Peter Singer vs John Lennox | Is There a God? Debate 

John Lennon: "Imagine no religion." John Lennox: "No."

It's so refreshing to see two gentleman have a civil debate and discussion on this topic.

Excellent and thought-provoking

What an amazing discussion. One of my favourite debates so far.

I like John Lennox a lot, the clarity of his exposition. Always a pleasure to hear.

John Lennox could be a commentator in movies of nature. very pleasant voice. It's like he is from the LOTR-world.

As an atheist, let me acknowledge, with the highest possible praise, John Lennox vocalizes cogent hypotheses and objections every atheist should hear. Though I believe many of them are unfalsifiable, they are some of the best examples of reasonable critiques of non-belief.

It is deeply refreshing to hear this topic discussed without rancor, talking over one another or cheap jokes.

How does this debate not have a billion views by now? This was epic. This might be my new favorite debate. Both sides had top notch arguments, each thoughtfully responded to the other's arguments and rebuttals, and each was very humble and respectful of one another. I was utterly amazed, actually, with how quickly these speakers came up with pertinent and relevant responses to each other--complete with quotes that the Australian audience could also relate to--in such a short period of time. My mind is blown right now. These are the kinds of discussions we all should be having with one another. The only reason I come down on the side of John Lennox is because I have discovered Christ due to evidence and experience before seeing this debate; if I had not, and came to see this debate with no belief one way or the other, I might call this a draw (but for the way that Lennox somewhat threw off Singer by his question regarding his atheist faith based on his heritage, and Singer's answer for the child's question was very telling and highly depressing), and would be very interested in conducting further research to see where it led. Great debate, awesome moderation, and wonderful civility by everyone. Thank you for hosting and sharing this amazing talk, Fixed Point Foundation.

Singer really did the "Who created God?" objection! Tell me you dont understand the cosmological argument without telling me you dont understand the argument.

Singer in this debate flounders

1:18:29 "Let's try and look at the logic of it. If Jesus actually was God, the question that I'm faced with is: _what was God doing on a cross?_ And I can begin to see here that if this is true then God has not remained distant from the problem of suffering and evil but has himself become part of it."

Thank you for this presentation and the work you've done to bring it.

I am so unimpressed with Singer and just assumes morality is a given, and how he doesnt understand why the universe cant be eternal.

Religion gives people comfort in a world torn apart from religion.

Again, the question answers the question.

Professor Singer! So much courage it takes to be so honest with yourself and in the debate. Thank you sir.

Love listening to John Lennox. And I am happy seeing some sensible civilized debates such as these rather than looking into the crap I find in twitter and RU-vid comments by irrational thugs.

What is that poet John Lennox talked about at 1:27:40? I can’t find his name, the captions didn’t show his name.

So, Lennox only was able to explain that there COULD be a god, and Singer explained how the universe can exist without need for a god. Fact is, we can't know for sure if there is some intelligent source that set things in motion.

Thanks for your ministry guys! I’m learning a lot.. You are such a blessing. Hope your channel grows more and reach more people. To the ends of the earth..

44:38

Amazing debate!

John Lennox puts his fellow Protestants to shame. He talks about things that other Protestants do not want to think about, such as an honest view of history.

"I AM THAT I AM". Works for me every time.

disappointed at Singer's simply declaring a position without putting forward any explanation, much less proof.

How to contact Fixed Point Foundation can anyone help.

Listen to the song by Michael Card. “That’s What Faith Must Be”.

I’ll never understand when a theist says he can talk and hear their god and can’t answer why there’s so much evil in the world. Why can’t you ask your god for answers. Why doesn’t the loving god help kids who are molested but just watching and punishing the person later? Why doesn’t god answer prayers of parents of childrren who are dying from cancer ?

Oouu man , this debate Evidence evidence evidence , Fact fact fact Plain simpel and beautiful and elegant

41:58 no... in the beginning the word hold zero weight. Versus the beginning we can visibly trace.

watched all of it

John Lennox is a true man of God

Lennox spent much of his time on the benefits of being a Christian and that he would not like to live in a world without a Christian god, but that’s obviously not evidence that there is one, so it’s irrelevant to the subject of the debate. I appreciate that both debaters were respectful, sincere, and more focused on seeking truth than scoring points with their fans.

