Atheist Dawkins STUNNED by Oxford Professor on God and Science-John Lennox EPIC Debate  

So everything is religious? So if you say you love something it'l automatically means something religious and not objective

Atheism, which embodies naturalistic redutionist principles does not provide a basis for objetive transcendent values like justice, love, absolute morality, and absolute truth, which from an atheist view is all relative and not objective since there is no intention to the universe (i.e. by implication morality is just a subjective social construct). Thus, when we talk about intangible values and free will you are not talking about a material priniciple, but an immaterial value. When you talk about intagible, immaterial values you are simply stepping into philsophy and religion. After all, as an atheist you have to accept that "what is, is", so then by implication love as an intangible value is not real since there is no external, transcendent mind to establish them and define it and is simply not a free will decision, but a response determined by our complex biochemicals. The argument of a theist, which is my position is that free will, our biology, laws of nature are derivative of an eternal personal being who creates all things includinng matter and energy (or biochemicals), space and time. The philosophical reason for this is that since we start from the premise that the universe has a beginning from which time and space emerged there must be an uncaused cause to start the universe. The uncaused cause of the universe has to be a personal being with intention to bring the universe to be, intelligent, to accout for the rational intelligibility and the complexity of the universe and also an immaterial, spiritual being (i.e. a personal being without a body), because before space and time there was no material. This makes infinitely more sense becasue all truth including scientific truth are derivatives of this eternal mind fom which all truth including philosphical values like morality, purpose, and human value, which comes from the intentionality of a creator to create a human being with intentionality (i.e. meaning and significance).

@DanielAkinnagbe Couldn't have said it better. The concepts behind those words don't fit into the atheists' naturalistic worldview, as they by nature transcend the material world and so they end up being redefined.

Right.

The scientific method was invented by a monk, a Christian. Of course, Christians search for scientific answers! The opposite attitude is absolutely ridiculous.

Dawkins knows he can't play his usual game with Lennox for two reasons. 1. They both have English accents, so that can't be relied upon to convince an American listener (who have the bad habit of thinking an English accent means intelligence and sophistication). 2. Lennox is also a trained scientist.

@@selderaneI’ve seen full debates with Dawkins and Lennox and Dawkins makes him look stupid every time, Lennox is not a scientist, I’ve seen him try to answer the question who made god like this - he’s not a created god, that’s an illegitimate question, does that sound like a scientific answer to you?

@@Notarabbit911what do you mean by that???

@@poereto3662 it’s not an answer science will accept

@@Notarabbit911 the issue is the question itself. It assumes Lennox believes in a created ‘god’. He doesn’t.

Only because it yielded such power. Science would exist regardless. If the world restarted now, science books would be re written the same, but religious texts would be different.

My current house has a well and legal searches showed until the mid 1980's the Church of England were extorting taxes/tithes on it. The still hold many for church maintenance that can run into millions. Don't underestimate how rich these poisonous organisations are, or their power even today. Newton lived at a time when heresy was still punishable by death so of course he framed his discoveries around the god he'd been indoctrinated with. God, fortunately, now has no place in the facts of modern science because the truth can now be told without fear of execution. You say "The Church, which was the center of learning in the Middle Ages" so how do explain the incredible scientific and mathematical discoveries of the ancient Greeks? What about ancient Indian and Chinese technologies or the algebra and algorithms of the Babylonians? Did this church you claim erect the pyramids? What about the incredible engineering achievements of the Romans. You have tunnel vision.

​@nakkadu and your supporting evidence is?

​@@byteme9718 you have no vision

The big bang theory is clergyman Georges le Maitre's cosmic seed idea. Perhaps he was inspired by the idea of someone planting a vineyard, a theme from the bible.

Where was he shown to be wrong? Lennox asked a question, and he answered it. He just didn't like the word "faith" as the word "trust" would be more suitable in the scenario Lennox outlined. But he did answer Lennox.

Where exactly was Dawkins "stunned" here? When Lennox made a bad analogy and the audience laughed? Did you miss the immediate dismantling of the analogy afterward? 🤦🏽‍♂️ Dawkins wasn't using "semantics"... He was trying to nail down a working definition for the word "faith" which Christina's seem alter regular and muddy up.... Faith in your spouse loving you is not comparable to faith that there's an invisible all powerful being who controls the universe... 🤦🏽‍♂️

@@amac9044 i didn’t say he was stunned. The title of the clip did. But in truth, he was certainly flustered and at a loss for words. And no. He didn’t dismantle the analogy. All he said was essentially “well let’s not talk about that.” Dawkins’ definition offered was belief without reason or proof. But when Lennox asked if he had faith in his wife, the answer was yes and that it was based on reason and proof. Lennox wasn’t using any semantic fallacy. He merely showed that Dawkins’ definition wasn’t appropriate. Christians say that faith is belief in something or someone. Dawkins was muddying it up by adding to the definition. Faith in one’s spouse is based on a decision to believe and is usually grounded in experience and reason. That’s exactly the same with faith in God and religion. It’s not an analogy. It’s a corollary. By the way, the audience didn’t laugh at a “bad analogy.” They laughed at the fact that Dawkins was hoisted by his own petard. That’s why Dawkins raised his hands and tried to change the subject stutteringly.

@@speculativebubble5713 he’s shown to be wrong in the fact that he couldn’t answer it. Notice that his response was “well let’s not talk about that.”

@@jasonrodgers880 : No he wasn't. He pulled up short of telling the fat guy that his question was absurd. One does not have to have faith that their wife exists. All the evidence shows that she does. All gods are invisible and unprovable, therefore people have to have faith that they exist. Do you have to have faith that your mother and father exist? Or do you know for a fact that they do?

😂

Lol! Not much of a champion...

E = mc^s and suddenly we can understand "and the Earth was without form, void." Mitochondrial DNA shows women older than man for a singularity and suddenly we can understand Noah's sons all came from Noah, but the four women would not reach singularity until way before the flood. Chromosomal fusion is the difference between humans and primates, which that would not make sense as a generations upon generations of difference, but a man working with petri dishes could indeed remove materials and manipulate the materials and then put them into empty cells and man as a zygote along with 16 different primates would all be in the same petri dish and suddenly we can understand how all those things would be made in one day, just as the Genesis record declares.

