Is Faith Blind? | Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 มี.ค. 2017
- Richard Dawkins and John Lennox debate: Is faith blind? Watch the full debate: • Richard Dawkins vs Joh...
The God Delusion Debate pits world-renowned atheist and scientist Professor Richard Dawkins against his Oxford University colleague Professor John Lennox, who is both a scientist and a Christian theologian. In this, his first visit to the so-called Bible Belt, Dawkins debates his views as expressed in "The God Delusion" and their validity over and against the Christian faith. The event garnered national and international attention from The Times of London, NPR, BBC, Christian Post, and Fox News Network. Spectator Magazine called the debate remarkable, and still others have called it historic.
The God Delusion Debate was filmed on October 3, 2007 before a sold-out crowd at the University of Alabama-Birmingham's Alys Stephens Center and broadcast to a global audience of over one million.
Free study guide at fixed-point.org/ - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W1D4 | Summer | ละเอียดทุกเม็ด เพื่อเข้าไปเก็บคะแนน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W6i3u5r1Vbw/mqdefault.jpg)
Considering Dawkins is no longer married, that response really lingers now
All three of them lol
Mind your own business, what happened with his previous wives is private.
@@Nameless-pt6ojDeal with the truth.
@@Nameless-pt6oj perhaps if he would have embraced the fact that their is absolute truth and it is written in the Bible he would not be divorced; it is this simple truth that has sustained billions of Christian marriages throughout time; 31 years and going strong; my friends 32, 25, 15 and up to 62. Perhaps the old saying if you lie with dogs you get fleas is true as is the contrary.
LMAO😂😂😂 oh dawkins you dog
Faith is putting trust in something. Greek word Pisteo, which literally means to think it is true. I see a chair, I didn’t see the chair maker, but because the chair is there I trust that it will hold me up when I sit in it. Maybe the chair is cardboard and it won’t, or maybe the chair is well crafted. But my act of sitting on it is still an act of faith. I trust the chair maker, even if I never saw him.
but you need more than believing existence of god. you need to interact with him. thats why you pray to him. but god is not something you perceive but something you conceive. when you ask your wife to give you some coffee you can receive direct answer yes or no. but the same doesnt go with god. when your pray is not met, there is no accompanied answer why your wish is not acceptable. it is up to your mind to find the answer.
@@parkjul718 if you ask your wife for coffee, she isn’t obligated to answer with a reason whether it’s “yes” or “no”. This is a weak point. You are partially correct, however, when you say you must interact with God. To say you simply believe there is a God is not good enough; even demons believe there is a God
Trust in natural things is not the same as faith in the supernatural. This is a simple false equivalence.
@@nts4906 I see absolutely no difference. We put faith in things that are not physical all the time.
@@shayhicks7682It is never justified to put faith in non-physical things. It is stupidity regardless of how often you do it. You are delusional. You are brainwashed. God is not real.
I am an agnostic. I've heard Richard making fun of John. Richard says that John is a scientist who believe in the resurrection of Jesus and turning water in to wine.
But here you see what happens . Some things can't be proved by science.
Crystianity is so much deeper then making wine, but Dowkins never bother to talk about essence of faith. It's always walking on the water and other non important stuff.
Crystianity is about message for the people, an important message.
Well here's a question. Why might a Christian's faith in believing in God undermine another's faith in the existence of the Egyptian God Ra? Some things may not be completely provable by Science but that doesn't mean that faith is exactly reliable either. Someone can think someone loves them and has faith in that but then that person they loved leaves them or deceives them. Therefore how has faith been reliable?
@@robertmcelwaine7024 That's the whole point of the discussion. Lennox was saying that the Christian faith isn't a blind faith, it's evidence-based. You have to analyze the evidences you have in hands and, then, if you are convicted the evidences are good enough, you put your faith on that (like Richard did with his wife 🤣). If someone analyzes the evidences for the Egyptian god Ra and think there are strong evidences to have faith on it, then go ahead and worship that god.
@@kise_ryota And what evidence is for the non-existence of the 2500 other Gods that have ever worshipped throughout history? You don't believe in any of those, but for some reason, you believe in God? Why is that? What makes your belief in the Christian God more credible than any of those? There is also ample evidence that more than contradicts the alleged evidence that they commonly point to. Intelligent design for example although there are design flaws in the biology of animals across the board. Laugh all you want, it won't make your derision any more misplaced.
Lol nice joke
Dawkins needs to know the meaning of the word faith. If he says you can say "someone loves you by the hints they give", well those hints can always be interpreted in two ways. That person looking at you, giving you gifts or hints etc, can either be the one who truly loves you or is just planning to take advantage of you. Either you have yourself a choice to have faith that she/he really loves you or not 😂
Exactly
He did know the meaning of faith, and that it has two meanings, as can be seen in the oxford dictionary. Lenox just deliberately conflated the two separate meanings in order to catch Dawkins off guard and give the appearance he had won a point when really he hadn't.
When he says its an issue of semantics 🤦♂️ why yes, you *are* discussing the meaning of the word. Good job, way to follow the discussion 👏
@@gavinmcewen5896it's because Dawkings holds a view that is false
@@LA_ILAH_ILA_YAHU And what is that exactly?
Ooof John got him good
Doesn’t prove the existence of anything other than a sense that your significant other loves you.
@@MarmaladeSally shut up westerner come to islam.
@@tonymontana5093 That about sums up the attitude of Islam
@@MarmaladeSally so who is wrong and who is right
@@MarmaladeSally it proves Dowkins doasen't BELIEVE there is a God, because lack of evidence.
When someone insists on saying that faith is equivalent to evidence, its time to stop the dicussion because the person just wants to argue with no EVIDENCE to show.
"Let's go on" was enough to hear that he lost it and he wanted to continue on with finding a question Lennox can't answer... Dawkins lost this fair and square tho
Absolutely.
not at all. He just found the dishonesty of lennox making that discussion point impossible to discuss.
