Godless Goodness? Sources of Beauty and Morality | John Lennox and Nicholas Christenfeld 

A filibustering atheist, a giggling ineffectual moderator, a patient godly man

I love John Lennox he is such a lovable spirit.

Nicholas is very one dimensional in his thinking. After all, in his world view we are just a genetic mutation. He either doesn't listen or does not understand. Lennox is far more intelligent...

I love listening to John. Nicholas is a joke.

Christenfield uses big words to sound smart, but at the end of the day, he doesn’t say much of anything.

Jesus didn’t care that slavery existed! When did he ever condemn slavery?

Christenfeld has either no clue of the pesumptions which are implied in his worldview or he is simply not honest. Either of it makes him an worthless debater.

God being longsuffering not wishing any to perish but all come to repentance. Methuselah, the man who lived and died while accumulating more years of life on warth than any other man, DIED and that was the same year the flood came in the 7th month on the 17th day. His name can be broken up into 3 Hebrew words translated to "At his death brings it". Scholars say his name means "man of the dart" or "man of the javelin". But if you can get the first phrase feom the letters and do the math feom the dates in the text and realize the year the oldest man died is the year God sent the flood and still reject the prophetic translation, than you are a stubborn fool who needs help. After all,Seth means, 'appointed'. "FOR GOD HAS 'APPOINTED' ME A SON TO REPLACE ABEL...." Or these same scholars know the story in the books attributed falsely to Enoch say that in the time of Jared the angels came feom heaven to rebel. And Jared means, 'SHALL COME DOWN'. Would these scholars suggest that Yared doesnt mean 'sha come down'.? I doubt it.

Nicholas and the babbling lady had no chance with John Lennox!!

Christenfeld is a snarky rude man who knows he has lost ...and lost to a polite genius

Christenfeld is a brilliant man obviously, but I wish his patience was equal to that of Lennox. We may all have come away having learned much more.

John Lennox is always a gentleman. He is secure in his own skin. Christenfeld is staid in his very own small space.

Nicholas Christenfeld throws 10 statements, John Lennox catches 2, and Nicholas Christenfeld interupts to throw 5 more. This is not a moderated debate. John Lennox is civil and considerate. Nicholas Christenfeld is rude and inconsiderate.

Christenfeld didn't even care to listen or even hear and let John responded to his question, he talked and talk asked and asked without letting John answer it. he asked 5 issues at the time let john said one or two words and asked again another 5 questions. I guess he didn't really want a dialogue, he just wanted to rant. :D

Christenfeld…from the start…snarky! I withheld judgment at first, but it only got worse right through to the end. He makes two serious mistakes. He mistakes snarky for clever and funny. And he mistakes laughs from the audience for proof that he excels in wisdom. Thus…he never transcends the trivial, dishing out 60 minutes of one-liners, the ultimate standup comic on Saturday Night Live. Unfortunately, and largely to Christenfeld’s comic bobbing and dodging, the discussion missed its opportunity to truly discuss the source of morality - leaving beauty to the side. It morphed into a “prove there really is a God, a Christian God” - and if you do - prove that he is not truly evil. It never really managed to treat that issue or any other subject with depth. Lennox attempted to set a better tone, in one case, by framing morality and evil against the background of the Holocaust. Alas…nothing came of it. The moderator was little help throughout. Too bad. Christenfeld got a free pass - claiming that pure biology and evolution will create moral people and that God is the source of evil for allowing immorality. Oddly, he kept bringing up “littlest people” - “proving” that atheists are more moral than God because they protect these “little people.” One word - abortion! In general, atheists are in great part supporters of abortion in all its grizzly forms. Euthanasia is on its way next. The Holocaust, abortion and euthanasia have been justified as pragmatic, ethical and moral by humans relying on their “intellect” while many Christians have been great defenders of life My favorite moment was Christenfeld’s hypothetical about two groups of prehistoric people, one group moral and the other which slaughters people. Did he really have to go back that far? What has his biological evolution accomplished? The modern man has evolved to be more efficient in slaughtering, and the Nazis are his “perfect” petri dish of atheists which he never took time to explain. What a mess of a “discussion”!

