Do you trust your brain? - John Lennox 

The point is "No argument can be valid that undermines rationality" I am not saying evolution is valid but using this Christianity is not valid too.

@@KingKing-ny2ew Evolution is proven

@@KingKing-ny2ew More like "No argument can be valid that destroys rationality." Within the Christian framework, we have limits, but wisdom exists and is designed to be understood. Within the atheistic, naturalistic framework, you have no grounds whatsoever for thinking your brain has the right to understand a universe that has no obligation to be consistently intelligible. If it proves to be consistently intelligible (which it is), then chances are something's up, because an uncreated, naturalistic brain couldn't be trusted for anything more than the survival essentials (it shouldn't even exist in the first place, in an uncreated context).

@@FrankyDrebin Even if it's true, it would require a creator to work.

A creator who made cows - a domesticated auroch? Who did the domestication?

He uses his brain to conclude there's a God. Then he uses it to conclude his brain is reliable?.

Brilliant is he, after he asked the question DO YOU TRUST YOUR BRAIN? I hope he is including his too! So he thinks there is a magic sky Daddy, ?? I think he's not right in the head!

Yes , he is !

@@gregl9175 OK, he can add up numbers, please tell me how that proves a god's existence?

@@gknight4719 do you think everything is a coincidence, even scientists agree of the existence of god, open your eyes , god is all around you, but if you don’t believe nothing will change your mind, I wish you the best !!

“You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who believe, but have not seen.”

he dont believe in a young earth; so many play mental gymnastics

yes. amazingly deceitful.

​@@johnlennox-pe2nqSo he believes genesis is allegorical? And that God used evolution to make us? Not many mental gymnastics there

​@@matswessling6600Do explain

@@dani4157 evolution is a theory; he uses gymnastics to prove his views, though much what he states is sound Belief and faith in god has been at the bedrock of science. Only the Church sponsored science -- you wont find any atheists doing that! God followers take 90 pc plus of Nobel's

Not that I've ever observed. He has a pompous demeanor with little introspection. He is the typical apologist incapable of entertaining the possibility that the creator he calls God and so fervently believes in may not be a good entity at all. Or it may be an indifferent god with no particular reason to favor or deal honestly with humans. Consider how humans deal with, say, insect pests. Do we think ourselves dishonest when we 'trick' an colony of ants to ingest bait with poison in it? Of course not. So unless one takes on faith that the creator of the world is a moral being...ie even thinks in terms of morality NOT whether it is good or evil...and has humanity's interest at heart, you have no way of knowing if it even cares about humans at all. They can't comprehend that so can't fathom why many of us can just assume undirected (by intelligence) evolution is a satisfactory explanation for our existence.

What do you mean by put themselves in the shoes of the other side?

There's a third option, which posits that we are living within a supercomputer. That would explain how the supernatural is possible, resurrection, walking on water etc. I doubt we will ever know.

@@Gods_messenger_Elijah That option requires even more faith.

@@jeffspruance9388 Faith eh, plain truth, available to all, why can't we have that eh? Must be an ulterior reason.

Does that include people who believe in a god, but the wrong god? Will god forgive them for following a false god which they thought, for example, required child sacrifice or bodily mutilation?

@@rizdekd3912In 1st and 2nd Commandments God said 1. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (including the master you serve - MONEY); 2. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.” In Luke 17:2 , when talking about harming children, God said: It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin. When you talk about child sacrifice, I assume you're also talking about the abortion and (child mutilation) transgender ideology?! So, no, He won't forgive you.

@@MultiSky7 Then it has nothing to do with believing in a god or not, but everything to do with believing in the right god and worshiping it the right way. "When you talk about child sacrifice, I assume you're also talking about the abortion and (child mutilation) transgender ideology?! " No, I'm talking about people who literally believe in god and literally believe that god they believe in demands child sacrifice. Because you wrote: "But anyway, youll know when you die, that you were wrong all along for not believing in God. But He will forgive you." Who were you talking about when you wrote "But he will forgive you." Who will he forgive? You said 'you' but I assumed it was a rhetorical 'you' not me literally. That's why I asked about god forgiving people who worshiped the wrong god because they thought that was the right god.

there is no afterlife. It makes no sense that life would continue after you die. Especially considering you didnt have a before life.

Good point. And, knowing that we can have an afterlife, why would we not be good? Yet, we continually mess up.

