Do you really think that the earth is 6-10 000 years old? Do you think that the sun was created after the oceans and plants were created? Do you really think that the Koala bear suddenly learned how to swim, and then swam 9000 miles so he could go onto a boat, and be saved from a flood? Wouldn't it have been easier to just tread water until the flood receded? Creationism is not science, it is superstition. My point in the comment was that Christianity resisted and slowed scientific progress.
Lennox was given way more time than Shermer in this debate. Fortunately, Shermer could debunk in 30 seconds the verbal diarrhea that took Lennox 5 minutes to crap out.
@jmg94j It doesn't matter how intelligent a person is, if they do not believe the foolish hogwash that atheists believe, the atheists will start name calling like a little child who has lost its dummy.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Atheists don't believe in things, we either accept, reject, or remain undecided on things. When I debate someone, I only attack the idea, the position, not the person. You will notice that I did not attack Lennox personally. I attacked his comments. "The rise of science came out of a Christian framework". Thanking religion for science is like thanking the school bully for saving you from drowning, after he held your head under water for a minute, and then pulled you up.
It's so beautiful -- it shows how both sides of an argument , two polar opposites can come together -- each having their own unique outlook and interpretation of what this all is and means -- and respectfully shake hands and hug
I'm really impressed by Shermer in this. He does a great job disputing the arguments preemptively that you typically see put forward by Craig and his followers, which are the hardest to dispute.
@Stanium7 they are only hard to dispute because their arguments use the same word play a conman uses when hes cornered. they've perfected the art of emotional appeal, taking refuge in semantics and passing the buck. these arguments are always easily debunked because they are so circular and full of fallacies. shermer doesn't worry about getting cheap applause for cheap points. go shermer!
If theres a God, why do people have to worship him ? does it make him feel better ? Doesnt he know whats going on in peoples head at all time, all the time?Whats the point in saying God is this God is that, or going to church and praying ? Is God going to change his mind because you ask him to ? Are you that important ? You have to let him know whats going on in his creation?He doesnt know ? Is he retarded ?Maybe he just doesnt give a shit.
So Lennox, I must be a part of every religion at the same time in order to know the truth? Something tells me you have not engulfed yourself in all religions and are perfectly happy in viewing those from a distance.
Ive watched a few videos of John lennox debates and i want to know why he never has the last say, i dont know if this is pre arranged but i do know that the man who speaks last leaves more of a lasting impression. can anyone please enlighten me as to why this is so., is it coincidence or designed.?
@purpleduke77 It is pre-ordered. He gets to speak first (Most of the time). Both debaters gets to show their point before the actual rambling. John Lennox does that in the begging (Most of the time) and the opposing debater does in the end. To make people think about what was actually said.
It all needs abandoning and we need to concentrate on finding real answers, where DID we come from? We have the ability to find out so let's get to it. Religions try the old polymorph act, "SHIT! ER... THEY FOUND DINOSAURS... NOT ADAM AND EVE... ERRR... I KNOW! THAT PART ABOUT THAT TREE! SAY THATS ONE!". Oh and um, we have the budget to build the Galileo statue! Let's get him sainted!!! What a fucking insult to him. Condemn him then saint him. It's SO sleazy. Fucking hell it's embarrassing!
@agencyman1 It doesn't look or "act" like design. You know when something looks like design? When it serves a purpose. Need help with math? Design a calculator. Tell time? Build a watch. They all serve a purpose. The Universe may serve no purpose at all. Actually, I can say at least Humanity beyond itself serves no purpose at all. Dinosaurs were around for around 120 times longer than us in a perfectly balanced eco system. What was their purpose? cont...
To think we're of any significance in such an INCREDIBLY MASSIVE universe is horribly arrogant. Bad deeds are done because there MIGHT be a God. Just that alone is reason enough to abhor religion. You know if one day we found out that there is a God who set everything into motion I'd be more than happy to accept that. Until then people need to stop controlling and killing eachother for something that we ALL DO NOT KNOW exists. cont...
@riggermortisify How about we lock you up because "until you prove that you've never killed anyone we're going to assume you're guilty.". It's the same backwards logic that leads to suffering. Men abuse religion and let it affect others.That's a great design your God set up there. The evil prick. If I WAS a Christian it'd make more sense to me that this supposed God WAS Satan, fooling people. cont AGAIN...
@riggermortisify cont... The only productive thing religion brings to the table is terror, murder, anxiety, guilt, suicide and unhappiness.
Oh and if you were to use Occam's razor we'd have to admit that the universe most likely appeared through natural causes. Just because we both have to admit that we don't know something doesn't leave a space open for you to blindly ASSERT something that you supposedly DO know! cont...
I find it funny that he talks about freedom. The only places that aren't free are controlled by what? Religion. Each religion specifically tells men to not use their reason. Actually, in the new testatment Jesus specifically says that as soon as you try to give ANY reason for why you follow God you are abandoning your faith and are yet again a sinning motherfucker. It's small things like this that make me dislike religious establishments. cont...
@riggermortisify cont... They go to war with eachother for reasons as asinine as a school playground fight over "Home Alone 3 is better than 4!". It's all bullshit. None of us know how the Universe came about but I think we can safely say that the religions have it WAY wrong.
It could've been created by some being, who knows? Let's not base wars on a possible answer though. And also let's not deny our children medication JUST in case. Let's not murder people just in case. cont...
@riggermortisify Let's not make our abused children feel like fucking shit by trying to blame them for some fucking pedo preist who is being protected by what is basically a catholic crime syndicate. It's all a big fucking, barbaric joke. It makes me SICK. Our modern morals and ethics are actually built on doing the opposite of what these supposed words of God say. cont...
You need to be careful how you define a "christian", your definition is based on self proclaimed secondary sources, However the SOURCE is Jesus Christ, why define something based on a self proclaimed, in-consistent, secondary source, when the PRIMARY SOURCE is available, this sort of thinking is just as irrational and absurd as stating that Albert Einstein was a terrorist, because people mis-used his science to invent atomic bombs!!!!
@mystisme Richard Dawkins is the most popular Atheist. He is the bar. If you play football and play Quarterback you will compare yourself to Peyton Manning. Threatened? No. Addressing the fact that he has debated and competed against the best that Atheist have to offer, yes. Bitch hahahaha
that i know it is why he is my favorite with hitchens and dennett
why call me bitch,he is only a mathecian yep big deal richard as more knowlweg considering biology and knows more about evolution cause of that knowlege
@mystisme But Lennox knows much more about the bible, Christianity and most importantly God. Whether you or anyone else wants to admit it, God does exist. And I am sorry to tell you this, but if you deny Him then one day you will have to face Him and explain yourself. Job 38: 1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
OK congratulations for discussing invisible imaginary friend. Family and morality started from Bible what a crap assertion. Grab your shovel and start digging with arceologists Dr. Lennox.
Just for the record, the word variously spelled by several people with lofty and disdainful intellectual pretentions as "arguement", "agrument" and other baroque variants is generally spelled by most reasonably well-educated schoolchildren as "argument".
Wow. What an IGNORANT, disgusting man. Say what you want Lennox. Stay in denial. What a psychopath o_O
So has he forgotten all the executed scientists and suppressed ideas? People exiled, kept under house arrest. All for trying to understand "God's universe". They were usually charged with denying the holy word or something equally absurd. It was openly admitted that it would negate most people's beliefs since it outright shows that Christian literallist's beliefs are just plain wrong.
@riggermortisify A fallen man that is vain in its thinking and imagines himself to be the best the universe has to offer, will dislike someone taking the throne from him. And most scientists like fame. And glory in their discoveries. However if God made the universe and them also, all the glory belongs to God alone. So a universe with a creator will look bleak to them. But as you accept your position below God your vision will clear up.
Every one of Lennox's points is based on technicalities. I'm happy to see he made an idiot of himself in the end. All of his "debates" are infuriating to watch.
Get it into your head, NO ONE knows how the Universe came into existance. At least Atheists admit it. And at least we don't arrogantly pretend to know who or how. In my opinion that's a lot more respectful than putting forward a shallow, flawed story. It's hard to be humbled by it's grandiosity when you trivialise it's being.
@riggermortisify If God exists and i believe He does then God knows how the universe came into existence. If God gives a revelation then we also can know and i believe we do know from the Bible.
Lennox needs too read his bible more, alot of what he stated could of been presented much better, and he seemed too tip toe around certain questions and turn the subject alot in this debate.
I have to say something about the word sceptic because I'm actually Greek and I know my own language pretty well. Sceptic means thinker; simple as that! the word does not include any meaning for distance. sceptics were philosophers, men of critical thinking and the origins of philosophy are as greek as the word philosophy itself, which means passion for wisdom. Greeks and Arabs later on were the first scientists, their ideas inspired western europe and that was the end of the dark ages.
the arguments made by Lennox are wrong, inaccurate, don't make sense, but as usual, "believers" will not admit it. Why? as usual: "because".....