@@JediMasterEzio, the Holy Bible does not need a champion. Yahweh declares the end from the beginning and gets it right every time. Deuteronomy 32:41 “Truly I cut into Barack with a sword, for My hand shall accomplish justice, I will turn back the vengeance of My adversaries, to repay all those who hate Me.” Ezekiel 1:13-14 “for the living being was like a consumed ember, a consumed vision upright, shall he walk among living beings, fiery and bright was Barack, he had come out of the consummation. The living beings ran to and fro before the vision of Barack.” Ezekiel 21:9-12 “Son of man prophecy and say, Yahweh utters, “a sword, a sword is sharpened and moreover laid bare, sharpened for slaughter the slaughter of laid bare Barack, for shall we rejoice at the son who rejects all the branches of humanity? For it was first given laid bare the handle sharpened and laid bare and set into the hand of the destroyer (Abaddon or Apollyon). Cry out in anguish, son of man. And my people, all the so blessed of God’s Word (Israel) are delivered unto the sword. My people! Thus I shall strike him at the thigh.” Habakkuk 3:11-13 "From the east the crescent stood at the heights, walking in the light of the weapons, the radiance of Barack (Husein Obama) from the thrust. There is indignation at his march on the Earth; in anger he trampled the nations. He went forth for the salvation of his people; for the salvation he's anointed. Now strike the head of the house of the wicked; lay him open from thigh to neck. Commune with the Lifted High." Ezekiel 21:13-15 “Test your community (umah, Muslims take heed). Truly, also the scepter which despises shall be no more, declares the Lord Yahweh. Son of man prophecy and clap your hands together, the sword twice, and now the third time, the sword pierces, the sword for the great one as it pierces those who indwelt and surrounded them. The inner being (demons) weaken greatly, they were brought down to cause stumbling, All of them are at the gate (of hell). Give them to slaughter by the sword. Alas, they had made Barack (Hussein Obama) and caught themselves up for the slaughter.” Ezekiel 21:28 “and son of man prophecy and say, All utters Lord Yahweh, towards teaching towards this reproach, say a sword, a sword has been drawn and laid bare for the slaughter to consume Barack.” Daniel 10:6 “His body was tan, his face the appearance of Barack, and eyes a consumed shine; his legs and feet to the eye a burnished bronze, and the sound of his voice were like words given to a multitude.” Nahum 3:3 “horsemen lift up the sword, and blade pierces Barack, the multitude is slain, and the mass of corpses is innumerable dead bodies, and they stumble over the dead.” Psalms 77:18 “The sound of your thunder was in the whirlwind, BARACK lit up the whole world. The Earth shall tremble in agitation, shake.” Psalms 77:10 "and I uttered, 'it is making me sick, that the year has become the right hand of ALLAH.'" Job 26:13-14 “by his breath the heavens are cleared, his hand shall pierce BARACK, a serpent. Behold ALLAH the end of his ways. How? A whisper, a word, hear the strength and the thunder. Who can discern?” Psalms 97:4 “BARACK lit up the whole world, the Earth, see it tremble.” Isaiah 27:1 “In that day YAHWEH will punish the beast of the sea, BARACK, a serpent. The fierce and great and mighty sword ALLAH, the beast of the sea, crooked, a serpent, and He will kill it, the Dragon, ASSHUR, of the sea.” Job 20:25-29 “Draw out and go through the back, BARACK shall remove all strength, a dreadful overcoming shall flow forth. All is darkness, the reserve he has stored it up, an unfanned fire will devour consuming the survivor in his tent. The heavens shall reveal his iniquity and the Earth will rise up. The increase of his house will desist downward the run forth, the day of his anger. This wickedness of man is the portion of gods, and the inheritance decreed by the Word of God.” Job 38:35-36 “Can you send BARACK, and make him go and say, “Behold who pierced wisdom in the inward parts to run forth,” also given understanding to the appearing.” Isaiah 30:30-33 "YAHWEH the voice of authority, and listen BARACK, for the strength shall be seen as rage in the nostrils and flames shall consume with fire storm in a downpour, the voice of YAHWEH. Asshur will be terrified. He shall strike with the rod. All shall be hit with the rod of punishment, Asshur. YAHWEH will rest at the sound and work in battle, for the wave offering of the battle is a burning of flesh long set in order. Moreover the firm King shall cut deep and large at the pyre in fire and shall stand breathing. YAHWEH shall whirlwind the fire and the brimstone shall ensure all is consumed.” Psalms 144:4-6 “Adam was like unto vapor, for his days were in shadow and culminated. The reach was the heavens for YAHWEH and yet he descended touching the mountain and it smoked. The flash of BARACK dispersed sending forth arrows (nuclear weapons) with noise." Isaiah 14:14 "ALLAH OBAMA ab (in dark outer garment) dama (I will become) elyown (the god over all things)." Luke 10:18 "I saw SATAN as BARACK OBAMA." Matthew 24:27-28 "For as BARACK cometh out of the East and shineth even so far as the West so shall it be at the coming of the Son of man, for wherever the bodies lie so too an EAGLE IN UNION." Ezekiel 21:2-5 "Son of man set your face towards Jerusalem, and speak against the sanctuary and prophecy against the land of Israel, and say to the land of Israel, "Thus saith Yahweh, "Behold I am against, and the drawn sword from the sheath, and cut off shall be the righteous and the wicked. ON THIS ACCOUNT cut off the righteous and the wicked, thus the drawn sword from the sheath, against all flesh south north, ALL FLESH SHALL KNOW YAHWEH, the drawn sword from the sheath, never to turn back again.""" Ezekiel 21:9-10a "Son of man prophecy and say, "Thus saith Yahweh, say, "the sword, the sword is sharpened and also laid bare, sharpened to slaughter, laid bare BARACK.""" Revelation 16:17-19 “For even the seventh was poured, a bowl into the air, great voice came out of the temple from the throne saying, “DONE.” BARACK voiced thunder great, shaking of a manner as never had been from the time man had come into being on Earth, this person was of great lineage, great earthquake like unto this. The great city split into three parts, a city of nations fell, Babylon great was remembered in the sight of God, to give her the cup of wine, PASSION for wrath." 2 Samuel 22:14-16 says, "Yahweh thundered from heaven, and Allah uttered his voice, and he sent out arrows and BARACK was confused, the channels of the sea appeared the foundation of the world laid bare, by the rebuke of Yahweh at the breath of His nostrils." Psalms 18:13-15 says, "Yahweh thundered from heaven, and Allah uttered his voice, hail of ember and fire, and he sent out arrows, BARACK had an abundance, confused, the channels of the sea appeared the foundations of the world laid bare, by the rebuke of Yahweh at the breath of His nostrils." Zechariah 9:14 "Yahweh shall appear over the arrows coming from BARACK. For the Lord, Yahweh, will blow the trumpet, and they will march into the storms of the South."