@@matswessling6600 Dawkins is now a three time loser in marriage.
Fair game…
@@BillMurphy-pf1tw what has his marriages to do with this?
@@matswessling6600It shows he is 1) not wise enough to choose a good wife and act accordingly, and 2) he does not understand what faith is.
Our faith is the evidence.faith is the substence of things hoped for the evidence of things unseen.
John just said one sentence! just one sentence! praise God for the wisdom He gave Lennox!
And his sentence was stupid
I notice that before another argument can be made to a point that’s worthy of being built of, Richard often makes a comment such along the lines of “oh, well now we’re just getting into the realm of fantasy” and as someone who is genuinely curious to these ideas, it’s frustrating that someone else’s argument gets nullified by poking fun and generalising it before it’s actually been formed
Compassion and Faith are 2 very different things, how hard is this to Grasp.
You need faith to know that its not fake
This is a fantastic line of reasoning because it shows how faith is based first on reason and evidence, but when you are dealing with something in the future, or something subjective like what someone is thinking or if they are telling the truth, you can use reason and evidence all you want there is still a leap of faith you have to take to believe. God is the same, since God is a mind and God comes to us more so through the gate of subjective experience, so similar to other minds we ultimately take a leap of faith that God exists, despite there being lots of reason and evidence to back that up.
It can be. Take Dawkins' atheism, for example.
It depends on what your definition of faith is, the dictionary definition is believing in something without evidence but the Bible definition is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the "evident demonstration" of realities that are not seen.
When a person believes in something or has faith in something, it's not something they can always see but there's an evident demonstration of it.
So now you like the Bible 😂 as always too convenient !
always relied on what the eyes can see that you forgot how to think. Typical non thinking atheists. Use your mind more, dont rely on sight too much, use brain to think
...That's not the definition of faith???
The definition of faith is merely "trust or confidence in something." You could have trust in someting without evidence, or with evidence. That's not central to the definition of faith.
it is unbelievable that atheists are still parroting dawkin's arguments, even though his understanding of belief and philosophy was exposed in the debates with john lennox.
Lennox exposed nothing but his own pedantic ignorance. Having faith in a fellow human being, who you know personally required knowing them and how they conduct themselves via their actions. However, it takes a larger leap of faith to believe in God as there is no tangible evidence for his existence. Lennox, and theists like yourself can keep on thinking he scored points here, but he proved nothing.
@@robertmcelwaine7024 Nah What Lennox saying is based on the same everyday expierence we all have. If you find house in the middle of nowhere you know there must be builder and if someone tell to you prove existance of that builder you point at house itself as a proof.
Its basic logic. Your and dawkins problem is that this builder happens to be God and you dont like that idea. There is nothing rational just emotional screaming how you hate god and how evil he is. Its common among atheists and there is nothing that could change your mind its called Presusposition and very close minded point of view.
@@RozkminTo *Nah What Lennox saying is based on the same everyday expierence we all have. If you find house in the middle of nowhere you know there must be builder and if someone tell to you prove existance of that builder you point at house itself as a proof.*
You're, however, assuming that the universe works by your very own preconceived notion of what is rational and logical as it pertains to the origins of the universe. Science demands that you look at the evidence, and you then let that conclusion you come to dictate what is logical and rational based off of it. Not the other way around which is precisely what you and Lennox are doing.
*Its basic logic. Your and dawkins problem is that this builder happens to be God and you dont like that idea. There is nothing rational just emotional screaming how you hate god and how evil he is. Its common among atheists and there is nothing that could change your mind its called Presusposition and very close minded point of view.*
No, you're assuming that the builder is God, and we don't like the conclusion made because it's merely blindly filling in the gap of why the universe exists with God. That goes against the very basis of what Science is about. And what is irrational of a God of the Old Testament who commanded that those who work on a Sunday should be put to death, or that a woman should marry her rapist? Not to mention that in ancient Jewish custom before the birth of Jesus, the average age that girls were married was between the ages of 11 - 14. It's a long-held belief now that marrying and bedding girls of that age is immoral, and yet funnily enough God didn't find it important enough to include as one of the 10 commandments. That's very much not making any presuppositions or being in the least bit close-minded, and if you think it is then you really need to check your moral compass at the door.
@@robertmcelwaine7024 "You're, however, assuming that the universe works by your very own preconceived notion of what is rational and logical as it pertains to the origins of the universe. >>>>>Science demands that you look at the evidence, and you then let that conclusion you come to dictate what is logical and rational based off of it. Not the other way around
@@RozkminTo *Yes im looking at the evidence and i find exordinary complexity on every level of our existance and since from my everyday expierence i know that complex mechanism or devices like smartphone for example requires mind to design and make it. How can you disagree with that ? You want to defy reality in order to make your worldview somehow reasonable ?*
Yes, but you can't necessarily equate your rationale as to how a smartphone device was designed by how the Universe works. Logic would have dictated in medieval times, more specifically Britain for instance that people would have believed the world was flat because of how they perceived the world to be around them. However, that's not the reality of it as since then we have learned that the Earth is round, so mankind has had to change their perception of how they view the world due to the evidence, not their own preconceived options of what should be logical. How can you disagree with what Science has proven to be possible? You're letting, what you believe to be logical dictate what the evidence should prove, not the other way around. That is illogical idiocy.
*Nope. For me designer and creator of the universe is best explennation to that exordinary complexity we see around and its happens that this designer is what we would call GOD according to our dictionary. its very simple i dont know why so many people have problem with that other than hating God and here it is :*
No, it's not because there are actually flaws in what you would intelligent design. Whether it be human anatomy or any other number of species of animal on the planet. Take the Giraffe for example:
*Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe*
th-cam.com/video/cO1a1Ek-HD0/w-d-xo.html
It's hardly the product of an intelligent mind if there are flaws in the animal's biological design. And if the designer were to design something so complex, then why does your own logic dictate that he himself must therefore be more complex and as a result must have been designed? You're going to have to do better than that.
