Scientists Forced to Admit Problems w/ Naturalistic Worldview - John Lennox  

Please, don't forget Jordan Petterson, I do believe he's also great.

​@@melquesedekcastro7480He is!!

Ravi Zacharias too

I beg to differ, he is not an apologist. He might be thought of as a hybrid of science and Christianity. The Orthodox clergy only have the discipline and knowledge given within the Church, therefore cannot be successful in the challenge of dogmatic western science.

@@tomwiedemeier4406 I do not know if his speech is Christian or not. Do you think his correct args are directly related with Christian faith? I don't. But I agree with his questions 100%. Open your mind. With all respect.

@abbybernhardt2096 Well his wisdom falls apart when he wrongly states that big bang cosmology says the universe came from nothing and making arguments from personal incredulity (x is so complex, therefore god) or arguments from analogy equivocating computer code with DNA. He might be a good mathematician, but when talking cosmology, genetics, and biology, he's incompetent.

@@jkorling you must be unaware of substantial research demonstrating that DNA both contains and communicates with an existing digital language. There is a $10 million prize offered for anyone who can arrange for a digital communication system to emerge or self-evolve without the assistance of a creator. It has been available for several years now and so far remains unclaimed.

He’s talking utter bollocks.

@hispeedbullet2661 DNA doesn't contain digital language in the way we think of it in computing. It encodes information, but that's ANALOGOUS. The sequence of the nucleotides in DNA is the information. In contrast to digital language in computers, DNA's so-called "language" is based on biochemical sequences. While both systems encode and transmit information, DNA operates through biochemical processes, while digital language relies on electronic signals. That's why it's an ANALOGY; we use those terminologies to describe what DNA does. It's like calling my arm a fulcrum or my eye a camera. Those are both analogies describing what my arm and eyes do, not a literal inference of design.

@@hispeedbullet2661 DNA doesn't contain digital language in the way we think of it in the computing world, that's the first mistake you, John Lennox, and others are making. It encodes information, but that's analogous. The sequence of the nucleotides within DNA is the information, and in contrast to digital language in computers, DNA's so-called "language" is based on biochemical sequences. So while both systems encode and transmit information, DNA operates through biochemical processes, while digital language relies on electronic signals. That's why it's an analogy; we use those terminologies to describe what DNA does to make it relatable. Same with the analogy of calling my arm a fulcrum or my eye a camera. Those are both analogies to describe what my arm and eyes do, not a literal inference of both of them being the result of design. That's why in scientific literature you see them describe certain biological functions with prefaces like "acts like" or "molecular..." "chemical..." or "biological..." They do that to make the clear distinction they are talking about natural systems, when making the analogous comparisons to systems we as humans design, not that the natural systems themselves are designed.

@@aiwi9498 Your kidding 😂

Educated guesswork is objective poetry. But it is only valid, if it matches the evidence.

​@@user-64759 saying it like that still means you first have to "think 99 times in the wrong way, if you don't even silence won't give you the right answer".

Most inventions are on inspiration (coming through silence). Other times, Nature's Beeings (Elementals) will carry scientist's souls while they are asleep to their Nature laboratories and explain to them how it is done. Then, they wake up and have an "Eureka" moment....

Why can't more people have those moments?​@@jplacido9999

He must have come up with the famous fish climbing trees quote while swimming 😂💪🏼

@Grinny1967 As long as he stays in his wheelhouse and stops misrepresenting big bang cosmology and making arguments from incredulity and arguments from analogy fallacies.

He's an absolute treasure.

For sure, It's really cool to listen to people like this gentleman.

Except that he's promoting pseudoscience. All he's doing is making arguments from incredulity (x is so complex, therefore god), engaging in lies or misrepresentations about what science actually says about certain theories (big bang cosmology doesn't say the universe started from nothing contrary to what he claims), and makes equivocation fallacies/argument from analogy fallacies by arguing that code or information in DNA which is naturally occurring is a direct comparison to code or information in computer software that is not naturally occurring and designed by humans with a specific purpose. His argument is basically "humans design things, therefore everything's designed," which isn't an argument.

@paulgirard1691 What did he say that was intellectually challenging? All I heard was him giving arguments from incredulity and arguments from analogy fallacies along with pseudoscience to justify the belief in a god.

