I personally thought the question stupid. Given, that you accept God exists, to then pose the question "why do you choose to worship Him, since he ....... ?"
Great answer. I'm just now discovering Joh Lennox and I am blown away by his knowledge and true gentlemanly character (as God shines through all of His true believers!).
This answer is brilliant. The question is silly and appeals to human nature rather than to truth. You worship him because He is God and He created everything including you, not based on whatever you might want to do.
Let's just pretend this is a Shakespearian novel. Does anyone else see how brilliant Lenox’ answer was? If you don’t, I would wager you would get a failed grade in literature and context reading for this specific (stories / book). The question was amusing. The answer was the mirror. The apology was the wisdom. The audiences laughter = priceless. Knowledge is not bad. It’s what we do with it, among other things, that come and goes from within. The question attempted instilled accusation, etc..
The questioner set up a discrete strawman. God didn't forbid eating from the tree to keep them from gaining general knowledge, but specifically knowledge of good and evil.
@AgApE010 All of modern atheism, it seems to me, is founded upon the knocking down of strawmen and the drawing of false and ignorant caricatures. Not since Nietzsche, really, has an atheist philosopher grappled with the Christian tradition in its fullness and with all its implications. He knew full well what he was rejecting and subsequently what he was embracing by that rejection--namely, nihilism and the "transvaluation of all values." The "new atheists" are only playing.
My thoughts on the question; It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Not just knowledge alone. Does a lion know right and wrong? Men do, even if they do not believe in a creator. This is what the story was about. Man saw he was naked (ashamed) and hid from God. Sin separates us from the source of true knowledge.
@hellavadeal I never understood why nudity is shameful? I always thought it was our culture that made us feel this way, so why would knowledge of good and evil alone lead to this shame unless you are saying being naked is evil? or so good it is shameful? i dont get it...
@afatdutch Their eyes were open to their own frailties. The clothes of leafs were because they felt defenseless and ashamed for doing what they were told not to. It really had nothing to do with their bodies having no clothes. God made our bodies perfect. .
@afatdutch It isn't about physical nudity, just as the "six day creation" isn't about six actual 24-hour periods. Their "nakedness" here represents their vulnerability, their lost innocence, their shame at having disobeyed God's command and so forth. A brief glance at the history of Christian art make clear that traditionally Christians had no problem with the naked human form. That came later in the form of puritanism and fundamentalism, which are distortions of the Gospel.
@afatdutch I didn't say it was a fable, nor did I imply it was untrue. You see, this is the trouble with trying to discuss anything seriously with an atheist--your moral and creative imagination has been so deadened under the weight of your fallacious verificationism and radical empiricism that you are able to recognize only the most superficial kind of truth, and usually not even then. There is more revealed in Genesis than either you or fundamentalists will ever understand.
@TheOrthodoxSteven imagination. good word. my imagination is not as great as those who believe in god. i have no doubt genesis contains a great deal of useful stories with useful information, but denying that they are fables and are instead reality takes a great deal of, imagination.
The tree of knowledge? Uhmm negative! It's actually called " The tree of the knowledge of good and evil". It's not that God didn't want Adam and Eve to be intelligent or anything of that nature. It's just that if they ate from the tree then they would have knowledge of sin and therefore, they would no longer be innocent. But I personally believe that the genesis story is semi-allegorical. The message conveyed is more important than what literally happened.
It is not a good question. It is a straw man. It was not the "Tree of knowledge" it was the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil." It was knowledge that was specific to a particular thing, not ALL knowledge. It is unjustified, in this sense, to claim that God is against having knowledge.
A dumb answer from a dumb prick. Lennox's beliefs are clearly keeping him very stupid. Thanks for showing the adverse effects of religion on the human mind.
You may be right man, I just wrote what I read on atheist sites and pages. I am gonna think and read more. Thank you. will find the truth if we search for it.
@ershadganji :) !!! Not many admit, as you just did, that "I just wrote what I read on atheist sites & pages. I am gonna think and read more." I applaud you.
One series here on YouTube that really got me thinking is "Know Your Enemy: Fuel Project", Part 1 to (about) 70. Pretty long, but wow. He de-scatters a lot of puzzle pieces.
@ershadganji Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@ershadganji There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is often a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God. The finely tuned universe and The INFORMATION inside proteins, Homochirality and DNA is what changed him!
The Inability To Comprehend, A Sworn Oath to God & Country, Does Not Deter The Lethal Duty To Perform & Defend God's US Constitution. You Who Attack God, Who Attack Countries & Who Attack Humanity, You Are The Enemy. Enemies Of God, Are Enemies Of Those Sworn To Protect God, Country, Constitution & Humanity.
All Men Are Created Equal, With Certain Inalienable Rights, Endowed By Our Creator. As Goes God, So Goes Freedom, Liberty & Justice For All.
I like the humor, but even as a Christian I think we deserve to hear the rest of Mr. Lennox's reply; it would be more fair to post the entire thing. Please consider my request? We shouldn't giggle and say, oh you got owned; we should have intelligent, open dialogue from both sides.
@jeditight Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
@jeditight There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is often a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God. The finely tuned universe and The INFORMATION inside proteins, Homochirality and DNA is what changed him!
@GloriousAtheist Hardly either. You sound childish and extremely emotional (or you are just a troll). If you have nothing valuable to add to an intelligent discussion, do not bother responding.
@GloriousAtheist What delusion? I'm not a believer but I'm a teacher of literature--I was discussing symbols and metaphors...no need to get so heated. Relax--you sound just as bad as the die-hard Chirstians who take everything literally.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not represent humankind's desire for knowledege. The classical Jewish and Christian interpretations agree that it represents mankind wanting to possess *all things* for ourselves so as to split off from the presence of the transcendent, and rule Earth according to our own selfish will rather than according to the natural law of reason. And most contemporary Christians don't think the detail of the story is that important anyway.
@peteface24 Also the Augustine quote is very out of context. He was against reason without faith, not reason whatsoever. That much should be obvious from his esteemed place in the history of western philosophy.
@peteface24 A close reading of Genesis reveals its themes of duality, sexuality, and free will; all of these things is what places adults and modern man in the condition of conflict--its result is the problem of duality, psychology, and existentialism. That's how a literary critic might read it...as I do.
Once again that study did not list Atheists, Non Christian != Atheist, and still no one has mentioned a single Atheist Scientist. If you read previous messages about where I studied etc .... you'd have seen I am referencing Scientists both in the US and Europe. Critical Thinking and logic leaves room for alternative possibilities to their being no God and everything having just randomly occurred (which would violate laws of physics), and is 100% against Atheist philosophy.
@dedbusted - yes I suppose he could be implying that Genesis shouldn't be taken seriously. but that's only one possibility. He could just be joking to avoid the question.
@shumble32 Do you understand the allegory of the serpent in the garden? Lennox does, but the questioner doesn't seem to, since the questioner is taking the same position as the snake/serpent...that's the reason behind the sarcasm of Lennox's answer--he is being funny, but he recognizes how ironic that the questioner resembles the serpent, who allows Adam and Eve to know the world of opposites, acquire knowledge, and to become like God. I don't take the Bible literally, but it is good literature.
@dedbusted - however cleaver Lennox thinks he's being, and however devastatingly witty you find him it doesn't alter the fact that he avoided the question
@shumble32 One more thing, which Lennox should point out--a great and almighty God must have allowed the serpent to influence Adam and Eve into taking the fruit (the fruit of kowledge and sexuality/reproduction); therefore, although Satan does represent knowledge and lust, it is God who ultimately allowed it to happen. Sorry to bug you. Just wanted to add that. Bye.
@dedbusted - it's a bit of a silly story really - I prefer Greek mythology with its monsters and heroes and no-one insulting your intelligence by trying to tell you it you it actually happened
@shumble32 Take a Bible as literature course or read Plato and you'll understand how the Bible is hardly a silly story; it is literature. I'm not a believer and don't take it literally, but I understand philosophy and mythology and appreciate the writing.
