@smartpeoplewillagree I'm an atheist. I have a reasonably high IQ. However, contrary to your username, I do not agree with you. People like you need to accept that, while atheism makes more sense to some people based on a plethora of environmental factors, there are valid logical arguments to be made for theism too.
Up to now I've been trying to carry on a respectful conversation, but ur cynical tone tempts me to do otherwise. Anyway: 1. Discipline as in ur example is only about a code of behavior and has nothing to do with claims about truths about the universe, 2. Atheists don't claim to know that gods (or unicorns) are not real; we only say that there is no evidence for them , 3 & 4. (Religion v belief) U blatantly contradict yourself and merely repeat my point in the previous message and 5. See point 2.
Do you know of any Parents who tell their kids that what they're learning them is not real, and just a mere illusion to keep them controlled? No. They tell them that this is the way to behave. That is identical to your propagated view on how "religion controls people". It doesn't. And not Theist belief requires you to go to Church. All they ask, is that you pray daily, and worship the Lord.
@MrVirtualCoder First of all, I did reply, u moron. Second, is english ur first language? "Learning them" is so laughably incorrect that I hope it isn't... otherwise, u should be quite embarrassed. Listen, it's been clear throughout this little debate that u are not up to par with me intellectually and I've learned that stupid people can't be reached with reason. So, u can go on worshipping an invisible guy if u wish. History will remember u along with the Aztec sun-worshippers. Take care now.
If it were unintelligent, then Professor Lennox would not believe it. I'm sure he doesn't believe that the twin tower attack was a conspiracy, because he is not an idiot. Someone who is as smart him does not believe in something stupid. Therefore, we can assume that it is no nonsensical to believe in God.
@Seracinfinity U are forgetting the childhood indoctrination. Religion is embedded into kids' minds (at an age when incapable of sound critical thinking) and this can make it difficult, even for intelligent people, to abandon it in adulthood. This is because it doesn't take intelligence alone to renounce religion; it also takes great courage and emotional fortitude, as doing so can turn one's world upside down. My guess is that 'smart believers' lack these things to some degree or another.
@smartpeoplewillagree Oh right. So if a Kid was born Atheistic. It would literally be impossible for him to leave out the already propagated information he has been forced into this little Kids head. Thus, he would be brainwashed in denying the obvious, and contribute to the Biblical prophecies.
@MrVirtualCoder First of all, that is very debatable and is not considered to be a fact. Second, 'belief' is different from 'religion'. Even if I accept your last statement to be true (for argument's sake), innate belief in some deity will be wild and unguided until religion comes along and moulds it... telling little children what to think, what to do and which particular god to believe in. This is indoctrination, plain and simple. If you deny that, u are not an honest debater.
So. When a Mother disciplines her child to believe in a ce rtain behavior as the right one, it is indoctrinating the child. When a father tells his child that God is not real, this too is indoctrinating the child. Belief is not different from religion. The only thing to "consider" different, is the fact that religion is organized belief. E.g Atheism. Organized belief that there is NO God, at all ;)
The fact that we can do science is not evidence of god. The fact that Newton was intelligent and beleived in god does not proove got. Law of motion or gravity not proof of god. His logic is all wron but then again he is a priest.
@ray38montreal ... oh he's so wrong, but I don't think he's a priest.
He's just clever enough to try to twist the whole Intelligent Design argument to try to include science. Cunning.
Newton by the way believed that the planets orbits couldn't possibly stay that way, and god must intervene. He was ridiculed for it... and he turned out to be wrong.
Just an example of how his extreme devotion to religious beliefs muddled even his thinking.
A poor attempt to dispel the god of the gaps tag followed by rhetoric which confirms he does believe in a god of the gaps, clearly out to sell his book. The scientific 'gap' widening he refers too proves our understanding is incomplete and nothing else it's no more complex than that. It's after the event, life happened & we dont know the exact conditions that caused it. meaning his disguised probability argument is irrelevant. he takes an unlikely & exchanges for an scientific impossibility.FAIL
All I hear is arguments from emotion and strawmen. And why does he adress Newton, a person who lived hundreds of years ago and didnt know much at all, to support Gods existance.
