my best guess will be, that it is a question about proper education.
The laryngeal nerve and endogeneous retro viruses are two VERY strong proofs of evolution. The fossil record and comparative anathomy are other proofs.
So education, education and education.
No fairytales and imaginary sky-daddy.
@@erikhviid3189 No, a Darwinian evolutionary creation myths no verifiable evidence. It is based on litanies of speculative hogwash largely obtained by sucking on old bones. Darwinist evangelist Dawkins preaching that wonderful creatures like peregrine falcons, bald eagles, birds of paradise, peacocks etc., would only be presenting Atheist Dawkins coined the word designoid over 20 years ago but it has not made it to any recognized dictionary since no definition that would make sense could be found..
@@erikhviid3189 "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." Atheist speculative biologist Richard Dawkins The concept of an illusion of design does not even present an illusion of making sense.
20:45 - He says that the more sophisticated a mechanism is, the more likely it is to point towards an agent instead of a complex mechanism, but doesn't really explain the relationship between sophistication and the need for an agent.
This what happens when the audience isn’t there to engage to seek clarification, I would have loved to get more clarification l.
He later has an analogy, the watch is blind and automatic but it was design by something, it doesn’t exist just like that, there must be an intelligent mind designing all of this and fine tuning…
I now believe in a God Creator more than ever before
That's a shame
@@arlencarroll1964 not at all. It's liberating
It's called delusion. If it makes life easier for you, and it doesn't encroach on me then happy days, enjoy.
@@PaulHattlejerk off do need to be hater did you not see the debate that demonstrate respect for individual stance in thoughts and opinions?
@@PaulHattle To believe in the God of the Bible makes it easier because He gives you all assurance about eternal life & He gives you true peace. The hard thing is to follow Christ is to be hated in this world. And in the end you have to be ready to die for your faith. (When persecution will grow)
”“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.”
John 15:18-19
Mr. Lennox sure does have a lot of patience. I missed seeing him speak at my University back in 2015.
How on earth did you get into university? You do know which of the two gentlemen is Mr Lennox right?
@@johnnycharisma162 one mans success really took you so low that you resulted in being insulting and childish?🤣🤣🤣! I am praying that you are no older than twelve.....! Sad and sorry indeed!
@@johnnycharisma162 correction: one man's. 3 subscribers to your channel??? You go dude!!!!!
@@chereejohnson2400 my other account @charisma Johnny has 11,350 subscribers go check it out.
They both have a lot of patience.
Some times answers to questions lead to more questions and need more complex answers. Nice that they debated in a friendly respectful manner.
I salute John Lennox. What a wonderful person you are. May God continue to bless you with wisdom. We need more man of God like you.
He made no sense whatsoever. Completely irrational and spoke in theories.
he's a sophisticated idiot
@joeturner9219 No, that’s a fact. If Lennox had any evidence for any god, he failed to show any.
How about natural selection? he says it's a "mechanical, blind force". seems like a theory to me @@Knightley79
@FourDeuce01 same for Dawkins and his atheistic view
The majority of John Lennox arguments boils down to personal incredulity. I'm so glad he's not in charge of science curriculum in schools. "I believe god did it" would be the beginning and ending of every chapter.
How so? He isn’t straw manning Dawkin’s scientific explanations and understanding of the universe because he’s a mathematician. They both seems come to a mutual understanding that science gives room for evidence that the universe was created.... but how or by whom is the question. Both of them are using evidences based off of science, personal experience, logic, and reason but are coming to two very different conclusions. Of course Lennox has his own ideas about creation... but science has its own set of beliefs too.
@@brookemoore8369 "science has its own set of beliefs too". No, that is not how science is done. If it can't be proven, then the 'belief' (hypothesis) is tossed out. If it can be proven, why call it a belief?
Oren Arieli Because they both come to the same conclusion.... The universe was created. Science gives way towards understanding how it was created by evidence, but it does not know right now how it was created because the evidence for that isn’t available. Therefore, science “believes” or “has faith” that one day it will have the evidence. Of course, based upon facts, logic, and reasoning.