@dedbusted - genesis is a work of fiction not based on a true story. I get the impression that most Christians nowadays think it's too silly to take seriously. As for it being great literature - well, ok, a talking snake, I suppose that could work (ref. Narnia), but there's big holes in the story, and the plot devices and motivations of most of the main characters are really sub-holywood. If any story is silly, this story is silly
@shumble32 You can dumb-down any story to make it sound bad: a growing boy discovers the universe's evil half-man, half-robot is his father ("Star Wars"); a university professor has exciting adventures in caves ("Indiana Jones"); etc. But if you had a fondness for language, which I'm guessing you don't (or you would understand why the English of the King James Bible is outstanding), you could appreciate the beauty of some of the passages and the linguistic feat of translating the texts. Cheers!
@dedbusted - I'd hate to be so indiscriminately 'fond of language' that I ceased to be critical of content. Don't you see how the Genesis story has been used to hold millions of people over hundreds of years in thrall to the ruling and priestly classes? Original sin - what a stupid and cruel lie! But that's ok - you keep fawning over the language - it just seems a bit of a superficial attitude.
@shumble32 When did I ever say I agree with original sin? I don't. And I certainly don't "agree" with the content, but i can certainly understand it objectively and analyze it. I am an empiricist who doesn't agree with the teachings of the church or most of the teachings of Jesus Christ (I prefer Nietzsche and Russell). So, before you commit any more hasty generalizations, let's just end this discussion, which I thought was a fairly good one at first.
@shumble32 By a "hasty generalization" I was implying that you jumped to a conclusion about me, or those like me, based on a defense of the book. No problem, though...communication problems occur every now and then. Happy New Year.
@shumble32 I wasn't trying to sound snobbish or anything. You seem like a reasonable person, and if you don't appreciate some of the passages in the Bible that is your business--there are many other archaic works I'm sure people find boring and unappealing; however, I just wanted to make the point that I, an avid reader, enjoy seeing the literary connections between the ancient religions (Indian, Egyptian, Jewish) and Greek philosophy. The Bible really is an interesting document on many levels.
What's so wrong about eating some fucking fruit from a fucking tree? LOL... Really, god HAS to be the most retarded, childish motherfucker out there... hahaha "dont eat fruit" hahhaha My 6 year old nephew is less childish than god.
My comment expresses & explains the basis of the human logic and belief structure, is a fundamental commitment to the Truth (ONLY SANE CHOICE), which inherently expands to include all possibilities.
"Logic, an online textbook by Garth Kemerling, explaining the basic elements of elementary logic at an undergraduate level."
The only way to become an Atheist/Satanist is to become an insane lying fraud.
Fundamental Logic 101. A commitment to the truth (only sane choice), inherently expands to include all possibilities. Arbitrary dismissal of a possibility, breeches that commitment as a fatal logic error, proving themselves fundamentally insane liars & frauds. When Atheist/Satanists dismiss God as a possibility, they breech their commitment to the truth, resulting in the mindfucked insanity to argue justifying a lie, is rational behavior.
This is a common misconception about the story of Adam and Eve. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By eating the fruit, Adam and Eve came to know both good and evil.
REALLY THIS SCIENTIST BELIEVES IN A TALKING SNAKE?LOL ...GOD IS A DUMB CONCEPT...BUT GOOD REBUTTAL...THOUGH...AND THAT DUDE IS RIGHT GOD HIS AGAINST KNOWLEDGE AT THE MEN THAT CREATED GOD ...BECAUSE IF CREATED GOD IT WOULD BE MORE COMPASSIONATE BEING...AND TAKE NOTICE THAT I CALLED GOD IT I MYSELF ONLY NOTICE THAT TREATING GOD AS A HE WE ARE ONLY HUMANIZING SOMETHING THATS IS ONLY A CONCEPT AND GIVING IT A FORM...LOL
I'm an atheist, and have to admit, that was a damned witty response. The complete answer he gives in the other video is also well made (at least the first part) but that shows more the questioners lack of understanding of the text. The text has nothing to do with knowledge of the world, only knowledge of sin.
P.s. The whole story is a fairy-tale anyway (as must be acknowledged by evolution, therfore making the whole story of Jesus' redemption of our sin irrelevant and disproveing christianity).
@hungryman211 If you admire the English language, mythology, philosophy, psychology, poetry, and the study of culture, ethics, and traditions, then the Bible is hardly irrelevant. I am not a Christian and do not take the Bible literally, but I must say I am astonished how atheists don't know how to properly read it--they are as guilty as Christians who take it literally. Maybe most atheists are just too left-brained to read metaphors. I suggest reading Joseph Campbell and Harold Bloom.
Not a wise answer at all... that an entity that asked it previously may have been portrayed in a bad light does not itself reflect upon the validity of the question or the point it implies.
The truth of a being's claim or point is not predicated upon it's "social standing" or any undefined, unjustified negative connotations that may be attached to it.
So It's not wise to question anything God tells us to do? That's what J. Lennox's reply is seeming to imply to me? That is what would and should have maybe been a question to ask him. We should never blindly follow what anyone tells us and not be afraid to question things that we may have doubts about. If none of us did then what kind of world would we live in! It's ok to question the the Serpent but not God?!That's not wise that's stupid!
@screenflicker1 “Physical events can have only physical explanations, and consciousness is not physical, so consciousness plays no explanatory role whatsoever. If, for example, you think you ate because you were consciously hungry, or got married because you were consciously in love with your prospective spouse, you are mistaken in every case. In each case the effect was a physical event and therefore must have an entirely physical explanation.”
This is incorrect science. Scientists all agree that instincts drive us to do and think things but the majority of them also agree that the conscience is unexplained thus far.
Consciousness is an emergent physical phenomenon..How can it not be physical? When you were just a bunch of cells inside your mother, you had no brain, and no consciousness. Yet, as you developed cell by cell, you eventually developed a brain, and when you were born, you were conscious. Where did that conscious come from? It was obviously the result of a certain configuration of cells, which resulted in a brain, which resulted in your consciousness. Hence, physical.
@screenflicker1 “We have no conception of our physical or functional nature that allows us to understand how it could explain our subjective experience. . . . In the case of consciousness we have nothing—zilch—worthy of being called a research programme, nor are there any substantive proposals about how to go about starting one. . . . Researchers are stumped.”
Ned Block
“Consciousness,” in A Companion to Philosophy of Mind, 210-12
@screenflicker1 "Neither Steven Pinker nor I can explain human subjective consciousness.In How the Mind Works Steven elegantly sets out the problem of subjective consciousness,and asks where it comes from and what’s the explanation. Then he’s honest enough to say,‘Beats the heck out of me.’That is an honest thing to say, and I echo it. We don’t know. We don’t understand it.”
Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, Is Science Killing The Soul? ww w.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p4.html
@noibn2 regarding your last statement I should say that Christians believe the all powerful God can have it both ways when it comes to free will and ABILITY TO NOT SIN, and that was Jesus Christ who freely chose to live a perfect life because he loved good and hated evil, not because he tries to do good and avoid evil. we cannot blame anyone for what we do, because we know it is wrong and we still do it.
@ershadganji The bottom line is that snakes, donkeys, and foliage don't talk....women aren't made from ribs and they don't turn into salt....men don't live in whale bellies for three days....thousands of people aren't fed from a few fish and loaves of bread....seas don't part and virgins don't give birth through supernatural forces...no one walks on water and water doesn't turn into wine.
The Bible is just a collection of bronze-age myths. Pure and simple.
@patriciacarrasco He is punishing us for doing what is wrong and you know it is wrong and it has consequences. you cannot blame God or your ancestor for what you do wrong. For example, God made us in a way that we cannot stand with both legs taken up to the air, now if you try and fall and hurt yourself. How is that immoral?
@mattdd05 I have seen lots of atheist,talk to them a lot about the existence of god (not Christianity),to me its so hard to not believe in a god regardless of religion or scripture.Atheism undermines human rationality,free will and morality. it doesn't explain human consciousness and does not have any answer for the problem of evil(it just asks why it happens and maybe explain it scientifically). I personally think it doesn't offer a plausible argument for non-material issues.
@ershadganji atheism explains human consciousness better than anything else i have ever heard. It explains it as a phenomenon of the brain. Consciousness is essential for survival so it evolves.