Example: @ 1:30 he makes a statemente wrong and the result of his ignorance. Yet, the crowd seemed to be on his side. Why? because most people are religious and religious people reason like: "I want to believe what I want, what I decided I want to believe, regardless if what I believe is true or false".Congrats to that kind of truly stupid thinking
Shermer rebuked Lennox for appealing to majority because like he said, an argument can not be asserted to be true because the majority of people believe it to be true.
Now here at 6:50, Shermer hypocritically commits the same logical fallacy of appealing to majority. This hypocrisy is the fallacy known as Special Pleading, were he applies a different standard to Lennox than what he applies to himself.
Shermer is about spreading propaganda, not finding truth.
@HolyRevelation Did you tag the wrong time stamp there? Because I'm not hearing any appeals to the majority at that point.
There was a time when he said how many scientists are atheists, though he did that as a means of illustrating that Lennox's many quotes of people we "have to take seriously because of who they are" is just an argument from authority fallacy.
As a skeptic, Shermer has done much more to investigate truth than Lennox has. Of the two, Lennox is more the propagandist.
@HolyRevelation Rather a defeatist attitude of you. What's the point in making a statement you can't back up?
I suggest you work on your communication skills. Though given the side of the fence your barracking for, I'd say research skills would probably be priority.
Lennox...scientist or preacher? He spends 3 minutes answering questions poorly with opinion rather than evidence. Michael Shermer doesn't need to preach. He gets to the point, with strong evidence. That's why for most of this clip you hear Lennox talking, gradually becoming louder and louder until he reaches his conclusion which raises a cheer from the audience. Not so different from TV evangelists really.
I just feel sorry for lennox, william lane craig, and d'sousa etc, they are smart enough to know the evidence can only justify the deist position (although there is no reason to even believe that) but they have to affirm a belief in the nonsensical god of the bible, with all the embarrassment of intellectual dishonesty that entails.
how many people have a grasp of epistemology and believe in god?
and if so what definition of god do you believe in ?
I am sceptical that there is a Christian or any other religious person that believes in god and has grasp of epistemology? when i say religiouse i mean adheres to some organised religion.I am ready to have my ass handed to me.
if you think I phrased a question wrong or can answer my question please reply.
@philosage I would point you to the work of Alvin Plantinga the emeritus John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame and the author of many books including Warranted Christian Belief, which I would recommend you have a look at to see if it addresses some of your questions.
The fact is that God made the universe and He decides how it goes He has given us all the freedom to reject Him with the penalty of hell ... don't say you were not warned.
What you don't seem to realise is that the one you have rejected is the creator of the universe and therefore the penalty is just but what is not justified is the love we receive for believing and all that man yearns for is freely available on the other side.
@AtheistToothFairy Actually I find that atheist do believe in God, the only thing about Him they reject is His moral laws and because they do not wish to follow His moral laws they choose to deny His existence.
However what they they fail to realise is that we are made in God's image so at what ever point we judge God we only condemn ourselves because we fail our own tests. We make rules we expect others to follow even if they don't agree with them ... yet God is not allowed to do that.
@AtheistToothFairy So you believe that the God of the Bible is immoral ... then if you find yourself in hell I suppose you would be proved right... and then what will be the use of evidence anyway... I'll take my chances with the God of the Bible ... I'd much rather live in the shadow of His love than in the position of His wrath
@AtheistToothFairy Evolution is such a lie. Evolution can be ripped to shreds by asking the simplest of questions. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to shame the evolutionists. All it takes is common sense. Evolution is scientific fraud, which is why evolutionists have to continually push their agenda to brainwash children. If you were to burn every book in the world, children would naturally believe in a divine Creator simply by viewing His handywork. Psalm 19:1
@AtheistToothFairy Evolution falls flat on its face before it even starts. To believe in evolution, that all life had a common ancestor, and that life formed non-life, you must believe that you came from a rock! You gotta have rocks in your head to believe something like that. Must be stoned!
Evolution says that one kind of animal turns into another kind. It is the fairy tale of "The Frog Prince," except instead of a kiss turning the frog into a Prince, it takes millions of years, instead.
@SoldierOfChrist110 Man, you sure nailed that on the head. No one doubts that creatures, etc can mutate and change over time, but to extrapolate and insist that they can change from one kind into another kind, is indeed a great delusion.
@MrTruthhurts777 I know, and yet this fairy tale is being taught as a scientific fact. And if macro evolution is true then where did all these male and female species originate from? So far scientists have not been able to produce a single cell, but they believe that once upon a time the earth was filled with these living cells that evolved into male and female species. Now that's a real fairy tale.
@OneAtheist1 All this proved to me was that Shermer is an eloquent speaker and articulator of the vastness of the known & unknown components of our universe(s), yet was unable to provide any systematic breakdown in the logic of what John Lennox purports. In essence, Shermer's final argument was "I don't know. But, it can't be God." Come on guys. See through the smokescreen of intellectual & scientific jargon working to define the outsides of argument-while leaving the foundations untouched.
Lennox deff owned this guy . I've seen Hitchens or Dawkins owning many Christians and I'm not afraid to say it . Just because someone wins a debate doesn't mean much it's not like we will say since this debated was won by an atheist then atheism is right or the other way around. .brilliant John
@blopajmbar62 Huh? Did we watch a different debate? On what points did Lennox own Shermer?
I totally agree that just because someone wins a debate it means that their world view is correct, but I believe that the question of the night was "Does God Exist?". What points did Lennox make that Shermer failed to rebutt?
@blopajmbar62 Lennox got his history regarding slavery wrong and failed to address some of shermer's points. You must have been watching a different debate if you think shermer was "deff owned"
I don't like this format of a "debate"...Lennox is just full of you know what, I can't believe that he can get away with comments that he makes, there are so much fallacies in his mental gymnastics that it is just appalling. We do not need to be and we shouldn't be compartmentalized by religion.
@EskimoClay1 You have errected a false dichotomy. What if there was never nothing ? In fact we know, from science and logic, that there "was" the potential for at least one universe, and we are in it.
@GowanBray Time and space are contingent. This is an elementary point on the nature of the universe. To postulate the universe was always there, as I think your implying, is to ignore the philosophical and scientific reasoning on bias and ulterior grounds. His dichotomy is not a false one. The universe has an exterior cause, explain it away as materialistic as you like, just don't call it earnest, deductive reasoning.
@DrZpankz Hi thanks for replying, Indeed time and space are linked, we call it spacetime. "Always" cannot be meaningful without time being a dimension of the universe, so in that sense, yes it has always existed, but that does not mean this universe of spacetime "was" the first or is the last, it just means that it is the one we are in and can observe and measure. The universe is that which exists. That can include the potential for universe(s) but must include at least one universe, this one.
@GowanBray Your multiverse hypothesis is noted, but irrelevant. Even if I adopted the claim it would in no way belittle the universe's contingency. Ironically, even you used vernacular such as 'first' and 'last' whilst trying to dismiss temporal explanation. This is only possible because we have sequential causes and effects independent of time. Thus, while possible a universe is sequentially prior to ours, it doesn't matter. The theory just begs the question and confounds the problem further...
@GowanBray I disagree, for there to never be nothing then that would imply that the universe was infinite. Wouldn't it? And scientists will tell you that the universe is expanding. So the universe is larger today than it was yesterday. Keep going backwards and you will find that there was a beginning. Now, you need to choose what you believe. Everything came from nothing. Or there was intelligent design.
Hi thanks for the reply, in a hurray so a quick response. "Never" implies the presence of time. That dimension was an outcome of the big bang event. So no, I don't think it implies the universe is infinite. It does imply a beginning of spacetime. But not a before, since "before" also implies time. It is indeed a difficult notion, compared to going north of the north pole. You cannot have a time before time. You can have a non universe with time but a potential for one. That's what I am proposing
@GowanBray To me that points to the traits of God doesn't it? A divine being which is not bound by time. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It is hard to grasp and i do understand what you are saying. It takes me a few minutes to think about it and comprehend it. God is like taking the derivative of a horizontal line on a graph. Whatever number you put in, it won't change. Though this is off topic, i feel the wonder of our universe points to an intelligent creator.
No, all you are doing is personifying nature. Nature is bound by time, indeed moulded by time in the form of planets, stars and biology. There is no evidence that there are any gods which fulfill your description. Just because you feel the common human sensation of wonder does not mean that there are gods. The same experience you cite lead people to worship the sun for instance, which we now know is a natural phenomenon. You are experiencing the so called argument from personal incredulity. :)
We have a different concept of what consitutes evidence. Ancient books are numerous and are no reason to believe in one deity rather than another. If, for example the bible mentioned the true size and disposition of the solar system or the existence of animals such as kangaroos that might be worth something, but it actually contains nothing that would not be expected to be thought and known by men of the time living in the middle east. You cannot use metaphor to escape this Gods write clearly.