Your Lord ? If Lennox can explain why only 25% of the global population are Christians and believe in your Lord, and why 75% of the global population believes in something else, that contradicts the essence of what science need to call a conclusion « scientific evidence »: You need a global consensus in the scientific community, or at least, a very large majoritarian consensus. You don’t have a consensus about God, about what the scriptures really mean, about the translation of the Bible, about the veracity of the events described in the Bible, and so on. We are pretty far from Lennox proving anything at all.

In what sense is god the same?

It is true that God is the same Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow for Ever. A Supernatural character in Supernatural stories. Like Santa Claus, Superman, Spiderman, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, etc.. As an exciting Supernatural Superhero.

@@speculativebubble5713 in the sense that he doesn't exist now as much as he didn't exist in the past, nor will he exist in the future.

What's the difference between Superman and Jesus? Superman will still save you even if you don't believe in him​@@ronaldlindeman6136

That's really quite the problem.

Here is what prevents the Bubonic Plague from killing people, from Wikipedia; (Bubonic plague outbreaks are controlled by pest control and modern sanitation techniques.) In the years 1347 to 1351, 1/3rd of the population of Europe died to the Bubonic Plague. Parents would have been praying to Jesus of Christianity to protect themselves and their family from harm and children would have prayed to Jesus of Christianity to protect their parents from harm. Did Jesus tell them how to prevent Bubonic Plague when they were praying on how to protect themselves from harm? 1/3rd of the population died. The reason we don't usually have Bubonic Plague around is because of the modern sanitation and pest control. Was that to much for Jesus to explain to the Christians in Europe?

😂 this is too stupid to even need a reaponse..

@@matswessling6600 If you really meant it, you wouldn't have replied to the comment. But just like Richard's climax, truth just gets exposed. Still, God Bless you❤️

@@ReinRein-bx5db you are mistaken. i didnt post because your post needed a reply.

@@matswessling6600 Anyways let's leave it. Otherwise it will go on. What do you think about Faith?

And over millions of years, you still won't understand how evolution works.

​@teks-kj1nj and you do? And you sure it is not just a conjecture?

@@teks-kj1nj imagine believing your ancestors were bacteria and marsupials, evolution is such a nonsensical theory

When did you drop out of school?

And we remain eukaryotic.

Perhaps that is because no two Christians ever believe the exact same thing.

​@@sidecarmisanthrope5927yep, it's easy to be mislead when you're completely new to something, and when you have to really study and devote you time to God to understand, which few people want to do, yet voice their thoughts, and also people adding in their ego, or wanting to use something for personal gain, you get a lack of agreement. Not reading the correct translation is a major issue, people learn a wrong doctrine.

@@sidecarmisanthrope5927that’s a hilariously ignorant and dim thing to say

The bible is a man made book with man made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man made errors : + light wasn't there before the sun + the earth wasn't there before the sun + Adam and Eve didn't exist + insects have six legs not four legs + the value of Pi isn't 3 + homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary sense + the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world + the moon doesn't produce visible light + etc etc If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't. As easy as that.

@@user-hr8dx9qw4n If I were an atheist I would absolutely agree the Bible contradicts itself. But, I'm not an atheist. I don't read the Bible just to be reading words, that's what atheists do. I read the Bible asking the Holy Spirit to show me what I'm reading, just as I read the instructions on how to put a model airplane together. That's what the instructions are for. The Bible is the same way.

Um, no he didn't, stop talking BS. He thought religion and gods were childish and naive. Einstein expressed his scepticism regarding the existence of an anthropomorphic god, such as the God of Abrahamic religions, often describing this view as "naïve"[3] and "childlike".[15] In a 1947 letter he stated that "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously."[16] In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich on 17 December 1952, Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve."[17 Prompted by his colleague L. E. J. Brouwer, Einstein read the philosopher Eric Gutkind's book Choose Life,[18] a discussion of the relationship between Jewish revelation and the modern world. On January 3, 1954, Einstein sent the following reply to Gutkind: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."[19][20][21] In 2018 his letter to Gutkind was sold for $2.9 million.[22] On 22 March 1954, Einstein received a letter from Joseph Dispentiere, an Italian immigrant who had worked as an experimental machinist in New Jersey. Dispentiere had declared himself an atheist and was disappointed by a news report which had cast Einstein as conventionally religious. Einstein replied on 24 March 1954: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[23]

Einstein claims that from the perspective of a believer he was an atheist.

What other stories do you make up besides Einstein believing in a god? Why do you have to resort to falsehoods to defend your god? I guess your position is really weak if you have just to make up nonsense.

@@markb3786 When Einstein gave lectures at U.S. universities, the question students asked him most was: Do you believe in God? And he always answered: I believe in the God of Spinoza. Baruch de Spinoza was a Dutch philosopher considered one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy, along with Descartes. “The only thing for sure is that you are here, that you are alive, that this world is full of wonders.” "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." “I believe the universe is so extra ordinary, only god could have created it. I am trying to figure out how he did it” "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper." -Albert Einstein

@@raulhernannavarro1903 that is not the same as claiming to be one. From my perspective anyone under 6'1" is short yet I am not tall from the perspective of anyone on the NBA.