That is very honest of you and very true. Fundamentally, science is a question of "How" and not "Why". Of course, "why" questions would always imply intention and the answers, non-material. In contrast, science concerns itself with explanations of how things came to be. The so-called war between science and faith rose from mistaking the answers of one for the other. But these days, some scientists are not humble enough to acknowledge that, so do some theologians.
@ershadganji Have you ever met an atheist? Probably not, because if you had you would have realized that most atheists are former believers. Many atheists want to believe, but in real provable things, not ancient books and scriptures found in some sheperd's cave. I think theist just want to see what isn't there. I think theists are delusional. Just as I was delusional. But now I see, that we are all blind, and that no one really knows what created the universe.
lol.. That problem is Craig never turned down a debate because he is not a Coward.. you keep on blabbering that i avoided your question after answering it? your dreaming lol..
Maybe you're talking about this one:
1. Surely you know that atheists are free to make up their own minds? What is Dr.Came's opinion to me?
My answer: So you mean to say that you're brighter than Dr. Came about who's coward or not? lol
Oh, yeah. Pure wisdom...... I'm going to explain my illogical fairy tale belief by using the fictional snake found within that fairy tale to attack the questioner instead of actually answer the question. Brilliant stuff! Unmatched genius! What a joke.
@firegod001 What he said was meant to be a joke(That was not the answer to his question if you watch the whole segment in the debate) and he specifically stated that he was not attacking the questioner, and the questioner said he wasn't offended. You need to loosen up a bit.
@blondetrumpetboy Oh, I'm very loose, but forgive me if I disagree with the profound wisdom, skill and intelligence being respected in this answer. Okay, it was a joke, the other guy had no problem with it, and I have no problem with it. However, some of the positive responses to it in the comment section were absolutely moronic.
@blondetrumpetboy Laughing is one thing; referring to what he said as wisdom, winning an argument, being a beast, illustrating how atheists don't want to see, and all the other idiotic tripe here is another.
@firegod001 It is a wise answer from a Christian perspective, but someone with an atheistic world view would not accept an answer such as that, which is why he gave his answer after making that statement. Remember that there are both Christians and atheists in that audience. But it appears that you were under the impression that it was his answer to that question, which it wasn't, that is why I replied to you in the first place.
@blondetrumpetboy Yes, I thought that at first. Thank you for correcting me. It is in NO WAY a wise answer, and most of the positive responses to it were still extremely idiotic. Thanks for the opinion, though.
@firegod001 He answered the question more thoroughly after... it was just that joke he made that was posted. But if someone asks a question --and within the question the questioner gives the answerer the right of already having a justified belief in the creation story -- there is no need to justify the supposed "fairy tale." It's like asking a scientist, "Why does the Sun rise?" Within that question, the questioner does not question the validity of the sun, but the nature as to why it rises.
@VonTheBraun Once again, I was mostly questioning the comments made on this video, praising his wisdom and all of that idiotic bullshit. Pay attention, please......
@firegod001 I'm sure you can sympathize with my mistake then; you're comment wasn't @ anyone and it seemed to directly comment on the video (and the title). Either way, the main point of my post remains valid.
@VonTheBraun No, it really isn't very valid, but that's okay. Yes, I was commenting on the title as well as many of the comments. They were stupid. Yours wasn't a whole lot better. For one thing, the questioner did not in any way give the answerer a "you don't need to justify this" out. Not at all. Of course Lennox has the RIGHT to believe in those silly stories. One has the right to stand on her head and say "I'm a dumbass." over and over, too.
@firegod001 The questioner didn't necessarily state that he didn't have to justify his "fairy tale", but it was implied that he didn't have to. Why would Lennox justify the whole creation story when he was asked about the legitimacy of a certain idea that related to it? It's a never-ending cycle; it's like asking him about what Jesus taught, and Lennox then having to justify the Gospels. But then he'd have to justify the context of the Gospels, and then the context of that context?
Listen to the smug tone of the questioner..."rather knowledgable man"...and...."would keep you dumb?".
Listen to the questioners delighted laugh, when Lennox 'complements' him on his excellent question, not noticing Lennox clearly has the answer already at 0:41sec
Thankfully God made Lennox just dumb enough to b*tchslap this arrogant man.
That...was a horrible question...with a horrible answer.
The question isn't, "Why worship a god that would keep you from being knowledgeable?!" That's a dumb question. The question is, "Why would you worship a god who would knowingly put the tree there, knowing full well you'd eat from it, without knowing what it meant to do something wrong, and therefore could not be blamed. And WHY are WE being punished for crimes committed by ancestors? this is an immoral system." That''s the correct one.
@BigLundi its because God wanted to know if we really loved Him (adam & eve) after God made them perfect and put them in a beautiful garden, were they worthy of the garden or would they betray Him? they did of course. Satan(Lucifer) was created the most beautiful of all angels and was in a perfect heaven but he still chose to betray God so He was cast out. God knew that nothing would satisfy Him and He let him go. he let humans go from Eden but still gives us a chance to be redeemed
@patriciacarrasco In other words, he deliberately created Satan, knowing full well that Satan would turn from him, as well as cause his most loved creation to turn from him, and punishes us for having done this to us. Immoral.
@BigLundi: I wouldn't expect an answer for that one... I've never come across a christian who could explain why an omipotent and all knowing god would punish his creation for the flaws that he himself deliberately gave them. Appeantly an all powerful god can't have it both ways when it comes to free will and unability to sin. Makes one wonder if christians know the meaning of the term "all powerful" doesn't it?
"Appeantly an all powerful god can't have it both ways when it comes to free will and unability to sin. Makes one wonder if christians know the meaning of the term "all powerful" doesn't it?"
Makes me wonder if you know the first thing about logic. It is a logical contradiction to make someone freely choose to do something. The sin is our own making.
if u think u ll understand me just think about wht is emptiness?
i thougth it 12 years ago i said if there is emtiness it does not need to be created.then years later i heard that pysicists say there is no such a thing like emptiness.i got shocked.anyway if god sent a religion its islam like or dont like.
hes cute:) and i agree with him i have no faith but i have evidence for god .the matter and there is no emptiness in universe.because emptiness needs no god.but if there s no emptiness ,god can even create emptiness.it means emptiness needs god if and only if there is no emptiness
@george1001001 They honestly think it is! Now that tells you all you need to know about all who are impressed by that answer....while anyone with any real intelligence can see how doubly stupid it is.
@xyoop Don't be silly. Notice how right when the video cut, Lennox was in the middle of forming a word - this obviously indicates he was not finished. Also, notice above in the "uploader comments" that this was not even a full video but a clip or excerpt. If you desire to see his entire response then search for the entire video.
Also, don't be a troll; trollers paint a nasty picture of themselves and I'm certain you don't want to be perceived as arrogant, ignorant, over bearing and irrational.
@caseybcrocker yes dad! :) I have seen his two other debates and his arguments are still not persuasive, in fact his premises are usually faulty. I'm not troll as you insinuate, but I still haven't seen (serious) debate won by theist and doubt I ever will
@xyoop Alright son. Then just to "scratch an itch" as they say, what was your motivation or intent for commenting on this clearly Theistic video post?
@caseybcrocker Why? I've been watching some Lennox videos, saw interesting title, like/dislike bar was "green" so I wondered what was so wise about his answer. Why?
@xyoop I just thought it was odd that you'd judge his witty reply shown in the excerpt when this is clearly not his entire rebuttal. Since you know his full response well enough to judge it could you kindly point me in the right direction to find it? Perhaps a link?
@shumble32 Craig was in a group debate in Mexico not a one on one. One of the debaters was suddenly replaced by Dawkins in the last minute to Craig's surprise because he has refused to debate him FOUR times by requests made by 3rd party organizations and not by Craig. It's a clear conspiracy to make it appear that they both debated so liars like you can try to make it appear they did it before. And you talk about intellectual honesty? Lying is not bad for atheists anyway..
@shumble32 Can you consider Dawkin's one time blabber in Mexico a real debate? There was no rebuttal whatsoever it's like a group discussion only.. A real debate is a one on one.. the rest of you comments are just distortions of fact atheists like you are good at.. but like I said lying is not bad for an atheist.. It's funny how an atheist like you is trying so hard to defend Dawkin's cowardice when prominent atheist Dr. Came already accused him of his cowardice lol..