Sadly, Dr Christenfeld seems to me rude and slightly dishonest in his discourse.

Dr. Lennox is such a goodhearted peaceful man, I love him. His response here, 46:00

I am amazed by the Humility and patience of Lennox.

John Lennox - his wisdom is on a level way above the intelligence of Christenfeld.

Nicholas is in the shallow end. John is in the deep end.

Nicholas Christenfield is another Dawkins who cannot see the wood for the trees. Prof Lennox intellect is in another class, this wasn't even a contest.

That moderator was completely useless.

The naturalist argument only knows to tear down other explanations, they never pivot to show how their theory is more complete, logical or beautiful. They never build it up, as good apologists do with Christianity.

John has shown that it is possible to have a friendly and vigorous conversation with opposing reality beliefs and the other gentleman did a bit but he was rude on many levels! Pray for him

Dr. Lennox you are brilliant and humble. I just love you! Thank you for what you do🙏🏼

Wow. Christenfeld's opening argument was by far one of the worst arguments against Christianity I've ever heard. Nothing against the guy, but seriously -- that was just sloppy.

Christenfeld is like a generator of random words

Nicholas Christenfeld seems to think that if you raise an argument and then interrupt the other person before they can offer the counter argument you win the debate. If you aren't willing to listen and follow the evidence, there's no reason for anyone to trust anything you have to say.

Thank you to the atheist because the more I listen to this atheist the more I believe in God thank you 🙏

Christenfeld behaved like a child during this conversation. Rude, arrogant, and would not stay silent long enough for his own questions to be answered.

Chistenfeld offers an incredibly childish caricature of faith second to none

"A history that's been led by old men." I'm sure Christenfeld will be an old man someday. And I hope the young generation to follow will not take him seriously. Because Christenfeld will be just another old fart.

I appreciate very much your genuine concern for the comity of the Christendom. You are a real witness of your Christian experiences. ✝️ The lay souls cannot visualize your noble sense craving for a belated justice , John L ... Never mind the laughter even of the unfaithful . Uncontexual laughter is unfaithfulness . They know not what they are doubtful about. Christianity is basically a Movement and then a belief , a faith , a Religion next , a religiousity ultimate and so on. But the real experience rests in the knowledge of the Ultimate Reality of Jesus the second person of the Trinity discovered ❤ a God Incarnate 🙌 and all besides the Omnipotence , Omniscience and Omnipresence. Yes , here lies the sense 😂 . How much could the theories of the Atheism disprove the love divine of the Truth. This is my humble view . I am only a little 🐦 🦜 🦚 🪶 🦢 bird after all in the Ocean/ mysteries of Unbelief , Misbelief and Disbelief. God bless you 🙏 all.

Lennox was kind to this irrational man.

Christenfeld prof at U of Cal was fired from his tenured professorship and stripped of emeritus status after a year-long investigation found he had violated Title IX by emailing a female student pornography in 2018. He had previously been the subject of five separate complaints, including substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct on university property and undisclosed romantic relationships with undergraduate students. However, the university determined none of the prior complaints warranted significant disciplinary action.[3] Hopefully, he now understands the relationship with God is forgiveness, responsibility, and change.

Another atheist who completely misunderstands the moral argument and argues against a strawman. Typical shift from an angry, dishonest anti-theist.

I love Dr. Lennox, I'm a bit disappointed that he didn't point out to Dr. Christenfeld that time ceases to be pertinent after death.

What a fascinating debate, both gentlemen presenting what they believe is the truth about their topic of conversation. I have heard other debates in which Dr. Lennox has participated in. His love for God is quite apparent. He is such a strong believer and not afraid to stand up for what he believes in and gives good solid evidence why.