@@OrenArieli how does science explains the origin of life?
All the great scientists, the philosophers, theologians are painstakingly climbing up the unsurmoutable mountain of the real truth , and when the time they reached the apex they are greeted there with Christians and offer them a cup of coffee.😊 ❤
3:43 lol the guy on the far right is like, "ooops, I hope nobody noticed me breaking the rules 😶"
Lmao he looked so upset
Foolish clouds without water, ever learning but never able to come to the fullness of knowledge of truth.
Very wise comment
@@renegarcia8876 It's from the New Testament, 2 Timothy 3:7 / Jude 1:12
To me both the thiests and athiests seem to jump on the very conclusion without credible evidence. I think mankind has simply not yet advanced enough to generate experiments which 100℅ proof the creators presence or absence. Hence both the arguments of the professors make sense. The distinction comes from their personal belief. I believe mankind will find the answer if they don't kill each other. And yes I am an Agnostic. And if there is a God which will be proved I do not think it will be in any way similar to the God of Christians, Muslims etc. This is my belief.
What is truth?
@@georgemissailidis3160 Jesus Christ.
John 14:6 KJV - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
This is so comforting to listen to two giants making productive conversation in such an aesthetic way; who wins over another appears to be a secondary consideration. If you ask me, GOD needs no one to speak for the recognition is distinctive veracity in the university they are in the verbal row. The signs are everywhere; if you don't want to see them, then this is not about forcing and compelling. No compulsion is in the religion. These debates must continue to open the minds of people in order to comprehend the notions - alien to you - so that you could see what is wrong and true. What matters is the verisimilitude, eventually -- and both sides believe in that. Period.
I came here to watch this debate after struggling with God on a huge personal issue if suffering. I’m not struggling with suffering in general - theoretically. No! I personally am suffering and have been for a long time going through trials and tribulations as a Christian woman who’s serving God faithfully every day and lives a single and celibate life dedicated to Jesus for more than 5 years. The fact that my suffering has been repeatedly ordained by God is incomprehensible to me, yet that’s what the book of Job demonstrates: God ordains suffering for His faithful followers.
I’ve seen this PREACHED from the puppet, and it’s extremely theoretical and not personable.
John is the best minister.
John, how you deconstructed Christianity and explained EVERYTHING difficult so brilliantly is so profound.
What can I say?
I’m leaving this debate a STRONGER believer, and you, John, are God’s glory on display, indeed! Thank you.
Before I get crucified, pardon the pun, I'm agnostic, so I have no bias.
I just want to know one thing, why is it that that Richard Dawkins always looks angry and bitter but Prof Lennox looks happy bubbly and cuddly (I just wanna pinch his cheeks!) lol
I would love to talk to Professor Lennox ONLY because I just feel like if, for example, I made a scientific mistake, Richard Dawkins would be pissed off and call me an idiot rather correct me, and then finish off by telling me I'm petty 😂😂😂😂😂
Well even if you believe Lennox is delusional, he does have a hope beyond this life; whereas Dawkins has a nihilistic, ultimately purposeless viewpoint that often leads to despair... cheers!
Haha yeah😂
Socrates probably also felt a bit bitter when he was forced to drink poison for impiety. Victorious lynch mobs and their faith-based leaders tend to be a happy bunch when they're given free reign to con, coerce, and control others. If you were sent back in time with the mission of convincing primitive people that no, the phenomenon of lightning and thunder aren't indicative of the gods' anger, they're natural things explicable through a more refined understanding of meteorology and careful observation, you might start to feel a twinge or two of bitterness as well, especially if "corrupting the minds of young people" was among the charges brought against you.
People even in 2020 continue to make the very old error of anthropomorphization, attributing human-like characteristics to non-human forces or things. The idea that whatever forces created the universe would share in common with humans things like jealousy, hate, or love, is on its face ridiculous as much as thinking earthquakes or floods happen because your country allows gay people in the military. People believe this shit by the hundreds of millions. Is it any wonder materialists are often a sullen bunch?