@GowanBray The Bible predicts the future as well. An example: The Bible says that the Jews, which are Jesus' people would soon reject him as their savior. This is evident today. Jews currently don't believe that Jesus was the Christ. There are many more as well. My opinion about evidence is that God wants us to have faith. If there was so much evidence then there would be no need for it.
"What surprises me though is the degree of atheist hatred levelled at those who have the courage to defend what they believe in." Yes yes, Atheists are demon hellspawn who eat babies and defecate in churches.... I get it, I get it. The Muslims who flew the planes into the Twin Towers were simply defending their religious beliefs against the opression of the "Christian" nation of America.... I guess I should be respecting their courage too. Atheists do not respect crazy beliefs, sorry!
@MrUsername5678888 criticises me for using the term "atheist hatred". On reflection, maybe that term was a tad too harsh. It's just that I was reminded of a previous video I watched where Dawkins espouses the banning of all forms of creation teaching.
This was a good debate. I had not seen either of these gents debate before and I like the tone of this debate, both were jovial and made their points well, and although I did not agree with Lennox, he gave me much to think about.
@MrUsername5678888 I totally agree. But equally I say there were points that Shermer made that I was totally sceptical about. I can''t say what Lennox said that I disagreed with given that I'm no scientist nor am I an avowed follower of religion.
@BGfromGB LOL then what are you? The arguments Lennox used are based largely on logical fallacies. I suggest you listen to the debate again after reading up on different types of logic fallacies, and you will be able to quickly identify them once you have been educated a bit about them. So many believers come on here and pretend to be completely unbiased, like the fraud Lee Strobel (and yes, his books ARE in my library) and then suggest that the abstract rhetoric of Lennox is infallible.
@MrUsername5678888 says the arguments used by Lennox are based largely on logical fallacies. Logical fallacies? What logical fallacies are you talking about? You say so many believers come here and "pretend" to be unbiased. Funny how only believers can be unbiased. Atheists cannot. Well my friend, take your blinkers off and read every "unbiased" atheist post on this thread and tell me they are unbiased. I think you should re read my posts again where I believe I give credit where credit is due.
@BGfromGB You didn't address any of my points, and I made many, many of them. I gave you 6 paragraphs to work with.... you are not even worth my time. Anyone reading this, especially UNBIASED people, will see that you do not even have any arguments, only baseless accusations and have an inability to make even the most meager of points or respond intellectually to anything anyone tries to put to you. You are pathetic. Not even worth it.
@MrUsername5678888 I have responded to every one of your paragraphs Thank you.
Too bad that you blindly accuse people who take stock of what Lennox says as being BIASED while your baseless rebuttal of what he is saying and which does not reconcile with your agenda is considered to be UNBIASED.
But there you go. We'll just have to agree to disagree!!
@MrUsername5678888 What am I? Let's say that I am merely an uneducated & insignificant little earthling who genuinely wants to know issues that of personal concern to me. I do not believe we are a product of chance and nor do I believe we dance to the tune of DNA as atheists claim. Lets say that I "dance to the tune" of highly educated and intelligent philosophers/scientists/mathematicians who've spent years of indepth studies in their field of specialities of which you are master of none.
@BGfromGB Did the methodology of determining how the physical laws of the world and the universe work through experimentation, observation, and trial and error exist before the bible was written? Only by thousands of years..... but is a trick question, because if you are a believer then you will just say "no, god is the Alpha and the Omega, a perfect circle" or some equally abstract assertion. The reality is gods have been being made up for thousands and thousands of years even before the bible.
@MrUsername5678888 Asks if the methodology of determining how the physical laws of the world & universework through experimentation, observation & trial and error. As I'm no scientist I cannot answer that. If the atheist scientist cannot explain this so called methodology, its doubtful whether you, an ordinary atheist layman provide that answer? I stand corrected but the reality is that the Bible is perhaps the earliest written documentation of records set by mankind. All else is theoretical.
@BGfromGB Depending on your meaning of science. Science as people seeking proper understanding of the natrual world predates the Christian God. The natrual laws predate God anyway as God doesn't exist.
@Nexius8 Natural laws predate God. God anyway as God doesn't exist. And that's the problem. For some reason known only to atheists it is a fact that does not have to be proven whereas the existence of God does. Personally I simply do not accept that we are the product of pure chance. This is what science cannot prove.
Geez! Lennox is extremely long winded! They guy can talk for ever! It's usually emotionally driven speech that doesn't rely on anything of evidential value.
@Ricardius1710 I came to this site to try and learn something. Of all the posts i've read, not one of them remotely matches the intelligence of Lennox or Shermer. What surprises me though is the degree of atheist hatred levelled at those who have the courage to defend what they believe in. If they want to believe in a God, that does not make them intellectually inferior to those who don't. Religion aside, Lennox made valid points which atheists should take stock of.
@BGfromGB Can you please cite one of his "many" valid points? I know believers love to make assertions without explanation or evidence, but please, try to be a maverick. Wow.... so idiots like you and I on youtube were unable to intellectually match a professional apologist and a professional Atheist debater who do this for a living? Ya don't say! Criticizing me is not an argument, by the way. It's just an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.
@MrUsername5678888 Asks me to cite one of his many valid points. My dear friend did you not listen to the debate with an open mind. Or did you just listen to what you wanted to and consign the rest as pure fallacy. And here you are accusing believers of pretending to be unbiased! Calling the kettle black !!. Did not Lennox provide his assertions with evidence or were his assertions mere hype? If they were, then maybe YOU can back it up & not cop out by using Shermers oft used word "irrelevant"
@BGfromGB BGfromGB: " I'm no scientist nor am I an avowed follower of religion."
BGfromGB: "I know the Quran. Probably better than you. But I was set free when I read the truth of the Bible."
LOL you little LIAR. So you pretend to be unbiased on a theistic vs. Atheistic debate and are too dumb to realize anyone can go onto your channel and read your old comments, especially a smart Atheist who could tell you were a liar even before they did so? LOL and you insulted MY intelligence?
@MrUsername5678888 accuses me of being a liar. He checked out my profile to prove it. My friend, for your edification, I belong to no religion. Period. I have read both the Bible and the Quran & cited them both for comparison purposes. That does not mean I AM a christian. But at least, in my listening to this debate, I am in a position to understand what Lennox is talking about. That in mind & atheistic disdain for the Bible how can U claim to be unbiased when u know nothing about the Bible?
@BGfromGB I have been on both sides of the debate. I was once a Christian and now I simply don't believe in the supernatural. As far as hate leveled at anyone it definitely goes both ways, but the thing is, as Sam Harris has said, religion has always been given the pass when it comes to critical public debate. So it may seem like the atheists are being just mean, but I think it's just they they are tired of this political correctness thing that keeps people from questioning religion and for fear
My education as a physics major did not prepare me to see an icon of the Mother of God miraculously seep myrrh, and to smell its heavenly, sweet smell; quite a defiance of the laws of nature. If you want experiential evidence of Heaven and Hell, just try to be sincerely and humbly Christ-like for a week and experience spiritual warfare firsthand. You are more than just dust in the eyes of God. Atheism only offers you the grave; Christ offers you life here, now, and forever.
@johnnylovesfootball "just try to be sincerely and humbly Christ-like for a week" Okay, I'll become a Jew, not bathe for weeks, grow my hair really long like a girl, move to the middle east, and then be called a lunatic by everyone I encounter and then make sure I create a way for human beings to be eternally tortured if they don't believe what I say to them. And to top it all off, I'll geta a bunch of folks to nail me to a telephone pole, and then I'll turn into a zombie after a few days.
@MrUsername5678888 ??? Thank goodness for intelligent christian science debaters and intelligent atheist debaters. At least they give us food for thought - not the claptrap you write.
@BGfromGB "Fact of the matter you know less as a non scientist than he does as a scientist and equally you as an atheist know nothing about his core beliefs of which know nothing about" Nice sentence structure. I just listened to this guy talk about his core beliefs for an hour and a half... and have watched countless debates, study religion on a daily basis, as well as talk to Atheists and believers alike on a DAILY basis. I live for it. You make ignorant accusations... of ignorance!
@MrUsername5678888 accuses me of making ignorant accusations. Am I? Your charge that Lennoxs' speech is "based largely on logical fallacies" without providing your reasons is surely ignorance on YOUR part.
You simply told us nothing to substantiate that argument. So how am I expected to accept your simplistic meaningless statement ahead of what Prof Lenox debated?
Seeing as this debate has obviously been cut, shows Lennox speaking at least twice as much as Shermer, and is posted by a user named "PublicChristianity", I'm thinking there's a lot of good points Shermer made that aren't shown throughout the whole series.
No matter. Lennox's empty rhetoric, misrepresentation of the position of atheism and the arguments against theology, and appeals to authority and emotion are easy enough to see through.