​@@jkorling You got to be either joking, or a willing fool.

@user-zf3yk5ks6e No I'm serious. He's wrong about Big Bang cosmology saying the universe came from nothing, He's making the equivocation fallacy of comparing DNA, which is a naturally occuring molecule, with computer code, which is man made, and he's arguing that complexity somehow correlates to design, which it doesn't. He may be good at mathematics, but when it comes to genetics, biology, and evolution he's way out of his league. This interview is basically "let's hear what someone who has no background or credentials in those subjects tell us what those subjects are" and people that don't know better just eat it up without even bothering to fact-check him.

"You cannot have creation without a creator" Well, since a creator does not exist, it must be natural causes.. Lets put our effort in science to find out rather than stick to comfortable, but false beliefs

Why do you automatically assume the universe was created? Can you prove it was created?

You cannot have a puddle without a puddle maker.

If there is a design, there IS a designer. Glory to God!

Yeah.. AND ITS THE NATURE

@@JohnSmith-zo6ir And everything he explained before that was pseudoscience.

@jkorling No it wasn't. You're saying that and the burden of proof is on you and clearly he didn't say anything antithetical of science

@D.A.-Espada He's arguing for intelligent design, which uses arguments from personal incredulity (x is much too complex, therefore god) lie about science (says that the big bang theory says the universe came from nothing when no, it actually doesn't say that), shows his ignorance or dishonesty by mixing big big bang cosmology with evolution, and makes equivocation fallacies by arguing that code or information in DNA, which is a naturally occurring molecule, to computer code/information, which is not naturally occurring and designed by humans with a specific purpose. Basically, that argument is the same as saying, "humans design things, therefore everything's designed." So yes, everything he said up to the end was pseudoscience. Intelligent Design has been debunked over and over again, and you only need to look at Kitzmiller v Dover or the Scopes Monkey Trial as just two out of many examples of why it's garbage.

@@jkorling Big bang theory came from astronomers not science. Expanding hydrogen was the theory about the creation and expansion of the universe so that gas had to be created by some intelligent being. Something cannot come from nothing.

@@D.A.-Espada Yeah, he said nothing scientifical, "just have faith bro"

@Atomicscale-19pretty reductive for one of the more intelligible and well written people in history I’d say. Id say his faith and research was more then out of an obligation

@Atomicscale-19 one supports the other but they are mutually exclusive

@Atomicscale-19 yet, he believed his conclusion to be true based upon evidence

@Atomicscale-19 not sure what that has to do with Newtons belief in God and there’s really an endless stream of things we don’t understand that I could say but we’ll go abiogenesis, final answer. Which btw newton had zero concept of as far as I’ve read; god was always attributed as the answer to creation, intelligence and coherence.

@Atomicscale-19 I figured I’d put this quote here as he seems to be defining the process we call Abiogenesis, at least in his own way. ‘No being exists or can exist which is not related to space in some way. God is everywhere, created minds are somewhere, and body is in the space that it occupies; and whatever is neither everywhere nor anywhere does not exist. And hence it follows that space is an effect arising from the first existence of being, because when any being is postulated, space is postulated.’ - Issac Newton

And we also have a problem with the question of how do we know minds could possibly work absent a brain.

So animals really think it is it just instinct for survival?

@@jkorling We see evidence in every human being who doesn’t have a fully functioning brain. Many are capable of every emotion, especially love.

@@dltnsdd love, therefore god? That's a total non-sequitor.

You better know where they come from cause ur adversary the devil is out seeking whom he may devour . ( He attacks the mind first ) . Be very careful what u think . Test it with the Bible.

Amen brother!

Did he say YOUR god? Even if he was 100% correct, it doesn't mean that your nonsense is true.

@@chicagonorthsider Jesus is the truth.

​@@adrianmorris3772 Christ Never Existed

​@@aaronwalsh2046Lennox is a Liar and Charleton

I am a Brazilian, and I feel the same brother. It's just amazing to see someone able to express his ideas with such clarity. I also love Dr. Ben Carson and the manner he expresses his ideas.

@@Therebelliousone420 John Lennox also speaks French, Russian, Spanish and German. He's from Armagh, which is a beautiful county.