If I was to challenge Dr. Craig to a debate - would he not turn me down for one or more of these possible reasons?
1. He was too busy
2. I wouldn't be a challenge or have anything new to say
3. He wasn't obliged to help my self-promotion
4. He was not at the beck and call of anyone
5. He was a coward
Yet because of my amazing, mind-reading over the internet skills I would decide that option 5 is the only possible answer - and then wonder why people make fun of me
@shumble32 LOL you're clearly a desperate Dawkins minion.. .. First of all, there where 3rd-party organizers of the debate that invited both Craig and Dawkins, this was not initiated by Craig and Craig doesn't know those groups until the invitation one of them is a secular group.. Dawkins "cowered uhum* declined four times then making up a lie that Craig is doing a self promotion.. you've been lying to yourself too much and you've convinced yourself already..
Both Craig and Dawkins are professionals - their work includes promotion. You really believe that Craig is above all that because some 3rd party acted as his agent in this case? Really?
As you don't have 'amazing mind-reading over the internet' powers, why have you decided that Dawkins is a coward when there are many possible explanations?
You may choose again to avoid this important point but it would be rather cowardly :-)
Or perhaps that would be me jumping to conclusions...?
@shumble32 Do I need to repeat? A prominent atheist Dr. Came already accused him of his cowardice and your still desperately trying to make pathetic excuses and making lies for Dawkins inspite of the obvious.. lol..
1. Surely you know that atheists are free to make up their own minds? What is Dr.Came's opinion to me?
2. Back to the question that you seem so desperate to avoid...
Lacking 'amazing mind-reading over the internet' powers, why have you decided that Dawkins is a coward when there are many possible explanations? Come on, face the question. I'm sure your reasoning is faultless - and if you don't want to share your thoughts it's not 'cos you are a coward or anything
@shumble32 LOL your 2nd question is a joke.. Craig is the only person given the title as Christianity's no. 1 apologist.. Dawkins claims to have irrefutable arguments as about God's existence and is challenging any person to refute it. He debated less educated archbishops, pastors, etc. (Lennox not counted) but refused to debate the Christianity's no.1 apologist? What do you call that brave? lol..
@mavrickiii - such a simple question - yet you repeatedly avoid answering it
I can only conclude that you have no answer - and your accusation is purely gratuitous.
It's also deeply ironic that you claim Dawkins is a coward - yet when asked to justify that claim you prove to be so cowardly yourself. - you are such a disappointme
That was Martin Luther, not Saint Augustine :(
MCulpa 20 hours ago
@needtoalwa exactly. who else do you worship?
francosyz 2 days ago
Could it have been possible that animals could have talked, thousands of years ago?
Harsimranize 3 days ago
I personally thought the question stupid. Given, that you accept God exists, to then pose the question "why do you choose to worship Him, since he ....... ?"
Well, because He is God. That why !
needtoalwayslearn 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not wise at all. Non sequitur is the proper characterization. Why? Because snakes don't TALK numbnutses, let alone ask questions.
agentssith 1 week ago
Comment removed
agentssith 1 week ago
Great answer. I'm just now discovering Joh Lennox and I am blown away by his knowledge and true gentlemanly character (as God shines through all of His true believers!).
DerrickthePinecone 2 weeks ago
@DerrickthePinecone
You would also be glad to know Ravi Zacharia, a true modern christian philosopher. God bless
IsaacBG84 1 week ago
@IsaacBG84 Thank you and God bless!
DerrickthePinecone 1 week ago
This answer is brilliant. The question is silly and appeals to human nature rather than to truth. You worship him because He is God and He created everything including you, not based on whatever you might want to do.
Vball2718 1 month ago
Let's just pretend this is a Shakespearian novel. Does anyone else see how brilliant Lenox’ answer was? If you don’t, I would wager you would get a failed grade in literature and context reading for this specific (stories / book). The question was amusing. The answer was the mirror. The apology was the wisdom. The audiences laughter = priceless. Knowledge is not bad. It’s what we do with it, among other things, that come and goes from within. The question attempted instilled accusation, etc..
OmegaX2Z 1 month ago
The questioner set up a discrete strawman. God didn't forbid eating from the tree to keep them from gaining general knowledge, but specifically knowledge of good and evil.
AgApE010 1 month ago
@AgApE010 All of modern atheism, it seems to me, is founded upon the knocking down of strawmen and the drawing of false and ignorant caricatures. Not since Nietzsche, really, has an atheist philosopher grappled with the Christian tradition in its fullness and with all its implications. He knew full well what he was rejecting and subsequently what he was embracing by that rejection--namely, nihilism and the "transvaluation of all values." The "new atheists" are only playing.
TheOrthodoxSteven 2 weeks ago
why do atheists have no answer for the origin of life?
ikawpipa 1 month ago
My thoughts on the question; It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Not just knowledge alone. Does a lion know right and wrong? Men do, even if they do not believe in a creator. This is what the story was about. Man saw he was naked (ashamed) and hid from God. Sin separates us from the source of true knowledge.
hellavadeal 1 month ago 6
@hellavadeal I never understood why nudity is shameful? I always thought it was our culture that made us feel this way, so why would knowledge of good and evil alone lead to this shame unless you are saying being naked is evil? or so good it is shameful? i dont get it...
afatdutch 2 weeks ago
@afatdutch Their eyes were open to their own frailties. The clothes of leafs were because they felt defenseless and ashamed for doing what they were told not to. It really had nothing to do with their bodies having no clothes. God made our bodies perfect. .
hellavadeal 2 weeks ago
@afatdutch It isn't about physical nudity, just as the "six day creation" isn't about six actual 24-hour periods. Their "nakedness" here represents their vulnerability, their lost innocence, their shame at having disobeyed God's command and so forth. A brief glance at the history of Christian art make clear that traditionally Christians had no problem with the naked human form. That came later in the form of puritanism and fundamentalism, which are distortions of the Gospel.
TheOrthodoxSteven 2 weeks ago
@TheOrthodoxSteven oh thats right, its just a fable. thanks for clearing that up :)
afatdutch 2 weeks ago
@afatdutch I didn't say it was a fable, nor did I imply it was untrue. You see, this is the trouble with trying to discuss anything seriously with an atheist--your moral and creative imagination has been so deadened under the weight of your fallacious verificationism and radical empiricism that you are able to recognize only the most superficial kind of truth, and usually not even then. There is more revealed in Genesis than either you or fundamentalists will ever understand.
TheOrthodoxSteven 2 weeks ago
@TheOrthodoxSteven imagination. good word. my imagination is not as great as those who believe in god. i have no doubt genesis contains a great deal of useful stories with useful information, but denying that they are fables and are instead reality takes a great deal of, imagination.
afatdutch 2 weeks ago
The tree of knowledge? Uhmm negative! It's actually called " The tree of the knowledge of good and evil". It's not that God didn't want Adam and Eve to be intelligent or anything of that nature. It's just that if they ate from the tree then they would have knowledge of sin and therefore, they would no longer be innocent. But I personally believe that the genesis story is semi-allegorical. The message conveyed is more important than what literally happened.
DivineTranscendence 1 month ago
It is not a good question. It is a straw man. It was not the "Tree of knowledge" it was the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil." It was knowledge that was specific to a particular thing, not ALL knowledge. It is unjustified, in this sense, to claim that God is against having knowledge.
spalmer718 1 month ago
@spalmer718 Agree...but obviously the gentlemen does not know his Bible or God's word...obviously God would have shared all his knowledge ...
RunColorado100 1 month ago
Snakes can't talk, John.
vozuluzov 1 month ago
@vozuluzov Obviously it was not a snake...or are you that gullible...lol.
RunColorado100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vozuluzov "Snakes can't talk, John"
.
John believes the snake was possessed by a demon that made it talk, some people believe that apes can talk with no external influences at all.
ozredneck22 1 month ago
Lennox is a nice decent man, I may not agree with him, but he is someone I respect
moroney1 1 month ago
@moroney1 I agree. He is one of those people, who can make discussion about god worth having.