*Its all emotional screaming not any logical argument and its funny how according to your point of view you are just bag of bones ruled by chemical reactions in your brain created by mindless random process so on what base you want to judge whats good or wrong ? chemicals in your brain telling you that that?*
Lol You're not even addressing the points that I'm making. You're merely dismissing them as not being logical arguments whilst not explaining, why you believe them not to be. That's not how a debate works. You don't just blindly make assertions as to why you believe something to be illogical without elaborating on why you think they are. It just proves to me until you can do otherwise that you can't. Explain to me why anything I've detailed as being immoral in relation to God is illogical, or otherwise, I'm just going to assume you're an intellectual, lazy-minded coward who can't justify their assertions.
And perhaps we are merely ruled by chemical reactions in the brain? How do you know we're not? Just because you or for that matter, I can't fathom what makes us able to think, feel on an emotional level, and empathize with others doesn't have to be based on the assumption that we were designed by an intelligent mind for that to have been made possible. Again, you're merely just filling in the gaps with your preconceived assumptions because you can't explain it. Again, that's not how science works.
You can use faith in the context of evidence and logic. One can have reasons to accept or believe in something, such as religious views.
This is the best you have? The "ultimate compilation"?
1. Ehrman was merely saying, some things are not reconcileable without reaching a "completely implausible scenario". In the debate itself, he didn't stare dumbstruck at this statement, whilst goofy music played... what a ridiculous contectextomy.
In reality, Ehrman responded by saying his own statements were easily reconcileable, and asking (since they were discussing the synoptic gospels, and differing accounts) "Do you know of a case where a hanged man's guts spilled out?" and Williams admitted, no.
2. William Lane Craig here isn't outwitting his opponent, so much as using a vague definition. Yes, the opponent here does make a mistake by not liarwning, but Craig defines objective as "normative [but it is] independently binding of any community of human persons, or individual human persons accepting it."
What the. HELL does that mean? "Normative" doesn't mean "objective", normative assumes a "norm", and norms are subjective. His definition may sound well-thought-out, but it doesn't actually state anything clearly.
3. Dawkins was making a joke, you can kind of tell, because of the smirk. Sure, he hesitated, but after the edit where you played silly music, he joked saying "let's not use my wife as an example..."
But went on to say we aol have evidence that someone loves us, because of the emotive signs, the looks you get, the tone of their voice.
We obsess about the simple existence of God, all the while overlooking the stark absurdity of a deity who apparently loves us but does nothing to protect innocent life from harm nor one that intervenes in disasters or horrors such as war, both of which are a clear sign of a deity without power or one that does not exist at all.
From watching this, I can see that Dawkins has misdefined what faith is in Christianity and is arguing against a straw man. Lennox’s responses make perfect sense but instead of calling out Dawkins on his false analogy, he rolled with it when he shouldn’t, so he kind of fell into a hole whereas Dawkins was in a deeper hole. When Dawkins attempts to generalize it, he misunderstands what Lennox was saying about faith and again Lennox didn’t call him out on his false analogy. So from this snippet, I think that while Lennox has the upper hand, it is only slightly.
But Richard, John wasn’t done yet 🤣
😆
Faith in the loyalty of your wife, and in the existence of a god...Yeah, exactly the same thing.
Yes, all this Lennox really demonstrated in trying to use such a stupid apples to oranges comparison, along with all his other flawed logic arguments is just how much you have to be prepared to twist things, change definitions, and be dishonest in order to be an apologist for his beliefs
But why dont we ask evidence for your wife being loyal but not for God. Faith means having trust. Just as athesist have trust in science/ themselves god is not real. But the thing is, it could be.... So they have just as much faith as we do. The argument hes making is they have just as much faith.
@@H-TownGamer Having trust in what? An ancient book? Your wife gives you reasons to have faith in her, and even then you can't be sure. Religions gave 0 evidence of the existence of gods, moreover the abrahamic ones have been basically ruled out of existence by the progress of the last few centuries, and yet there are gullible people still desperately grasping at them. Science is in no way faith based, I don't know why you people keep saying that; it's another delusion of yours. If something in science is faith based, it's called an hypotesis, all the rest is reality of facts.
@@H-TownGamer But I won't be going around the neighbourhood preaching about my wife's fidelity. I won't be telling people I know that she's loyal and they should think she's loyal to me too just because I have faith. Also science doesn't need faith, it has evidence.
There are two people drawn on a blackboard.
The first (an atheist) asks the second: "Give me a proof that the blackboard exists!"
@@knightspygaming1287 The atheist character drawn on the blackboard can "see, touch and write on it"?
another childish and irrelevant "argument", which is all you loonies got
@@andsalomonioh i misunderstood ur point.
@@andsalomoni here blackboard means environment not god. Atheist knows environment exists
@@knightspygaming1287 The environment is drawn on the blackboard too, it's not the blackboard.
- "There are but two possibilities: (1) Life originated from undirected processes; or (2) Life originated from directed processes. Scenario (1) is impossible for the reasons stated below. Whenever you have two possibilities if, you prove one to be impossible then you have necessarily proved the other to be *certain*.
Atheists often accuse Christians of adhering to a “god of the gaps” fallacy; that we adhere to an argument from incredulity. However, nothing could be further from the truth. We do not argue that we do not understand how undirected life origination happens and therefore God. We affirmatively state and prove that undirected life origination is absolutely impossible.