Can't help smiling! Beautiful ....😁✨️❤

@@Therebelliousone420 That’s a Northern Irish accent. I do admire my countryman, Mr Lennox and his skill at science and apologetics.

Lord Krishna? Lord Vishnu? Or only YOUR god is real, and the other 4000 are fake?

I'm from the Bahai Faith. I do think like you when I see so many of these responses!

Except when he's not. Big Bang Cosmology did not and does not say the universe came from nothing as he claimed it does, which means he doesn't understand it or is outright lying about it. Also he's making arguments from personal incredulity (x is so complex, therefore god) and making an equivocation fallacy by saying DNA is code like computer code is.

​@@jkorlingif the big bang came from something, where did that something come from? Or is that something eternal and transcendent to all subsequent events and things?

@@Ian-h5f I take it you never read up on Big Bang cosmology at all?

@@jkorling I know enough to know that the goal posts are changing. No one is absolutely sure. We can measure the present. But we can't literally measure the past. Scientists impose their measurements of present time onto the past in order to come to some conclusion. But each scientist comes with a bias. Those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a Creator come to the Table with suppositions - hypothesis. Those who acknowledge the possibility of a Creator also come to the Table with suppositions - hypothesis. In analysing history we must have eyewitness accounts. Your birth certificate identifies eye witness of your birth. The hospital - doctor, date, time, etc. You also have anecdotal evidence given by those present, like, the mother, father, friend, sibling, etc. Eyewitness accounts are necessary to answer questions of history. We have Egyptoan historical records, Assyrian historical records, Babylonian historical records, Persian historical records, Greek historical records, Roman historical records. These were written by eyewitnesses or, by those who knew the eye witnesses. But we have no eye witnesses for any BIG BANG. It is pure hypothesis - speculation. And I have heard over many decades that new ideas have been brought into discussion.... nobody is absolutely sure. Anybody claiming absolute knowledge on and promoting the BIG BANG theory is a liar. Nobody witnessed that big bang. It is pure speculation which will never be proven. But as the a Creation by a Creator we do have an eyewitness. Our own Father, eternal in the Heavens. And He is True and Faithful. He is the Son bearer, the Saviour of the world. He as the Faithful witness, gave the facts to Moses to write down for our posterity. Why do you think it is impossible for God to create the universe out of nothing? With all the millions of words speculating about a BIG Bang event somewhere in the unknown past, and nobody benefiting from all this speculation and being none the wiser, of what value is it to anyone. Will it make a person happier? Will it answer the question of son and its guilt in the human soul? Will it make society more peaceful, more joyful, more satisfied, more prosperous? What has atheism or agnosticism done for humanity? What has "religion" done for society? God didn't send His Son to make another religion. Jesus was sent to bring us into a beautiful loving relationship with our Creator. Ask Jesus to reveal Himself to you. He is just an honest and desperate prayer away. Lastly, I will ask you the question again: Where did the substance for the BIG BANG come from? Was there a greater cause.... no cause.... does every event need a cause? You've read the material. Give me a sentence answer even in your own words will do.

You need to learn to intellectually contextualise "infinity " then we can discuss the origins of creation, God and the laws that governs all of reality 😮

@@rgrantconacher5300 not jesus... allah!

@@someteacher1502 Neither Jesus nor Allah. The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

​@@chicagonorthsider😅😅😅😅❤❤❤

@@someteacher1502 NO, ALL of your idols are figments of the imaginations of others, that you have been brainwashed to believe in because you cannot figure out the world you live in all by yourself! Small feeble minds!!

Sure, as long as he sticks to mathematics and not try to come across as authoritative or with relevant experience in regards to genetics, evolution, and cosmology.