@joeyhoser I didn't notice the user name. I had noticed it had been edited but suspected some devious athiest had had a hand in it. As an athiest it really annoyes me when that happens you see. Because I think the non belief posistion doesn't need help. But well.... if that is the edited, pro christian version. Says a bit.
Lennox is slippery and intellectually dishonest. He is too sinuous in his usage of terms like faith and scepticism. He believes in the Resurrection. Simply to want to do that is a species of madness.
Overall, Shermer seemed to make fairly shallow, sound-bitey points and Lennox was too verbose and even though he made some very good points, didn't really seem to relate - it was almost like he got the debate question confused. Good arguments, but somehow the context didn't fit. On the whole they seemed to be talking past eachother, which is a shame. The question and answer was a lot more interesting than the debate proper.
Perfect debate. Respectful, insightful and articulate. In the end all that matters is: what will you believe during your <100 years on this planet: Does it all start with God or does it start with Matter and Energy? I'll go with God.
@phoenixsouvenir " In the end all that matters is: what will you believe during your <100 years on this planet: "
No actually, in the end all that matters is that you don't allow your beliefs to impact others.
Believe what you want...
Be respectful all day long...
BUT if you going to influence education, and government, and start wars, and condemn and judge others.... then you damn well better have more than what Lennox does.
@Roper122 "don't allow your beliefs to impact others"
Say that to Dr King, Ghandi and the fore-fathers of the American Revolution. Beliefs can change the world, sure for the worst, but also for the better; because at the end of the day, that's the only thing that has.
All we have are our beliefs. Those beliefs influence us and we influence the world. If faith in Love and Hope for a better tomorrow aren't good enough, then nothing is.
@Roper122 My initial point was that it all starts and ends with what a person chooses to believe. Right or Wrong. Win or Lose.
Had those men I mentioned not believed what they did, they wouldn't have had any of the "good things" to begin with.
I think where most (if not all) Atheists fail is they confuse a religious belief with religion doctrine. I agree no one should force their religion doctrine on others, but everyone has the right to try and make this world better, however they see fit.
a teacher can ask you to read your books, but it's up to you to do such a thing. you choose how informed you want to be. one thing that would make sense to your question is in the end the way you live your life is up to you whether or not you grow up in a gay neighborhood or not. worry about your life ,because for sure you know it is yours to live.
@phoenixsouvenir i agree, but one thing for sure is actions have a greater affect, and with out even trying to change the "WORLD" to where it best fits you. we should do what are moral sensses tell us to and not judge the outcome. for all we know is what is already incripted in us
@phoenixsouvenir Sad to say that almost every Athiest that watch this debate bashes on Lennox, he is so smart. It's just the ignorant people that doesn't understand. Athiest with the qeak arguements and same stuff over and over...
@findo ...he debated Dawkins twice, he didn't come close to beating him...but you're right, he still thinks he's debating Dawkins...still trying to win a debate he failed at twice.
In fact not only did he not beat Dawkins, he then found it necessary to misrepresent what Dawkins said, and was summarily exposed.
In the pantheon of apologists, John Lennox is not at the top...but he does look cuddly!
@Roper122 I saw the first Dawkins debate - and it's widely acknowledged that Dawkins was quite unprepared - as I understand it, the second debate was because of this reason. Funny how people are always accused of misrepresenting Dawkins when all they are doing is repeating his own words... maybe that's the get-out clause when your own argument is shown to be invalid: "oh, but that's not what I meant!"
Do you really think that the earth is 6-10 000 years old? Do you think that the sun was created after the oceans and plants were created? Do you really think that the Koala bear suddenly learned how to swim, and then swam 9000 miles so he could go onto a boat, and be saved from a flood? Wouldn't it have been easier to just tread water until the flood receded? Creationism is not science, it is superstition. My point in the comment was that Christianity resisted and slowed scientific progress.
jmg94j 3 weeks ago
Lennox was given way more time than Shermer in this debate. Fortunately, Shermer could debunk in 30 seconds the verbal diarrhea that took Lennox 5 minutes to crap out.
jmg94j 2 months ago
@jmg94j It doesn't matter how intelligent a person is, if they do not believe the foolish hogwash that atheists believe, the atheists will start name calling like a little child who has lost its dummy.
SoldierOfChrist110 3 weeks ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Atheists don't believe in things, we either accept, reject, or remain undecided on things. When I debate someone, I only attack the idea, the position, not the person. You will notice that I did not attack Lennox personally. I attacked his comments. "The rise of science came out of a Christian framework". Thanking religion for science is like thanking the school bully for saving you from drowning, after he held your head under water for a minute, and then pulled you up.
jmg94j 3 weeks ago
@jmg94j But science and the Bible do not contradict each other. Creation is scientific in every way possible.
SoldierOfChrist110 3 weeks ago
looool that dude laughing alone
drey27 2 months ago
thanks for posting it... i'm glad i didn't have to wait for it to evolve to arrive on yt, but was intentionally placed here
philmoore71 3 months ago
God bless John, he did an amazing job!
jbjrsdbttdl 3 months ago
It's so beautiful -- it shows how both sides of an argument , two polar opposites can come together -- each having their own unique outlook and interpretation of what this all is and means -- and respectfully shake hands and hug
PerplexingMango 4 months ago
I'm really impressed by Shermer in this. He does a great job disputing the arguments preemptively that you typically see put forward by Craig and his followers, which are the hardest to dispute.
Stanium7 5 months ago 2
@Stanium7 they are only hard to dispute because their arguments use the same word play a conman uses when hes cornered. they've perfected the art of emotional appeal, taking refuge in semantics and passing the buck. these arguments are always easily debunked because they are so circular and full of fallacies. shermer doesn't worry about getting cheap applause for cheap points. go shermer!
bebopuk88 4 months ago
If theres a God, why do people have to worship him ? does it make him feel better ? Doesnt he know whats going on in peoples head at all time, all the time?Whats the point in saying God is this God is that, or going to church and praying ? Is God going to change his mind because you ask him to ? Are you that important ? You have to let him know whats going on in his creation?He doesnt know ? Is he retarded ?Maybe he just doesnt give a shit.
Hektor7788 5 months ago
@Hektor7788 Why do parents have children?
danielkirk1 5 months ago
@danielkirk1 Broken condoms,cant pull out on time, alcohol.
Hektor7788 5 months ago
@Hektor7788 Is that the mentality of a sinner?
danielkirk1 5 months ago
@danielkirk1 Yes im a sinner. I admit it. Is an intervention coming ?
Hektor7788 5 months ago
@Hektor7788 Eternity in fire for disbelievers and love of Christ for believers is your only intervention.
danielkirk1 5 months ago
@danielkirk1 Thank you, have a great life.
Hektor7788 5 months ago
@Hektor7788 May you find the truth and god bless.
danielkirk1 5 months ago
So Lennox, I must be a part of every religion at the same time in order to know the truth? Something tells me you have not engulfed yourself in all religions and are perfectly happy in viewing those from a distance.
pinkdeath82 5 months ago
....and Shermer for the WIN!!!
bloodties1 6 months ago
why does he use the word "who" in creating the universe question?
radoa1 6 months ago
Ive watched a few videos of John lennox debates and i want to know why he never has the last say, i dont know if this is pre arranged but i do know that the man who speaks last leaves more of a lasting impression. can anyone please enlighten me as to why this is so., is it coincidence or designed.?
purpleduke77 6 months ago
@purpleduke77 It is pre-ordered. He gets to speak first (Most of the time). Both debaters gets to show their point before the actual rambling. John Lennox does that in the begging (Most of the time) and the opposing debater does in the end. To make people think about what was actually said.
MrVirtualCoder 6 months ago
It all needs abandoning and we need to concentrate on finding real answers, where DID we come from? We have the ability to find out so let's get to it. Religions try the old polymorph act, "SHIT! ER... THEY FOUND DINOSAURS... NOT ADAM AND EVE... ERRR... I KNOW! THAT PART ABOUT THAT TREE! SAY THATS ONE!". Oh and um, we have the budget to build the Galileo statue! Let's get him sainted!!! What a fucking insult to him. Condemn him then saint him. It's SO sleazy. Fucking hell it's embarrassing!
riggermortisify 6 months ago
@agencyman1 It doesn't look or "act" like design. You know when something looks like design? When it serves a purpose. Need help with math? Design a calculator. Tell time? Build a watch. They all serve a purpose. The Universe may serve no purpose at all. Actually, I can say at least Humanity beyond itself serves no purpose at all. Dinosaurs were around for around 120 times longer than us in a perfectly balanced eco system. What was their purpose? cont...
riggermortisify 6 months ago
@riggermortisify cont...