Christenfeld, straw man, straight up. He either knowingly or ignorantly misrepresents the biblical definition of God to serve his arguments. Why does this conversation literally appear to be a small child speaking with an adult?

Okay doesn't deserve to be on the stage with John Lennox! John you are patient, long-suffering and kind

@1:21:30 Lennox calling Christenfeld's deceit out - powerful

Compared to God I am a toddler and the older I get the less I know either because there is so much I don't know or bcause I have forgotten things I once knew. Either way, I am painfully aware of my lack. Shalom.

Dr. Christenfeld wrongly believes by interrupting someone and speaking so offensively and mocking the belief of the person he speaks to shows him to be somehow more intelligent.

So this is how you prevail in a debate, by constantly interrupting your opponent and not allowing him to make his points.

I wanna give Dr. Lennox a big hug! 😊😊😊

A debate between a young restless man and an old seasoned well-thought man. 'Sitting on the lap of God and slapping Him' rightly fits here. Os debates him like a father talking about the important things of life to his son who would hardly listen. God help Dr Christenfeld.

Professor Lennox is ever admirable. His words are striking, a man with the spine of steel. It's always refreshing listening to him

John is brilliant.

Actually, the atheist faith is the more immature. And more importantly, a faith guaranteed to be let down, as it relies on self and other humans who are not worthy of having faith in.

The grinding, unsubtle hatred and contempt of the atheist is well represented in this debate. The guy on the left is in over his head.

the look on christenfelds face at 57.00 mins ha ha .......a man who has just been schooled ...........way to go mr lennox

Whatever side you are on, one thing is clear, Dr Christenfeld is not a happy person! He is fighting 'the restlessness' (St.Augustine) inside with anger and helplessness!

Lennox swept the leg! He made his opponent look like a child asking a man questions. I thank God for men like John Lennox.

Nick my friend you were intellectually beat to death and the simple fact you couldn’t understand the meaning of his argument several times is almost sad

"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition." Sir Isaac Newton

This atheist won't shut up. Let Lennox talk. Exactly... so Hitler got away when he R.I.P??? Lol. Um you didn't answer the question. Empathy has nothing to do with the golden rule. I'm pretty sure if we slapped that gorilla, the gorilla will get mad on the sole basis of us slapping him for no reason etc. and eat us alive :) .... yeah, the root of all atheists' unbelief is sin. Why did you have to bring up toddlers being tortured... smh

Lots of intellectual dishonest from Nicholas Christenfeld.

John Lennox is just cruising here

It’s very sad that Christenfeld came off as being rude and dishonest. Not surprising, coming from an atheist. That perhaps is a little unfair since there are atheist who have more class in debates like dr. Shermer. I’m very impressed with Dr. Lennox with his well reasoned statements and his patience above all. I have yet to see Dr. Lennox come up short in any debate. I recommend that everyone check out his debate against militant atheist Richard Dawkins. Lennox simply destroys Dawkins.

Reminds me of Lawrence Krauss and how he debates: always cutting people off, snide remarks, downplaying people's intelligence, and on the whole (more or less) saying, "It does but doesn't, it's a does-doesn't, and we don't know but I can tell you that whatever the answer is it surely cannot be God," which amounts to a pigeon strutting around a chess board, shitting on the pieces, and saying he's won the game when the truth is that he never played the game at all. Christenfeld, I think also, is a bit dishonest ("have you ever been tempted to believe in God?") when I've seen numerous atheists from Dawkins to Atkins, etc say that they have been at some point in their life.

something from nothing takes much more faith than god does.

Christenfeld holds on for dear life to a world view that says The world was made by nothing from nothing for nothing. Strange for one who's very name includes the name of Christ. I do not know how Prof Lennox managed to keep his cool debating this windbag.

"Morals evolve!" Insanity.

57:33 the most exasperated I have ever seen Lennox, and I can see why.