Ok. Start with energy. I'll wait.

@@MultiSky7 I’m not sure what you are asking but a couple of points come to mind that might be relevant to your question. John 1 “in the beginning was the word” would suggest that information is primary, Genesis 1 would suggest that God made matter either from nothing or from something pre-existing. We now understand that matter is a form of energy and can be transformed in the ratio E=mC2, which is a lot of energy. Energy always moves from an organised form to a less organised form with time (2nd law, entropy) so the universe must have started, against this trend in a very organised form and degenerated ever since. So to attribute organisation and energy and information to the cause of the universe is logical.

@@jamesmaybury7452 So, do it. Destroy the energy and you'll destroy God. I'll wait.

Unless you misunderstood what “in his image” means.

I became an atheist when I realized the world didn't seem to have been designed by a good god. I believe that if the world had actually been designed by a loving caring all powerful being, it would be categorically different. Now...COULD there possibly be some superpowerful intelligent designer? Sure, I suppose so, but it solves no problems to assert such a being and its existence if academic.

What do u mean by God?

Small minds often think they are. Get help.

Bro, have u known about Pascal's wager?

​@@petersubbiah bro i have . If out of the thousands of gods revealed throughout history u chose to worship one in particular just in case he ll treat you better when ur dead, then your odds are prolly below 1% that u made the right call 😂

@@petersubbiah Pascal's bet is flawed and childish. It presupposes a good, a desirable God. An evil or indifferent god or many gods are ignored.

Science can only define rules of the physical world if you presuppose that your mind is rational and the universe is rationally intelligible, as Lennox states. If you are an atheist, that means you trust science to give you trust about the physical world and yet you have no basis for being able to trust the universe to give you truth nor your ability to perceive truth accurately.

You believe the created and not the creator.

@@MrDominic25m Neither. Certainly not without any proof.

​@@LeonSemiProWhat proof do you want beside common sense telling you its obvious that "someone created it all" ?

@@RozkminTo Why someone? Why not something? That is not obvious at all. However the particular origin story that you believe in is obviously wrong in many ways. A god that looks like humans is clearly absurd just as one example. What use is a body?

@@LeonSemiPro because only someone is capable of creating. "God looks like a human is absurd" Im not talking about Thor from marvel movies lol and on the other hand why is that absurd ?

Well, you can start with making life out of nothing (abiogenesis) - which atheistic point of view of how the universe started.

@@MultiSky7 Wrong. That's just what your brainwasher's tell you. The actual definition of Atheism is the non believe in god or God's. ( Basically the non believe in invisible supernatural beings) Atheism is a non belief due to the lack of evidence. It's not a belief. It's not a worldview. YOUR brainwasher's are lying to you about what an Atheist is and they're lying to you about what science says. Don't be a gullible fool.

@@MultiSky7 Still wont prove god

@@FrankyDrebin Yes it does, because by your own "scientific" standards (nothing comes from nothing), and yet, here we are.

@@MultiSky7 Who said everything came from nothing? Can you explain where your God came from? Or are you going to bring "special pleading" fallacy?

If it's created by God, that means it was deliberately designed to understand wisdom to a degree. If not, it wasn't 'designed' to do anything, except survive, and even that is strangely conspicuous.

@@MisterEvvvSymphoenix Ok here's the thing. The point you just made in your comment is by trusting your thinking. Right? So you are technically using your thinking to come to the conclusion that you can use your thinking if God exists. It's actually circular argument. You have to trust your thinking first in any case.

@@FrankyDrebin Are you saying that trusting my thinking first is the opposite of trusting God first? Well, I know that I have some capacity for wisdom - we all do, but we also know that we have limitations. I acknowledge that if God is real (which, from overwhelming appearances, He is) then He'd have superior thinking abilities to my own, but that doesn't cancel out anything. If we were made to reason, it makes sense that we can reason. If we weren't made to reason, we shouldn't expect that we can reason.

@@MisterEvvvSymphoenix I said that your argument is circular. You are saying that to trust your thinking, you need to believe God exists. But you are using your thinking to come to that conclusion. So no matter what, we have to trust our thinking. Even to think God exists. Now how do we know that we can trust our thinking? Because it works. We see it working. We test it.