You probably know the process of how to post such a meaningless comment, but you don't know the details behind the mechanisms that allow it.

There are examples all day every day of things you know the process of but not the details.

​@@nakkadu so Dawkins had the nerve to stand there and claimed God doesn't exist when he basically just did not know details? Details are very important for sciences, right? Even when we know all details, if the results don't come, the theory cannot be proven.

@@joey-wp2mc No theory can be proven... proof only exists in mathematics and logic as proof entails 100% certainty, something science do not use as that would be highly dishonest.

@@joey-wp2mc I can happily claim gravity exists and I can demonstrate it by dropping a pen. I certainly couldn't explain to you the details of it though.. also can you tell me where in this video he said "god doesn't exist" please?

No scientific evidence of a god so non belief in gods is rational.

Things well made are obsevable evtdence off a maker@@damienschwass9354

Not if the claim of god is logical rather than empirical, which it is

Amen!

Ah yes, the invisible evidence. Great stuff.

@@damienschwass9354 go look into the miracle of Fatima

Amen

The first part admits it's basically wishful thinking. That means Paul had no idea what evidence is.

If we’re healthy then we can be pretty sure we’ll get up in the morning. That’s more an expectation based on medical knowledge, rather than an act of faith.

Belief without evidence. And people don't believe that I have an invisible pink unicorn living in my bathroom. Silly aren't they!

@@sidecarmisanthrope5927 You miss the point. All the evidence points to Creator God. But you also WANT to miss the point, so ...

@@greglaprade7507 NO! "All the Evidence" does not point to any gods!

@@sidecarmisanthrope5927 Overwhelming evidence points to God

@@greglaprade7507 : There are over 40,000 gods being worshipped today and all with just as much as much evidence as your god. The evidence does not support any of them. Just wishful thinking.

There literally is none. What you call evidence is quite simply not. Name your best 'evidence' and lets see how it stacks up.

@@teks-kj1nj You guys always twist it, even after we had divine evidence of God destroying Sodom and flooding the earth. After we found Joseph’s and Moses’ locations. After we found Israel and all of the lost civilizations described by the Bible. After all of the evidence genesis 6 giants existed. You are born a liar.

How does your statement prove a God ... your just asserting your own narrative !

​@@teks-kj1njEvidence assumes a standard of truth. How do you know anything to be true?

​@@teks-kj1njmaybe go read "a case for christ" by Lee strobel if you actually want to know

Exactly. Stating that 'we know' is an act of faith. Not in God In the New god of science Liars gonna lie

@@reynoldsbeng3756 liars, damned liars, and scientists.

@@tylerdurden4080 and child molesting priests. You guys always leave that part out.

Not true. They call it emergence. Then they'll get angry when you try to get them to define emergence. Then they'll get frustrated and almost say, "It's a miracle" but before that they throw their hands in the air and leave.

Thomas Jefferson had a good phrase for Wisdom. "Honesty is the First Chapter in the Book of Wisdom." Which I would say is partly, if someone has studied 10 books on why Christianity is true, then study 10 books on why Christianity might not be true. And to have honesty in arguments.

Return to sender: Wrong Address

@@albertgallegos9938 1 Corinthians 1:18 on full display.

1 Corinthians 1:18 King James Version For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

No, as he said, he has evidence based on their history together. Faith is an incorrect but commonly used term in this case.

@@teks-kj1nj The Bible is literally filled with thousands of years of history between God and humanity. Literally nothing any other religion can offer.

Which Lord is that? Zeus or Thor?

​@@user-qw3rq6xv3n why just keep using the same tiresome argument over and over? Please use something more creative!

@@joey-wp2mc Which argument? I want to know what God he's praying to ? Americans really should pray to Ares, he's the Greek God of War, and Americans go to war several times a decade. Me, I'm more of a Eros worshiper, the God of Love & Sex.

@@user-qw3rq6xv3n really? Can you vouch on your mother's honor that you didn't know which God he was referring to?

@@joey-wp2mc Well I thought he meant Yaldabaoth or Barbelo.

That just makes no sense. Wouldn't you want to be on "the right" side, regardless of who is there? I do agree that he is not the most eloquent speaker. For that, there's Sam Harris and Alex O'Connor. Dawkins is a scientist, not a philosopher. If you want plain and clear talk that's not overly philosophical, watch some Matt Dillahunty debates. He knows how to get to the core of the matter.

@@speculativebubble5713 matt is really annoying to me. he only seems to accept calls from idiots. he always claim how its a nonsensical conversation but devotes his life to it. debating people over opinion is a waste, especially in this day and age with the important things going on that we need to focus on. atheists claim to have no belief on the matter whatsoever yet go on their crusades to to argue something they have no belief in. doesnt seem logical to me. opinion based arguments seem to be driven by ego imo

Explain

He’s Not Remotely Right!

@@helpmaboabb for me, even idiots can be right from time to time. doesnt mean i want to associate myself with them

"And do you have faith that physical person is at home and not at the neighbor's house?" "Dammit"

Amen!

@@joey-wp2mc Amén

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." - Voltaire

Or is more that once you are not a gullible child and learn how to think logically that fantastically contrived stories are easer to see through.

@@gz9520 Getting indoctrinated by Atheism in school doesn't cause one to think logically. Atheism has fantastically contrived stories that are easy to see through if you haven't been indoctrinated into the cult religion of Atheism.

Perhaps Dawkins was stunned by Lennox's stupidity.

​​​​@@frankclough380No. Dawkins's stupidity was stunned by John's brilliant mind

No one knows God

Not 'clever', G. - clever.

Why do you think that is the sole reason for believing? One could turn it on its head equally for a Non-believer. He doesn't want to believe in God because he is afraid of eternity, afraid of Judgement. See, it doesn't say anything to the evidence or arguments. Sure there are people that have psychological motives for belief and unbelief. But that's not the totality for the reasons behind that.

We won’t die. We live eternally with God on the New Earth OR eternally separate from God and his goodness in Hell. Make your choice.