Instead of objective/subjective, you could say that right/wrong doesn't have to matter to a person if they don't want it to matter in a naturalistic worldview, but it will matter to everyone in a Christian worldview. And "human flourishing" is a terrifying test for right and wrong. Let's say that a more flourishing world is with only 20,000,000 people rather than 8 billion (I could argue that pretty easily). Now, how do you get to that number, and does it have to matter in a naturalistic worldview?

I really do not care what John Lennox's roots are about, for he seems to hate very little, if at all. His choice is to remain kind and calm and to handle things through a peaceful outlook. He believes in nonviolence, so I don't imagine that he has ever been responsible for physical harm being done to anybody of any other faith. I could refute a portion of Nicholas' argument within the first 5 minutes of this video. I found many of his assertions simply nonsensical. Here's just one example of my own reasoning: The REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr was a Christian minister whose NON - VIOLENT Movement was led by him, for the sake of the rights of a certain group. A number of other Christians of various ethnic groups helped him along the way. My own Christian beliefs support human rights. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule. The basic rule of all of the Ten Commandments, and the bedrock foundation of the faith I choose to follow. It supports human rights more fully than all else. So to say that religious groups don't care to help others to have their personal rights protected is a false judgment based upon either bigoted thinking or ignorance of certain facts. They "won't lead moral changes," he says, also claiming that most faiths are being run by "old men." A grandly false statement. Especially as there are now many female ministers in the USA and Canada, not to mention the UK. And there are female bishops, too. Here is a very long web address for a Google search for "woman archbishop": www.google.com/search?q=woman+archbishop&espv=2&biw=1158&bih=662&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiM883ugbjNAhVPxCYKHUJMC_sQsAQIOQ Lots and lots of photos there. Another example might be how the activism movement of Abolitionism in the 1800's was helped and spurred along, funded and supported, and also often led by religious people. The Society of Friends (a.k.a. the Quakers) and numerous other church societies rose to fight against slavery by every peaceful means possible, including becoming a part of the "Underground railroad." Such religious groups helped heroic Harriet Tubman to bring many people to freedom and safety. www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/activists/harriet-tubman.html So Tubman herself had faith in God. This 2011 article lists 10 more famous leaders and activists. www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/top-ten-black-religious-f_b_828847.html And that's only two times in the history of the world that I have time to offer here this evening.

A Christian believes in Christ forgiveness. A atheist believes in himself.

Very good and powerful statement from Dr. Lennox at the end! Wow.

Nicely put by John Lennox

Nicholas is good looking guy, however, I wouldn't want to marry someone like him because his mind is so closed and he talks and talks without listening to how others feel. His opinion and his alone counts. He's the only intelligent one.

Listening ... yes , so goes your thoughts provoking dialogues on some of our concerns on common issues ... quite interesting anyway ... I think our exploration on Atheism is carrying us too far in the search for the vedantic/ philosophy of the state of godlessness and ungodliness. Atheism suggests a complex of sheer arguments and not the science of a perfect experience and or a noble encounter with the Omnipotent Divinity of God Almighty 🤔 It is well a Kharmic Curse 🤬 on their selves. Providence deals with the frivolous. As we know that every religiousity and or the Religions boasts of their spiritual jealousies between/amongst themselves/ each other. This is true 👍 of the infinite ♾ number of denominational believers throughout our histories . But at the same time noticeably we find the believers or the so called believers relinquishing their parental Faiths to one or the other of their alien Faiths. And in fact ' they ' leave their original/traditional Belief to the other Beliefs without the intervention or the approval of their jealous divinties. There is no disapproval from any side either. So , What does this phenomenon suggest to those of the Devotees and or the Believers who are neither the Atheists ⚛ nor the Theists but the ones who come under the category of the Real Believers 🤔 neutral by instinct ! So the jealousies and envies corrects the Celestial insufficiencies ! But the inference that the divinity of God is One proves itself 😂 . Amen 👏 🙏

Einstein proved that as gravity increases time slows down. (general relativity) this shows that when the universe was first starting its expansion the gravitational pull would have been much greater hence causing time to be much slower and can be used to explain why what we see looks like billions of years. because after the expansion arrived where it is today the time has increased to its present speed. so when we look at the edge of the universe we are looking at the expansion from a time dimension that is far different than it was when it was first started. this is also why when we look at the edge of the universe we see galaxies that are mature just like the ones closer to us.

