God vs Science: Which explanation is correct? | John Lennox at SMU 

People believe God and Science are two conflicting, mutually-exclusive entities that fight to disprove one another...honestly, I think it's the other way around: Science and God reinforce each other 🔥🔥🔥

Thank God for John Lennox. I'm a scientist and a Christian

The more detail you hear around John’s explanations, the more convincing they become. Keep learning and asking questions… and the idea of God becomes very very convincing indeed.

Listening to Mr. Lennox is very enjoyable! He has a delightful style. His points are spot on.

That was good stuff. I don't think we will ever find God, nor understand beyond what we can see and measure, but I agree that if you believe that God created everything that means He created Science also. You can have God without Science but you can't have Science without God.

thank God for this great scientist

Anyone and everyone can deny it but there is only one true God!!

Eloquent. Funny. Wise.

God bless you John

Human beings are complex. You can accept reality in _some_ respects while still clinging to whatever fairy tales you were taught to believe as a child. You can even compartmentalize your thinking, accepting evidence-based thinking in science and in your everyday life, while believing whatever you _want_ to be true when it comes to religion. I mean _people_ can do that. I'm not sure how, myself. I'm not sure how you can recognize that evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking when it comes to your profession, but then abandon that entirely when it comes to your religion. But people do that all the time - people of _lots_ of different religions, not just yours. Unfortunately, faith-based thinking is destroying my country and my world. This stuff _matters._

Thanks John an Varitas

Thanks so much. I have to differ on one point, regarding the boiling water - both explanations are desirable but only one is actually needed - "I want a cup of tea"

If, as Stephen Hawking believed, that the universe in one form or another always existed, that would do away with the idea of creation or a creator, and would mean that suffering of all forms of life ... is natural.

Excuse me RU-vid, you need to tweak my algorithm somewhat. How did this garbage get on my list of things worth watching?

True science is discovering, revealing the wonder of God's creation. Exploring how it all works and more. Science is but one facet of what God has given us to know more.

Science(Scientism) kills the dreams of the Never Ending Story and The Wolf is its prophet, because men without dreams and hopes are easier to control, and whoever has control has The Power.

his whole argument, as well as many theologians, is precisely "god of the gaps" in advancing religious belief. they often say things like "science can't explain everything", or "science can't explain the beginning of the universe", or "look at the order and magnificence of the cosmos, which science can't explain". anything science can't explain they claim falls under the umbrella of theology, which provides an explanation.

I think we have come to a point in history were we can no longer deny God. We live in a time were science proves the Bible to be true more and more every day. That being said at this point it is no longer an argument of wether God exists and is the 1 true God, it now becomes a personal decision to regent Him and what the Bible teaches because people don’t like it and it not being politically correct in 2023! And the is unfortunate considering the alternative!

"God" isn't an explanation. It's a noun. That doesn't mean science is "correct" by default, but science is self-correcting and self-improving. There are probably instances where we could say it's correct _enough_ to call it correct, but scientists are still working hard to improve our understanding on virtually every discipline.

Yikes... I really hadn't realized how poorly informed Lennox was on the subject of ancient near eastern mythologies. The narrative of so many pre-800 BCE episodes of the Tannakh fall exactly into this legendary, primeval, mythological vein (such as the battle against Leviathan, the elemental battle versus the forces of water in the Flood myth, the parting of the Sea of Reeds, the depiction of God as a fiery, volcano-like deity, or even the fact that he wields a legendary, magical sword in battle) that Mr Lennox appears to be ignoring. Now, granted, perhaps he is absolutely ignorant of Enuma Elish and the "God Vs the Deep" battle symbollism (for instance), but he shouldn't! To claim that the "other gods were products of the primeval stuff of the universe" is absolutely true... BUT so was Yahu (or YHWH or whatever you wish to call it). This god, a minor deity in the Canaanite pantheon, was a storm god whose portfolio expanded from basic raiding and weather roles, into a more central position. His people changed from henotheism, through monolatry and finally into monotheism over a period of several hundred years.