Drago19930713 1 month ago
A dumb answer from a dumb prick. Lennox's beliefs are clearly keeping him very stupid. Thanks for showing the adverse effects of religion on the human mind.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@itzahazylife
You may be right man, I just wrote what I read on atheist sites and pages. I am gonna think and read more. Thank you. will find the truth if we search for it.
ershadganji 1 month ago
@ershadganji :) !!! Not many admit, as you just did, that "I just wrote what I read on atheist sites & pages. I am gonna think and read more." I applaud you.
One series here on YouTube that really got me thinking is "Know Your Enemy: Fuel Project", Part 1 to (about) 70. Pretty long, but wow. He de-scatters a lot of puzzle pieces.
Another great thought-provoker: Ravi Zacharias.
Good luck, and God bless.
tamething1 1 month ago
@tamething1 " "I just wrote what I read on atheist sites & pages. I am gonna think and read more." I applaud you. "
- He uploaded the video... wake up.
He wasn't claiming anything, he was trying to make some vague point about atheists..
He failed so badly, that you thought he was a convert.
Can't believe I'm having to explain to religious folk what other religious folk actually mean.
P.S. Ravi is one of the worst apologists out there.
Roper122 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ershadganji Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ershadganji There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is often a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God. The finely tuned universe and The INFORMATION inside proteins, Homochirality and DNA is what changed him!
5tonyvvvv 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Inability To Comprehend, A Sworn Oath to God & Country, Does Not Deter The Lethal Duty To Perform & Defend God's US Constitution. You Who Attack God, Who Attack Countries & Who Attack Humanity, You Are The Enemy. Enemies Of God, Are Enemies Of Those Sworn To Protect God, Country, Constitution & Humanity.
All Men Are Created Equal, With Certain Inalienable Rights, Endowed By Our Creator. As Goes God, So Goes Freedom, Liberty & Justice For All.
Atheist/Satanist = ENEMY TERRORISTS
waketheoblivious 1 month ago
Wow, that really WAS an exceptionally wise answer... if by wise you mean stupidly, pig-headedly, retardedly, moronically iodiotic bullshit lol.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 month ago
Is he actually Benny Hill? If not, we should at least hear the Benny Hill music in the background for this guy ;)
nathanmarto 2 months ago
God never said anything about any "tree of knowledge."
Genesis mentions "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," which is a different thing altogether.
That was a dishonest and ignorant question, and a great answer by Dr. Lennox.
God bless you!
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
Comment removed
petestutz 2 months ago
I like the humor, but even as a Christian I think we deserve to hear the rest of Mr. Lennox's reply; it would be more fair to post the entire thing. Please consider my request? We shouldn't giggle and say, oh you got owned; we should have intelligent, open dialogue from both sides.
jeditight 2 months ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeditight Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins! There is no demonstrated source for such non-racemic mixture of sugars in any plausible pre-biotic environment!
5tonyvvvv 1 month ago
@jeditight The full debate is on youtube already.
angelsandairwaves93 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jeditight There are 2 kinds of atheists - one is an honest sincere seeker of TRUTH, while the other is often a bitter angry individual who seeks only to refute the existence of God. The finely tuned universe and The INFORMATION inside proteins, Homochirality and DNA is what changed him!
5tonyvvvv 3 weeks ago
lmao hahahaha sit back down and shut the fuck up you snakey athiests lol
6gunwalker 2 months ago
@GloriousAtheist Hardly either. You sound childish and extremely emotional (or you are just a troll). If you have nothing valuable to add to an intelligent discussion, do not bother responding.
dedbusted 2 months ago
@GloriousAtheist What delusion? I'm not a believer but I'm a teacher of literature--I was discussing symbols and metaphors...no need to get so heated. Relax--you sound just as bad as the die-hard Chirstians who take everything literally.
dedbusted 2 months ago
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not represent humankind's desire for knowledege. The classical Jewish and Christian interpretations agree that it represents mankind wanting to possess *all things* for ourselves so as to split off from the presence of the transcendent, and rule Earth according to our own selfish will rather than according to the natural law of reason. And most contemporary Christians don't think the detail of the story is that important anyway.
peteface24 2 months ago
@peteface24 Also the Augustine quote is very out of context. He was against reason without faith, not reason whatsoever. That much should be obvious from his esteemed place in the history of western philosophy.
peteface24 2 months ago
@peteface24 A close reading of Genesis reveals its themes of duality, sexuality, and free will; all of these things is what places adults and modern man in the condition of conflict--its result is the problem of duality, psychology, and existentialism. That's how a literary critic might read it...as I do.
dedbusted 2 months ago
Once again that study did not list Atheists, Non Christian != Atheist, and still no one has mentioned a single Atheist Scientist. If you read previous messages about where I studied etc .... you'd have seen I am referencing Scientists both in the US and Europe. Critical Thinking and logic leaves room for alternative possibilities to their being no God and everything having just randomly occurred (which would violate laws of physics), and is 100% against Atheist philosophy.
lion575 2 months ago
I think this should be retitled
"john lennox - wisely avoids question by making a joke"
shumble32 2 months ago
@shumble32 If you properly understood the joke (Genesis) you would understand he is answering the question
dedbusted 2 months ago
@dedbusted - yes I suppose he could be implying that Genesis shouldn't be taken seriously. but that's only one possibility. He could just be joking to avoid the question.
shumble32 2 months ago
@shumble32 Do you understand the allegory of the serpent in the garden? Lennox does, but the questioner doesn't seem to, since the questioner is taking the same position as the snake/serpent...that's the reason behind the sarcasm of Lennox's answer--he is being funny, but he recognizes how ironic that the questioner resembles the serpent, who allows Adam and Eve to know the world of opposites, acquire knowledge, and to become like God. I don't take the Bible literally, but it is good literature.
dedbusted 2 months ago
@dedbusted - however cleaver Lennox thinks he's being, and however devastatingly witty you find him it doesn't alter the fact that he avoided the question
shumble32 2 months ago
@shumble32 One more thing, which Lennox should point out--a great and almighty God must have allowed the serpent to influence Adam and Eve into taking the fruit (the fruit of kowledge and sexuality/reproduction); therefore, although Satan does represent knowledge and lust, it is God who ultimately allowed it to happen. Sorry to bug you. Just wanted to add that. Bye.
dedbusted 2 months ago
@dedbusted - it's a bit of a silly story really - I prefer Greek mythology with its monsters and heroes and no-one insulting your intelligence by trying to tell you it you it actually happened
shumble32 2 months ago
@shumble32 Take a Bible as literature course or read Plato and you'll understand how the Bible is hardly a silly story; it is literature. I'm not a believer and don't take it literally, but I understand philosophy and mythology and appreciate the writing.
dedbusted 2 months ago
@dedbusted - genesis is a work of fiction not based on a true story. I get the impression that most Christians nowadays think it's too silly to take seriously. As for it being great literature - well, ok, a talking snake, I suppose that could work (ref. Narnia), but there's big holes in the story, and the plot devices and motivations of most of the main characters are really sub-holywood. If any story is silly, this story is silly
shumble32 2 months ago
@shumble32 You can dumb-down any story to make it sound bad: a growing boy discovers the universe's evil half-man, half-robot is his father ("Star Wars"); a university professor has exciting adventures in caves ("Indiana Jones"); etc. But if you had a fondness for language, which I'm guessing you don't (or you would understand why the English of the King James Bible is outstanding), you could appreciate the beauty of some of the passages and the linguistic feat of translating the texts. Cheers!
dedbusted 2 months ago
@dedbusted - I'd hate to be so indiscriminately 'fond of language' that I ceased to be critical of content. Don't you see how the Genesis story has been used to hold millions of people over hundreds of years in thrall to the ruling and priestly classes? Original sin - what a stupid and cruel lie! But that's ok - you keep fawning over the language - it just seems a bit of a superficial attitude.