Bad things happen because we have free will an live in a fallen world after the garden this is what the Bible teaches God bless!

Jesus is Lord

Dr Singer has a good point. Why does God: If He Is God, Allow Evil, War, Disease, Famine & Natural Destruction Take Place? Dr Singer is an example of the age old biblical debate. Is man allowed free choice? Obviously, if we read Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and to keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. This is the original proposition. God gave man-Adam a garden/paradise. All had to do was believe God was telling the truth. But he was free not to believe God aka (call him a Liar.) Do what you will and choose death and do evil. But Adam and Eve (created later after God told Adam the law) Exercised free will to ignore God and reject his guidance and law. We listened to a Liar. By listening to the Liar aka Devil/Satan he became our Father and We Became our own gods. If you look at all the religions? Manlike beings are the idols & gods. That we worship. Genesis3:4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5“For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” As God said: JPS Tanakh 1917 Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever!” So we and Devil are the gods of this world. Dr Singer you are a Modern Adam! God is a Liar. He does not exist or is not your Atheistic god. God can not blamed for the awful world you testify too. I have son that is severely bipolar. I have shown him nothing but love. Sent him to Ivy-league colleges. He has everything money can buy. But he says he hates me and my wife. He will never come to our house again. But he does when he is desperate. But still blames us for i suspect giving him an unhappy illness. You Dr Singer are like my son. You hold God responsible for all the evil men do. Romans 1:29 They are filled with all kinds of wickedness, evil, greed, and vice; they are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deceit, and malice. They gossip Romans 1:30and speak evil of one another; they are hateful to God, insolent, proud, and boastful; they think of more ways to do evil; they disobey their parents; 31they have no conscience; they do not keep their promises, and they show no kindness or pity for others. 32They know that God's law says that people who live in this way deserve death. Yet, not only do they continue to do these very things, but they even approve of others who do them. Don’t blame God for man /Adam exercising his Free Choice! Man chose to be god of this world. Just like you Dr Singer chose to believe what you believe. If you hate this world? Man made this bed. Let him lie in it! Like Hamlet said to Horatio: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

1:40:10 Jesus, Sun of the world above 1:43:02 The moment I die I step sideways into eternity

Do we see the letters used for the word? Let's use the shape, gather the three into one.

I think john speak very smooth and warm voice, even though i dont agree with him.

Science, the Universe, The God Question I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. Ravi Zacharias debate Peter Singer & Dr. Peter Atkins at Cornell University

I wish someone would let Lennox know that talking in an incredulous tone of voice with a supercilious smile on your face doesn't constitute making an argument.

Perhaps the most efficient way to reach spiritual maturity is to experience reality physically, mentally, and spiritually simultaneously. The earth is a womb. Thy dead men shall live. Together as with me they will rise. Rejoice, and sing ye who dwell in dust, for thy dew was as the dew of herbs, and the earth will cast out her dead. It is appointed once for each person to die, and none can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they are born again. Every knee will bow... and they who profess with their tongue, and believe in their heart that Jesus is the son of God, shall be saved. It is not the will of God that any should parish into damnation for eternally. Every soul belongs to God. You can argue with an ideology, but you can you argue with the results?