If you would like an interesting discussion, I would be happy to bounce ideas off one another. If you have anything you would like me to think about, by all means post a question. Otherwise, perhaps you would enjoy considering the question I posted last? How would a Godly and Godless universe differ? I think one could write a book on that question alone...
When I say rhyme and reason I mean that atheism must deny morality, purpose, meaning, and inteligent design in order to stand. What kind of a truth is that? Even if it was true I wouldn't except it simply because it's so horrifying.
Intelligence can't spring from nothing because it's a law of physics. If one day you can take an accident that makes something inteligent and full working then you've denied the laws of physics and have evidence for evolution. The arrangement of atoms are inteligent
Beyond that, all you've proposed is that you are an accident who gives himself purpose. You deny rhyme or reason in the universe simply because, you don't want God. You lack reason because you deny the very creator that gave EVERYTHING reason. You can give your own self a small insignificant reason that will last till the end of your life yes. But that will not fill you entirely simply because you have taken the true meaning of your existence discarded it, and replaced it with your own delusion
To say that a "big bang" created the universe is false for two reasons: 1. It was accidental and we don't get intelligence from accident. 2. The laws of physics would then require that the universe be eternal since all physical matter requires parent. (apple comes from tree, kid (baby goat) comes from goat...etc.). So therefore, once again, in order for our universe to exist we need a non-physical intelligent creator.
First off, science does give evidence of intelligence, design, a non-physical creator or starting point. So therefore we have a spiritual power with an intelligence that created the universe in the beginning. To say that the universe is accidental is false simply because the universe is intelligent (you don't get a fully working oven from a car crash).
Interesting question. Unfortunately I am not sure there is ever going to be a way of making that comparison. What we have is this Universe--incredibly vast as it is. We are thus left with the age old question of whether there is a God or not.
Indeed. In fact this is why I find references to the "probability" of a God perplexing. So if we cannot compare a Godly universe to a Godless one, and we cannot confirm or deny God from an ordered universe, how can we proceed objectively? Perhaps the only avenue left available is the implications a God would have on this universe, and our role in it. My first proposition is that this would impact the role of morality in the universe...
Lennox's position is that God is not dependant on what we do not understand. This is the same as saying that god is not dependant on what we cannot do. So in the same way as knowing the mechanics of gravity has no bearing on God, neither does our ability to manipulate it.
So if we one day break the speed of light, or create life we will simply be impressive humans. Not Gods.
Well, if this is the way to understand Lennox's position then I'm afraid it is an effective argument against the idea of God. If the deeply mysterious are being unraveled, and better explanations are offered for things which have ordinarily been attributed to the Supernatural, I think it will persuade people to dismiss a God. However, It may be that in the end, the belief in a God may not disappear but I suppose it would show that there's something innate that hankers after the numinous.
Many religions have indeed used some form of theology as an explanation of "the deeply mysterious" but not all. In order for the dissolution of mystery to result in the rejection of the God hypothesis, it is necessary for mystery and God to be mutually interdependant. In other words, does a universe we totally understand leave room for a God? I think this question is worth exploring, and would personally argue that it does, as the God hypothesis is more interested in purpose than mechanism.
It may never be possible to fully understand the entire universe. So I don't think it is necessary to construct disbelief on the fact that humans are not omniscient at present. But its easy to see that with advances in human knowledge, the patina of mystery slapped unto the Universe--one that begs for a belief in God - is gradually peeled away. There will always be room for God (going by ur argument) because Purpose/Intentionality are meaningless to matter. It belongs to minds/the numinous.
I agree. Furthermore I propose that if purpose is meaningless to matter, then no understanding of matter can be used to confirm or deny purpose. Thus, advances can challenge numinists, but not all theists. So we need to search elsewhere in the philisophical toolbox to tease out our answer. What would a Godly universe look like? How would it differ from a Godless one? Can we tell the difference?
I propose that the best way to begin a constructive discussion would be to agree on some definiton of what a "God" is. I propose that "God" refers to an overarching purpose for the way things are and how they transpire. This may not encompass all forms of polytheism, but I hope covers the basic idea of "God" for most contemporary religions. Feel free to challenge this, or offer alternative definitions.