Cheers!
shumble32 2 months ago
@shumble32 When did I ever say I agree with original sin? I don't. And I certainly don't "agree" with the content, but i can certainly understand it objectively and analyze it. I am an empiricist who doesn't agree with the teachings of the church or most of the teachings of Jesus Christ (I prefer Nietzsche and Russell). So, before you commit any more hasty generalizations, let's just end this discussion, which I thought was a fairly good one at first.
dedbusted 2 months ago
@dedbusted - 1. Hasty generalisations? Some love of language when you can't tell the difference between an accusation and a generalisation
2. But don't worry - they weren't meant seriously - just me getting my own back for you 'no love of language' slur :-)
3. And nowhere did I say you agreed with original sin (remember content is important)
But happy xmas anyway
shumble32 2 months ago
@shumble32 By a "hasty generalization" I was implying that you jumped to a conclusion about me, or those like me, based on a defense of the book. No problem, though...communication problems occur every now and then. Happy New Year.
dedbusted 2 months ago
@dedbusted - and greetings to you and yours
shumble32 2 months ago
@shumble32 I wasn't trying to sound snobbish or anything. You seem like a reasonable person, and if you don't appreciate some of the passages in the Bible that is your business--there are many other archaic works I'm sure people find boring and unappealing; however, I just wanted to make the point that I, an avid reader, enjoy seeing the literary connections between the ancient religions (Indian, Egyptian, Jewish) and Greek philosophy. The Bible really is an interesting document on many levels.
dedbusted 2 months ago
@dedbusted - And who was talking about the bible as a whole? I was talking about Genesis.
shumble32 2 months ago
fake n gay
fonia5 2 months ago
@GloriousAtheist Think about it.
dedbusted 2 months ago
@GloriousAtheist
Read the description before you ask next time.
keatris 2 months ago
Comment removed
keatris 2 months ago
LOL!!!!!!
mrdreamers4u 2 months ago
What's so wrong about eating some fucking fruit from a fucking tree? LOL... Really, god HAS to be the most retarded, childish motherfucker out there... hahaha "dont eat fruit" hahhaha My 6 year old nephew is less childish than god.
nestorlovesguitar 2 months ago
What snake? Is there a video on YT?
bartekgitara 2 months ago
Asked by a snake ffs. lmfao
naybobdenod 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My comment expresses & explains the basis of the human logic and belief structure, is a fundamental commitment to the Truth (ONLY SANE CHOICE), which inherently expands to include all possibilities.
"Logic, an online textbook by Garth Kemerling, explaining the basic elements of elementary logic at an undergraduate level."
The only way to become an Atheist/Satanist is to become an insane lying fraud.
waketheoblivious 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fundamental Logic 101. A commitment to the truth (only sane choice), inherently expands to include all possibilities. Arbitrary dismissal of a possibility, breeches that commitment as a fatal logic error, proving themselves fundamentally insane liars & frauds. When Atheist/Satanists dismiss God as a possibility, they breech their commitment to the truth, resulting in the mindfucked insanity to argue justifying a lie, is rational behavior.
Atheist/Satanists = Godforsaken Nazis
waketheoblivious 2 months ago
lol
sh3ifan 2 months ago
HAHAHAHAAAAAA he never knew what hit him! LOOL
Farida888 3 months ago
This is a common misconception about the story of Adam and Eve. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By eating the fruit, Adam and Eve came to know both good and evil.
Satarack 3 months ago
@Satarack yup exactly its nothing to do with full knowledge of the universe etc...
Megapolable 2 months ago
@Satarack - the common misconception about the story of Adam and Eve is that they existed at all
shumble32 2 months ago
how was that a wise answer?
konzen15 3 months ago
@konzen15 - I think it means 'relatively wise considering what rubbish theists usually come up with'
shumble32 3 months ago
REALLY THIS SCIENTIST BELIEVES IN A TALKING SNAKE?LOL ...GOD IS A DUMB CONCEPT...BUT GOOD REBUTTAL...THOUGH...AND THAT DUDE IS RIGHT GOD HIS AGAINST KNOWLEDGE AT THE MEN THAT CREATED GOD ...BECAUSE IF CREATED GOD IT WOULD BE MORE COMPASSIONATE BEING...AND TAKE NOTICE THAT I CALLED GOD IT I MYSELF ONLY NOTICE THAT TREATING GOD AS A HE WE ARE ONLY HUMANIZING SOMETHING THATS IS ONLY A CONCEPT AND GIVING IT A FORM...LOL
buakawkaoklai 3 months ago
I'm an atheist, and have to admit, that was a damned witty response. The complete answer he gives in the other video is also well made (at least the first part) but that shows more the questioners lack of understanding of the text. The text has nothing to do with knowledge of the world, only knowledge of sin.
P.s. The whole story is a fairy-tale anyway (as must be acknowledged by evolution, therfore making the whole story of Jesus' redemption of our sin irrelevant and disproveing christianity).
hungryman211 3 months ago
@hungryman211 If you admire the English language, mythology, philosophy, psychology, poetry, and the study of culture, ethics, and traditions, then the Bible is hardly irrelevant. I am not a Christian and do not take the Bible literally, but I must say I am astonished how atheists don't know how to properly read it--they are as guilty as Christians who take it literally. Maybe most atheists are just too left-brained to read metaphors. I suggest reading Joseph Campbell and Harold Bloom.
dedbusted 2 months ago
Not a wise answer at all... that an entity that asked it previously may have been portrayed in a bad light does not itself reflect upon the validity of the question or the point it implies.
The truth of a being's claim or point is not predicated upon it's "social standing" or any undefined, unjustified negative connotations that may be attached to it.
Jamieishere1 3 months ago
So It's not wise to question anything God tells us to do? That's what J. Lennox's reply is seeming to imply to me? That is what would and should have maybe been a question to ask him. We should never blindly follow what anyone tells us and not be afraid to question things that we may have doubts about. If none of us did then what kind of world would we live in! It's ok to question the the Serpent but not God?!That's not wise that's stupid!
Jarvisdoctor 3 months ago
hahaah stupid atheists
KingDcome11 3 months ago
@screenflicker1 “Physical events can have only physical explanations, and consciousness is not physical, so consciousness plays no explanatory role whatsoever. If, for example, you think you ate because you were consciously hungry, or got married because you were consciously in love with your prospective spouse, you are mistaken in every case. In each case the effect was a physical event and therefore must have an entirely physical explanation.”
John Searle, The Mystery of Consciousness, 154
ershadganji 3 months ago
@ershadganji - very unimpressed by John Searle
shumble32 2 months ago
@ershadganji
This is incorrect science. Scientists all agree that instincts drive us to do and think things but the majority of them also agree that the conscience is unexplained thus far.
Don't confused impulses with conscience.
tonkrogerio 2 months ago
@ershadganji Lovely, just lovely... maybe I should read the book ?
RawSwedishMeatball 1 month ago
@ershadganji
Consciousness is an emergent physical phenomenon..How can it not be physical? When you were just a bunch of cells inside your mother, you had no brain, and no consciousness. Yet, as you developed cell by cell, you eventually developed a brain, and when you were born, you were conscious. Where did that conscious come from? It was obviously the result of a certain configuration of cells, which resulted in a brain, which resulted in your consciousness. Hence, physical.
itzahazylife 1 month ago
@screenflicker1 “We have no conception of our physical or functional nature that allows us to understand how it could explain our subjective experience. . . . In the case of consciousness we have nothing—zilch—worthy of being called a research programme, nor are there any substantive proposals about how to go about starting one. . . . Researchers are stumped.”
Ned Block
“Consciousness,” in A Companion to Philosophy of Mind, 210-12
I don't say athiesm cannot, they themelf say.
ershadganji 3 months ago
@screenflicker1 "Neither Steven Pinker nor I can explain human subjective consciousness.In How the Mind Works Steven elegantly sets out the problem of subjective consciousness,and asks where it comes from and what’s the explanation. Then he’s honest enough to say,‘Beats the heck out of me.’That is an honest thing to say, and I echo it. We don’t know. We don’t understand it.”
Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, Is Science Killing The Soul? ww w.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p4.html
ershadganji 3 months ago
Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit - Oscar Wilde
wullz16 3 months ago
why didnt he answer the guys question? instead he just made a joke
zipitup75 4 months ago
@zipitup75 - if you can't answer a question, make a joke (and you might just get away with it)
shumble32 2 months ago
@noibn2 regarding your last statement I should say that Christians believe the all powerful God can have it both ways when it comes to free will and ABILITY TO NOT SIN, and that was Jesus Christ who freely chose to live a perfect life because he loved good and hated evil, not because he tries to do good and avoid evil. we cannot blame anyone for what we do, because we know it is wrong and we still do it.
ershadganji 4 months ago
@ershadganji The bottom line is that snakes, donkeys, and foliage don't talk....women aren't made from ribs and they don't turn into salt....men don't live in whale bellies for three days....thousands of people aren't fed from a few fish and loaves of bread....seas don't part and virgins don't give birth through supernatural forces...no one walks on water and water doesn't turn into wine.
The Bible is just a collection of bronze-age myths. Pure and simple.
CynicalSkeptic1 2 months ago
@patriciacarrasco He is punishing us for doing what is wrong and you know it is wrong and it has consequences. you cannot blame God or your ancestor for what you do wrong. For example, God made us in a way that we cannot stand with both legs taken up to the air, now if you try and fall and hurt yourself. How is that immoral?
ershadganji 4 months ago
@mattdd05 I have seen lots of atheist,talk to them a lot about the existence of god (not Christianity),to me its so hard to not believe in a god regardless of religion or scripture.Atheism undermines human rationality,free will and morality. it doesn't explain human consciousness and does not have any answer for the problem of evil(it just asks why it happens and maybe explain it scientifically). I personally think it doesn't offer a plausible argument for non-material issues.
ershadganji 4 months ago
@ershadganji atheism explains human consciousness better than anything else i have ever heard. It explains it as a phenomenon of the brain. Consciousness is essential for survival so it evolves.
screenflicker1 3 months ago
@ershadganji
That is very honest of you and very true. Fundamentally, science is a question of "How" and not "Why". Of course, "why" questions would always imply intention and the answers, non-material. In contrast, science concerns itself with explanations of how things came to be. The so-called war between science and faith rose from mistaking the answers of one for the other. But these days, some scientists are not humble enough to acknowledge that, so do some theologians.
DanieruShidebuteru 3 months ago
@ershadganji Have you ever met an atheist? Probably not, because if you had you would have realized that most atheists are former believers. Many atheists want to believe, but in real provable things, not ancient books and scriptures found in some sheperd's cave. I think theist just want to see what isn't there. I think theists are delusional. Just as I was delusional. But now I see, that we are all blind, and that no one really knows what created the universe.
mattdd05 4 months ago
lol.. That problem is Craig never turned down a debate because he is not a Coward.. you keep on blabbering that i avoided your question after answering it? your dreaming lol..
Maybe you're talking about this one:
1. Surely you know that atheists are free to make up their own minds? What is Dr.Came's opinion to me?
My answer: So you mean to say that you're brighter than Dr. Came about who's coward or not? lol
All to defend a Coward idol.. lol..
mavrickiii 4 months ago
Wish they had have shown the (no doubt very fine) answer in full
plnckrsn 4 months ago
hahahaha.....that was a brilliant answer from Lennox.
markbr 4 months ago
Oh, yeah. Pure wisdom...... I'm going to explain my illogical fairy tale belief by using the fictional snake found within that fairy tale to attack the questioner instead of actually answer the question. Brilliant stuff! Unmatched genius! What a joke.
firegod001 4 months ago 3
@firegod001 What he said was meant to be a joke(That was not the answer to his question if you watch the whole segment in the debate) and he specifically stated that he was not attacking the questioner, and the questioner said he wasn't offended. You need to loosen up a bit.
blondetrumpetboy 4 months ago
@blondetrumpetboy Oh, I'm very loose, but forgive me if I disagree with the profound wisdom, skill and intelligence being respected in this answer. Okay, it was a joke, the other guy had no problem with it, and I have no problem with it. However, some of the positive responses to it in the comment section were absolutely moronic.
firegod001 4 months ago 3
@firegod001 Just keep in mind that it wasn't his answer, but I laughed too. lol
blondetrumpetboy 4 months ago
@blondetrumpetboy Laughing is one thing; referring to what he said as wisdom, winning an argument, being a beast, illustrating how atheists don't want to see, and all the other idiotic tripe here is another.
firegod001 4 months ago 2
@firegod001 It is a wise answer from a Christian perspective, but someone with an atheistic world view would not accept an answer such as that, which is why he gave his answer after making that statement. Remember that there are both Christians and atheists in that audience. But it appears that you were under the impression that it was his answer to that question, which it wasn't, that is why I replied to you in the first place.
blondetrumpetboy 4 months ago
@blondetrumpetboy Yes, I thought that at first. Thank you for correcting me. It is in NO WAY a wise answer, and most of the positive responses to it were still extremely idiotic. Thanks for the opinion, though.
firegod001 4 months ago
@blondetrumpetboy - any reference to a talking snake has got to be a joke - or a delusion
shumble32 4 months ago
@firegod001 He answered the question more thoroughly after... it was just that joke he made that was posted. But if someone asks a question --and within the question the questioner gives the answerer the right of already having a justified belief in the creation story -- there is no need to justify the supposed "fairy tale." It's like asking a scientist, "Why does the Sun rise?" Within that question, the questioner does not question the validity of the sun, but the nature as to why it rises.
VonTheBraun 4 months ago 5
@VonTheBraun Once again, I was mostly questioning the comments made on this video, praising his wisdom and all of that idiotic bullshit. Pay attention, please......
firegod001 4 months ago
@firegod001 I'm sure you can sympathize with my mistake then; you're comment wasn't @ anyone and it seemed to directly comment on the video (and the title). Either way, the main point of my post remains valid.
VonTheBraun 4 months ago
@VonTheBraun No, it really isn't very valid, but that's okay. Yes, I was commenting on the title as well as many of the comments. They were stupid. Yours wasn't a whole lot better. For one thing, the questioner did not in any way give the answerer a "you don't need to justify this" out. Not at all. Of course Lennox has the RIGHT to believe in those silly stories. One has the right to stand on her head and say "I'm a dumbass." over and over, too.
firegod001 4 months ago
@firegod001 The questioner didn't necessarily state that he didn't have to justify his "fairy tale", but it was implied that he didn't have to. Why would Lennox justify the whole creation story when he was asked about the legitimacy of a certain idea that related to it? It's a never-ending cycle; it's like asking him about what Jesus taught, and Lennox then having to justify the Gospels. But then he'd have to justify the context of the Gospels, and then the context of that context?
VonTheBraun 4 months ago
Listen to the smug tone of the questioner..."rather knowledgable man"...and...."would keep you dumb?".
Listen to the questioners delighted laugh, when Lennox 'complements' him on his excellent question, not noticing Lennox clearly has the answer already at 0:41sec
Thankfully God made Lennox just dumb enough to b*tchslap this arrogant man.
LLThenu 4 months ago
religious people think snakes can talk? HAHAHAAHAHA
jadagod 4 months ago
I had to favorite this one!
HeroBidd0 5 months ago
WOW that was good!
HeroBidd0 5 months ago
Yea I watched the debate it was great! Lennox is awesome...
samuellis 5 months ago
That...was a horrible question...with a horrible answer.
The question isn't, "Why worship a god that would keep you from being knowledgeable?!" That's a dumb question. The question is, "Why would you worship a god who would knowingly put the tree there, knowing full well you'd eat from it, without knowing what it meant to do something wrong, and therefore could not be blamed. And WHY are WE being punished for crimes committed by ancestors? this is an immoral system." That''s the correct one.
BigLundi 5 months ago
@BigLundi its because God wanted to know if we really loved Him (adam & eve) after God made them perfect and put them in a beautiful garden, were they worthy of the garden or would they betray Him? they did of course. Satan(Lucifer) was created the most beautiful of all angels and was in a perfect heaven but he still chose to betray God so He was cast out. God knew that nothing would satisfy Him and He let him go. he let humans go from Eden but still gives us a chance to be redeemed
patriciacarrasco 5 months ago
@patriciacarrasco In other words, he deliberately created Satan, knowing full well that Satan would turn from him, as well as cause his most loved creation to turn from him, and punishes us for having done this to us. Immoral.