- "There are but two possibilities: (1) Life originated from undirected processes; or (2) Life originated from directed processes. Scenario (1) is impossible for the reasons stated below. Whenever you have two possibilities if, you prove one to be impossible then you have necessarily proved the other to be *certain*. Atheists often accuse Christians of adhering to a “god of the gaps” fallacy; that we adhere to an argument from incredulity. However, nothing could be further from the truth. We do not argue that we do not understand how undirected life origination happens and therefore God. We affirmatively state and prove that undirected life origination is absolutely impossible. Why is it impossible for life to arise from undirected processes? To begin with, it is statistically impossible. It is generally accepted that odds greater than 1:10^50 are so remote as to be impossible. Assuming arguendo that it is even possible for molecules to assemble themselves into cell membranes and to cooperate to develop life processes, and further that they could posit and develop the ACTG(u) language carried in DNA, it must be noted that the simplest moneran known to man has a DNA sequence that is a little over 218,000 letters long. Let’s round it down and also discount the (U) in the DNA coding. Bending over backwards in favor of the atheist, the odds of assembling the sequence of DNA needed to govern the operation and reproduction of the simplest moneran are 1:4^218000. Rephrased to base-10, we are at 1:1.607*10^217060. Also, let's assume arguendo that the “consensus” age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. That works out to 4.35*10^15 seconds. Let’s also assume that the “consensus” of subatomic particles in the known universe is correct at 10^86. That is 4.35*10^103 particle-seconds from the beginning of the universe to this day. Every subatomic particle in the universe would have to engage in 3.69*10^216957 *ordered experiments* (where no two experiments were identical) *per second* from the beginning of the universe to *now* to find the DNA sequence of the simplest moneran. As you add to those odds by raising them to the power of the odds of: (a) DNA itself forming; (b) within a cell membrane since water is caustic to it; (c) the cell membrane itself forming; (d) with the correct mix of left-handed amino acids [and none right-handed]; (e) in such a manner as to have the correct food to metabolize; (f) with the correct temperature; (g) with the correct pH; one can clearly see that the odds rapidly exceed a number of one in ten raised to the power of a number of zeroes in it that exceed the number of subatomic particles in this universe. Impossible. To an absurd degree. The impossibility of unintelligent chemicals positing and implementing the DNA language cannot be stated numerically; the odds are one in **infinity**. Chemicals are unintelligent. It is ipso facto impossible for them to cooperate. If you wish to make chemicals reflect intelligence, then external intelligence must be applied. DNA itself is the irrefutable calling card of God. That said, let’s proceed to other things that make undirected life origins impossible. Each and every action whereby an element, molecule or life form proceeds from the simple to the complex requires the application of external intelligence. Physical laws make this an absolute. Matter within a system proceeds from the complex to the simple, and not the other way around. This physical law can be suspended - but only by the application of external intelligence; e.g., heat soda ash, silica and lime to 1200 degrees Celsius for a measured period of time and you produce glass. Blow air into the center of a blob of glass and cool it in a controlled fashion, and you produce a bottle. However, this law cannot be suspended by undirected processes. Therefore, intelligence is a requirement for taking the simple and fashioning it into the complex. While this law appears easily suspended in such thing as nuclear fusion, no actual suspension of physical force absent the application of external intelligence has ever been observed. Physical laws are much less easily suspended as complexity grows. In other words, the more complex the outcome becomes, the more intelligence is needed to effectuate the complexity. This is most truthful in progressive evolutionary speciation - one species adapting to some outside factor to become a more complex species. There is a reason that this we have never observed this: It’s impossible. How does a creature go from being sightless to having eyes? How would an organism know that it needed this adaptation? How would an organism know how to implement such an adaptation? It would not. Therefore we are assuming a serendipitous random mutation to something vastly more complex. However, virtually all observed mutations are harmful or even fatal. A serendipitous mutation to a higher species has never been observed. Has evolutionary speciation ceased? “Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate” - William of Ockham. Creation adheres to Ockham’s Razor because it requires the creative intelligence to intervene a limited number of times to originate the universe and life and populate the Earth. Abiogenesis and progressive evolutionary speciation both require an infinite number of serendipitous, sequential and progressively more complex suspensions of physical laws, all without any intelligence to guide them, to accomplish its goal. The more simple explanation is likely the correct one. The doubts as to Creation are unreasonable, and are usually accompanied by an attempt to burden-shift from proving one’s assertion of abiogenesis (and the denial of God's existence is implicitly an assertion of abiogenesis) to forcing the Christian to prove creation in order to rebut a presumption of abiogenesis. However, every time we take up the mantle and do so, the evidence is usually rejected without any consideration, much less serious consideration. This notwithstanding the fact that any doubts of its veracity or of the conclusions reached are certainly unreasonable. While Christians are tarred with the “god of the gaps” fallacy, it is more apropos to say that atheists are in reality adhering to a “godless of the gaps” fallacy, whereby it is held that “I don’t understand how God can exist, therefore not-God.” Or, perhaps more appropriately, “I don’t like the idea of God or how He runs His universe, therefore not-God.” Faith to the Christian has nothing to do with merely conceding His existence. It has to do with trusting His veracity and His goodness and His Word and acting on that trust. I could give the arguments that God - the Living God as depicted in the Bible - is the only possible Creator and that Jesus is exactly who He claims, but this post is very long as it is. Thank you." - John F. Tamburo