"Gods of the gaps" is a good phrase. Unfortunately, God as depicted in the Old Testament, is also a god of the gaps, as Yahweh started out as a volcano god. The description of Moses getting the commandments, with the earth shaking and such, is a description of a volcano. (Moses himself was influenced by the teachings of Melchizedek. So, he knew better, but his followers were not sophisticated enough to understand where the commandments came from, so he had to dress them up a bit.) It's not until we get to the New Testament that we get Jesus telling us that God is not wrathful, he's filled with love. That was a massive paradigm shift back then, and we're still working on wrapping our heads around that one. The Old Testament has no place in a "Christian" Bible. Jesus himself likened it to an old wineskin and his teachings to new wine. The two don't mix.

God ALWAYS!!! NOT MAN

Demolition of the spaghetti monster fairy tooth atheist gods by Prof. Lennox.

He might as well ask 'little green men at the bottom of my garden versus science'.

Science serves the useful purpose of stripping religion of its superstition. According to some of our celestial guardians: 102:6.8 To science God is a possibility, to psychology a desirability, to philosophy a probability, to religion a certainty, an actuality of religious experience. Reason demands that a philosophy which cannot find the God of probability should be very respectful of that religious faith which can and does find the God of certitude. Neither should science discount religious experience on grounds of credulity, not so long as it persists in the assumption that man’s intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from increasingly lesser intelligences the further back they go, finally taking origin in primitive life which was utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling. 103:7.1 (1137.6) Science is sustained by reason, religion by faith. Faith, though not predicated on reason, is reasonable; though independent of logic, it is nonetheless encouraged by sound logic. Faith cannot be nourished even by an ideal philosophy; indeed, it is, with science, the very source of such a philosophy. Faith, human religious insight, can be surely instructed only by revelation, can be surely elevated only by personal mortal experience with the spiritual Adjuster presence of the God who is spirit. 112:2.12 In science the human self observes the material world; philosophy is the observation of this observation of the material world; religion, true spiritual experience, is the experiential realization of the cosmic reality of the observation of the observation of all this relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space. To build a philosophy of the universe on an exclusive materialism is to ignore the fact that all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated. "195:7.1 How foolish it is for material-minded man to allow such vulnerable theories as those of a mechanistic universe to deprive him of the vast spiritual resources of the personal experience of true religion. Facts never quarrel with real spiritual faith; theories may. Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith-human belief in spiritual realities and divine values. 195:7.2 Science should do for man materially what religion does for him spiritually: extend the horizon of life and enlarge his personality. True science can have no lasting quarrel with true religion. The “scientific method” is merely an intellectual yardstick wherewith to measure material adventures and physical achievements. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences. 195:7.3 The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe. truthbook.com/urantia-book-viewer/195-After-Pentecost/#195_7

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Are The Ten Commandments Based On The Forty-Two Principles Of Maat That Appeared 2,000 Years Earlier? - Ancient Pages"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* *"How many scientists question evolution? - **sciencemeetsreligion.org**"* *"What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions - BioLogos"* (A Christian organisation) *"Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - Science"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"*

Not all ancient Gods were Gods of the gaps, some other Gods stories do have them telling how that God created everything. God of the Bible is not the only one with this story. Sikh, Baha'i and more were creator of universe religions.