No, he just so happens to be a scientist and a believer so he fits. He has not provided any proof only claims, which we have plenty of in the Bible

​@@jkorling Mathematics is a fixed science. Atheists acknowledge its value, as does the sceptic, the man of faith. You can't be an architect without the use of mathematics. All true science as a process, measuring, weighing, observing in real time, is based one way or another on mathematics. Astronomy has no certainty without mathematics. It requires measuring distance, time, materials - gases, solids with colours, space, without mathematics it has no value to the analytical mind. Same with biology. Amongst other things, in biology, your count body parts, measure skin tissue, genes, DNA, and so on. Biochemistry requires some degree of mathematics. Mathematics is embedded in music. A piano is built using mathematical principles. Notation - score, rhythm, timing, require mathematics. Sound is vibration of air eaves and particles. Whether amplitude, frequency, spectrum, etc, mathematics is behind it all. Think about what is required to investigate any of these "obstacles" you put up as your proof. Astronomy is the study of celestial bodies (in summary). You need eyesight. And now you need a telescope. The telescope has to be built according to a mathematical pattern, because it requires distance (mathematics) materials (each component has its own mathematical atomic structure : iron has a unique mathematical atomic structure, as does, glass or wood). Name one "science" that does not require material physical substances in its pursuit. Remember that all material substances have their own atomic structure, whether a composite material or a singlular distinct material. Even the human brain has mathematical structure in its composition, as does the rest of the body.

Our mind and its predecessors have protected us for millions of years that is why we trust it. With enough time anything that survives will appear intelligent. Dinosaurs and Dodos were intelligent too but did not survive. He is saying there is no way something with bare minimum functionality like a transistor can create supercomputers. I am sure he is lying. A real scientist will easily tear through his fallacies. Either he did not debate a real scientist or weak one.

@@jkorlingHow about we get those evolutionists and random atheists to stick to their beliefs instead of dabbling in Theology, of which they have no degree in?

Indeed he is and one of Irelands greatest apologists. 🙂

He is an utter nob. His arguments are the kind of tosh i could have spewed up when i was 15 yr old. It's pathetic people think this is even remotely smart.

I have nothing but absolute love and respect for Prof. Lennox. He's a beautiful human being.

@@tatie7604 its simpe....

@NunyaBiz7 I don't think using arguments from personal incredulity (x is so complex, therefore god) or arguments from analogy (we design computer code I'm going to compare that to DNA, therefore DNA must also be designed) and arguments from ignorance (Big Bang cosmology doesn't say that the universe came from nothing as he claims) make someone a good apoligetic.

😂😂😂😂 Lovely!!!

@@joeyrivera192 😂

​@@bobby9192 GOD bless you my friend!..

Why would you ever believe it is YOUR God, and not some group of Aliens ?

@@joeyrivera192 hope not, I’ve read the Bible.

@@BadMilkhotel aliens don't exist as most people think,, they're actually demons, don't let anyone deceive you... Jesus Christ don't lie.. and HE loves you so much that even pay for your sins, believe it or not. Just give HIM a chance, a real chance.

uh.. you assume it is your God and not a group of Aliens? Even if there is something that created us, you can't assume it is the God you were taught to believe in

Except that what John Lennox is doing when describing genetics, biology and cosmology is engaging in pseudoscience.

Intelligent design is pseudoscience. It's all just a smorgasbord of arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, arguments from personal incredulity, and misrepresenting, cherry-picking, and quote-mining actual science.

Invisible friends never stand out.

Says the soul straining to keep their eyelids closed. Refusing to acknowledge flashing lights in your rear view mirror does not change the reality that you will soon be speaking face to face with someone who has the authority to uproot you from your comfortable, complacent surroundings and put you in jail. Wake up my friend, before it’s too late. Judgement is coming. Cry out to Jesus Christ before it’s too late. Right now, the Word of God says His arms are outstretched to you and that He longs for you to ask Jesus Christ to be the Lord of your life. Out of His love for you He is letting you choose your destiny. Wake up my friend before it’s too late. Depending on how you choose to accept these words, they can either be a blessing to you or they will literally torment you forever as you burn in a lake of fire forever with these words you’ve just read ringing in your ears forever.

@@wiretamer5710 well believe what you choose. It's a free world. 👍

All he makes is arguments from personal incredulity (x is so complex, therefore creator), arguments from analogy comparing DNA (naturally occuring) to computer code (not-naturally occuring), and is being outright misleading or not understanding big bang cosmology (no, cosmology does not say the universe was created out of nothing).

​@@jkorlingComparing DNA to computer code is not misleading at all. If it was misleading, then DNA cannot be used as storage devices as of today.