Christians aren't afraid of death. We know that accepting Jesus and repenting of sin gives us eternal life. Atheists fear death.

@@user-zp3oz7op6w That's uncharitable. No need to stoop to the level of the above commenter. Many people from all walks of life have a fear of death. Even Christians. There are just as many that find comfort in the idea of an eternal oblivion. Christians may not need to fear death. But there are many that do and understandable reasons for it. It's just important to keep that in mind.

It may seem at first, but if you analyze it it's clear that was not meant to be a personal attack but rather a very effective way to show Dawkins he himself has to ultimately rely on faith daily. Sure, you may say to yourself there's a "positive track record", but you never really know, do you? In fact, Lennox shows it was not personal by bringing himself to the same level when he says "It's the same with mine". Besides, Dawkins concedes that there's a precise and indispensable fine tuning of the many variables in the universe in order for us to exist. That constitutes quite a good evidence for an intentional Creator, much better that any "glance" by one's wife as evidence for loyalty.

@@UnbiasOP I beg to differ. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The devotion and loyalty of Dawkins' wife can be seen - at least in part. Lennox seems to confuse trust with religious faith - they are not the same. Talking with Francis Collins in 2022, Dawkins said fine tuning is the "nearest approach to a good argument" (for God or gods). That doesn't make it a good argument. Then, in 2023 in a Q&A with Taryn Southern, he said "The temptation to think they (physical constants) were fine-tuned is hopeless, because that doesn't explain anything, it only pushes back the question to how the _intelligence_ got tuned." I fail to see that he "concedes" much.

​@@ergonomoverthe devotion of God has been shown in the person of Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection.

If trust is based on a positive track record that doesn’t take into account that those positive tracks can’t be faked. Essentially that trust can be manufactured. Faith can be weaponised and so can trust.

So trust = subjective personal opinions only in his head? Sounds more like faith without empirical evidence.

Do you really know your wife? How can you be sure she won't one day run away with a love scammer?

@@joey-wp2mc that’s completely beside the point. At least I know that she exists. That something that can’t be said about your imaginary bff :)

@@walterdaems57 I thought we were talking whether she has genuine love for you?

@@walterdaems57 well, many people saw Jesus, including me.

@@joey-wp2mc love is a subjective feeling, someone or something existing or not is an objective assessment

Satan 👿 versus Santa

You must be from the west, so full of this idea

What would that double meaning be?

Faith as belief alone conflated with Faith contingent upon evidence, be it logical, empirical, rational, etc

@@Muskeljudentum But I would disagree there there are 2 different definitions of faith. To place faith is to trust or rely on. So in the context of this debate, the definition is not the real issue but rather the object of the faith.

I don't know who told that science promises health and life. Science is a way of thinking, but not what you should think.

Bot or English as a second language?

​@@markb3786 Are you a bot? Please use complete sentences.

Are you here out of evangelical zeal of your Atheist cult religion that you wish to come on here and try to convert people to your religion, or are you here to seek the truth? Or are you just here to mock and degrade people who don't believe as you do? Which is it?

@@CelticSpiritsCoven I am here because in America this nonsense is starting to creep into the public schools again. Go to church all you want. Stop attacking science.

@@CelticSpiritsCoven I am here because I fear that we could turn into a country like Afghanistan, where the Religion rules. Please, study why Christianity is not true. Thomas Jefferson put into the Declaration of Independence the words 'Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.' Jesus of Christianity is not a Nature's God. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero, like Superman, Spiderman, Luke Skywalker, etc. are all Supernatural Superheroes. Jesus is a character in a human created story. That our country is built on Nature, and not Religious stories from the ancient world is a great and wonderful thing.

@@CelticSpiritsCoven If a airplane crashes, what does our country do? How does the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration do their investigation? Do we add up how many Christians were in the plane to pray that the plane would not crash and then add up all those non Christians who made the airplane crash or at least did not help by not praying Christian prayers to keep the airplane flying? Or does the FAA study what the pilots did, the weather at the time, and the condition of the aircraft? Which is the proper investigation?

What are you talking about? "Horrifying stories"???? Give us a complete academic understanding on what the bible says so you can explain this.

@@CelticSpiritsCoven Why academic? It's very simle. The old testamentvis full of horrific stories, don't you think? Clearly devil inspired, if inspited at all

@@CelticSpiritsCoven how about the flood, mass genocide at it's worst.(never mind the incest and blood sacrifice, slavery etc.)

This very statement is modern thinking used to vilify something 2000 plus yrs ago you have no context for saying what you did. The worldview and culture isn't what it is today but that's exactly what your forcing on the contents without knowing what it is you're trying to vilify. For example, the flood has much more context than a few verses in Gen 6. You have the book of Enoch, an academic scholar who in 2010, wrote the first paper of its kind linking Gen 6 to outside sources revealing the context including a Mesopotamia Babylon origin story Enoch basically quotes while showing how everything they praised only brought violence and more death, seduction, murder, all of which Babylon said was good. The people were blood thirsty monsters. Or let's go with the popular God promotes rape and murder cause it's in the bible! Yeah, how about you read the context before saying something so obviously stupid

@@CelticSpiritsCoven Horrifying stories? Yes and a lot of them in this book that so many say to adore. Just start with the flood. Why kill all the people and animals, god himself created. We are lucky it’s all nonsense of course

Maybe you should read his book "Mere Christianity" to find out. Instead of not researching.

@@CelticSpiritsCoven It reduces to "I bellieve because I believe".

Not to mention hard deism - God created the universe and then left it to its own devices. We pray, but nobody is home.

@@richardgregory3684 No it doesn't. People come to realize that God exists. It's more than just a belief. What are you doing even commenting on here? Are you trying to convert people to your Atheist religion?

@@HansBezemer You pray?

Does not mean he does either.

What proof you give for gravity...

Zoom…

He was asking about the wife's love and fidelity.

@@amalrajxavier There is no physical proof of anything, PROOF exist only in mathematics and logic, the fact that you even say these things leads me to believe you are quite ignorant about science , mathematics and logic( philosophy). Proof entails 100% certainty, something we do not use in science.