@@FrankyDrebin No. I'm saying that thinking works, whether you trust God or not, but it doesn't make sense for it to work unless your mind was designed to do it effectively. You don't need to believe in God to trust your thinking, but when you *really* think about it, you don't have a good reason to trust it if you don't believe your mind was deliberately made to reason. 'It works' isn't enough of an explanation. That's like saying we know why birds can fly, because they can fly. _Why_ it works goes deeper than that, and you don't get a good answer within a naturalistic atheistic worldview. You have to trust it, but that doesn't mean you have a good reason to trust it. Like I said, 'because it works' points to something deeper, just like 'because it flies'.

I think you misunderstood what he said, he is saying that if there is nothing beyond our brain and you say you trust sth cause your brain told you that is a logical fallacy cause it is just circular argument.

Someone asked me once if I had found Jesus..... I guess saying that I didn't know he was lost.... It didn't go well

You are using Joe Biden argument: coooome on maaaaan.

Hunter, is that you?

Last 10 years 🤔 can you give me an example 🤔

You have to clarify a little bit about the "beginning", When exactly was that beginning you wanted to mention?

@@camay2345 From the beginning of "creation." All people that believe in the existence of a god, believe that the universe had a "beginning", at creation. So the point is, if Christian theology was ordained by a god ... why didn't the god see to it that Christianity was taught from the time of creation, rather than waiting until 2000 years ago to send a son to earth with that message.

@@camay2345 The supposed savior of souls of Christians, was just the most recent savior-myth story. Example as follows, and please note how Chrishna was spelled, before the Christians came up with the word Christ, and how the Hindus then changed the spelling of their supposed savior to "Krishna." From the book … The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors … Christianity before Christ, by Kersey Graves … first published in 1875. and finally these twenty Jesus Christs (accepting their character for the name) laid the foundation for the salvation of the world, and ascended back to heaven. 1. Chrishna of Hindostan. 2. Budha Sakia of India. 3. Salivahana of Bermuda 4. Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt. 5. Odin of the Scandinavians. 6. Crite of Chaldea. 7. Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia. 8. Baal and Taut, “the only Begotten of God,” of Phenicia. 9. Indra of Thibet. 10. Bali of Afghanistan. 11. Jao of Nepaul. 12. Wittoa of the Bilingonese. 13. Thammuz of Syria. 14. Atys of Phrygia. 15. Xamolxis of Thrace. 16. Zoar of the Bonzes. 17. Adad of Assyria. 18. Deva Tat,aud Sammonocadam of Siam. 19. Alcides of Thebes. 20. Mikado of the Sintoos. 21. Beddru of Japan. 22. Hesus or Eros, and Bremrillah, of the Druids. 23. Thor, son of Odin, of the Gauls. 24. Cadmus of Greece. 25. Hil and Feta of the Mandaites. 26. Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico. 27. Universal Monarch of the Sibyls. 28. Ischy of the Island of Formosa. 29. Divine teacher of Plato. 30. Holy One of xaca. 31. Fohi and Tien of China. 32. Adonis, son of the virgin Io of Greece. 33. Ision and Quirinus of Rome. 34. Prometheus of Caucasus. 35. Mohammud, or Mahomet, of Arabia. These have all received divine honors, have nearly all been worshiped as Gods, or sons of Gods; were mostly incarnated as Christs, Saviors, Messiahs, or Mediators; not a few of them were reputedly born of virgins; some of them filling a character almost identical with that ascribed by the Christian’s bible to Jesus Christ; many of them like him, are reported crucified; and all of them, taken together, furnish a prototype and parallel for nearly every important incident and wonder-inciting miracle, doctrine and precept recorded in the New Testament, of the Christian’s Savior. Surely, with so many Saviors the world cannot, or should not, be lost.

@@junevandermark952 I believe you've misread the Bible. In the beginning, God revealed himself to everyone there, including Adam and Eve. But those two did not believe him and were banished from his Garden.

@@camay2345 The "myth" of Adam and Eve was plagiarized from Judaism's myth of Adam and Lilith being the first humans created by "God." You might also find the following to be of interest ... The Omphalos Hypothesis was a very big deal to theologians, that in turn would come from miles around to gather and discuss the subject. They never came to any agreement and the new-age theologians are probably also scratching their heads in confusion. The question was and is … did Adam have a belly button?

Well stop dressing up in a fairy suit then 😂😭😭😂

Just how your brain convinced you that you made a rational comparison.

When in doubt, ignore your oppositions point and call it a fairy tale!