Nicholas Christenfeld has to be one of the least sophisticated thinkers in these debates, he's not as abysmally bad as Peter Atkins, another psychologist, though he is better than the total idiots like Richard Carrier and John Shook.

I have read a number of comments just now and am seeing that I am not alone on my thoughts about this conversation... I love John also! I might be exiting my physical body soon and it would be wonderful to have a conversation with him before I enter Paradise!

It would seem that atheists love simplified notions of God strawman ING them n break their own strawman while insisting on their own sophisticated nuances of their particular view or explanation

There's always a reason why men or women deny the truth that is written on their hearts. I'm sure he thinks he has a good reason for mocking God. He babbles like someone who is alone in his life . God is with you, listen to his Word.

I was disappointed to not hear justifications of atheism. It appeared that the atheist could only talk against the theist rather than promoting atheism. I also got the impression that the atheist had a very narrow view of evolution. It was almost mystical. The theist and Christian appeared to be very respectful overall and spoke very clearly in spite of demonstrating quite a bit of frustration.

Why is Dr. Lennox debating Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor?

His body language of tightly crossed legs, hand over mouth, shoulders facing the audience instead of John, speaks volumes.

I am a former Christian, but Christenfield got wrecked by Lennox so hard. The crap which comes out of his mouth is unbelievable.

Right at the start, you can see that NC has prepared for what he thinks are JL's arguments. I think that when your concept of God is so different, it makes a good discussion very difficult. There's no understanding of grace, but always this concept of carrot and stick and obeying God and being good to earn our way, when in Christianity, we can't earn our way, but Jesus has paid for us, and so any good we do is in response to that, not to earn favour. It's basic Christianity. There's never a reckoning of God's looking on as benevolent, but always as a snooper and fun-spoiler, and the idea of prayer as simply telling God what to do is so limited. I think you have to start by clarifying some of this stuff. I also think that you have to distinguish between belief and living it out, between different faiths and ideas of what God is like, and between people who call themselves Christian, (like my old colleague who said she was one, but didn't believe in God- so seeing it as a cultural identification) and those who have an active relationship with God.

Nicholas Christenfeld has very valid points in his arguments and his questions, by my goodness his manners and the underlying tone of his intentions are atrocious.

I truly feel sorry for Nicholas Christenfeld and his beliefs.

And the problem of evil is a problem for none believers. They live in a world of real unjustice. Here the most horrible things happens to people of all ages. So the evil doers get what they want but no punishment. And the victims loose all without any mercy to be found. If a good God gives us free will this is what will happen for we walk away from what's good and righteous all the time. But if God is omnipotent their will be justice and true mercy, for the victims will be compensated beyond our imagination. So atheist you're world is a dark place and no light for you to give hope or explanation for these existential questions because when you use science to give you answers in this area you are fishing with a microscope.

An atheist choose himself to not believe in God. Nobody is born as an atheist or as a christian. You choose to be one thing another thing.

The argument that people who believe in God does bad things and so do none believers is true too a certain degree. But the differences in personal understandings that subjectively define their God can differ widely from one to the other. And in what way are the doers of bad really believing at the time of their bad conducts? All believers use pragmatics in one way or the other to justify actions. So no man is morally perfect because of the lack of will to follow a higher morality. But the important thing to understand is that truth will always win. So the fruits of our actions clearly shows wether we have followed the highest forms of goodness. A believer can fall to the moral standards of a non believer it happens all the time. And a non believer can rise up to the morality of what God wants and that of which Jesus taught us. Because it is in the lack of understanding that we all fall and in the wisdom that we can rise up with the our trust in God. And in the understanding that without the moral perfect model in Jesus Christ we are without a model and therefore lost.