​@nilswagner1536 you never took chemistry or physics? You learn some chemical reaction is going to happen in lecture, and you do a lab experiment to confirm or prove

Imagination is a powerful thing.

Because the question was so silly. One doesn't have faith in one's wife or husband. It is the belief or trust one develops as they live together. Do you have faith in your wife that she can fly a plane? No. But do you believe she can make a good breakfast? Yes. That's because you have eaten what she made.

Seriously Dawkins and the like are afraid the truth would require change.

@@JD-ro7xe You haven't inspected the plane or know the pilot, but you have faith you will get to your destination.

@@jonathandempsey1172 And what truth would that be? Every religion on the planet has just as much evidence for their gods as you do for yours. You can't handle the truth.

@@sidecarmisanthrope5927 keep living how you want to then and don’t worry about it, or me. Bye ✌🏻

Nothing can come from nothing. So god cannot create anything from nothing, he can only take what already exists and modify it, that means that the Cosmos in one way or another was always there. A god could exist, but his existence would be irrelevant and an unnecessary explanation. The simplest view is that there is no god and the Cosmos was always there. Our observable universe is the product of the transformation of one type of energy into another which fills our space, thus respecting a fundamental physical principle which is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The energy only transforms.

You would be well served if you learned the definitions of "scientific hypothesis" and "scientific theory." Just making up nonsense is not a theory. It really isn't even a hypothesis.

@@markb3786 It is a hypothesis that something exists beyond the physical universe. This is based on the big bang theory and the logic of having no physical explanation for the start of time

Surely you are aware of the concerted efforts of religious groups to shut down the teaching of evolution in schools in America, and to have creation myths taught in science class?

no. Science is not the study of "cause and effect".

trust is faith ya dingus

@@slemonman You can play word games, but "faith" is without evidence, while "trust" has reasons behind it.

@@speculativebubble5713 what word games? reasons =/= evidence you nonce. The reason you trust someone is because have faith in them. And the reason you have faith in someone is because you trust them.

​@@speculativebubble5713both faith and trust have the same Hebrew root word in the bible. Try again

@@slemonman Faith : belief that is not based on proof: Trust : reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing

no you need billions of years and the action of stars..some processes are complicated, not supernatural..which is a position for the uninformed.. ..amen

Actually, if you google "create a cell in a lab", you will find all kinds of amazing projects that have been completed.

​@@johnpro2847except for the fact that chemical evolution does not happen. You have oxygen that will degrade everything before the first cell forms.

Since when is OUR ability to do something the measure of what is possible in nature? How many tectonic plates have been created and moved in a lab? How many fold mountains? Grand canyons? Moons? And yet we know these things exist, and we can examine evidence to have a pretty clear idea of how they came about.

You can judge by action and you can ask and receive answers from your wife to make an intelligent projection if she loves or not. Blindly believing in imaginary friend is not the way to live.

Amen!

It’s certainly more than just a “story” book now whether or not if it’s of a divine nature sure you can make that claim

It's a history book.

I could also say that quite easily .

Can you cite the part where i can find the talking donkey.?

You clearly know more than Isaac Newton and Einstein. Can't wait for you to meet God

God out of love (energy) created this universe (E = mc^2), thus a physical universe.

​@@joey-wp2mcEnergy is neither created nor destroyed, it only transforms.

​@@raulhernannavarro1903 energy -> mass, thus physical universe

@Oneforall86 The problem lies in the ‘believing’ and ‘faith’. At the end of the day there’s no difference between a believer in god(s) or a middle aged women who believes that her Nigerian love scammer is a pilot, captain or member of the special forces. 1) Some-thing can only come existence out of a state of no-thing. Otherwise some-thing couldn’t be anything else than every-thing. The state of no-thing on the other hand has the potential to manifest every-thing. Therefore, some-thing and no-thing are of equal value. Not surprisingly the same result is obtained in mathematics but I prefer my own thought via a philosophical approach. Thinking for yourself has proven to be a great way to keep devils, angels, goblins, leprechauns and god(s) at a distance, but that aside. 2) There are good reasons to compare the coming into existence of universes with something we all enjoyably know: ejaculations. Most spermatozoa are destined for the drain and only one amongst the million losses viable. We are living in one of the universes viable for life, probably amongst many failed or disabled universes; hence the absolutely not miraculous fine tuning of our cosmic surroundings. We’re lucky and we are translating our luck, a very common human characteristic, into pride, prejudice and the preposterous idea that a super being is overseeing each of us and sad or happy depending on the position of our hands above or below the sheets. 3) So, the absolute beginning from the very first universe must have started from a very fine tilting point in a state where there was no difference between some- and no-thing. Quantum mechanics has learned us that energy can be borrowed for such a short time that the balance between the two states isn’t affected. Unimaginable stretches of time and evolution have done the rest in a trial, error and rarely, but in view of the incredible time lapses, unavoidable success way. We perceive the end result like a magic trick. Conclude that the pigeon out of the head is pure wizardry until the magician explains every step of the astonishing experience. 4) if an all powerful god existed, why in the name of the one no one should believe in, would that being make the billion of years detour instead of just creating a made and ready universe? Unless you reject the fact, no, no longer the theory, but the fact of evolution. If that’s the case, then you are worshipping a god created or accepted out of pure and maybe even wilful ignorance. 5) if god existed there would be no need to prove his existence because he / she / it would be perceived or at the very least be experienced by believers and non believers alike and since that’s clearly not the case it’s safe to say that god(s) are man made and not the other way around. That’s also why there are approximately, at present, 4.300 religions with matching super bff to suit different cultures, regions and tribes. 6) Seneca, ancient Roman philosopher: ‘for common people religion is true, for wise men false and useful for rulers’. The story of Jesus, his miracles and resurrection Ask 1000 followers of Kenneth Copeland if he can heal the sick, paralysed and disabled. Well, you know the answer. Ask 1000 followers of Copeland if he could resurrect someone from the dead. You know the answer Ask 1000 followers of Copeland if they witnessed a resurrection performed by Copeland and at least 100 will testify on their life and the life of their children that they witnessed a resurrection done by one of the biggest spiritual con men in our day and age. Should give you some idea about the value of testimonials in Jesus time. People turn their wishes into beliefs and from that principle all religions are born. Let's also not forget that resurrections where far from exceptional in the days of the Jesus. I wouldn't go as far as to say: 'one resurrection a day kept the gravedigger away', but still.