K M Pathi Sir's recommendation. 😊

As with every other apologist I have listened to, Lennox has done an anemic job of trying to explain the unexplainable, the greatest problem Christianity faces, that of suffering. The usual themes:suffering is a test; the crucified Jesus suffers with us; suffering is our penance for original sin; we suffer but with it comes hope - suffering here will be made up for in the next life of heavenly bliss - all challenge believability. Interestingly, I have heard at least one apologist say there is suffering in heaven as well. Does it ever strike the Christian as ludicrous to assert these things? If god exists, he is nothing short of a cruel game player, enjoying the suffering which he alone could assuage, much as a misguided boy delights in pulling the wings off living insects. Why this stupendous level of suffering - wouldn’t a fraction of what we endure be sufficient for his reasons? Lennox speaks about the comfort of hope people have, but does he not see what an exclusive club that is? Where is the hope for non- Christians as they suffer terribly under the same god’s action/ inaction? Since modern man emerged from Africa approximately 100,000 years ago, untold numbers of humans have suffered and died without even knowing the God-of-the-bible existed. It boggles the mind that Christians convince themselves to believe, no matter what.

You know what we are still learning from science day by day . If you do not find something that you need than used God to do it !

46:04 (Personal Timestamp)

I know, if I thought I was going to spend eternity in heaven, it would be hell. Eternity is one hell of a long time. I don't want it. Also, I was millions of years dead before I was born and it didn't bother me then.

Starts 4:01

If there is this God He sure is an EVIL entity. What good has He ever done for the awful human that He created?

1:46:04 to say "NO"

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Christian faith is both substance and evidence and can be experienced and studied by any who act in faith by taking a step toward receiving the promises that are given. My faith has both substance and evidence, its effects being very real and transformative.

I'd love to see Lennox debate Matt Dillahunty, Aron Ra, or Dan Barker on Biblical morality. And, I'd like to see Lennox debate Bart Ehrmann on the contradictions in the Bible. Or debate David Fitzgerald, Richard Carrier, or Bob Price about the existence of Jesus.

what about the issue of ireducable complexity. When an eye evolves, when does it become a properly functioning eye?

Since there are neutrinos , it is certainly possible for the physical resurrection that in resurrection the physical body is converted into neutrinos in order to have physically resurrected body!

I still haven't heard any evidence.

A struggle to convience even for a man of Prof Lennox charm .

Is there a God? Is the God of the Bible really God? These are two very different questions. It seems to me the title of the debate is a bait and switch. An excellent discussion notwithstanding.

Jesus said some here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God. Shortly thereafter when Jesus rose from the dead we read in Matthew about the Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appeared to Peter, James, and John. They were given a vision of the Kingdom of God. When Jesus rose from the dead, His Kingdom, the Kingdom of Heaven was then established.

Of course, there's a GREAT SOMEONE who created everything, seen and unseen, things that cannot be explain even by science it's because of GOD THE GREAT CREATOR and not the CREATURE!

Peter: I don't have faith. John: That is faith Peter, don't you believe it? Peter: owh wel oh....

Nice discussion. I wonder how gods debate if there was a Human?

good

Is there a god? I don't know.

Big up Peter Singer 🤝🤝🤝... I think John Lennox Here is making some wishful claims & unfalsifiable claims... Wonderful debate......

Watching all of these dialogs a person on each side is only taking turns to hich-up

But Dr Lennox is misquoting a parable as a real earthly dwell when it should have a heavenly meaning!

Peter Singer profound love and compassion for animals would put any god to shame.

1:01:30

Notice Peter Singer starting to talk very fast and uncomfortably here: 1:25:34

John Lennox is very convincing, very knowledgeable.

Any thinking person sees how weak Lennox’s points are. He repeatedly tries to equate what ought to be with what is. God is a desired entity, not an observed one.

I have known several atheist. And the closer they came to the end of their lives, the more irritable, nervous, unconsolable, seemingly knowing they have no further hope for anything. If atheist would put has much effort in studying the proofs for Gods existence has they do for trying to discredit his existence, there would be less atheist. I know God exists, and i believe in jesus Christ (my lord and savior) people cannot come to jesus unless God brings them. People will keep denying God and there hearts will be hardened to the point they can never comprehend the concept of God. To have no hope of eternal life through jesus Christ, is the saddest thing i could ever imagine. May God grant every atheist a Damascus Road transformation.