To think we're of any significance in such an INCREDIBLY MASSIVE universe is horribly arrogant. Bad deeds are done because there MIGHT be a God. Just that alone is reason enough to abhor religion. You know if one day we found out that there is a God who set everything into motion I'd be more than happy to accept that. Until then people need to stop controlling and killing eachother for something that we ALL DO NOT KNOW exists. cont...
riggermortisify 6 months ago
@riggermortisify How about we lock you up because "until you prove that you've never killed anyone we're going to assume you're guilty.". It's the same backwards logic that leads to suffering. Men abuse religion and let it affect others.That's a great design your God set up there. The evil prick. If I WAS a Christian it'd make more sense to me that this supposed God WAS Satan, fooling people. cont AGAIN...
riggermortisify 6 months ago
@riggermortisify cont... The only productive thing religion brings to the table is terror, murder, anxiety, guilt, suicide and unhappiness.
Oh and if you were to use Occam's razor we'd have to admit that the universe most likely appeared through natural causes. Just because we both have to admit that we don't know something doesn't leave a space open for you to blindly ASSERT something that you supposedly DO know! cont...
riggermortisify 6 months ago
@riggermortisify cont...
I find it funny that he talks about freedom. The only places that aren't free are controlled by what? Religion. Each religion specifically tells men to not use their reason. Actually, in the new testatment Jesus specifically says that as soon as you try to give ANY reason for why you follow God you are abandoning your faith and are yet again a sinning motherfucker. It's small things like this that make me dislike religious establishments. cont...
riggermortisify 6 months ago
@riggermortisify cont... They go to war with eachother for reasons as asinine as a school playground fight over "Home Alone 3 is better than 4!". It's all bullshit. None of us know how the Universe came about but I think we can safely say that the religions have it WAY wrong.
It could've been created by some being, who knows? Let's not base wars on a possible answer though. And also let's not deny our children medication JUST in case. Let's not murder people just in case. cont...
riggermortisify 6 months ago
@riggermortisify Let's not make our abused children feel like fucking shit by trying to blame them for some fucking pedo preist who is being protected by what is basically a catholic crime syndicate. It's all a big fucking, barbaric joke. It makes me SICK. Our modern morals and ethics are actually built on doing the opposite of what these supposed words of God say. cont...
riggermortisify 6 months ago
@riggermortisify
You need to be careful how you define a "christian", your definition is based on self proclaimed secondary sources, However the SOURCE is Jesus Christ, why define something based on a self proclaimed, in-consistent, secondary source, when the PRIMARY SOURCE is available, this sort of thinking is just as irrational and absurd as stating that Albert Einstein was a terrorist, because people mis-used his science to invent atomic bombs!!!!
tharip 7 months ago
Comment removed
tharip 7 months ago
Comment removed
tharip 7 months ago
surely he feel treaten by richards dawkins he always thake him down,and thats whatsome do to raise their own ego what petty character he is
mystisme 7 months ago
@mystisme Richard Dawkins is the most popular Atheist. He is the bar. If you play football and play Quarterback you will compare yourself to Peyton Manning. Threatened? No. Addressing the fact that he has debated and competed against the best that Atheist have to offer, yes. Bitch hahahaha
mrcolbusmaximus 7 months ago
that i know it is why he is my favorite with hitchens and dennett
why call me bitch,he is only a mathecian yep big deal richard as more knowlweg considering biology and knows more about evolution cause of that knowlege
mystisme 7 months ago
@mystisme But Lennox knows much more about the bible, Christianity and most importantly God. Whether you or anyone else wants to admit it, God does exist. And I am sorry to tell you this, but if you deny Him then one day you will have to face Him and explain yourself. Job 38: 1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
mrcolbusmaximus 7 months ago
OK congratulations for discussing invisible imaginary friend. Family and morality started from Bible what a crap assertion. Grab your shovel and start digging with arceologists Dr. Lennox.
symmetry08 7 months ago
The pathetic cheer squad - understand nothing but cheer for any incoherent rubbish Lennox sprouts.
macroman52 7 months ago
Bloviate - def. John Lennox.
twiedenfeld 8 months ago
Jesus Christ is Lord. Atheists, nor the demons can tolerate this.
SoldierOfChrist110 8 months ago
Just for the record, the word variously spelled by several people with lofty and disdainful intellectual pretentions as "arguement", "agrument" and other baroque variants is generally spelled by most reasonably well-educated schoolchildren as "argument".
MrTobytwirl 8 months ago
Wow. What an IGNORANT, disgusting man. Say what you want Lennox. Stay in denial. What a psychopath o_O
So has he forgotten all the executed scientists and suppressed ideas? People exiled, kept under house arrest. All for trying to understand "God's universe". They were usually charged with denying the holy word or something equally absurd. It was openly admitted that it would negate most people's beliefs since it outright shows that Christian literallist's beliefs are just plain wrong.
riggermortisify 8 months ago
@riggermortisify A fallen man that is vain in its thinking and imagines himself to be the best the universe has to offer, will dislike someone taking the throne from him. And most scientists like fame. And glory in their discoveries. However if God made the universe and them also, all the glory belongs to God alone. So a universe with a creator will look bleak to them. But as you accept your position below God your vision will clear up.
shlukh 8 months ago
Comment removed
tharip 8 months ago
Comment removed
tharip 8 months ago
Every one of Lennox's points is based on technicalities. I'm happy to see he made an idiot of himself in the end. All of his "debates" are infuriating to watch.
Get it into your head, NO ONE knows how the Universe came into existance. At least Atheists admit it. And at least we don't arrogantly pretend to know who or how. In my opinion that's a lot more respectful than putting forward a shallow, flawed story. It's hard to be humbled by it's grandiosity when you trivialise it's being.
riggermortisify 8 months ago
@riggermortisify If God exists and i believe He does then God knows how the universe came into existence. If God gives a revelation then we also can know and i believe we do know from the Bible.
shlukh 8 months ago
It's people like John Lennox who convince people that religion is false.
NewAgeIntellectual 8 months ago
Lennox needs too read his bible more, alot of what he stated could of been presented much better, and he seemed too tip toe around certain questions and turn the subject alot in this debate.
777DARKSTATE777 9 months ago
I have to say something about the word sceptic because I'm actually Greek and I know my own language pretty well. Sceptic means thinker; simple as that! the word does not include any meaning for distance. sceptics were philosophers, men of critical thinking and the origins of philosophy are as greek as the word philosophy itself, which means passion for wisdom. Greeks and Arabs later on were the first scientists, their ideas inspired western europe and that was the end of the dark ages.
din80s 9 months ago 7
@din80s I think what John was getting at is possibly the ancient Greek for the word 'skeptic', of which the word that we have now derived from.
emurdoch100 2 weeks ago
the arguments made by Lennox are wrong, inaccurate, don't make sense, but as usual, "believers" will not admit it. Why? as usual: "because".....
Example: @ 1:30 he makes a statemente wrong and the result of his ignorance. Yet, the crowd seemed to be on his side. Why? because most people are religious and religious people reason like: "I want to believe what I want, what I decided I want to believe, regardless if what I believe is true or false".Congrats to that kind of truly stupid thinking
gennarog 9 months ago
shermer had a terrible closing statement...
xcode394 9 months ago
Shermer rebuked Lennox for appealing to majority because like he said, an argument can not be asserted to be true because the majority of people believe it to be true.
Now here at 6:50, Shermer hypocritically commits the same logical fallacy of appealing to majority. This hypocrisy is the fallacy known as Special Pleading, were he applies a different standard to Lennox than what he applies to himself.
Shermer is about spreading propaganda, not finding truth.
HolyRevelation 9 months ago
@HolyRevelation Did you tag the wrong time stamp there? Because I'm not hearing any appeals to the majority at that point.
There was a time when he said how many scientists are atheists, though he did that as a means of illustrating that Lennox's many quotes of people we "have to take seriously because of who they are" is just an argument from authority fallacy.
As a skeptic, Shermer has done much more to investigate truth than Lennox has. Of the two, Lennox is more the propagandist.
Brettah31 9 months ago
@Brettah31 If you can't see that Shermer's a troll, then I can't help you.
HolyRevelation 9 months ago
@HolyRevelation Rather a defeatist attitude of you. What's the point in making a statement you can't back up?
I suggest you work on your communication skills. Though given the side of the fence your barracking for, I'd say research skills would probably be priority.
Brettah31 9 months ago
why does he always talk about richard dawkins ??? like a little baby who starts crying...
DerMacDuff 9 months ago
John Lennox has a new fan!
666TheBloodLust666 9 months ago 3
Lennox...scientist or preacher? He spends 3 minutes answering questions poorly with opinion rather than evidence. Michael Shermer doesn't need to preach. He gets to the point, with strong evidence. That's why for most of this clip you hear Lennox talking, gradually becoming louder and louder until he reaches his conclusion which raises a cheer from the audience. Not so different from TV evangelists really.