BigLundi 5 months ago 2
@BigLundi: I wouldn't expect an answer for that one... I've never come across a christian who could explain why an omipotent and all knowing god would punish his creation for the flaws that he himself deliberately gave them. Appeantly an all powerful god can't have it both ways when it comes to free will and unability to sin. Makes one wonder if christians know the meaning of the term "all powerful" doesn't it?
noibn2 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@noibn2
"Appeantly an all powerful god can't have it both ways when it comes to free will and unability to sin. Makes one wonder if christians know the meaning of the term "all powerful" doesn't it?"
Makes me wonder if you know the first thing about logic. It is a logical contradiction to make someone freely choose to do something. The sin is our own making.
Birdieupon 4 months ago
if u think u ll understand me just think about wht is emptiness?
i thougth it 12 years ago i said if there is emtiness it does not need to be created.then years later i heard that pysicists say there is no such a thing like emptiness.i got shocked.anyway if god sent a religion its islam like or dont like.
esraretin 5 months ago
hes cute:) and i agree with him i have no faith but i have evidence for god .the matter and there is no emptiness in universe.because emptiness needs no god.but if there s no emptiness ,god can even create emptiness.it means emptiness needs god if and only if there is no emptiness
esraretin 5 months ago
god bless John Lennox.
danielkirk1 5 months ago
Witty answer but one must always question authority, even god's supposed authority and even if you're called a snake ;)
Anonymous247n 5 months ago
@ershadganji Right backatchya!
comanchio1976 5 months ago
Seriously? That's a wise answer?
george1001001 5 months ago
@george1001001 They honestly think it is! Now that tells you all you need to know about all who are impressed by that answer....while anyone with any real intelligence can see how doubly stupid it is.
comanchio1976 5 months ago
@george1001001 enlighten me, how did you interpret the answer? Give your perspective on what is a "wise answer".
danielkirk1 5 months ago
sweet Lennox slap right into the atheist face. LOL
whiteliketar 6 months ago
This was his answer? No wander theists can't win their debates
xyoop 6 months ago
@xyoop Don't be silly. Notice how right when the video cut, Lennox was in the middle of forming a word - this obviously indicates he was not finished. Also, notice above in the "uploader comments" that this was not even a full video but a clip or excerpt. If you desire to see his entire response then search for the entire video.
Also, don't be a troll; trollers paint a nasty picture of themselves and I'm certain you don't want to be perceived as arrogant, ignorant, over bearing and irrational.
caseybcrocker 6 months ago
@caseybcrocker yes dad! :) I have seen his two other debates and his arguments are still not persuasive, in fact his premises are usually faulty. I'm not troll as you insinuate, but I still haven't seen (serious) debate won by theist and doubt I ever will
xyoop 6 months ago
@xyoop Alright son. Then just to "scratch an itch" as they say, what was your motivation or intent for commenting on this clearly Theistic video post?
caseybcrocker 6 months ago
@caseybcrocker Why? I've been watching some Lennox videos, saw interesting title, like/dislike bar was "green" so I wondered what was so wise about his answer. Why?
xyoop 6 months ago
@xyoop I just thought it was odd that you'd judge his witty reply shown in the excerpt when this is clearly not his entire rebuttal. Since you know his full response well enough to judge it could you kindly point me in the right direction to find it? Perhaps a link?
caseybcrocker 6 months ago
@caseybcrocker I've watched his other videos and two debates, I don't know where from this excerpt is, sorry.
xyoop 6 months ago
@xyoop Ohh, so you're not aware of his full response to the audience member's question?
caseybcrocker 6 months ago
Q: Why do you like a God that would want to keep you dumb.
A: Well in my creation myth, the devil originally asked that question. So your argument is invalid...
Mandragara 6 months ago
This is the reason Richard Dawkins is afraid of debating William Lane Craig. He got traumatized here.
mavrickiii 6 months ago 14
@mavrickiii - did you not see Dawkins demolishing Craig in debate in a YouTube video posted over a year ago?
It's not a case of 'afraid', it's more a case of 'been there, done that, got the t-shirt'.
Craig made the mistake of trying to beat Dawkins at his own game. ie. truth, logic, intellectual honesty
shumble32 4 months ago
@shumble32 Craig was in a group debate in Mexico not a one on one. One of the debaters was suddenly replaced by Dawkins in the last minute to Craig's surprise because he has refused to debate him FOUR times by requests made by 3rd party organizations and not by Craig. It's a clear conspiracy to make it appear that they both debated so liars like you can try to make it appear they did it before. And you talk about intellectual honesty? Lying is not bad for atheists anyway..
mavrickiii 4 months ago
@mavrickiii - let me get this straight - because you seem to be saying that:
1. Dawkins voluntarily entered a debate with Craig - yet he is a coward for refusing to debate with Craig (!)
2. A debate is not a debate unless it is one-on-one
3. Craig was 'surprised' and that perhaps accounted for his poor showing
4. It was all a conspiracy to give Craig the chance he wanted
5. But he didn't want that chance - the 'requests made by 3rd party organisations' without Craig's permission?
shumble32 4 months ago
@shumble32 Can you consider Dawkin's one time blabber in Mexico a real debate? There was no rebuttal whatsoever it's like a group discussion only.. A real debate is a one on one.. the rest of you comments are just distortions of fact atheists like you are good at.. but like I said lying is not bad for an atheist.. It's funny how an atheist like you is trying so hard to defend Dawkin's cowardice when prominent atheist Dr. Came already accused him of his cowardice lol..
mavrickiii 4 months ago
@mavrickiii
If I was to challenge Dr. Craig to a debate - would he not turn me down for one or more of these possible reasons?
1. He was too busy
2. I wouldn't be a challenge or have anything new to say
3. He wasn't obliged to help my self-promotion
4. He was not at the beck and call of anyone
5. He was a coward
Yet because of my amazing, mind-reading over the internet skills I would decide that option 5 is the only possible answer - and then wonder why people make fun of me
shumble32 4 months ago
@shumble32 LOL you're clearly a desperate Dawkins minion.. .. First of all, there where 3rd-party organizers of the debate that invited both Craig and Dawkins, this was not initiated by Craig and Craig doesn't know those groups until the invitation one of them is a secular group.. Dawkins "cowered uhum* declined four times then making up a lie that Craig is doing a self promotion.. you've been lying to yourself too much and you've convinced yourself already..
mavrickiii 4 months ago
@mavrickiii
Both Craig and Dawkins are professionals - their work includes promotion. You really believe that Craig is above all that because some 3rd party acted as his agent in this case? Really?
As you don't have 'amazing mind-reading over the internet' powers, why have you decided that Dawkins is a coward when there are many possible explanations?
You may choose again to avoid this important point but it would be rather cowardly :-)
Or perhaps that would be me jumping to conclusions...?
shumble32 4 months ago
@shumble32 Do I need to repeat? A prominent atheist Dr. Came already accused him of his cowardice and your still desperately trying to make pathetic excuses and making lies for Dawkins inspite of the obvious.. lol..
mavrickiii 4 months ago
@mavrickiii
1. Surely you know that atheists are free to make up their own minds? What is Dr.Came's opinion to me?
2. Back to the question that you seem so desperate to avoid...
Lacking 'amazing mind-reading over the internet' powers, why have you decided that Dawkins is a coward when there are many possible explanations? Come on, face the question. I'm sure your reasoning is faultless - and if you don't want to share your thoughts it's not 'cos you are a coward or anything
3. Or am I wrong?
shumble32 4 months ago
@shumble32 LOL your 2nd question is a joke.. Craig is the only person given the title as Christianity's no. 1 apologist.. Dawkins claims to have irrefutable arguments as about God's existence and is challenging any person to refute it. He debated less educated archbishops, pastors, etc. (Lennox not counted) but refused to debate the Christianity's no.1 apologist? What do you call that brave? lol..
The guy is proud debating amateurs only lol..
Watch more evidence here:
watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg
mavrickiii 4 months ago
@mavrickiii - such a simple question - yet you repeatedly avoid answering it
I can only conclude that you have no answer - and your accusation is purely gratuitous.
It's also deeply ironic that you claim Dawkins is a coward - yet when asked to justify that claim you prove to be so cowardly yourself. - you are such a disappointme