Ok this one kinda drove me crazy. Peter states that we no longer need to listen to the argument of design because we now have evolution to explain how things have ended up “so good”. Also, because we have increased knowledge on our own DNA and it’s similarities between organisms. My question : How does knowledge of perfect design having come from evolution conclude that God is not real? His rebuttal sounds like “ Evolution = no God” How does one of the two subjects’ mere existences cancel out the reality of the other? I can answer that only for one side of the equation. With no God we CAN confirm that there would be no evolution. What Peter says is that we don’t NEED God to explain existence because of evolution. We don’t NEED God to explain anything. How does lacking the requirement to acknowledge equate to non existing? Peter defines faith as - “believing in something for which you have neither rational arguments nor good evidence” Find me one person who legitimately has no rational thought, decision, or reflection on something that they proclaim to have faith believing in. That person does not exist. Even if a belief is ultimately wrong, it can be built off of rational arguments and good evidence. A child has great argument and evidence as to how Santa exist. His definition of faith is incorrect The ship owner in his story not only acts on a complete lack of argument or evidence that the ship will hold no matter what (cuz God), he acts in the face of good arguments and evidence that the ship would not hold. (His experience with sailing and the regular capacity limit of his ship) Who acts in the manner of this man that claims to know God? Who is not mentally damaged, but just on the wrong side of the God argument? He then argues of the harm…Roman Catholicism not supporting condoms and leading to harm. How is the improper interpretation/implementation of what are deemed biblical principals by the Roman Catholic church, indicative that God does not exist? When the government under taxes the extremely wealthy and harms the population, is it then logical to say that the government does not exist?

This Lennox is so easy to defeat! "Whatever evolution can or cannot do, it is a mechanism. And the whole point of this category mistake is this." Now, he establishes without evidence that there is a "mistake". "That the existence of a mechanism that does something is not of itself an argument for the absence of an agent that designed the mechanism." LOL! One need not argue for the absence of an agent any more than one needs to argue for the absence of elves. It is YOU, "dr." Lennox, who needs to show that the mechanism requires, i.e. cannot exist without an agent! "Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life itself." Stupid statement. Evolution as per this discussion is a process OF LIFE. No life, no evolution. Perhaps Lennox doesn't understand the definition of the word. "Semiotic, language-like structure does not arise by natural processes." That's a deceptive statement, designed to lure the reader into thinking that evolution is somehow dependent on language. It's not. It's chemistry and physics, and those things do of course arise by natural processes. Precisely how the first DNA came into being is just one of many scientific mysteries, along with dark energy, dark matter, etc. that honest men are trying to solve. They're not content to just slap the word "god" onto them and be done with it. This guy is so very well practiced in lying and deception. I'm tiring of this, but I hope I've opened the eyes of anyone who believes this guy is anything but a con artist.

The first statement from Singer (about Laplace) is a strawman fallacy. God being a first Cause prevents Him from being part of a causal model making of Him an uneffective scientific variable. That was Laplace's point. Gosh atheist arguments only sound impressive to atheists (and naïve believers). Thanks for playing Pr Singer.

Does anyone know what the book on evidence for the resurrection that John Lennox said he had written is called?

Until you have prove 100 percent, everything is faith. Athiesm is faith. He believes in it. Christianity may hard to digest. But once you see the fallacy and self.contradiction athiesm has, you can't help but entertain the idea of god.

John Lennox is the only Christian apologist I respect and enjoy watching. He's wrong of course, but he's wrong in such a likeable way.

That was a good review by Singer of the reasons not to believe. I’ve never heard anyone give adequate refutations of them.

There is no such thing as morality and ethics demands reason, which is supporting atheism. Lennox tried to trap Singer by forcing him to admit that Atheism is a belief, which of course everyone knows, it is not.

Also see Judith Reisman and the anthropologist James DeMeo and Klagemauer.TV from Switzerland and the international Schiller-Institute about it.

Noone can mess with Prof. Lennox. He's too clever. He and Ravi should team up together. That would be a lethal duo for Team Jesus!