EllisRobbo 10 months ago 2
If anyone ever sees me dressed like the moderator, please shoot me on the spot.
johneamer 10 months ago
I just feel sorry for lennox, william lane craig, and d'sousa etc, they are smart enough to know the evidence can only justify the deist position (although there is no reason to even believe that) but they have to affirm a belief in the nonsensical god of the bible, with all the embarrassment of intellectual dishonesty that entails.
1empathy 10 months ago
I like the parts when Lennox isn't talking
joay1111 10 months ago
how many people have a grasp of epistemology and believe in god?
and if so what definition of god do you believe in ?
I am sceptical that there is a Christian or any other religious person that believes in god and has grasp of epistemology? when i say religiouse i mean adheres to some organised religion.I am ready to have my ass handed to me.
if you think I phrased a question wrong or can answer my question please reply.
philosage 11 months ago
@philosage I would point you to the work of Alvin Plantinga the emeritus John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame and the author of many books including Warranted Christian Belief, which I would recommend you have a look at to see if it addresses some of your questions.
wolficog1 11 months ago
@wolficog1 Thanks. I have listened to platinga before i think he majors in analytical philosophy. Ill look them up.
philosage 11 months ago
The fact is that God made the universe and He decides how it goes He has given us all the freedom to reject Him with the penalty of hell ... don't say you were not warned.
What you don't seem to realise is that the one you have rejected is the creator of the universe and therefore the penalty is just but what is not justified is the love we receive for believing and all that man yearns for is freely available on the other side.
edgarnevis 11 months ago
@edgarnevis:"He has given us all the freedom to reject Him with the penalty of hell ... don't say you were not warned"
I've only been warned by other HUMAN MOUTHS, and sorry, but that is NOT good enough to change my worldview on when it comes to unseen gods.
AtheistToothFairy 11 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy Actually I find that atheist do believe in God, the only thing about Him they reject is His moral laws and because they do not wish to follow His moral laws they choose to deny His existence.
However what they they fail to realise is that we are made in God's image so at what ever point we judge God we only condemn ourselves because we fail our own tests. We make rules we expect others to follow even if they don't agree with them ... yet God is not allowed to do that.
edgarnevis 11 months ago
@edgarnevis:"I find that atheist do believe in God, the only thing about Him they reject is His moral laws.."
STOP listening to the propaganda that your ilk spews out about Atheists.
1. Your god's moral laws to atheists, are in fact, IMMORAL. If you got your nose out of that holy book, you might see this to.
2. We see no EVIDENCE for your god, just that SIMPLE.
If there is a 'god', it sure as hell isn't the one you kneel to buddy!
AtheistToothFairy 11 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy So you believe that the God of the Bible is immoral ... then if you find yourself in hell I suppose you would be proved right... and then what will be the use of evidence anyway... I'll take my chances with the God of the Bible ... I'd much rather live in the shadow of His love than in the position of His wrath
edgarnevis 11 months ago
@edgarnevis:"So you believe that the God of the Bible is immoral"
Believe?
Noooo, I very much KNOW the OT god is immoral and flat out EVIL, at least as he's portrayed in that ancient book of horrors.
Now, about this 'hell' place. Got any evidence it actually exists?
Oh, and while you're at it, look up Pascal's Wager and find out why it fails so horribly to convince anyone but a Xtian, m'kay?
AtheistToothFairy 11 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy Evolution is such a lie. Evolution can be ripped to shreds by asking the simplest of questions. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to shame the evolutionists. All it takes is common sense. Evolution is scientific fraud, which is why evolutionists have to continually push their agenda to brainwash children. If you were to burn every book in the world, children would naturally believe in a divine Creator simply by viewing His handywork. Psalm 19:1
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110:"Evolution can be ripped to shreds by asking the simplest of questions"
Seriously???
You won't do it, but go to Talkorigins . org and to the fundie section, where are your silly claims have been answered already.
God is a myth, and so is jesus btw.
Try and join the present century, m'kay
AtheistToothFairy 10 months ago
@AtheistToothFairy Evolution falls flat on its face before it even starts. To believe in evolution, that all life had a common ancestor, and that life formed non-life, you must believe that you came from a rock! You gotta have rocks in your head to believe something like that. Must be stoned!
Evolution says that one kind of animal turns into another kind. It is the fairy tale of "The Frog Prince," except instead of a kiss turning the frog into a Prince, it takes millions of years, instead.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Man, you sure nailed that on the head. No one doubts that creatures, etc can mutate and change over time, but to extrapolate and insist that they can change from one kind into another kind, is indeed a great delusion.
MrTruthhurts777 10 months ago
@MrTruthhurts777 I know, and yet this fairy tale is being taught as a scientific fact. And if macro evolution is true then where did all these male and female species originate from? So far scientists have not been able to produce a single cell, but they believe that once upon a time the earth was filled with these living cells that evolved into male and female species. Now that's a real fairy tale.
SoldierOfChrist110 10 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Do you like Ray Comfort?
TheGamanic 10 months ago
@TheGamanic Do you like Christopher Hitchens?
SoldierOfChrist110 9 months ago
@SoldierOfChrist110 Well I agree with on some things, but I don't take him as a source of my scientific knowledge.
TheGamanic 9 months ago
Here's the formula for a Christian's debate response:
1. Start with inane chatter completely irrelevant to the question
2. Mis-quote people and re-state the opponent's argument incorrectly
3. Go off on a tangent
4. Make a cute and pathetic joke to get the soft-bellied audience on side
5. Complete the slimy backing away from the original question with self satisfaction
sidewinderxx 1 year ago
@sidewinderxx Great arguements, whats your point?
samuellis 11 months ago
I can say that this was the best Christian vs Atheist debate I've watched.
wforster1221 1 year ago
All this proved to me was that Lennox, like all believers, is totally deluded and offered nothing but ideas and speculation.
OneAtheist1 1 year ago
@OneAtheist1 All this proved to me was that Shermer is an eloquent speaker and articulator of the vastness of the known & unknown components of our universe(s), yet was unable to provide any systematic breakdown in the logic of what John Lennox purports. In essence, Shermer's final argument was "I don't know. But, it can't be God." Come on guys. See through the smokescreen of intellectual & scientific jargon working to define the outsides of argument-while leaving the foundations untouched.
jadkins00 1 year ago
@jadkins00 "i dont know but it cant be god" were those his words? because he would be demonstrating a stupid contradiction.
philosage 11 months ago
@OneAtheist1 Is that your best arguement? Because if it is then your the deluded one with no idea on what to say....
samuellis 11 months ago
Lennox deff owned this guy . I've seen Hitchens or Dawkins owning many Christians and I'm not afraid to say it . Just because someone wins a debate doesn't mean much it's not like we will say since this debated was won by an atheist then atheism is right or the other way around. .brilliant John
blopajmbar62 1 year ago 2
@blopajmbar62 I totally agree.
whisper012 1 year ago
@blopajmbar62 Huh? Did we watch a different debate? On what points did Lennox own Shermer?
I totally agree that just because someone wins a debate it means that their world view is correct, but I believe that the question of the night was "Does God Exist?". What points did Lennox make that Shermer failed to rebutt?
Brettah31 9 months ago
@blopajmbar62 Lennox got his history regarding slavery wrong and failed to address some of shermer's points. You must have been watching a different debate if you think shermer was "deff owned"
RomansPwnedJesus 8 months ago
I don't like this format of a "debate"...Lennox is just full of you know what, I can't believe that he can get away with comments that he makes, there are so much fallacies in his mental gymnastics that it is just appalling. We do not need to be and we shouldn't be compartmentalized by religion.
JeayBee 1 year ago
Either everything came from nothing. Or something was always there. I'll choose God.
EskimoClay1 1 year ago
@EskimoClay1 You have errected a false dichotomy. What if there was never nothing ? In fact we know, from science and logic, that there "was" the potential for at least one universe, and we are in it.
GowanBray 1 year ago
@GowanBray Time and space are contingent. This is an elementary point on the nature of the universe. To postulate the universe was always there, as I think your implying, is to ignore the philosophical and scientific reasoning on bias and ulterior grounds. His dichotomy is not a false one. The universe has an exterior cause, explain it away as materialistic as you like, just don't call it earnest, deductive reasoning.
DrZpankz 1 year ago
@DrZpankz Hi thanks for replying, Indeed time and space are linked, we call it spacetime. "Always" cannot be meaningful without time being a dimension of the universe, so in that sense, yes it has always existed, but that does not mean this universe of spacetime "was" the first or is the last, it just means that it is the one we are in and can observe and measure. The universe is that which exists. That can include the potential for universe(s) but must include at least one universe, this one.
GowanBray 1 year ago
@GowanBray Your multiverse hypothesis is noted, but irrelevant. Even if I adopted the claim it would in no way belittle the universe's contingency. Ironically, even you used vernacular such as 'first' and 'last' whilst trying to dismiss temporal explanation. This is only possible because we have sequential causes and effects independent of time. Thus, while possible a universe is sequentially prior to ours, it doesn't matter. The theory just begs the question and confounds the problem further...