@sabhishek9289 It's an ANALOGY. Calling DNA code is descriprive of what DNA does, like calling your arm a fulcrum or your eyes cameras. There's no implication there that they're literal code, fulcrums, and cameras like what we design and build. DNA is naturally occurring, computers are not. The sequencing of peptides in DNA is a chemical process. The code in computer software is not. DNA is self-replicating, computers are not. Complexity isn't the hallmark of design. We detect design by contrasting it with nature. We know computers and computer software code are designed because we have tons of evidence they are designed and zero evidence they naturally occur. DNA is naturally occurring. There's no correlation between complexity and design.

@@jkorling It is not an analogy. It is reality. DNA is being used as data storage and as a future replacement for hard disk and other forms of digital storages as we speak and it will be used more efficiently and effectively in the future. "How to store data in DNA?" By Science Clic

@@jkorling It is not an analogy. It is reality. DNA is being used as data storage and as a future replacement for hard disk and other forms of digital storages as we speak and it will be used more efficiently and effectively in the future.

Imposing an analogy on anything is not useful to understanding. Classification by itself is just a crude nomenclature.

I would rather day these are “programs” “app” “robots” every single protein in cell has its function because of its shape

That's not true. DNA is unique in that it has a series of choices of four chemicals along its column. The order of those chemicals spells out a code. Hydrogen and oxygen combining do not make codes.

​@@davspa6a straw man if ever I saw one. Are hydrogen and oxygen are the only chemicals you know? They're not even molecules, they are elements or atoms.

@@oscargr_ okay then, what about gasoline combining with oxygen to make CO2 and water vapor and other products. Are you really telling us that's in the same league, being that every single molecule is exactly the same? Perhaps there's several kinds of carbon chains there, but there's no information transmitted or saved as a result of those reactions. That's a real world analogy - that has nothing to do with straw man. DNA carries information in the g a c t order. That is a fact. You want to believe that developed by random movements of atoms and molecules over millions or billions of years, that's your privilege. But to say that it's not information is simply not true. When people want to build some kind of chemical using bacteria what do they do? They cut chunks of DNA that's going to produce the right product and they are inserted into the bacteria's genome. The bacteria then makes THAT SPECIFIC THING in addition to what it already does to live.

The only ignorance is to stubbornly keep denying the obvious truth just because you don't like the answer.

@michaelorman1205 Indeed, objectivity should be the best and most helpful standpoint for any given matter.

@@gilsonsangulukaniphiri5018 exactly!

Intuition is also not what helped us achieve most of all the major discoveries in science since the 1500s. Most of the discoveries we've made have been anything but intuitive or common sense. Saying that we will fall back down when we jump up in the air is common sense. Discovering that the earth orbits around the sun instead of vice-versa is not common sense or intuitive since it goes against our everyday sense experiences. Ditto for discovering that atoms exist, the theory of relativity, etc. etc. None of those discoveries were made by appealing to "common sense" or "intuitions" so it should not ever be the standard when we make scientific discoveries.

@@michaelorman1205 Agreed, it's ignorant to believe Intelligent Design and creation science are legitimate forms of science and to follow them anyway just because you don't like the alternative is foolhardy

@@davidlarondelle2326 no such thing as “common sense “

Except that the majority of scientific discoveries we've made were not due to common sense and have been far from intuitive. Throwing something in the air and it falling down is common sense. The earth orbiting the sun was not discovered from common sense, as that goes against our everyday sense experience where it looks like it's the opposite. Same with discovering the existence of atoms, electromagnetism, or E=MC2. None of that was borne out of common sense, and that's why common sense has no place in scientific discoveries.

So why are you using a computer?

Besides natural selection is a non-random process for christ sake

@@ajiboladaniel9386 True AF.

@@ajiboladaniel9386 Whatver you just said completely misses the point.

And what conclusion have you come to ? God or evolution ?

@@ajiboladaniel9386 "I don't fully trust my brain". you cannot make that statement without trusting your brain. It's a self-refuting claim. Your free will alone shows: you are more than a bunch of molecules. "This conclusion strongly reinforces our belief in the human soul and in its miraculous origin in a divine creation." John Eccles, neuroscientist and Nobel laureate

Just because an idea is simple and attractive to you, does not make it a fact.

"The universe is so complex, so is life, I can't imagine how all that possibly came into existence, so therefore god."

@@shaymashiach3320 Maybe. Which god though. And why is he hiding?