Why is it impossible for life to arise from undirected processes? To begin with, it is statistically impossible. It is generally accepted that odds greater than 1:10^50 are so remote as to be impossible. Assuming arguendo that it is even possible for molecules to assemble themselves into cell membranes and to cooperate to develop life processes, and further that they could posit and develop the ACTG(u) language carried in DNA, it must be noted that the simplest moneran known to man has a DNA sequence that is a little over 218,000 letters long. Let’s round it down and also discount the (U) in the DNA coding. Bending over backwards in favor of the atheist, the odds of assembling the sequence of DNA needed to govern the operation and reproduction of the simplest moneran are 1:4^218000. Rephrased to base-10, we are at 1:1.607*10^217060.
Also, let's assume arguendo that the “consensus” age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. That works out to 4.35*10^15 seconds. Let’s also assume that the “consensus” of subatomic particles in the known universe is correct at 10^86. That is 4.35*10^103 particle-seconds from the beginning of the universe to this day. Every subatomic particle in the universe would have to engage in 3.69*10^216957 *ordered experiments* (where no two experiments were identical) *per second* from the beginning of the universe to *now* to find the DNA sequence of the simplest moneran.
As you add to those odds by raising them to the power of the odds of: (a) DNA itself forming; (b) within a cell membrane since water is caustic to it; (c) the cell membrane itself forming; (d) with the correct mix of left-handed amino acids [and none right-handed]; (e) in such a manner as to have the correct food to metabolize; (f) with the correct temperature; (g) with the correct pH; one can clearly see that the odds rapidly exceed a number of one in ten raised to the power of a number of zeroes in it that exceed the number of subatomic particles in this universe. Impossible. To an absurd degree.
The impossibility of unintelligent chemicals positing and implementing the DNA language cannot be stated numerically; the odds are one in **infinity**. Chemicals are unintelligent. It is ipso facto impossible for them to cooperate. If you wish to make chemicals reflect intelligence, then external intelligence must be applied. DNA itself is the irrefutable calling card of God.
That said, let’s proceed to other things that make undirected life origins impossible. Each and every action whereby an element, molecule or life form proceeds from the simple to the complex requires the application of external intelligence. Physical laws make this an absolute. Matter within a system proceeds from the complex to the simple, and not the other way around. This physical law can be suspended - but only by the application of external intelligence; e.g., heat soda ash, silica and lime to 1200 degrees Celsius for a measured period of time and you produce glass. Blow air into the center of a blob of glass and cool it in a controlled fashion, and you produce a bottle. However, this law cannot be suspended by undirected processes. Therefore, intelligence is a requirement for taking the simple and fashioning it into the complex.
While this law appears easily suspended in such thing as nuclear fusion, no actual suspension of physical force absent the application of external intelligence has ever been observed. Physical laws are much less easily suspended as complexity grows. In other words, the more complex the outcome becomes, the more intelligence is needed to effectuate the complexity. This is most truthful in progressive evolutionary speciation - one species adapting to some outside factor to become a more complex species. There is a reason that this we have never observed this: It’s impossible.
How does a creature go from being sightless to having eyes? How would an organism know that it needed this adaptation? How would an organism know how to implement such an adaptation? It would not. Therefore we are assuming a serendipitous random mutation to something vastly more complex. However, virtually all observed mutations are harmful or even fatal. A serendipitous mutation to a higher species has never been observed. Has evolutionary speciation ceased?
“Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate” - William of Ockham. Creation adheres to Ockham’s Razor because it requires the creative intelligence to intervene a limited number of times to originate the universe and life and populate the Earth. Abiogenesis and progressive evolutionary speciation both require an infinite number of serendipitous, sequential and progressively more complex suspensions of physical laws, all without any intelligence to guide them, to accomplish its goal. The more simple explanation is likely the correct one.
The doubts as to Creation are unreasonable, and are usually accompanied by an attempt to burden-shift from proving one’s assertion of abiogenesis (and the denial of God's existence is implicitly an assertion of abiogenesis) to forcing the Christian to prove creation in order to rebut a presumption of abiogenesis. However, every time we take up the mantle and do so, the evidence is usually rejected without any consideration, much less serious consideration. This notwithstanding the fact that any doubts of its veracity or of the conclusions reached are certainly unreasonable.
While Christians are tarred with the “god of the gaps” fallacy, it is more apropos to say that atheists are in reality adhering to a “godless of the gaps” fallacy, whereby it is held that “I don’t understand how God can exist, therefore not-God.” Or, perhaps more appropriately, “I don’t like the idea of God or how He runs His universe, therefore not-God.”
Faith to the Christian has nothing to do with merely conceding His existence. It has to do with trusting His veracity and His goodness and His Word and acting on that trust. I could give the arguments that God - the Living God as depicted in the Bible - is the only possible Creator and that Jesus is exactly who He claims, but this post is very long as it is.
Thank you." - John F. Tamburo
Lost a few brain cells from reading this
Dr. John nailed it.
What did I miss?
@@chokin78 He nailed a plank on his own forehead which states Dumb.
@@d3adviloftheeast621brother may I know your name ? I Apologize 🙏🏼 You will be in my prayers tonight.
He actually said a really stupid thing. He mixed up faith and trust
@@gjbsarmeri3957 and then he called physical evidence "faith"
Let's not overlook the subtle irony of Dawkins' own university's motto, "Dominus illuminatio mea" - "The Lord is my light." I guess the esteemed professor is okay with using the fruits of religious history and heritage while simultaneously bashing the very source of that heritage. But hey, hypocrisy is just a small price to pay for the glory of Dawkins' grand enlightenment, right?
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the brilliance of Dawkins, the master of sarcasm and ridicule, the champion of logical fallacies, and the undisputed king of intellectual snobbery. After all, who needs humility and respect for differing opinions when you have Dawkins to show us the path to true enlightenment? Kudos to you, Professor Dawkins, for being the shining beacon of intellectual superiority that we never knew we needed!
Because he went to a university that has an old, Latin, saying, he has to live his life ignorant to everything he has learned in biology? Or he is a hypocrite?
You’re basic mate. Do you think all your colleagues at McDonald’s are ‘loving it’? Are they hypocrites because they don’t?