But God explanation makes a prediction. That there is objective morality for the discussion to begin with.

YOU dear Sir are a Daily 🙌 BLESSING. The word SHALOM becomes more "productive" actually more REALISTIC and PRECIOUS during these challenging days......GRACE IN ACTION!

Display of rationality, for the two world views here is extremely telling. You have one person with a joy and a confidence being able to understand that there is some thing such as truth. Will you hear another person who's smug, dry, and continuously using words like utility. If that's the world, he lives in, I feel sorry for him. But even for a greater, how sad to miss out on the free gift of salvation and face, death with the uncertainty of disbelief.

He is the one who bruises the serpent 's head. Amazingggggggggggggg

For clarification, can we agree that the English word Christ is not a personal name? Why not say, 'the' Christ, as in 'the' President'? In any case, paganism aside (hearing voices), by your use of the word aren't you pretending to assign a name to somebody whom you then turn around and admit already has a name, a very important one, as well? Who decided Jesus needed a surname back in a time when those were not used in such a formal way. In more ancient times it was, like, Elijah, the Tishbite, the place he was from. Before that it was Bill begotten of Jack, or Sam son of George, where the hereditary angle comes into play. But an office doesn't have such a slant. Maybe a family of goat herders? So we have a mystery about this "Jesus Christ" business, what's behind it, and whether the family of Christianity has a place to get in the sense of family ties. The problem is, all the so-called 'born againers' were not born of the Christhood, but of God, assuming they aren't lying about who was the father, or maybe the mother. The question becomes, why don't they call themselves sons of God? That's what I am..., not a surely God damned Antichrist wearing a phony professional religious hang tag who belongs to a 2.4 billion member international empire known as Christianity. Born of God, as in the Father? In the analogy, where's the sex act? The mother? The "church"? "Mother church"? But that's said to be made out of other (phony) born-againers. That'd make them born of themselves. Something's wrong with that picture. Maybe I need to see a shrink. Yet again, what if your Nicaean fathers have led you astray with a blatant manipulation of the writings of the Apostle? Did you know, for instance, that the KJV bible renders the phrase 'Christ Jesus" only 58 times but 'Jesus Christ' 187 times? By comparison, the original NIV bible has Christ Jesus 86 times with Jesus Christ at 132. Why such confusion in publications purported to be the Word of the LORD -- and a narrative already split into over 500 English 'versions'? Who is the author of consistency? Who is the author of confusion? Do those questions matter to you? Most, if not all Christians could care less..., either way. But I'll air my complaint just the same. May I ask, in your New Age mind, does the phrase, "Trump President" work for you? Wouldn't President Trump work better to convey that fact without the appearance of devious motives? Switching places with words is effortless. Convey a lie, convey the truth -- easy either way. Title first, name following. Would you read or write King David as "David King," sans a determiner? Not likely. Yet the whole world goes around saying Jesus Christ instead of Christ Jesus, justifying the error "because th' bible sez so..." Should a man-made after-the-fact third party transcription include a guarantee of divine infallibility? The question begs at least a little discussion and not to forbid a good dose of examination. When a long established office is unoccupied it isn't reasonable for another name to be applied, in the mind or out of the mind, crosswise or not, except the actual name of the office, say, Christ, or by analogical comparison, President -- and/or, when necessary, slightly modified to refer to the Christhood or the Presidency. If and when either office is occupied the name of the office (Christ/President) doesn't suddenly become a personal name so as to trap otherwise innocent people into a denial of the Name that really matters. The fact is, the rules of language demand a determiner, as in: "The" President said..., or "The" Christ said..., or even "The" donkey said, never Christ said, President said, or donkey said. In this case, contextually, lack of a determiner corrupts the intended identifying reference. It even corrupts Christianity's own broader but profoundly subtle intention to promote the notion that there could never be but one Christ. That blasphemous notion is dependent on the manipulative loopholes of translation. More on that in a moment. Yet here's an idea with which to continue my literary dissection. Jesus was 30 years old when he began his public ministry. Here's how it went: [John 1:41-42a] The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). [42a] And he brought him to Jesus. (NIV) He was the Christ for three years. Did he take the concept of the Christhood with him when he went up? In that regard, what was Paul talking about? [Philippians 3:8b] ..., that I may win Christ, (KJV) Given the deliberate New Testament confusion between the words Jesus and Christ, how should Paul's statement be understood? In his use of a word translated as 'win,' isn't that a direct allusion to the idea he presented in terms of running a race and winning the prize? At this level, what would that be? And if that 'race' is not a competition between men but about a tortuous obstacle course that no man has ever finished what if that correlates to a matter of overcoming, as it could apply to Revelation 2:26? If there had ever been a winner would the world be like it is today? Question: Why did the Bishops of Nicaea eliminate such an important word as "the" from their editorialized text in the manufacture of the "Christian New Testament"? It was because the Master of the Christian Empire was (and is) terrified of the man Elijah. The agenda of the Prince of the Power of the Air was to deny the Christhood of both Moses and Elijah, but especially the latter who had a habit of killing people -- and still does...