He's got something to hide
@@marianskodowski8337 Do you mean Dawkins has something hide? Well, if you do then it is usually the case with Atheism. Christianity allows a person to come into the light because God is light!!
Trying to find God with just your mind is like going on a date with a computer.
Which appendage helps you find god? Is it the one that makes women scream "Oh god!" repeatedly?
so you have be mindless to find god?
@Wes Baumguardner or men.
@chrisdeep8417: Mankind made all gods with their own minds and in their own image, so what's wrong with using one's mind to determine if there is any proof or evidence to support belief in any god?
There ain't no God. It's all a lie
If only our presidential debates could look like this 😂😂
The only reason we can do science is because of Gods never changing laws. Thank you Jesus💜💙❤️
With respect, your comment here is exactly what the problem is. You didn't preface your statement with _"It is my belief that..."_ you stated it as if it were a fact. But you failed to attach the all-important ingredient in such a claim, evidence to prove it to be true.
@ dude respectfully you’re a clown! lol it is FACT silly. You are telling me what to say? And telling me how to say it?… ya goof LMAOOO 🤣
@ research the evidences tony.
@ with respect tony this is the actual problem..too many cowards. Not enough men and women with enough courage to proclaim the TRUTH with BOLDNESS 💥💥💥🔥🔥🔥
No moderator needed. The two of them controlled the flow. Brilliant.
Lennox was masterful and moving Dawkins along to each subject
@ 46:01 😮😮😮😮😮 never thought id here these words come out his mouth!
?????
FunKing Customs he was being facetious. Devils advocate. He giving him the benefit of the doubt and argued the ridiculous points of it . A few seconds later he said, "there is no such evidence of that."
@@cbritt7637 Not at all, he reversed his stance because he knew that what Lennox was saying about the 'majority of historical scholars affirming the historic truth of Jesus' existence' was legitimate. So wisely "I take that back!!!"
@@cbritt7637 yer... nah... and I'm not christian either but he done fucked up there..CLEARLY.. don't give atheism a bad name by saying something different to what ACTUALLY happened.. don't dumb yourself down *sigh*
A blind man could see that!
@- I think 'people who are much smarter' than I am call it an inference to the best explanation. Why did the early Church continue to grow, even amongst heavy persecution and possible death? Why did hundreds claim to see Christ after his death on the Cross?
Then why not hear..
46:20..
I’m in the Lennox camp on this one but great to see two renowned intellectuals having such a mutually respectful debate.
I find it so hard to believe that so many people are so ignorant of science.
Watching this after I watched Dr. Tour vs Dropout Dave. Gotta give it to these two for keeping the debate civilized. I can sense the mutual respect they have for each other.
I'd like to see Dawkins debate a scholar of ancient history on the resurrection of Jesus.
Would be embarrassing for the 'scholar'
Dawkins wouldnt have a say
@@gloriousforever3451 Would be embarrassing for Dawkins lol, he got embarrassed in this debate and exposed of all the assumptions he was making hah.
@@gzoro8645 lmao. Says the guy who supports the one who keeps spouting god of the gaps.
@@gzoro8645 Richard actually already revealed his argument on this topic in THIS debate. He said: “I don’t care!” That’s Richard’s argument. Is it scientific, historical, philosophical? No. It’s EMOTIONAL and arrogant and ignorant.
And it only reveals just how much Richard is OBSESSED with God but angry at God for the fact that God is concerned with Richard’s sin.
Так же как мы выросли в СССР, где нас убеждали: у нас в стране Бога нет… Почему? Потому что коммунисты боялись Бога.
Amqzing discussion so friendly
Because for a second Lennox made you believe that believing in talking snakes isn't stupid. Newsflash: it is.
@@francoisona seems like you made this same comment in another thread. Sounds like you are trying to disparage theists without really saying anything at all
@@jestanuthername 1. 'Another thread' observation is irrelevant. 2. Ooh believing in talking animals isn't stupid? Ok Ron do explain. Do you believe the events in the Garden of Eden happened?