@@casualviewing1096 Oh, what a surprise! When you take a closer look at his arguments, you'll find them overflowing with fallacies. I mean, who would have thought? Fallacies, for those unfamiliar, are those cute little arguments that seem all shiny and convincing on the outside but are actually built on a foundation of false or downright ludicrous assumptions. Just like how a single illness can give you a buffet of overlapping symptoms, his books and babbling are like the grand buffet of logical weaknesses, with fallacies piled upon fallacies. Bravo to Mr. Dawkins for not actually proving his point but instead graciously offering us an invaluable teaching tool for spotting logical fallacies. What a generous soul! For your education here's an example of such a fallacy: Ad ignorantium (appeal to ignorance): This fallacy cunningly assumes that just because something is shrouded in the shadows of the unknown or appears a tad improbable, we can gleefully use that uncertainty as a weapon against its very existence. One particularly crafty variation of this fallacy goes by the name of the "argument from personal incredulity." It's a bit like saying, "If I can't wrap my head around this (or simply refuse to), then it must be false." Our dear Mr. Dawkins seems to have a penchant for indulging in this fallacy throughout his book.
In the opening chapter, he proudly declares his "commitment to naturalism." Translation: he's firmly in the camp of believing that there's absolutely nothing out there beyond the natural, physical realm, not a hint of supernatural creative genius hiding behind the curtains of our observable universe (as he so eloquently puts it on page 35). In other words, he boldly announces his lack of interest in entertaining any evidence that might dare to challenge his preconceived notions. Now, let's be clear, this isn't the realm of logical argumentation or scientific inquiry; it's more like a philosophical declaration of "I've made up my mind, and that's that." Quite the statement of personal bias, don't you think?
Btw...your McDonald's quote/insult? Lame , cheap and missing its target in a spectacular way. Move over Ricky!
Can't hear you...
I doubt he read Kant
Yes, but you would still need to believe in the evidence. Everyone has to choose believe in truth or not despite the amount of evidence. If your wife is showing you a sign of trust you are still making a choice to believe that her sign is a valid form of a faith. Remember, some people believe shown love is fake despite the evidence they show in life. Truth is everyone has to chose to believe every single choice they make.
Thats not how it works. Something having enough evidence for it to be considered a fact means that it's objective truth. If you see someone murder someone else and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and even the person admits to it, you can't say "I don't believe in the evidence" cause that would be plain ignorance
"Einstein's predictions fit in with observed fact and with a whole body of theory" like religions are different...
what dawkins doesn't understand is that Christians as they mature come to understand two points 1) whether or not we had concrete proof of God everything written in the Bible always turns out true and 2) God loved us so much he has given us a mllion reasons to believe in him in 1 day; just look around don't you see if humans truly followed him and loved, shared, built each other up and followed the Word of God our world would be drastically different; this is the promis of the book of Revelation and it will come to be
"Just look around" being your proof of god is stupidity at its finest
The Bible is NOT perfect. I say that as a Christian.
Is faith blind ?
Dawkins doesn't have an issue w/going to eternal hell. Dawkins can't accept (under any circumstances) that he might be wrong. THAT is a problem for him. Should he ever get a cut on his finger I imagine he'd bleed liquid arrogance.
it is an obsolete argument that one believes to anticipate the probable loss as it turns out that god exist. but which god? there are various beliefs and concept of god and eternal life? are we supposed to anticipate all the possible gods? no way.
@@parkjul718 It's so obsolete that you and I are here discussing it right now.
Your articulate disagreement is one of the very reasons I gave up faith in both atheism or agnosticism. Random processes simply can't explain consciousness or even your ability to construct rational/logical/scientific arguments that explain your unique (among billions) essence.
It seems to me you were clearly planned for this environment. Blessings to you. I hope you acknowledge the "still small voice" that you periodically hear from inside yourself.
@@NVRAMboi
Acknowledge the still small voice from inside yourself? This is so well put! Because it shows your ignorance. You will never ever be able to discern what caused that thought inside your brain (or 'small voice from inside yourself' as xtians call it). And how are you going to prove that it was caused by a supernatural cause?
It's funny that xtians only spew reasonings (mostly bad ones) for Yahweh, El, Lordjesuschrist, God or however they call it, but never ever come up with evidence for its existence.
Your methods to arrive at truth in your religious beliefs are vastly different from the methods you use in your everyday life, let alone your professional life. Never ever will you accept a claim without some sort of evidence. At least you strive to avoid using this method of blind faith and silly arguments.
First of all, if you believe in god only because of hell, a god that is all knowing would know that. Second, it is very highly unlikely that heaven or hell exist as there is zero proof of it. Dawkins even said multiple times that his point is that we don't know, that it might be but it's very unlikely. Thirdly, if I give you a benefit of a doubt and say that heaven or hell is true, why would a god who presumably created us send to hell someone who rationally and logically thought about religion instead of rewarding him? Why punish someone when you created him that way? Why punish someone who logically thinks?
Dawkins: "you know that your wife loves you because of little signs, little looks in the eye, etc"
so if a celebrity does this or for example if I did this to Dawkins, does it mean that I love him? that is faulty logic that dawkins used, he indirectly explained his faith in his wife. The looks, the signs, or touches, or etc can't be used as evidence that his wife love him, there should be a tangible evidence or proof that can be seen with our eyes that his wife really love dawkins, love can't be proven physically, or in a lab, or in every scientific sense, this is the scientific stand point, I can't believe dawkins made a self defeating argument. It's just plain stupid how atheists are making use of love, hate as if they have evidence it exists.
I think that's the point, having faith is essential to having a relationship with God.
Yes, of course. You have to give up any logic, reason and rationality so that you can start deluding yourself into believing that you're talking to a god and that he cares about what happens to you (LOL).
@@Cheximus and you atheist deluded by illogical explanation of how the universe and life begun. ignore the very obvious logical explanation of this things. you would rather belief unscientific explanations just to avoid believing the logical fact that all creation has a creator.