lie because if i didn't someone's gonna die, of course. but lie about someone's haircut? i would say no. i would tell the truth about my opinion. I believe it won't hurt anyone feeling at the end when you say it honestly, sincerely and not in a way to mock them.

An alternative to absence of belief is chaos, meaning that overvall the state of humanity is unpredictable. If any rules can describe the state of humanity no rule define what is good or wrong, so ethics doesnt exist. Ethics and beliefs are bounded together in this attenpt to describe the humanity state in the much fair manner possible. Beauty is sublimation of the nature, seeking to express essence of nature. Does nature required rule to exist? Humanity belong to nature, to its rules, somehow the bound between humanity and nature give a hope that ethics can be owned by any individuals.

Going by how he behaved in this debate, Nicholas Christenfeld is the very definition of conceited, arrogant, rude and inconsiderate. After his annoying display of pompous behaviour and digs to the other speaker...all I desired was for someone to SHUT HIM THE HELL UP!!! I could care less what his message was! Couldn’t get past his negative demeanor... On the other hand, John Lennox appeared to be jolly, humble, educated (in the complete sense of the word) and well-mannered. He carried himself well in spite of the incessant interruptions and never being permitted to finish his sentences but instead being bombarded with new ones. Ugh.. What a difference a positive attitude makes!