@smartpeoplewillagree I'm an atheist. I have a reasonably high IQ. However, contrary to your username, I do not agree with you. People like you need to accept that, while atheism makes more sense to some people based on a plethora of environmental factors, there are valid logical arguments to be made for theism too.
Benes911 3 weeks ago
Up to now I've been trying to carry on a respectful conversation, but ur cynical tone tempts me to do otherwise. Anyway: 1. Discipline as in ur example is only about a code of behavior and has nothing to do with claims about truths about the universe, 2. Atheists don't claim to know that gods (or unicorns) are not real; we only say that there is no evidence for them , 3 & 4. (Religion v belief) U blatantly contradict yourself and merely repeat my point in the previous message and 5. See point 2.
smartpeoplewillagree 6 months ago
@smartpeoplewillagree You did not reply to my post, as you feared a reply? Classy!
Do you know of any Parents who tell their kids that what they're learning them is not real, and just a mere illusion to keep them controlled? No. They tell them that this is the way to behave. That is identical to your propagated view on how "religion controls people". It doesn't. And not Theist belief requires you to go to Church. All they ask, is that you pray daily, and worship the Lord.
MrVirtualCoder 6 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder First of all, I did reply, u moron. Second, is english ur first language? "Learning them" is so laughably incorrect that I hope it isn't... otherwise, u should be quite embarrassed. Listen, it's been clear throughout this little debate that u are not up to par with me intellectually and I've learned that stupid people can't be reached with reason. So, u can go on worshipping an invisible guy if u wish. History will remember u along with the Aztec sun-worshippers. Take care now.
smartpeoplewillagree 6 months ago
@smartpeoplewillagree Learn English. Little kid. Also. Learn grammar. Regardless. You think you are intellectual? - What a joke.
MrVirtualCoder 6 months ago
Please, oh please, may you be silent.
This man is a professor, an incredibly talented man. You are but youtubers, probably without a degree.
He is so much more intelligent than you it can barely be measured.
Seracinfinity 10 months ago 4
@Seracinfinity Lennox is surely a very intelligent man, making it all the more unfortunate that his intellect is wasted on nonsense.
smartpeoplewillagree 7 months ago
@smartpeoplewillagree That doesn't make sense.
If it were unintelligent, then Professor Lennox would not believe it. I'm sure he doesn't believe that the twin tower attack was a conspiracy, because he is not an idiot. Someone who is as smart him does not believe in something stupid. Therefore, we can assume that it is no nonsensical to believe in God.
Seracinfinity 7 months ago
@Seracinfinity U are forgetting the childhood indoctrination. Religion is embedded into kids' minds (at an age when incapable of sound critical thinking) and this can make it difficult, even for intelligent people, to abandon it in adulthood. This is because it doesn't take intelligence alone to renounce religion; it also takes great courage and emotional fortitude, as doing so can turn one's world upside down. My guess is that 'smart believers' lack these things to some degree or another.
smartpeoplewillagree 7 months ago
@smartpeoplewillagree There may be some truth in that.
Seracinfinity 7 months ago
@smartpeoplewillagree Oh right. So if a Kid was born Atheistic. It would literally be impossible for him to leave out the already propagated information he has been forced into this little Kids head. Thus, he would be brainwashed in denying the obvious, and contribute to the Biblical prophecies.
Thank you.
MrVirtualCoder 6 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder Everyone is born an atheist. The brainwashing only begins when indoctrinated into a religion.
smartpeoplewillagree 6 months ago
@smartpeoplewillagree Some people say otherwise. We're all born with the belief in a judger, and a deity.
MrVirtualCoder 6 months ago
@MrVirtualCoder First of all, that is very debatable and is not considered to be a fact. Second, 'belief' is different from 'religion'. Even if I accept your last statement to be true (for argument's sake), innate belief in some deity will be wild and unguided until religion comes along and moulds it... telling little children what to think, what to do and which particular god to believe in. This is indoctrination, plain and simple. If you deny that, u are not an honest debater.
smartpeoplewillagree 6 months ago
@smartpeoplewillagree Oh, oh. Yes, i see.