@@ninjaaitoolsthe One True God. The only Creator (of all existence). He is unfathomably unique. There is nothing that can comprehend what God is except for God Himself. (Mind you, when I say ‘Himself’ it does not mean God is a male. God does not have a gender. The English language is extremely limited so ‘He’ is just a placeholder). “Wherever you turn, there is the face of God” - The Holy Quran 2:115. He is all around you, within you, but not physically. He is separate from you but not by a measurable distance. It’s a dimension that transcends space and time. God is not something to be seen with the eyes, but He is That which gives sight to the eyes. God is not something to be heard, but He is That which gives hearing to the ear. Our senses are numb to God. Much like it is after saturating ourselves in a cool pool, over time, it no longer feels cool. Rather, God is seen through an authentic Heart. That is how God is perceived in the Human mind. It’s the same God that every prophet preached about (yes including prophet Jesus). God is nothing like man, that would be insulting and limiting to what God is. May the Peace of God be upon you as you read this, and may it enlighten our hearts to the Truth.

God is definitely not hiding His autobiography is the most famous book in history and His son is the most famous person to ever live.

@@ninjaaitools hiding 🤣 you small minded fool.

@@son-of-truth5959 Have you ever actually read the Bible?

Prove evolution

@@rays14ful erm, clearly not. Junk DNA, ervs, gene deletion, transcription errors, deathly and painful mutations. If it was intelligent, it was malicious.

Question: Who created the creator? Infinite regress is far harder to accept than evolution.

Evolution is demonstrable - god isn't

Correct, EVOLUTION is an incredible thing.

@@Nite-owl only dumb people evolved from monkeys. Rest of us where created. Sorry!

Sure, you can't figure them because there is no god.

@@Weserman75 Or if there is, he can...

Without doubt, you are not thinking.

"No one can figure the wonders of God." Yet people claim to detect the undetectable, like some kind of a "god" radar.

Who make the god then?

@@VerdoVeri Hello, I used to ask about the same kind of question. The answer I found in HOLY SCRIPTURE says GOD HAS NO BEGINNING AND NO END. I don't limit GOD, HE is ETERNAL! Mark R.

@@jimmadalerichardson792 shure you did

@@jimmadalerichardson792Special pleading fallacy.

@@VerdoVeri If you had an answer to that then you'd be greater than God and He would not be your God because then the one who made him would be God. You assume of a limited god that's why you ask this. God has no business proving to you He is God because then it would mean He needs your approval. Think of the president/leader of the country you're in right now, if you were to tell people they are not your leader do you think that changes anything, will they feel the need to come to prove to you anything...NO!. and they are just mere mortals who grow old and can get sick... How much infinitley less to that less do you think the creator of the universe feels the need to prove to you anything. Because you want proof and validation you will never know God.

There is no Hebrew god.

who created god

@@tomascua6377 God is not a creation

@@tomascua6377 Another bigger and more powerful god that even God himself can’t comprehend, it’s a fractal pattern

@@tomascua6377 That's not for us to know. There is no way to prove God or the BBT. Everything is assumptions and guesses

@@FredHandle1 with the same logic you can argue the universe was also not a creation

@@maxcaysey2844 Why Not?

@@joeandre8100 Because it's unreasonable and illogical to point to something that has no evidence of being real as a cause for anything. There has never been any evidence for "anything" supernatural. Ever.

Whenever someone spouts how we’re in a simulation and this all may not be real and that there may be other universes better suited to us and others that are far worse, it sounds like a description for heaven and hell to me. If we are to describe our reality in terms of chaos and order, it’s pretty miraculous that there is the architecture in the first place that would produce random events segued into eventual higher order over time. Given the complexity, I suppose there is coaxing moving things in the direction of a very sophisticated higher order. I’m still waiting for that monkey to type out a Shakespeare play word for word. Not holding my breath.

We’re just ants with magnifying glasses scirrying around our ant farm trying to make sense of it while the person who assembled it watches lovingly.

@@davegcomedy1267 there is no 'assembler' required for our universe to exist.

That's the second mistake. The first one was jumping to the conclusion of the existence of a designer.

@@HardHardMaster yeah, I'm not sold on the intelligent designer argument either. But something had to start the chain of events that brought us here? Having said that, I'm agnostic atheist until proof is forth coming.