The Source of Morals If you don’t believe in one of the traditional Gods that people only presume exist and suppose is the creator of the cosmos, doesn’t that mean that you have no legitimate basis for your code of morals and that tend to change over time? People have debated this question for millennia in connection with questions about how to know if God exists but failed to say which God as if it could only refer to Yahweh or to Jesus or the one Jesus refereed to as “the Father.” “ The answer is “No.” What it means is that you just have no imaginary Divine moral basis or guide. What is universally available to everyone is the morals of the rational “common sense” of the non pacifist golden rule. Pacifism is opposed to the golden rule! Fake pacifism may not be however! Contrary to what he supposedly as Yahweh commanded in the OT, Jesus taught a corrupted version of it which required followers not to retaliate against or defend themselves from whatever enemies wanted to do to them or their family and friends. He most likely did this because he believed that "the Father," the top God, had predetermined a day that he alone knew of when he in person along with Jesus (Yahweh of the OT) would come down from the clouds (heaven) and carry out a perfectly just final judgment on mankind. According to this popular idea by a consensus of knowledgeable believers, Jesus, had he believed in free will which he actually didn’t, would have condemned Abraham for rescuing his nephew Lot; Genesis 14. However, Matthew and John et al said that Jesus gave certain of his followers power, supposedly like that of Moses and his own which was limited, in order to certify that what they said about Jesus and his mission to save certain pre chosen followers, the gospel in other words, was really from God and not something they made up. Then Jesus said that as soon as he got back to heaven and was given back the same full power and authority he had as Yahweh, he'd send them a spirit that would grant their every request and make them even more powerful than he'd already supposedly made them. This power would be given to every believer from then on to certify the gospel they were to spread everywhere as the truth. This kind of certification by miracles would be necessary for all to personally witness until the day of judgment when "the Father and Jesus" came out of hiding for everyone to see with their own eyes just like Jesus was supposedly seen following his supposed resurrection and as he supposedly ascended into heaven shortly before Pentecost where it was said that he’d come back the same way he went meaning visibly from the clouds. So, since no one can do such miracles (though many like Benny Hinn and others have for millions of people convincingly faked some of them), it's irrefutable visible proof that no one ever did such things, not Moses or Joshua or Elijah or Jesus et al, that the Bible is mostly fiction, most importantly its religious doctrines, that Jesus was either a myth or a fraud as were his apostles, that Jesus isn't coming back, and that Muhammad was a fraud for the very same reason as the rest. In various legitimate ways, Robert Spenser, David Wood, Apostate Prophet, and Jay Smith et al have undeniably established that Muhammad was a fraud too as was Joseph Smith Jr. and hundreds of thousands more. Therefore, in lieu of their God coming out of hiding for all to see, anyone who claims to have Divine revelations must, and in agreement with the Bible and sound reason, show irrefutable miraculous proof like those in the Bible else be justly condemned a fraud and at least shunned and other people, who might be and have been naively taken in by the ignorance and outright lies of con-artists, warned about them in compliance with the golden rule. To paraphrase Karl Popper, “If you practice unlimited tolerance and forgiveness without requiring sincere repentance and friendship in return, you will be destroyed. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant by any and all possible means.” Answer me this. Can you, as a believer in a God that only exists as an idea with many versions and whose supposed word is constantly being debated, do authentic miracles? No? Then none of the biblical doctrines are or can be certified true including the idea that good morals come from knowing Yahweh or Jesus. Morals have to come from simple common sense by intelligent human beings interested in legitimate justice and safety et al. This "common sense" in conjunction with “the Ten Commandments” is often called the golden rule. In the Bible, it's called "the way of life," "the word of righteousness, " "the perfect law of liberty," and other similar terms. The authors of the Bible presumed that obeying it would cause people to be immortal following death as a mortal or “in the resurrection.” They were wrong as they were about so many other things.

NC talking mess 🤣🤣🤣

I listen to countless hypothetical attempts by the great physicists of our time trying to posit a theory for the existence of everything without a creator - and they use words like “it seems” all the time… How on earth could they not?(!) So this Frankenstein fellow’s last point in his opening volley is not at all valid… Sorry, old bean.

What's the point...? Carrying on about rainbows and snowflakes 😂 did he clarify whether he was a rainbow or a snowflake? He could create one using Photoshop that's so much more beautiful... How daft. Nature doesn't need him to create that though because create is what has already been established. It's beautiful that man would postulate how wonderful his own creation could be while stealing from Creation in order to make it that way. Speaking of crystals and snowflakes apparently he hasn't an understanding of fractals. Fractals make up snowflakes, fractals are in nature and magnificent ways

It's very obvious that Nicholas wanted to debate with the intent to win it. He's not open to truly digesting what Sir Lennox is saying. It's like your debating with a college or high school student. Lol 🤣 Thank God for Sir Lennox professionalism.

Nicholas is so aggressive but he's not making any sense. Not worth your time to debate him. He's arguing without really listening to Lennox. Thankfully Sir Lennox is very peaceful and using wisdom not just his intelligence.