Atheists believe in a celestial wizard.

Cognitive dissonance? - yes Paid attention in school? - No Your comments are contrary to all known science, but yeh, you know better - dunning kruger in full effect here.

​@@teks-kj1nj bs

Amen!

@ariel. Agreed. Macro evolution is crumbling under its own weight.

@@teks-kj1nj Show me a fossil that shows that one species changed into another species. Before trying to insult me, look up the actual definition of what an interspecies is, then try to give an academically correct answer. You just might learn something here if you don't have dunning-kruger effect.

He called his laws of motion laws. He called his ideas about what caused those laws to operate a theory. Gravity is therefore a fact and a theory - like evolution

@@richardgregory3684 Evolution isn't a fact, it's just a theory with no direct evidence.

@@CelticSpiritsCoven Why do you say with no direct evidence? If you look at your own DNA, you can see evidence of evolution. If you agree that your DNA code is the "recipe" of how you are built, then changes to that "recipe" would result in changes to that build. You do find that the DNA does have small changes throughout your life. Then your sperm or egg (sorry, I don't know your sex) might have some of that altered DNA, and your child will inherit these changes. These changes to DNA will not become noticeable through one generation of children. It takes more than one lifetime of mutation to your DNA. It probably takes thousands of years for the changes to become apparent just by looking at the offspring.

@@CelticSpiritsCoven Evolution is an established fact, moreso than the earth orbitting the sun is a fact. Of course, you guys had a big problem with THAT for several centuries too.

If there was no law implied, God couldn't "circumvent" it. The whole Bible is demystifying the world right from the start when declaring the moon and the sun mere "lights" while everyone else thought them gods.

Because they thought they could find god through science, but instead found no evidence for the existence of a god at all.

@@teks-kj1nj 😂 You are a liar.

"Naturalism of the Gaps"🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. I mean this is so desperate.

​@@markb3786except it is a true fallacy. Chemical evolution didn't happen. The oxygen in the atmosphere would degrade all of the chemical components required to form a cell before they gathered. Their worldview requires faith, they just refuse to acknowledge it

@@teks-kj1nj The theist scientists believed that God created natural laws to be so reliable that they could be tested so reliably. And guess what..... they proved it, because it does!

I like how u say it’s not faith, give an alternative definition of faith, and then explain it all with a false equivalence fallacy.

@@StridersEgress Trust is earned, faith is given. Trust is belief, with a level of confidence based on past experience or evidence, in a desired outcome. You have trust in your wife because she has shown that it is justified. Faith is belief without such evidence, that's why it is regarded as a virtue - because it's difficult (not to mention irrational) to commit to believing in something or someone without justification.

The birth of a human child or an animal is, in itself, evidence of a supreme power or Creator. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Dawkins and other atheists think small when the answer lies in thinking big. This whole debate is a huge waste of time. Let's fix Earth first and foremost. Whether this Earthly realm is a Grand Illusion or not. Let us make it the most Grand Illusion in the Universe. Love and Peace.

Faith is not belief without evidence. The evidence that causes me to believe may not convince you, but that's okay. I certainly have my rational reasons to believe.

@@mattprater8828 Might I suggest you avail yourself to the contents of a dictionary? [Merriam-Webster] Under the definition that pertains to religion... "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". There are other definitions just like there are other uses of other words. But when discussing religion, the above definition refers to a "loyalty to god" and under that is the definition I provided. You likely believe faith is something substantial, even equaling the definition of TRUST, but they are not the same even if religious people more often than not misuse and misinterpret the use of faith and trust because that's one thing religion does, tries to grant more moral authority to faith by equating it to trust even though they are NOT the same thing. I suspect you and billions of others have been lied to about faith. And it's your responsibility to acknowledge the lie and the truth.

@@msmd3295 As it is yours. Atheism is merely another religion or cult. The most honest religion is arguably agnosticism. I believe in a Creator or God because evidence is in my life (and yours) every day. Atheists see the evidence too but do not equate the miracles of birth, the seasons changing, falling in love with someone, as evidence or a result of creation by a Creator. A belief there is no Divine Presence is just a belief. The Atheism versus Theism argument is a total waste of time. We should all play on the same team and create paradise on Earth. As far as dictionaries go and the meaning of religion as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" description, even the writers of dictionaries can arrogantly think they know "all"...that in itself is simply their misguided belief. For all the faults of theists, especially in organised religion, as many flaws lie within the atheist realm. IMHO Richard Dawkins is just as much a pastor as the late Billy Graham. Dawkins is just playing on a different team.

@@johnholiver2003 Clearly you do not understand the definition of what a "religion" is. Here's 3 definitions for you; 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. 2. a particular system of faith and worship. 3. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. Obviously your understanding of the subject is nothing more than a regurgitation of what others have impressed upon you even if they are wrong and uninformed. Try to start thinking for yourself instead. 🤣 But I'm going to elaborate some for you so that you have a clearer and more factual understanding of the subject. I'll start with definition #2. Religion is a system of faith and worship... but first I have to define for you what "faith" is. Faith by definition is BELIEF WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. In other words its a belief in something that doesn't deserve to be believed because you can't prove it's real or true. So I ask you, do you also believe in purple unicorns? If you don't, why NOT? You can't prove they exist so why don't you believe in them ALSO. Addressing definition #1. Since you appear to believe in and worship a superhuman power, that is the basic definition of a RELIGION. You claim that atheism is "merely another religion or cult". But since atheism denies there is ANY superhuman power or god, atheism ISN'T a religion or cult because ATHEISM CLAIMS THERE ISN'T ANY SUCH SUPERHUMAN BENGS ! So how can atheism be described as a religion or cult since atheists don't "worship or believe in" such things? NOW... having cleared that up for you, I'll address definition #3. "ascribing supreme importance." If one wanted to extrapolate that definition one might be able to attribute that to the idea of atheism because atheists do believe that there is a "supreme importance" to understanding the real world with empirical evidence. But that does not make atheism a "religion" because atheism does not worship supernatural beings. I hope that clears up or at least addresses your ignorance about what constitutes a religion. S H I T E !!