@@azazelsgoat yes, but that something doesn't need to be any kind of creator. Evolution and abiogenesis explain the origins and development of life, and the Big Bang Theory explains the development of urs universe from an incredibly dense simple point of origin. To be clear, science does not claim nor support the statement that something came from nothing. The universe is eternal, it may have just always been here in various forms. The balance so far is there's no evidence or argument for a creator, and a lot against.

@@HardHardMaster yeah, I'm happy with all that. But observations with the James Webb telescope are upsetting the Big Bang apple cart. But that's how scientific progress goes. Maybe the universe collapses and expands in never ending cycles from infinity to infinity?

@azazelsgoat have you seen st Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways

And how do you claim to know something that has not happened?

It a scientific theory

So do you trust your brain?

I understand what you're saying but it's very vague in terms of explaining how DNA came about from evolution point of view. Think of organism with DNA structure and perhaps once with another kind. Did not adapt and disappear. Thus having DNA is the core reason from all the evolution that came after.

How and when did we become tool makers???

@@Tee-roni lots a animals use tools. Dolphins, otters, elephants, crows, even crocodiles.

@@ZenrRockStarr science simply doesnt have to tools to answer questions about creation. Any credible and honest scientist must acknowledge the extreme limitations of the knowledge we possess today and will ever possess. Therefore we can never confidently attribute to random natural processes what we do not possess the tools to understand. We simply do not have sufficient knowledge to come to that conclusion! Your argument against theism is more a resentment of theism and hasty conclusion. As to which "God" it is a question of your personal ethics or morals or lack of them. If God is The Father, as they all say they are, then He will make Himself known to His creation if He is a worthy Father. You do a careful reading of religious texts to prove the gods

Lennox and other christian grifters need you to be stupid and gullible. Don't let them get away with it, try thinking for yourself.

He's defending god's existence using pseudoscience.

Bullshit that people made up in their ignorance.

@creativesource3514 "too complex therefore god" argument. Life, at one point, was nothing other than a single celled organism.

Faith doesn't change. Faith is the essence for the creation of science.

@@chuks2849 You're wrong in every sense of what you just said, and I honestly cannot be bothered typing out why because of how astoundingly theocratic your premise is.

@untaintedwheelchair I have no intention for you to be bothered about what I said. The fact that something is outside of your grasp of mind does not mean it not the truth and mind you it's not an insult but the truth.

@@untaintedwheelchair what is scientific theory if it isn't faith?

I love when people assume ignorance from the point of view of ignorance in quasi-intelligence form

@@rachidvanheyningen sounds like what you are doing.

I love when not so smart people reveal how "unsmart" they are when they insult the intelligence of the person they just called smart. Comment on the argument, not the person making it. That would be the smart thing to do.

@@Manifesto2091 Or, some people are too stupid to understand the smart person.

​@@michaelorman1205 they DID comment on the argument. They accurately highlighted that the argument commits the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Literally every religion says that about every other religion, it's such a redundant statement, people go from being atheists to Christians, and people go from being Christians to atheists, to simply say anyone who doesnt believe is doing so by choice is ridiculous. You dont choose to not believe in every other religion and their gods, you are simply not convinced by it. You cant wake up tommorow and just choose to switch religions, and similarly an atheist cant just wake up tommorow and choose to believe in something that they genuinely stent compelled by.

😂😂😂😂😂

Then explain the existence of the mind. Look up some studies. Let me know what you find. God is metaphysical. Your mind is metaphysical. Are you sure your mind exists? How? Are you sure God does not? How?

@@rolysantosYou are using the same fallacy the guy in the video is using, the God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because we cannot understand something (yet) it is not logical to make up a specific explanation (such as that a god exists who made it). The logical thing to do it be patient, accept that we do not know, and gradually learn more. Assuming that the random explanation we thought up is true is not a logical thing to do.

It means you know a bit of science. But you don't know anything about religion.

@@orestispalampougioukis6043 Actually, I'm not. And based on your comment, You don't even know what the God of the Gap argument is anyway. But YOU ARE using the "NO God of the Gap" fallacy. ie No, we don't know where life came from but we begin with the premise that there is no God. Goodness gracious man, how about some self awareness. My friend, you can have all he patience in the world and you will NEVER "discover" that life came from nothing or non life. If you truly believe that then you're not as intellectual as you believe you are.