That should be fun.
@@jestanuthername Anybody there? 🙃
@@francoisona God is, always has been, always will be my friend 😊👍
One of my favorite debates.
*_"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him."_* - Louis Pasteur (Founder of microbiology and immunology)
Very true and also very ironic.
For it is molecular biology (the extension of microbiology) that is starting to shed light on exposing his false theories on selfish genes and blind watchmakers.
References: see Dawkins Vs. Dennis Nobel at IAI and the origin of life lectures by Prof. James Tour.
Actually, molecular biology is not an extension of microbiology, it's a subset of it. And it certainly does not contradict the explanation of the selfish gene theory.
Great debate, great minds. Lennox wins this one for me. One thing though is, Dawkins keep saying don't care and petty, a bit arrogance in my view.
It's not arrogant, it's true. The view Christianity provides, I can only describe as petty and small-minded. It doesn't do justice to the grandeur of life and the intricacies of the universe to suggest that human life's nothing more than a game to see whether you worship Jesus for eternity or roast in hell after you're dead.
@@jmcsquared18 science is not small minded you fool,,your contradicting yourself
jmcsquared also the fact that you think that when you don’t follow Jesus is eternal punishment is astounding. Scripture says that after we return to the new earth that the wicked will be like ashes under your feet. Meaning you shouldn’t just fear a god that can destroy your body and not your soul. But fear one that destroys both. So no he’ll isn’t eternal. It’s the annihilation of sin and the souls of sinners where they cease to exist. Basically what Dawkins thinks happens after death will really happen but in the process they will feel temporary pain and suffering of the ripping of their souls. Which will entail the end of the wicked and satan’s existence. I guess atheists like Christopher Hitchens win in that aspect because they will have full separation from god.
@@Mommascooking420 But I mean, like, do you have proof that any of that is true?
@@jmcsquared18 In 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, Paul writes that God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the “wise”, emphasizing that true wisdom comes from God, not human understanding….
Such a good debate. From 40 mins in you could tell they were really listening to each other's points. Wish Lennox asked the omnipotent question better though at 1:02:50
Omnipotent - but no question of overriding laws of nature
The answer to the omnipotence question is that the brokennesss and sin we see around us is not actually a deficiency in our design but the cause of free will in our design. So God being omnipotent didnt create a faulty product but endowed us with free will. We then chose to use this free will to destroy oursleves.
@@nathanvarghese. but he didn't answer the question in our design. If there is faults on people design if they are mentally or physically disabled or born with conditions...why? Why did God do this?
Thank you for posting.
24:00 - Would it really be impossible to believe that the cells were evolved and generated by natural forces, if you also assume that's the way God intended it to be?
This assumes facts not in evidence. There is no credible evidence for the existence of God.
@@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot Yeah but the question was about belief, not scientific proof. There are loads of things we can believe without evidence, but instead based on personal and/or logical rationalizations.
But I do agree with you, but only because there is no credible or authoritive consensus on the definition of God.
@@IsakAidee I believe in many things without evidence. If you tell me you own a dog, I would be inclined to believe you as many people own dogs.
If you said you owned a fire-breathing dragon, I would require evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
It’s impossible to believe that happened by natural processes, there must be something super natural for that to happen, that’s John Lennox point.
@Whiskey.T.Foxtrot
Lack of evidence is not an evidence either. That is the whole point. The point of Dawkins is, there will NEVER be an evidence, which is quite radical but it is his beliefe rather than fact. We are not talking about dragons or dogs. We are talking about ultimate cause, is there a logos or not. And there is no answer, it is all about belief based on the knowledge gathered, including science and history and that is the point Lennox is puting forward, Christianity has evidence and it is up to you to believe it or not.
Starts 5:37
Thank you!
thank you! you saved 5 minutes of my life!
What a bro bless 🙏🏻
God is so beautiful!
Your god, unable to be seen, or measured in any way, is beautiful? Yup, religion is a drug, and you are flying high Andrei.