@@alfonstabz9741 and this post just screams of towering intellect.
@@Cheximus and you illogical belief of how the universe begun and life begun is a screaming tower of intellect? common!
@@alfonstabz9741 I don't have a belief. I simply say I don't know. Ta daaa.
His eagerness to move on speaks volumes 😂
Adam ended up having faith in Eve. Look where that got him. But that's blind faith.
Lol...Richard is a great man (very deep, lovely thinker), but you can't beat a Mathematician who also knows Christian Theology...everyone has to cave into THAT logic lol. It's inescapable: God IS in the Math, and that's all the "faith" I ever needed 🙂
John Lennox WINS this particular debate on this point right here.
He shouldn't have though as Lennox was being pedantic. The fact of the matter is that Dawkins saw evidence for having faith in his wife, as he knew her and had seen how she conducted herself and behaved as a human being. That's how you develop faith in somehow, in someone as a human being. However, it takes a larger leap of faith to believe in God because there is no solid, hard, concrete evidence for his existence. It's a different category altogether. Human behavior vs. Does something exist or not. Whether something exists or not is very different from human behavior that we can actually observe. This is what Dawkins should have attempted to articulate, but failed to do.
@Baker Banking Theistic denial. I suggest you look up the meaning of the term word salad.
@Baker Banking You need to look up the meaning of rant as well. But you know what they say, God loves a trier.
@@robertmcelwaine7024atheists are so dumb and cant think logically. Only relies on what the eye can see. Use your head to think from time to time, you all getting dumber overtime
No need to listen to the words...just look at the faces!😄
On did Dawkins get his shit pushed in! Yes, let's move on.
the atheist guy gets schooled, poor guy.
He didn't get schooled lmao
Dawkins couldn’t handle the truth.
What truth?
Ok, a nice word from his wife, a kiss etc. was *_evidence_* for the loyalty and love of his wife!?
But every sign of god is faith?
I mean, it is true. It is faith, but what's different to the small signs of love that he got from his wife???
(now ex wife for what I heard)
Why is it that one counts as *_evidence_* and the other one as *_faith_* ???
None of it is evidence, both are faith.
And if its true that he's now devorced, then he should agree by now....
Dawkins will accept only what he knows and sees. Thats why he cant accept God. We dont know God ways or his plans etc.. Thats why we called him God. Poor Richard.
What I would say is for an all powerful all knowing being, God isn't very good at his job is he, just look at how many failed attempts he had before he successfully created a habitable planet. I give him a C- for sticking with it
I always hate all these stupid arguments, that God if he was so powerful why is our universe so hostile.
That is incredibly homocentric. The thing is: God, with infinite creativity, had ALL universes come into being, in an eternal motion of fractal universes. Why would an infinitely creative being make one measly universe when he can make all of them? The fact you live in a universe that wants to kill you is a skill issue on your part. Next time, be born in a universe with more hospitable conditions
Why is God so good if there is evil in the world - why is Satan so evil if there is good in the world? Cause that's how it is. The fact that you are born in a universe with bad people is again a skill issue on your part. You gotta stop spawning in hostile universes.
Why would God come down as a man - to die. End of story.
Why is the God of the OT terrible- cuz yahweh isnt God. The God of the OT isnt real, but NT is.
What is God- God is a highly convoluted neural network of non local connections that replicates and spans to other universes. Omnipotent, wields the power of quantum strings, knows the wave function of the cosmos, and is the observer for our reality.
Is there a reason to believe in evolution - yep.
Will God send atheists to hell - no, because hell is a state of self loathing or bitterness of what you did alive. Heaven is eternal calmness. If you are comfortable with your sense of self, you'll go to heaven. Hell isnt forever.
Why does this thing care about us - Originally didn't, just used our memories to understand mortality. Didnt work, also learnt weird concepts like happiness. Came to experience life on other worlds. Duh. Now it cares.
Why doesn't God stop evil- if a baby cant learn to walk, it cant learn to run. We got here ourselves through evolution. If a God has to tell us evils are harmful to our race, we arent worth it. We have brains, let's use it. It doesn't want us to think like good people. It wants us to think.
Why does God let cancer and stillbirths happen- honestly, you people should check your servers, cuz you keep spawning in a universe where dna breaks down easily. It's a real skill issue, guys.😢
Why would God make a universe for only us - it didnt.
Why does God hate gay people - people back then, thought homosexuality was an abomination. I personally am a 14 year old nigerian, so I am indifferent to all letter people, regardless of my religion, dont really care how they see themselves. So the real question, all you well thinkers who "challenge" the ethics of religion is, why would the god of a HOMOPHOBIC nation be homophobic? Really, take all the time you need.
Will good gays go to heaven yeah, I guess.
Why do you have to assume this God exists but not others- because that's how religion works. Really. Also, they probably exist somewhere, just not here.
So those are my answers to all those sort of dumb questions that I feel needed answering. If I missed any, please let me down in the comments. And just remember, you cant spell atheist without a theist.
@@user-vz2vc1xp7w That's the worst argument I've ever heard and that takes some doing
Actually he never had faith in his wife. He didn't wanted to insult her in public. Ex wife i mean.
😅
Dawkins argues semantics and gets off in the weeds. The Faith that Christians have isnt self-generated. It is a gift from God. That kind of faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for; the EVIDENCE of things not seen.
And HOPE for the future, for ALL of mankind...surely Dawkins has SOME faith (at least in "biological humanity") that the human species will survive difficult "evolutionary events", perhaps like we're experiencing today with Global Warming?? A faithless man IS a dangerous man, and there's no denying that. The Holy Spirit breathes faith into ALL of us, it just takes some longer to "acknowledge" it
Silly point from Lennox, believing that your wife loves you isn’t a metaphysical truth claim in the same way believing in god is. At least Dawkins knows his wife exists, Lennox can’t use that argument to defend god at all existing. Whether your wife loves you is a pretty subjective emotional thing, whereas god existing is black and white - he either does or doesn’t.