No we are not.

@@neinei5558 I am not talking about you AI 🤖

@@S1M1P Your talking nonsense

Yes! Love the cancer and hurricanes!!!

@MarkoL_77 so everything you think becomes true ?

@@BjarneLinetsky thank you for saying it. I was thinking it, and iwas looking fot this commentary

@MarkoL_77 If you want to know about cosmology Steven Hawkings is your man. If you are a person of faith you believe. God is. That's all.

If there is a law, then there must be a law giver.

@@tylerdurden4080 The law giver is that which is governed by law.

You know what the sad truth is? The supernatural is rejected by evolutionists... but ultimately ,YOU HAVE to embrace the supernatural anyway. How? Well BEFORE evolution could start, the famous primordial soup had to have been here in order to provide a place for YOUR SINGLE-CELLED ANCESTORS. So that aqueous substance is either eternal or it is self-willed into existence. Both of YOUR options are supernatural, my friend. The problem is that your supernatural agent has no mind. Creationists' supernatural causation (God) has a mind. Thus succinctly put_____the evolution argument can't be defended!!

@@cooltongkid well it cant have advanced that much goung by how many sheep lined up for the culling.

Along with 3 billion years worth of biological trial and error.

@@cooltongkid I wish you were wrong but sadly you're not

@@kylerhenson4097 If anyone chooses to dismiss the supernatural NEED for a creator __how is embracing another supernatural causation any better of an option? It's not. But let me elucidate: In order for YOUR SINGLE-CELLED ANCESTORS to have arisen, you have to rely on some hypothetical, primordial soup. Well, where did that evolutionary essential come from? Your choices: 1. That soup willed itself into existence! 2. That soup is eternal! Which one IS NOT supernatural? Don't answer because WE know the answer!

No-one is born with the belief of anything. Why do think theists indoctrinate their kids.

@@InnovativeSaint belief in god is common sense? In wich god? Innate? It is as innate to believe in God when born in a Christian country as it is in Allah when born in a Muslim country or Vixnu, Xiva and Brama if you are from India.

@@tiagonascimento9930please explain why there are Christians everywhere.

Stupidity at it finest 😂

The observable universe is full of self organising complex processes with emergent properties.

@@wiretamer5710 So what, your imaginary god is full of complex thoughts and who knows what going on, but no problem there right? So why then is it a problem to have a universe and life without a creator?

Straw man. You know it. By definition the Creator is Eternal, Self Sustaining, the Alpha and Omega, the I Am. He needs no cause.

@@tomwiedemeier4406 First of all, the universe can be infinite not only in space,.but also in time as there may have been previous big bangs. In fact that's what the last nobel in physics is saying and many other cosmologists too. Name a single cosmologist who claims that the universe is finite. There isn't. Also, reality is not whatever you define. Saying "by definition" means nothing. And that's not how science or anything works. That's how fanatism and dogma works. And even if the universe has a cause it could have been anything but a god. Your arguments from ignorance don't work.

No, we do not trust our brains, we trust logic. And of course we trust computer systems we do not understand: AI systems, used to solve problems, but not understood how they get their solution. Absence of an explanation you understand id not a proof for the existence of a higher beeing.

He's either a liar or a fool. Human DNA is 98% junk, and is uncannily similar to that of a chimpanzee.

@@eleazarvalverde1758Ho interesting. I invite you to respond specifically to the points he makes in the video.

​@@christophertaylor3150What points?

@@christophertaylor3150 what/who created the creator? or how the creator came into existence?

@@dennis5pia before creation there was nothing, no energy or space or laws of physics, without laws anything was possible including spontaneous creation of a powerful intelligence, which then created the laws and the design after much experimentation. You could imagine in infinite chaos with no laws, many gods were spawned, but only one survived.

@@dennis5pia the creator didnt come into existence, the creator created existence, he exists outside of existence otherwise he wudve have to be created. You dont have to belive it was the Christian God even though most evidence and logical reasoning points towards that but there is a creator no one can deny that. are you really this dumb or you just trolling?

Every accusation is an admission.