You actually can't scientifically prove God; you can't put him in a test tube. Consider for a moment if the Bible is true and that God, in the beginning, created the heavens and the earth. This means that God created time, space and matter. In order for that to be the case, he must exist outside of those parameters. So how on earth could anyone scientifically prove him? Science and Theism are at far less odds than anyone would really like to admit, because God simply can't be dealt with properly by science. I see lots of indirect proof for God, however, such as our capacity for creativity, love and appreciation of beauty. As a new father, I see evidence of God in the wonderful creation of my son in my wife's womb. I see evidence of God in the fact that DNA is a complex language (no one stumbles upon a written document - they know it has an intelligent author) and that the universe itself seems to follow mathematical rules. While there's no direct scientific evidence of God (because it's simply not possible) I see his fingerprints all over the place.

The Theists understood that God designed natural laws to work so well that it is reliably testable, thus we have science. Chaos, natural selection, time, and chance could not have created such reliable natural laws.

@@CelticSpiritsCoven Science goes back earlier than the time of Jesus. Again just because some scientists in one age believed a god was behind the stability of reality doesn't mean that a god was required for that science. _"Chaos, natural selection, time, and chance could not have created such reliable natural laws."_ Whatever the cause for the properties of reality, if there was one, it may not be any of those things but that doesn't mean it was a being, a god or your favourite god.

Atheism is merely another religion.

​@@markh1011 You said it yourself..... people believed in God before Jesus walked the earth. And they realized that natural laws were reliable. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it isn't because of God. Why would you even say that "a god is not required"?????????????? How do you know that???????????? You don't know, you are puking and regurgitating dogma you heard down at your Atheist cult church. We don't need your Atheist religious zealot cult dogma dragged into this - it's annoying and not helpful at all. Time and chance is the Atheist's god of the gaps. When they are totally at a loss for how the universe has such specific natural laws, they fill in this gap by claiming that time and chance somehow figured it out by some impossible natural cause that hasn't been discovered yet. They have FAITH that some unknown natural cause did all this, even though they have not even a shred of evidence for this belief. FAITH OF ATHEISM. Absolute blind faith.

@@johnholiver2003That's both incorrect and irrelevant to the thread. Try again.

you possibly just do not understand him..methinks

​@johnpro2847 only dumb people can understand dumb people. You understand Dawkins well

solid argument, well-structured, eloquent. Wait, no, you provided no argument, just called somebody dumb and garbage teller. Also, ''the dumest smart guy ''in motion'', wtf is motion? A magazine?

And you're just the dumbest guy, period.

The problem is probably with you, not with Dawkins.

Stunned in the sense that he stuttered when he realized that faith is only used when no evidence is present ( though his wife gave him evidence to show she loved him yet he called it " faith" so he was gobsmacked for a second .) But I do agree "stunned" especially in capital letters gave the impression it was to be more dramatic than it was in the video.

@@davidsflooringco _"Stunned in the sense that he stuttered when he realized that faith is only used when no evidence is present "_ Doesn't Dawkins specifically make the point that the word is used in more than one way?

You are at a level below the conversation then, as the point Lennox was trying to get across is that there is no law of the universe that can prove that your wife loves you, you have to have faith in it through the evidence you have seen. Dawkins completely loses on this point as he says that would be the incorrect way to use the word faith, and then says he KNOWS that his wife loves him. But he completely misses the point then, that there is no objective way for him to prove that other than having faith in her and what he has seen so far.

@@thevipez8740 You're the one over his head. Whether you call it faith or trust, the faith/trust you have in your wife is based on evidence, and the faith/trust you have in a god is not, (in fact being able to have faith without evidence is regarded as a virtue, apparently). That was Dawkins' point, that faith in a god is not supported by the same level of evidence as faith in a wife.

@@thevipez8740 You say that to know if your wife loves you, "you have to have faith in it through the evidence you have seen" - but if you've seen evidence then it's evidence based and not definition 2 above. Definition 2 is consistent with faith as defined by Paul in Hebrews: "faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see". This means being certain of something without requiring evidence.

@@grantm6514 I guess the entire conversation went completely over your head then. They were arguing about if faith is a bad thing, and you are straw-manning both me and Lennox as we have never claimed blind faith is a virtue so stop lying. They were arguing about if there is any merit to faith, as in there are things we can't fully know or understand, so we can choose on whether or not to have faith in the evidence we have seen. As Dawkins thinks this is stupid, as if something can't be definitively and objectively proven, then its dumb to put your faith in it, is his argument. Therefore Lennox completely wins over him by bringing up faith in ones partner, as that's an example of something you have no way of proving, there is no formula or way to prove that someone loves you, you simply have to put faith in their words that they love you and from the evidence you have seen. There Lennox excellently demonstrated faith, and it went completely over Dawkins head as you see in the discussion he says he KNOWS for a fact that his wife loves him, which is something he objectively can't fully know, he HAS to put his faith in it, showing a concept that Dawkins simply can't wrap his head around.

@@doctorlove3119 Read my reply to the other guy and I'll explain it to you again. Also you are straw-manning very much as no one here is arguing to have a complete blind faith in something. In one way you can say that you actually have a blind religious faith in atheism, that god does not exist and cannot exist no matter what.

Well said. Faraday is always a great example.

good post

No, they aren't different. The Hebrew root word is the same for both of them.

@@mattprater8828 So what? The only true meaning of a word is the root in ancient Hebrew? In the 21st century, faith and trust are NOT interchangable. If you had faith in your doctor you wouldn;t care about their qualifications, the past successes or failures of their treatments for you, an so on? You don't base a choice of doctor or hospital on faith. You do so on trust. Do you have faith your aircraft pilot can fly the plane...or trust in the system that ensures only qualified peopel get to be pilots?