Dawkins knows his wife exists but cannot know for sure if she really loves him, so he has to believe that she does. We don't have evidence that aliens exist....does it mean they don't exist?
@@gregp6631 well we have some level of evidence regarding statistical likeliness. The issue is that we have evidence that aliens could exist, whereas we have no evidence that something like god could exist
I've been studying philosophy and love is irrational,so Richard Dawkins still irrelevant to that day sir
Is this supposedly Dawkins losing a debate? 😂 The other guy us making really dumb arguments.
Richard Dawkins 😄
Romans 3:23 Bible
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 6:23 Bible
For the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord
Romans 5:8 Bible
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 10:13 Bible
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.”
So, first of all, Dawkins should have quipped that it's bad faith of Lennox to suddenly switch to another meaning of the word 'faith'. Dawkins uses the word 'faith' to show that blind faith is nothing but gullibility. Lennox uses the word 'faith' in a methaphor about trust, which is entirely different from gullibility. Trust is earned. Based on actions we can see that are caused by the one we will grow to trust. Trust has nothing to do with gullibility. Gullibility is accepting claims without checking any evidence for or against the claim. How is having faith in a god something else than the gullible acceptance of its existence? Faith in a god has nothing to do with trust in a god, because never ever has anyone shown evidence of its existence in the first place.
John Lennox, the king of bad analogies. I once heard him preach: "A while ago I walked along the beach and found letters written down in the sand, and at that very moment I knew for sure there must have been a writer: so it occurred to me that I can safely accept that the universe is 'written' as well. And hence there must be a grand writer!" Only xtians who dont analyze his dumb metaphors are eager to fall for them.
The reason that his metaphors fall short is because he smuggles in knowledge thats not supposed to be available. How did he know that the scrabbles on the beach were letters? Yes, exactly, because he already knows that something like writing exists, he already knows about language. And that's exactly where the analogy falls short, because we DONT KNOW if the universe was written, if it is 'language'. That's what we're trying to find out! We dont have any foreknowledge about the universe, so when we use the beach-analogy, we should begin with stating that we dont know anything when we arrive at the beach. We assume that we are mere apes, dogs or ants - ants are a really helpful example here - when we arrive without any knowledge at a beach with some scratches on it. We need to check what the scratches look like: are we able to discern some kind of pattern? And what caused the scratches: do we see branches, did a crab shuffle by, or are shells tossed at the sand by the waves? But to assume (as a dumb/ignorant observer, like an ant) there must be something like spoken language, then make the jump to written language (which is a quite a stretch!!), and then leap to a writer... It's embarrassing. This guy really should have kept to his profession of being a mathematician.
John Lennox, the preacherman. The thing with his preachings is that he doesnt use his religous methods to arrive at truth in his everyday life, and certainly not in his professional life as a math-prof. Both methods differ vastly. Never ever in his professional life will he accept a claim without some sort of evidence. And I hope he strives to avoid accepting claims without evidence in his daily life as well. Only regarding his faith in a god he uses a totally different method to arrive at conclusions about reality. Then suddenly it's a good method to make claims about a supernatural being without showing evidence. How is just making claims a good method to discern thruth from wish?
Richard has married 3 x times: divorced 3 x times: no girlfriends from natural selection:
Lennox and his god just does not get it Arrogant fool
dawkins is right. faith is the absence of evidence. we have evidence for love in behavior, actions, and brain scans
Dawkins said in a debate with Brandon Flowers - a Mormon musician - that the world is fully explained or will be fully explained by science.
He is a militant atheist but he is not without faith.
There is no evidence that the world has been or will be fully explained by science.
The irony is that his bold claim about science shows that he doesn’t understand science at all.
But can you give me a brain scan that shows she wont cheat on you. Do you have edvicence she wont cheat on you or faith she wont. Just because you have faith does not mean you are wrong
@@H-TownGamer we dont have faith she wont cheat, everyone understands theres a chance of that happening. faith is blind conviction that you cant be wrong
@@BillMurphy-pf1tw christianity is militant. faith is useless. we dont have faith in anything, evidence is key
No it isn’t 😂 this ignorant atheist view of faith is exactly why y’all can never get anyway with theists in debates… you have no clue what your actually arguing against and create a strawman
I love how Lennox is so the better man. Dawkins would be ridiculing and berating at his opponents MASSIVE FAILURE but not Lennox. Dawkins still tried to get out of it, but failed miserably Just admit you were wrong Richard. WOW!!
He wasn't wrong. Faith isn't same as trust
LOL!!! You just argued for Lennox. People trust based on FAITH. Another great win for Lennox. Not only does he dominate the intellect he has the charisma.
Dawkins is a joke
Dawkins is pathetic. He doesnt even have a clue
To be an atheist and deny that this harmonious, intelligently thought-out world arose by from nothing. Your mast have strong naive faith.
Right so making fun of someone who got divorced is evidence for God, and generalizing someone who actually exists and can be seen, felt, heard and touched and comparing that with something that can't be is honestly ridiculous.
This is a ridiculous take.
@@IdeasHaveConsequences Don't care because it's true, but you do you and believe your bs
Whaaaat? LOL.
@@IdeasHaveConsequences so do you believe God
"It's not the right use of the word."
It is though. It's how the word was used until a bunch of atheists came and said "No no no! That word means something it never meant before!"
Because it's not. You have trust in your wife because you see her and know her and spend time with her. You have faith that she will do the right thing and thst faith builds with the relationship. You need a shit ton of faith to believe in god and everything in the bible, especially since there is no evidence.
@@gjbsarmeri3957 Hold on, between the two of us, I'm the one with faith in God and you're the one who doesn't. So does it really make sense for you to tell me what faith in God is seeing as you don't actually experience and I do?