DrZpankz 1 year ago
@GowanBray I disagree, for there to never be nothing then that would imply that the universe was infinite. Wouldn't it? And scientists will tell you that the universe is expanding. So the universe is larger today than it was yesterday. Keep going backwards and you will find that there was a beginning. Now, you need to choose what you believe. Everything came from nothing. Or there was intelligent design.
EskimoClay1 1 year ago
Hi thanks for the reply, in a hurray so a quick response. "Never" implies the presence of time. That dimension was an outcome of the big bang event. So no, I don't think it implies the universe is infinite. It does imply a beginning of spacetime. But not a before, since "before" also implies time. It is indeed a difficult notion, compared to going north of the north pole. You cannot have a time before time. You can have a non universe with time but a potential for one. That's what I am proposing
GowanBray 1 year ago
@GowanBray To me that points to the traits of God doesn't it? A divine being which is not bound by time. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. It is hard to grasp and i do understand what you are saying. It takes me a few minutes to think about it and comprehend it. God is like taking the derivative of a horizontal line on a graph. Whatever number you put in, it won't change. Though this is off topic, i feel the wonder of our universe points to an intelligent creator.
EskimoClay1 1 year ago
No, all you are doing is personifying nature. Nature is bound by time, indeed moulded by time in the form of planets, stars and biology. There is no evidence that there are any gods which fulfill your description. Just because you feel the common human sensation of wonder does not mean that there are gods. The same experience you cite lead people to worship the sun for instance, which we now know is a natural phenomenon. You are experiencing the so called argument from personal incredulity. :)
GowanBray 1 year ago
@GowanBray There is much Biblical evidence throughout the world. Google evidence of God and you will get much of it.
EskimoClay1 1 year ago
We have a different concept of what consitutes evidence. Ancient books are numerous and are no reason to believe in one deity rather than another. If, for example the bible mentioned the true size and disposition of the solar system or the existence of animals such as kangaroos that might be worth something, but it actually contains nothing that would not be expected to be thought and known by men of the time living in the middle east. You cannot use metaphor to escape this Gods write clearly.
GowanBray 1 year ago
@GowanBray The Bible predicts the future as well. An example: The Bible says that the Jews, which are Jesus' people would soon reject him as their savior. This is evident today. Jews currently don't believe that Jesus was the Christ. There are many more as well. My opinion about evidence is that God wants us to have faith. If there was so much evidence then there would be no need for it.
EskimoClay1 1 year ago
I noticed that most of what Lennox said was just saying what he believed and not presenting solid arguments. I found Sherman more convincing
GarretsShadow 1 year ago
I'm sick of science and I'm an atheist
hansjaeger1 1 year ago
Shermer's hair is so funny, poor guy LOL. Like his "qualifications" everything he said was incorrect, except his name, which has just been modified.
impalax327 1 year ago
"What surprises me though is the degree of atheist hatred levelled at those who have the courage to defend what they believe in." Yes yes, Atheists are demon hellspawn who eat babies and defecate in churches.... I get it, I get it. The Muslims who flew the planes into the Twin Towers were simply defending their religious beliefs against the opression of the "Christian" nation of America.... I guess I should be respecting their courage too. Atheists do not respect crazy beliefs, sorry!
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 criticises me for using the term "atheist hatred". On reflection, maybe that term was a tad too harsh. It's just that I was reminded of a previous video I watched where Dawkins espouses the banning of all forms of creation teaching.
BGfromGB 1 year ago
This was a good debate. I had not seen either of these gents debate before and I like the tone of this debate, both were jovial and made their points well, and although I did not agree with Lennox, he gave me much to think about.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 I totally agree. But equally I say there were points that Shermer made that I was totally sceptical about. I can''t say what Lennox said that I disagreed with given that I'm no scientist nor am I an avowed follower of religion.
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@BGfromGB LOL then what are you? The arguments Lennox used are based largely on logical fallacies. I suggest you listen to the debate again after reading up on different types of logic fallacies, and you will be able to quickly identify them once you have been educated a bit about them. So many believers come on here and pretend to be completely unbiased, like the fraud Lee Strobel (and yes, his books ARE in my library) and then suggest that the abstract rhetoric of Lennox is infallible.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 says the arguments used by Lennox are based largely on logical fallacies. Logical fallacies? What logical fallacies are you talking about? You say so many believers come here and "pretend" to be unbiased. Funny how only believers can be unbiased. Atheists cannot. Well my friend, take your blinkers off and read every "unbiased" atheist post on this thread and tell me they are unbiased. I think you should re read my posts again where I believe I give credit where credit is due.
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@BGfromGB You didn't address any of my points, and I made many, many of them. I gave you 6 paragraphs to work with.... you are not even worth my time. Anyone reading this, especially UNBIASED people, will see that you do not even have any arguments, only baseless accusations and have an inability to make even the most meager of points or respond intellectually to anything anyone tries to put to you. You are pathetic. Not even worth it.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 I have responded to every one of your paragraphs Thank you.
Too bad that you blindly accuse people who take stock of what Lennox says as being BIASED while your baseless rebuttal of what he is saying and which does not reconcile with your agenda is considered to be UNBIASED.
But there you go. We'll just have to agree to disagree!!
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 What am I? Let's say that I am merely an uneducated & insignificant little earthling who genuinely wants to know issues that of personal concern to me. I do not believe we are a product of chance and nor do I believe we dance to the tune of DNA as atheists claim. Lets say that I "dance to the tune" of highly educated and intelligent philosophers/scientists/mathematicians who've spent years of indepth studies in their field of specialities of which you are master of none.
BGfromGB 1 year ago
1:40 bloody hell. The who created God question is always used to either refudiate or preempt a first cause argument from thiests.
Nexius8 1 year ago
I made a similar point with the hospitals earlier. Science (another greek word) predated chrisitanity.
Nexius8 1 year ago
@Nexius8 And did science predate God?
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@BGfromGB Did the methodology of determining how the physical laws of the world and the universe work through experimentation, observation, and trial and error exist before the bible was written? Only by thousands of years..... but is a trick question, because if you are a believer then you will just say "no, god is the Alpha and the Omega, a perfect circle" or some equally abstract assertion. The reality is gods have been being made up for thousands and thousands of years even before the bible.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 Asks if the methodology of determining how the physical laws of the world & universework through experimentation, observation & trial and error. As I'm no scientist I cannot answer that. If the atheist scientist cannot explain this so called methodology, its doubtful whether you, an ordinary atheist layman provide that answer? I stand corrected but the reality is that the Bible is perhaps the earliest written documentation of records set by mankind. All else is theoretical.
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@BGfromGB Depending on your meaning of science. Science as people seeking proper understanding of the natrual world predates the Christian God. The natrual laws predate God anyway as God doesn't exist.
Nexius8 1 year ago
@Nexius8 Natural laws predate God. God anyway as God doesn't exist. And that's the problem. For some reason known only to atheists it is a fact that does not have to be proven whereas the existence of God does. Personally I simply do not accept that we are the product of pure chance. This is what science cannot prove.
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@BGfromGB If you belive that science says we are from pure chance then you miss understand science.
Nexius8 1 year ago 23
@Nexius8 Ok, so what else is there apart from pure chance? I'm interested.
TheNomad653 7 months ago
Geez! Lennox is extremely long winded! They guy can talk for ever! It's usually emotionally driven speech that doesn't rely on anything of evidential value.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 I came to this site to try and learn something. Of all the posts i've read, not one of them remotely matches the intelligence of Lennox or Shermer. What surprises me though is the degree of atheist hatred levelled at those who have the courage to defend what they believe in. If they want to believe in a God, that does not make them intellectually inferior to those who don't. Religion aside, Lennox made valid points which atheists should take stock of.
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@BGfromGB Can you please cite one of his "many" valid points? I know believers love to make assertions without explanation or evidence, but please, try to be a maverick. Wow.... so idiots like you and I on youtube were unable to intellectually match a professional apologist and a professional Atheist debater who do this for a living? Ya don't say! Criticizing me is not an argument, by the way. It's just an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 Asks me to cite one of his many valid points. My dear friend did you not listen to the debate with an open mind. Or did you just listen to what you wanted to and consign the rest as pure fallacy. And here you are accusing believers of pretending to be unbiased! Calling the kettle black !!. Did not Lennox provide his assertions with evidence or were his assertions mere hype? If they were, then maybe YOU can back it up & not cop out by using Shermers oft used word "irrelevant"
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@BGfromGB BGfromGB: " I'm no scientist nor am I an avowed follower of religion."
BGfromGB: "I know the Quran. Probably better than you. But I was set free when I read the truth of the Bible."
LOL you little LIAR. So you pretend to be unbiased on a theistic vs. Atheistic debate and are too dumb to realize anyone can go onto your channel and read your old comments, especially a smart Atheist who could tell you were a liar even before they did so? LOL and you insulted MY intelligence?