What is a number? A Mathematical Breakthrough God is the designer of our universe, and He is eternal. The proof is in the math. Here is that proof: Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1. This equation says a number, any number is a set-in space that change with space. In physics this equation reads: Gravity is matter changing with space. It combines Relativity or fractured space with Quantum mechanics or spatial expansion. How dose God fit into this equation? This equation is God's mathematical name. God's name in this equation reads: God's Mind Is Man Changed With God. Breakdown: God's mind is infinite. In math this measure out as the set of infinity In math (1/x) represents a fraction of a whole. Any child is a fraction of a parent and man according to the Bible is God's child. Therefore, man is a fraction of God Change in math is represented by the Greek letter (delta) and it denotes a difference of some kind. Plus (+) in math means: “with” the addition of There is only one God. In mathematics the number “1” represents a single entity. Spelled out: God's Mind (Infinity) is (=) Man (1/x) Changed (delta) With (+) God (1). Scientific Method Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always = 4 Step 2 Question: Do math and Divinity share a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exist, He should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: God's Mind Is Man Change With God is an equation Step 5 Test: Any number (Infinity) is (=) a set-in space (1/x) that change (x^2) with (+) space (1)) Note: "X" describes any set, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise This equation tells us why 2 feet is not the same as 2 inches. Both distances are measured out as 2 units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each sets in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: New look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of 3 domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion a.k.a time and energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real therefore the value in enumeration demand God exists otherwise the domain for enumeration would be incomplete. We know the domain for enumeration is complete because we can count. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor known as the father of set theory was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. Example. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! A correct set correspondence method Here is a better way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say 2. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of 100 divided by the square root of 25. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality, but they also describe our existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Numbers like truths don't lie. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is in many ways our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discovery comes about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based in math or science but in faith. We have been blessed, but I also believe we should be concerned for what is coming. Very highly speculative: Infinite gravity suggest we may be living inside a black hole that is internally expanding. 1/x(delta) may explain why inflation happened. The case maybe that inside a black hole space is cracked and stretched due to the compression and pulling of space by the difference in layer spatial collapsing. Outside space coexisting with points of space already consumed into an infinitesimal boundary create symmetry and this symmetry get to spread evenly as matter. Our universe becomes virtual and expanding. Zero in this context equals the difference in symmetry. A zero field is in this case a field of opposites. One field is collapsing while its opposite is expanding. This speculation does not rule out God. If it is how our universe happen and is evolving it is best understood as a tool used to do the work needed to fashion existence and life. We should not be afraid of knowing God's working regardless as to how He choose to do those works. Whether it be evolution or any other methodology in His works the truth is we are here to learn and practice those learnings. If doubt remain then please answer this question. What is a number? Google it if you need help. Infinity says a number is both qualitatively and quantitatively a set-in space that change with space. Isn't this what we do when we count or measure anything at all. Yes, this is exactly what we do when we measure or count anything. In counting we take a memory or a something we name and put that something into an order of some kind in the space of our mind. We can arrange that something into least to greatest or whatever meets our satisfaction but the fact that we put anything into an ordered sequence is in effect making a change happen. So, there we have it. A set in the space of our mind changes with the mind. At one moment the set is 1 and at the next moment it is 2 then 3, 4, 5 and so on. Conclusion why would God give us his love scientifically and mathematically if he did not want us to better know HIM? In conclusion. Fighting over whether Creationism or Evolution is the right answer as to why we are here is the wrong picture both have a place with God. william.mabon@yahoo.com

Not a "scientist", but I am a Computer Scientist :) And I'm considered a genius in my field. And no, I don't believe God exists. I know God exists. In every major, anyone who is passionate knows that a Creator have to exist for this world to be created. An artist and their empty canvas A biologist who see how intelligent and complex cells, genes, and DNA are, knowing it wasn't a big accident A programmer who initialize their project, starting by defining the main function and the variables that will be reused

I’ll take evidence based science anytime. It’s evidence that logically warrants belief…in anything

Science is the process for questioning everything. Dogma are answers that cannot be questioned. They are opposites. Religious people can put aside their dogma and do science, but then they are not being very religious. When we refuse to admit we could be wrong, then we refuse to grow. This is why echo chambers and yes men are dangerous, and a temptation the powerful must resist. Atheism is starting line instead of a false finish line, and some are further down the path of self-improvement than others.

But the agent explanation is dependent totally on the first scientific reason. Hence, science is what matters. It's like saying just because a famous agent like Newton believed in the non Catholic Christian god, then that God must exist. The difference is that there is no scientific explanation to prove that a specific God exist. This is categorical mistake. Just compare: Water boiling could be explained and proven vs the agent or the non pure explanation that entirely depends on proven science.

I believe in observation and what the data says.

If Lennox wasn't a professor in math, and a soft-spoken man of a certain age... Would anyone really want to hear his weak naive arguments?