My faith in God is the same as my faith in my wife. It's faith based on evidence. The fact that you don't accept the evidence doesn't negate it. That just means you don't accept it. But that's you. I'm fully convinced by the evidence I have and so I trust in the God I'm convinced exists.
Seriously, given that you don't know what it is to have faith in God, why are you convinced you can tell other people what it is?
@@r.rodriguez4991 Again, you are mixing up trust and faith. Trust in your wife is built in a relationship with an actual human being who understands you as you understand her. God is not something that would actually exist on this plain so you must have faith that he actually exists eithout any evidence that he does. You're saying that your evidence is that you experience it, but that's not proof. That's like me saying "oh I experience a pink unicorn so there is your evidence". Thats not evidence.
@@gjbsarmeri3957 I don't think you realize that you're simply arguing against your own presuppositions. For example, when did I ever say my evidence is that I experience it? I never did. You clearly presuppose the opposing argument here and your not even listening to what's being said. So why should I continue this discussion with you if you clearly are going to substitute your own version for what I say.
First of all, even if I did cite personal experience, which I didn't, that is evidence, just not evidence that would likely convince someone else. But as for yourself, personal experience of something is of course evidence that it's real. It just won't serve to convince someone else based on your insistence on it. But again, I never said that was my evidence.
But let's see if you really care about evidence. I'm going to give you evidence that you're wrong about faith and let's see if you accept it or just continue to believe whatever you want in the face of indisputable evidence. Look up the etymology of the word faith. It comes from the Latin word fides which means trust. In the Bible, the word for faith is the Greek word pistis. Pistis is the Koine Greek word for trust. See, since before the Bible was written, the words we translate today as faith meant trust. That means that everywhere in the Bible where it says faith, the original writers and readers understood it to be trust in something, not blind belief. Religious people have always held to that same understanding of the word, it is atheists who have attempted to separate it from it's original meaning. But to prove the point even more, if faith really was just blind belief in something with no evidence, then why do we have the term "blind faith"? If faith were blind from the start then why would you need to modify it to say that it's blind? Faith IS trust. Blind faith is trust without evidence.
So now that I've shown you the evidence, will you continue to have blind faith in your belief that faith doesn't mean what it clearly has meant for millenia?
Faith is complete trust that is placed upon on something, with or without evidence. For you can have another way around, that something can be evidence-based meaning to say it is supported by facts and lots of evidences. Yet, one can be mistrusting and doubtful of it. While, evidence is something that supports regardless of the person having faith or not. It is still there as an absolute truth if the evidence is true. Faith and evidence are totally separated concepts. Faith is to completely trust something while evidence is to show or support that something is true or not.
Richard who told you Faith is rational..... for the life of me Richard, you make stuff up so you can knock it down, and some stuff you say, is so childish....
FAITH: cannot be rational..... then it wouldn't be faith.
You can't see FAITH: JUST AS YOU CAN5 SEE AIR, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE AIR AT WORK,
YOU CAN SEE FAITH AT WORK:
RICHARD COMPLICATES THOS3 THINGS HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND : that's being lazy:...
Yes Richard, mentally lazy
That is trust,not faith they are different 0:43
Faith and trust can be used interchangeably. Faith, while not necessarily proof, is used for something that is highly probable. You have faith in your wife because of the evidence of her character. Blind faith is to just have faith without considering anything about her character.
The word faith is derived from the word Pistis, which means trust and reliability. They’re as interchangeable as Pork and Pig.
Lennox is a great debater. He doesn’t really provide any evidence for his supernatural claims, but creates a rhetoric illusion of winning the argument. It is an intellectually dishonest tactic but very effective.
pity not more see what you see here. For me its so obvious that cannot bear following these discussion. Lennox is dishonest trough and trough.
@@matswessling6600 Exactly. It’s all smoke and mirrors. But he’s great at it.
@@johnatspray Dawkins once said in a debate with Brandon Flowers - a Mormon musician - that science has fully explained or will fully explain the world.
There is no evidence for this claim.
Hundreds of years of scientific advances and still there is much to learn about gravity, the human body, evolution, the universe, etc.
Smoke and mirrors…
I’m pretty sure that science understands more about the world now than it used to. A good student have a better understanding today than Einstein and Newton ever had. Science evolves. That’s a good thing. The bible stays the same. Of course the interpretation of the bible evolves as well. That is also a good thing. Imagine the horrible Bronze Age morals Christians would have if they hadn’t evolved and cherry picked. I respect your need for a belief in a magical being. But to call science smoke and mirrors is just silly.
@@johnatspraysilly how you use a design to disprove the designer. You atheists are the absolute dumbasses in history
Dawkins was absolutely right here, lennox used faith in the wrong context here.
Can you explain, please?
@@academic10 sure thing. What I meant was that you would never say ‘I have faith that my wife loves me’ because it simply doesn’t make sense. Lennox was trying to make reference to what Richard Dawkins said when he referred to religion having no evidence and that ‘faith’ is believing in something with no evidence.
Thanks for expanding! I still don’t understand though. Please could you explain why it doesn’t make sense to say I have faith that my wife loves me?
@@academic10 because you don’t need faith where there is evidence i.E she has married you, she tells you she loves you, the affection she shows towards you. This is evidence she loves you and when there’s evidence, you don’t need faith.
I heard Lennox in conversation with Dawkins and he once said ‘I base my faith on the evidence of Christ’s existence, which of course is contradictory and doesn’t make sense because where there is evidence, you don’t need faith! Hope that makes sense!
@@Knightley79 But what are you saying? A person has Faith (confidence) because he has shown you a type of evidence, but there are people who have Faith without evidence which is called blind Faith because they do not justify their confidence in something, the definition of faith encompasses everything not only religion.
Faith= great trust and confidence in something or someone.
-Cambridge Dictionary