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 accuses me of being a liar. He checked out my profile to prove it. My friend, for your edification, I belong to no religion. Period. I have read both the Bible and the Quran & cited them both for comparison purposes. That does not mean I AM a christian. But at least, in my listening to this debate, I am in a position to understand what Lennox is talking about. That in mind & atheistic disdain for the Bible how can U claim to be unbiased when u know nothing about the Bible?
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@BGfromGB I have been on both sides of the debate. I was once a Christian and now I simply don't believe in the supernatural. As far as hate leveled at anyone it definitely goes both ways, but the thing is, as Sam Harris has said, religion has always been given the pass when it comes to critical public debate. So it may seem like the atheists are being just mean, but I think it's just they they are tired of this political correctness thing that keeps people from questioning religion and for fear
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
My education as a physics major did not prepare me to see an icon of the Mother of God miraculously seep myrrh, and to smell its heavenly, sweet smell; quite a defiance of the laws of nature. If you want experiential evidence of Heaven and Hell, just try to be sincerely and humbly Christ-like for a week and experience spiritual warfare firsthand. You are more than just dust in the eyes of God. Atheism only offers you the grave; Christ offers you life here, now, and forever.
johnnylovesfootball 1 year ago
@johnnylovesfootball "just try to be sincerely and humbly Christ-like for a week" Okay, I'll become a Jew, not bathe for weeks, grow my hair really long like a girl, move to the middle east, and then be called a lunatic by everyone I encounter and then make sure I create a way for human beings to be eternally tortured if they don't believe what I say to them. And to top it all off, I'll geta a bunch of folks to nail me to a telephone pole, and then I'll turn into a zombie after a few days.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 ??? Thank goodness for intelligent christian science debaters and intelligent atheist debaters. At least they give us food for thought - not the claptrap you write.
BGfromGB 1 year ago
@BGfromGB "Fact of the matter you know less as a non scientist than he does as a scientist and equally you as an atheist know nothing about his core beliefs of which know nothing about" Nice sentence structure. I just listened to this guy talk about his core beliefs for an hour and a half... and have watched countless debates, study religion on a daily basis, as well as talk to Atheists and believers alike on a DAILY basis. I live for it. You make ignorant accusations... of ignorance!
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 accuses me of making ignorant accusations. Am I? Your charge that Lennoxs' speech is "based largely on logical fallacies" without providing your reasons is surely ignorance on YOUR part.
You simply told us nothing to substantiate that argument. So how am I expected to accept your simplistic meaningless statement ahead of what Prof Lenox debated?
BGfromGB 1 year ago
shermer is so smart i cant he had such a weak rebuttle, i thought he ended it weak and lennox had a stronger end...
samuellis 1 year ago
@samuellis
Seeing as this debate has obviously been cut, shows Lennox speaking at least twice as much as Shermer, and is posted by a user named "PublicChristianity", I'm thinking there's a lot of good points Shermer made that aren't shown throughout the whole series.
No matter. Lennox's empty rhetoric, misrepresentation of the position of atheism and the arguments against theology, and appeals to authority and emotion are easy enough to see through.
joeyhoser 1 year ago
@joeyhoser I didn't notice the user name. I had noticed it had been edited but suspected some devious athiest had had a hand in it. As an athiest it really annoyes me when that happens you see. Because I think the non belief posistion doesn't need help. But well.... if that is the edited, pro christian version. Says a bit.
Nexius8 1 year ago
@joeyhoser Only thing about shermer is that he kept on saying that any points Lennox made were "irrelevant".
BGfromGB 1 year ago
Lennox is slippery and intellectually dishonest. He is too sinuous in his usage of terms like faith and scepticism. He believes in the Resurrection. Simply to want to do that is a species of madness.
pinkinvisible 1 year ago
Overall, Shermer seemed to make fairly shallow, sound-bitey points and Lennox was too verbose and even though he made some very good points, didn't really seem to relate - it was almost like he got the debate question confused. Good arguments, but somehow the context didn't fit. On the whole they seemed to be talking past eachother, which is a shame. The question and answer was a lot more interesting than the debate proper.
findo 1 year ago
Perfect debate. Respectful, insightful and articulate. In the end all that matters is: what will you believe during your <100 years on this planet: Does it all start with God or does it start with Matter and Energy? I'll go with God.
phoenixsouvenir 1 year ago 3
@phoenixsouvenir " In the end all that matters is: what will you believe during your <100 years on this planet: "
No actually, in the end all that matters is that you don't allow your beliefs to impact others.
Believe what you want...
Be respectful all day long...
BUT if you going to influence education, and government, and start wars, and condemn and judge others.... then you damn well better have more than what Lennox does.
Otherwise I'm fine with it.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 "don't allow your beliefs to impact others"
Say that to Dr King, Ghandi and the fore-fathers of the American Revolution. Beliefs can change the world, sure for the worst, but also for the better; because at the end of the day, that's the only thing that has.
All we have are our beliefs. Those beliefs influence us and we influence the world. If faith in Love and Hope for a better tomorrow aren't good enough, then nothing is.
phoenixsouvenir 1 year ago
@phoenixsouvenir ....If Dr King or Ghandi tried to force religious beliefs onto people...
If they tried to retard the education of children,
If they advocated killing non believers,
If they judged people based on their sexuality...
Then you're damn right I would tell that to them!
None of the good things about either of those men required religious beliefs to be forced on others.
As for the American revolution - same thing.
You're missing the point.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 My initial point was that it all starts and ends with what a person chooses to believe. Right or Wrong. Win or Lose.
Had those men I mentioned not believed what they did, they wouldn't have had any of the "good things" to begin with.
I think where most (if not all) Atheists fail is they confuse a religious belief with religion doctrine. I agree no one should force their religion doctrine on others, but everyone has the right to try and make this world better, however they see fit.
phoenixsouvenir 1 year ago
@phoenixsouvenir ?...So if I think all homosexuals are immoral and should be persecuted, and that is my belief ...
Then I should be allowed to do it, because it's my way of making the world better??
Or perhaps I should have to justify my beliefs before others need take any notice of them.
I don't think atheists fail to see that at all...I think they demand it.
Roper122 1 year ago
a teacher can ask you to read your books, but it's up to you to do such a thing. you choose how informed you want to be. one thing that would make sense to your question is in the end the way you live your life is up to you whether or not you grow up in a gay neighborhood or not. worry about your life ,because for sure you know it is yours to live.
bloodBreincarnated 1 year ago
@bloodBreincarnated ....I have no idea what you were trying to say there.
Roper122 1 year ago
@phoenixsouvenir i agree, but one thing for sure is actions have a greater affect, and with out even trying to change the "WORLD" to where it best fits you. we should do what are moral sensses tell us to and not judge the outcome. for all we know is what is already incripted in us
bloodBreincarnated 1 year ago
@phoenixsouvenir Or you can take the third option: we don't know but we'll do what we can to find out. I'll take that one.
sidewinderxx 1 year ago
@phoenixsouvenir Sad to say that almost every Athiest that watch this debate bashes on Lennox, he is so smart. It's just the ignorant people that doesn't understand. Athiest with the qeak arguements and same stuff over and over...
samuellis 11 months ago
wow John Lennox wins again, even in the end shermer still contradicts himself.
kit2ng219 1 year ago
@kit2ng219 " wow John Lennox wins again "
I've never seen Lennox win a debate...ever.
Perhaps he has won a debate...but this certainly wasn't one of them.
Lennox's strengths are - talking continuously, and looking like a cuddly uncle.
Not winning debates.
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 He beat Dawkins hands down - but I think he forgot who he was actually debating in this one..;.
findo 1 year ago
@findo ...he debated Dawkins twice, he didn't come close to beating him...but you're right, he still thinks he's debating Dawkins...still trying to win a debate he failed at twice.
In fact not only did he not beat Dawkins, he then found it necessary to misrepresent what Dawkins said, and was summarily exposed.
In the pantheon of apologists, John Lennox is not at the top...but he does look cuddly!
Roper122 1 year ago
@Roper122 I saw the first Dawkins debate - and it's widely acknowledged that Dawkins was quite unprepared - as I understand it, the second debate was because of this reason. Funny how people are always accused of misrepresenting Dawkins when all they are doing is repeating his own words... maybe that's the get-out clause when your own argument is shown to be invalid: "oh, but that's not what I meant!"
findo 1 year ago
@findo ...." widely acknowledged" ??
What, like it's widely acknowledged that there's a god? Yeah, whatever keeps you happy.
As for the other, check out " Lying for Jesus " for a prime example of Lennox " repeating Dawkins' own words " as you put it.
Appears suspiciously like a complete self-serving misrepresentation to me...
But perhaps it's not " widely acknowledged "
Although I do agree with you, Lennox does waffle, and he was still trying to beat Dawkins here.
Roper122 1 year ago