@@belfastblue7489 I’ve read it cover to cover once and on my second time now. I see no fairytales.

@@belfastblue7489 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” What’s your issue?

It's mind boggling, how can people be so braindead stupid not to even understand what he said, but taking position of arrogance to lament about what he said.

Why? Example pls...

@@petersubbiah Example of what?

That is a subjective value statement and that cannot be an arguement against a logically coherent arguement. You may not like the conclusion, but you have to establish a breakdown in the if then sequence of thought

@@lanceredman7224 That's nice. Does it come with fries?

Is the only evidence available from Bronze Age goat herders? 26-90 AD is considerably after the Bronze Age.

Why?

Comparing dogs that we can observe do certain things with training to brains that we don't fully understand or know the limits of is not the best

I was comparing them to computers

Indeed, if we could test and retest a 'randomly produced' computer and it always worked and helped us made choices that favored survival, then why not trust them. It is easily tested just as our brains are tested from the time we are born...with each experience and the reactions our brains help us make would be sufficient to inform us that the work well enough. And even there, it's a misrepresentation of the process to call it 'randomly created.'

@@anaccount8474 And yet computers and dogs are limited no? Yet we trust our brains to be able to figure out the world. What's to say we don't have limits so can't fully trust our own minds to tell us the truth. Dogs are colour blind. They can do some things but couldn't even imagine others. What's to say our brains aren't colour blind to things that would help provide answers

Straw man

It's an experiment using free will at the center.

No, there is plenty of evidence but this is sort of more sophisticated evidence as it shows you that on atheism you cannot even begin to think about abything

@@uganda_mn397 can you give an example of this sophisticated evidence? Atheists leave some questions unanswered but they don’t claim to know things that are unknowable, or “know” things that aren’t true, as believers do.

At the same time, he used parables with the expressed purpose to mislead those on the 'outside' lest they hear and understand and repent. He also claimed wide is the path that leads to destruction and many would follow it and narrow is the path that leads to salvation and few will find it. He also warned that on the last day, many will say Lord Lord did we not cast out demons and do miracles in your name and he will say depart from me I never knew you because you did not do the will of the Father. Then we have several scriptures indicating that God hardens hearts. Combine those and it's not at all clear how much the Bible God wants people to actually understand.

there is no afterlife

@@matthewmckenzie9093 and you have no moral compass .... oh except that stolen from your monotheist culture, generations of over 5000 yrs

Why make the assumption that "this is the best that God can do"? If he didn't do any of this, then it would still be imperfect, and completely gone when your physical body dies. As opposed to, if this life is just a blink of the eye as compared to an afterlife, and you're made aware of that fact, then maybe some random bad things happening looks a little less of a consequence.

This is the correction house, a hospital for all of us who want to boss others around. The real home for all souls is God's kingdom. That's why every saint has spoken about detachment from worldly things, cultivating contentment etc. Hope this helps

@@The92AbhiYou ever think how boring eternity is going to be? It's all futile anyway.

@@Gods_messenger_Elijah so if someone comes to you with a gun or asks you to hold your breath for 2-3 mins will you say OK, let me die? Of course not. Our instinct for survival is actually quite deep, don't you agree?

@@The92AbhiYes, I have actually done precisely that in recent months when suffering murderous attacks at night. Once you get to know what life is really like, how utterly pointless and boring it is, death and NOTHING following death would be a sweet release from life. Survival is not important, not to anyone, or anything.

Suffering was not an option until Sin walked in

​@@MrDominic25m Your argument doesn't work. There has been suffering in the world ever since there has been sentient creatures - long before humans existed.

Your argument is self-refuting. There is no such thing as “suffering” in the atheist world view. It’s all just random naturalistic processes. There are no rights, no good, no evil, just random pointless, opinions that spawn in your materialistic brain.

I know right. I find it hard to believe NONE of those he asked said yes. If he asked me if I would trust a computer that was designed by chance (which by the way is a misrepresentation of how one assumes life evolved) I would say yes if it seemed to produce reliable, repeatable, verifiable results with repeated testing. Why wouldn't I? What he doesn't ask himself or even entertain as a possibility is what if the 'designer' of a computer had nefarious intentions. IOW, he has to take on faith that the god which designed the body and brain and in fact the entire world was honest and not intent on misleading. And if one can take on faith that god is good and does not mislead, then one could take on faith that the brain, evolved as it is to produce decisions that seem to enhance survival is reliable is reliable enough to found science and math.