@@TimthePhilosiraptorExhale english is not first language so cant execute my sentences properly sometims.i will try my best
if you look around nowaday all those young people just say they are athiest as its trend now and it make them look more modern.if you ask them why they dont believe in god they say because scientists said there is no creator.
No earth can not sustain without rain cycle. another example is gravity whithout gravity we could be sucked into space . if life could sustain without rain and gravity then it could sustain without anything then we does not need anything .then it could sustain on moon or mars and all planets around us.yet we havnt found a single microbe anywhere else.
Yes this is designed universe.i cant give you direct prof of physical creator with science if i could then he wouldnt be creator because he created science itself.he gave us freedom and freedom of chioce thats one reason i can say we cant see him.if he would be here and actively controll our life it wont be some free world we live in today.we might see him after we die you might see too but wont be able to comeback to tell other.same other millions of athiests died can not come back and correct you. there is enough evidence to support it in nde stories.you can watch videos on youtube there are tons of them.those people swear by their life that they felt presence of creator when their bodies were lifeless but they allways turn down by mainstream scientists by calling them delusional.well you can deny anything if you want to. those people can not provide evidence what they witnesed but they can just tell story what they witnessed. so its matter of belif for others. sure there is mind behind usiverse.good example i can give you which points to its existence if look at lunar or mars surface its full of gigantic craters.on the other hand our earth's atmosphere burns meteors in mid air before they hit us.then we come to dna,laws of physics,laws of thermodynamics,moon,sun as infinite energy source. Well now you can say it all happened by accident and its there because we are here to question and universe came out of nothingness.
But why there is something rather than nothing.
According to you everything is here in order for no purpose then i think there is no point having an arguement because you can always say it just happened.
dont know what is more delusional believing in creator or in nothingness.
Big problem is secience can not expain everything. I will continue to believe in designed world until science can provide enough good evidence for its claims.
Other day i was watching another interview of richard dawkins on his book god's delusion.at some point he said by looking at gene coding it seems like its well design and it could be done by another intelligent life may be aliens.well it sound like a stuborn a child who does not want believe in an idea of creator but ready to believe in alien or anything else.does not make sense.its just all to prove others wrong and does not matter how many theories they have make up to do it so.but its very easy and simple to say it all happend by accident and came out of nothing so there no point of an argument.but for me there not enough evidence to believe it all came out nothing and set itself in order to support life.anyways if it could be that easy to prove that its not created universe these debates wont be here for ages and all those debate videos you watch on youtube.
@@Psartz "whithout gravity we could be sucked into space" - did you just said that gravity keeps us from being sucked out by vacuum? LOL. That's a flatearther point.
"he created science itself" - if god was real, all science, "design" and everything else wouldn't matter, since his magic defies it all.
You know what, it's pretty easy to prove the globe, but we still have flat Earth debates going on. Stupidity has no limits, bruh.
@Caishen Salelius 6022 Yes, it was revealed in Bruce Almighty.
@Caishen Salelius 6022 these pseudo intellectuals have clearly not watched any movies 🙄
Wonderful debate.
Thank god for science
Yeah God wrote the universe using math. You got it right on target atheist
Thank Him again.
2 great minds; a pleasure to witness!
1 great mind. Lennox is a bumbling buffoon.
1 great mind, Dawkins.😜
@@FourDeuce01 well he is an Oxford Mathematician who are you ? just because he has certain religious beliefs that doesn't make him not brilliant and his points are actually quite good
@@ricmatt05 He should stick to math. Philosophy isn’t his subject.🤡
From your comment, philosophy isn’t your subject either. You can’t judge whether his points are good until you learn some logic.
@@FourDeuce01 well I find his arguments quite logical and honestly you are talking like a child 🧒 Did you even understand anything that he said ?
For me the question that insists on not keeping silent is: "Why did Dawkins run away from the debate with Craig"?
@Roderick Agol lmao. Keep telling yourself that in order to cling to your unsubstantiated claims.
Holy shit! My cat just evolved!!!
Just kidding.