God allows natural suffering to give mortals who are eternal souls experience with both good and evil. Then in eternity they can understand and empathize with the billions of souls who still experience it. Also, those who have suffered, died, and been resurrected will profoundly appreciate the blessings of now having a perfect, pain-free body. No being can fully appreciate a tremendous blessing without having first experienced the lack of that blessing.

I think that the "argument from reason" is way underrated

Lennox in Australia wearing Richie Benaud's jacket.

No way to know if there is a God unless a person receives personal revelation (a sacred spiritual experience) that confirms the existence of God, a Creator, and a Plan for us, a Purpose in Life leading to Eternity. All the logic and reasoning of the world will never bring the certain knowledge that there is a God. Such supreme and "real" truth comes by the Spirit. Those who shut and shield their hearts in unbelief to such experiences are doomed to walk in spiritual blindness all their lives, without ever knowing that "YES" there is GOD. Best wishes to true seekers of truth with an open heart and mind.

As a Christian, I am impressed with Peter Singer's respectful way of speaking.

Where is the evidence

"Christianity is most admirably adapted to the training of slaves, to the perpetuation of a slave society; in short, to the very conditions confronting us today. The rulers of the earth have realized long ago what potent poison inheres in the Christian religion. That is the reason they foster it; that is why they leave nothing undone to instill it into the blood of the people. They know only too well that the subtleness of the Christian teachings is a more powerful protection against rebellion and discontent than the club or the gun." ~ Emma Goldman

“ the mind is its own place , and in itself creates a heaven of hell and a hell of heaven “ John Milton Paradise lost

Peter singer you are the best 👌

I don't think there is any document of John's Gospel, or any Gospel, that is dated to the first century. Nearly 100 years ago the parchment P52, a part of Jonh's Gospel, was dated on the basis of handwriting alone, to the "first half of the second century" (i.e. it could be as late as 150AD, but apologists always mention the earliest possible date). Later more skeptical comparison of P52's handwriting with dated documents, says P52 could be as late as the start of the third century.

Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thank you!

Short answer, no. But if there is, i want nothing to do with it.

I am 62 years old...still waiting for evidence of a god(s)

Salute to Peter Singer..

The first mover is by far the strongest argument, but all it posits is some form of deistic/pantheistic deity may very well exist. I think the better debate would be between an agnostic or deist philosopher who was at least somewhat persuaded by Aristotle's argument vs. specific religion x. It seems that when most people claim to be atheists, they more accurately believe that man's versions of God are inaccurate or non-existent, not that definitively no such supreme beings exist. The ancient Jews who wrote the Old Testament that Lennox quotes were even polytheistic; their religion is called Yahwism by modern scholars. It was not until the 6th century BCE in exile where they dropped the other deities to solely worship Yahweh monotheistically. This fact alone is a strong refutation of any sort of divine inspiration or truth in the Old Testament, and even many early gentile followers of Jesus in the first and second century such as Marcion and the Gnostics agreed that Jesus' heavenly father was not Yahweh, and in fact we know very little of his character or desires for us. Moreover, Jesus teachings and personality changed drastically from Mark to John, from an apocalyptic anti-Roman political revolutionary message to the "forget this world, I came to die for your sins so you can have eternal life in a different world" message in John. To me, this seems like a growing and evolving legend, where the moral gradually shifted from the political to the religious as time went by and it became clear there would be no near-term resurrection of the dead and defeat of Rome. This is clear evidence of the non-eye-witnesses writing decades after Jesus' death putting words into his mouth. How are we to know what he really said at all? It seems most likely that we should look at the core details of his life instead of what he supposedly said in the growing legend. 1. He surrounded himself with misfits and "sinners" such as prostitutes, tax collectors, vagabonds and illiterate fishermen. 2. He despised the most religious people of his day. 3. He praised people of other faiths like the Samaritans, illustrating that their good works trump the self-righteousness of people from his own culture. Given these basic facts, if Jesus somehow was God, his most likely message boils down to "don't be dogmatic, live by the golden rule, and fight against tyranny in all its forms", which is a far cry from the mainstream Christian interpretation, "you were all doomed because Adam and Eve ate fruit from a tree, so I came down to Earth to die as a sacrifice, but only those who state that they believe that I did it will have a good time after you die, and if you grew up in a different faith or don't find this logical or the evidence to be convincing, tough luck, even though of course I already knew billions of years before you were born that you wouldn't be in the elect anyway"

God bless us all