If facts come from the application of logic, does it follow that logic comes from facts? What facts do you base your logic on?

@douglasjacobs882 Did you get this illogical question from Lennox?

@@dongee1664 No, just an observation that you want facts to prove the logic and philosophy that Lennox uses. Just trying to make sense of your statement. I guess I mistakenly thought you were trying to make a logical statement without any factual basis instead of just being emotional.

@douglasjacobs882 To me, the whole point is that Lennox uses supposition, not logic. Nothing he says has any scrap of evidence involved. If you're going to involve philosophy, then anything goes and that's not good enough. Can you give one fact that he can stand by.

Agreed. There's almost a smug smile of 'I'm right' and your wrong about Mr Lennox. Some evidence of supernatural claims would be welcome.

Cool story bro. My favorite part was where you didn’t rebut anything.

​@sterlingtolman he said that Christians have a rationale to do science, but athiests don't. That's dumb. He says athiests do science with their brain, and we shouldn't trust our brain. Athiesm destroys rationality... Lol. Sweet argument. Humans create rationality.

So, Christ fulfilling prophecies foretold hundreds of years before His birth, and rising from the dead, isn't gonna do it, huh?

@@fatstrategist we also know that he’s very good at using fear tactics to get you to believe I him, love him , and worship him . Bc if you don’t, you “burn in hell for eternity”. Yaweh does not give you a choice 🤦🏼‍♂️

Lol silly moderator erasing everything I wrote Smh . Let’s see if he erases this one too

@@bitofwizdomb7266 We do, actually, have a choice. You know why Christ came, yes? Why there was a Messiah at all? God sent the Messiah, the Christ, so that we wouldn’t have to endure hell. We have to accept Christ as our savior and we won’t have to go to hell. But are you upset that God told us of hell? Would you rather He let us figure it out ourselves? If is true that there is a hell, then it makes sense that God would warn us away from such a thing.

@@fatstrategist you “love” god out of FEAR , home slice . Fear . Tell me , how do you show and prove you love to god ? By reading the Bible twice a day ? Once a wk ? By praying every night ? By talking about him everywhere you go ? By going to church ? By just thinking about yaweh a few times throughout the day ? All the time ? How do you show and prove your love to yaweh ? You do not have a choice . Bc the consequence is burn . Zero choice unless you are not a believer , like me

Who or what guides it?

@@mzbarsk Natural selection. Those that are born with a mutation that gives a better chance of survival will be more likely to survive, mate and pass on that advantage.

@@Whatsisface4 That's a buzzword answer. It doesn't answer a simple question: what/who put that process in place? If the answer is: nothing, then by definition it's a random/unguided process.

@@mzbarsk Huh? It's a basic answer. You didn't ask about who/what put that process in place. The answer isn't nothing. If I talk about how the process came about, will you move the goal posts again?

@@Whatsisface4 Natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution, or simply a description of how it functions. So what you're effectively saying is that evolution guides evolution - circular reasoning. Furthermore, because mutations are random, Lennox's argument, if the brain is entirely derived from these random processes, why should we trust it? His second point is that evolution explains how things function when life already exists. It has zero explanation on the origins of life.

And around the world and throughout history this 'god' has led different peoples in totally different directions with inconsistent and sometime downright contradictory doctrines to the point of the going to war because the god they believe in told them to kill people who believed in different gods.

But he's a liar for Jesus. That makes it OK.

Eh I’ll trust him more than you. So you’re the liar.

@@mzbarsk you trust lennox? why?

@@matswessling6600 First, he is mathematician. Second, his arguments make logical sense. Third, his arguments are more compelling than atheistic arguments.

@@mzbarsk his arguments has nothing to do with mathematics. A logical conclusion is always depending on its assumptions. And kn this case the assumption is false: Dawkins never said or wrote what Lenox says he did. its not the first time Lennox lies for jesus...

Well, you have to ignore the arc of human history and the testimony of millions of your fellow humans who have received the Holy Spirit following baptism to disbelieve in God. Sad to be so closed-minded. I was atheist for 49 years, but when I had multiple supernatural experiences, I changed my mind. I do believe everything here on earth is designed or programmed, but sadly I also feel there's a very good chance none of it is 'real'. More likely we are in huge supercomputer's programme, running test after test, forever and ever...