So. When a Mother disciplines her child to believe in a ce rtain behavior as the right one, it is indoctrinating the child. When a father tells his child that God is not real, this too is indoctrinating the child. Belief is not different from religion. The only thing to "consider" different, is the fact that religion is organized belief. E.g Atheism. Organized belief that there is NO God, at all ;)
MrVirtualCoder 6 months ago
Este homen tem o conhecimento da sabedoria de DEUS.
portusim75 1 year ago
The fact that we can do science is not evidence of god. The fact that Newton was intelligent and beleived in god does not proove got. Law of motion or gravity not proof of god. His logic is all wron but then again he is a priest.
ray38montreal 1 year ago
@ray38montreal ... oh he's so wrong, but I don't think he's a priest.
He's just clever enough to try to twist the whole Intelligent Design argument to try to include science. Cunning.
Newton by the way believed that the planets orbits couldn't possibly stay that way, and god must intervene. He was ridiculed for it... and he turned out to be wrong.
Just an example of how his extreme devotion to religious beliefs muddled even his thinking.
Roper122 1 year ago
Comment removed
altoPR 1 year ago
A poor attempt to dispel the god of the gaps tag followed by rhetoric which confirms he does believe in a god of the gaps, clearly out to sell his book. The scientific 'gap' widening he refers too proves our understanding is incomplete and nothing else it's no more complex than that. It's after the event, life happened & we dont know the exact conditions that caused it. meaning his disguised probability argument is irrelevant. he takes an unlikely & exchanges for an scientific impossibility.FAIL
express0ne 1 year ago
This guy is speking nonsense facepalms
Fisher663 1 year ago
Evidence? Maybe. Is that evidence conclusive? No, certainly not.
MichalTrubini 1 year ago
All I hear is arguments from emotion and strawmen. And why does he adress Newton, a person who lived hundreds of years ago and didnt know much at all, to support Gods existance.
peronkop 1 year ago
Love this Guy.
hugeloads 2 years ago 3
If you would like an interesting discussion, I would be happy to bounce ideas off one another. If you have anything you would like me to think about, by all means post a question. Otherwise, perhaps you would enjoy considering the question I posted last? How would a Godly and Godless universe differ? I think one could write a book on that question alone...
Tsaritsyn83 2 years ago
When I say rhyme and reason I mean that atheism must deny morality, purpose, meaning, and inteligent design in order to stand. What kind of a truth is that? Even if it was true I wouldn't except it simply because it's so horrifying.
Intelligence can't spring from nothing because it's a law of physics. If one day you can take an accident that makes something inteligent and full working then you've denied the laws of physics and have evidence for evolution. The arrangement of atoms are inteligent
pessieboy2 2 years ago
Beyond that, all you've proposed is that you are an accident who gives himself purpose. You deny rhyme or reason in the universe simply because, you don't want God. You lack reason because you deny the very creator that gave EVERYTHING reason. You can give your own self a small insignificant reason that will last till the end of your life yes. But that will not fill you entirely simply because you have taken the true meaning of your existence discarded it, and replaced it with your own delusion
pessieboy2 2 years ago
To say that a "big bang" created the universe is false for two reasons: 1. It was accidental and we don't get intelligence from accident. 2. The laws of physics would then require that the universe be eternal since all physical matter requires parent. (apple comes from tree, kid (baby goat) comes from goat...etc.). So therefore, once again, in order for our universe to exist we need a non-physical intelligent creator.
pessieboy2 2 years ago
Nice straw man argument. Lets stop this circle jerk?
xwalltime 2 years ago
@xwalltime Ignorant
hugeloads 2 years ago
First off, science does give evidence of intelligence, design, a non-physical creator or starting point. So therefore we have a spiritual power with an intelligence that created the universe in the beginning. To say that the universe is accidental is false simply because the universe is intelligent (you don't get a fully working oven from a car crash).
pessieboy2 2 years ago
Interesting question. Unfortunately I am not sure there is ever going to be a way of making that comparison. What we have is this Universe--incredibly vast as it is. We are thus left with the age old question of whether there is a God or not.
Obinna1 2 years ago
Indeed. In fact this is why I find references to the "probability" of a God perplexing. So if we cannot compare a Godly universe to a Godless one, and we cannot confirm or deny God from an ordered universe, how can we proceed objectively? Perhaps the only avenue left available is the implications a God would have on this universe, and our role in it. My first proposition is that this would impact the role of morality in the universe...
Tsaritsyn83 2 years ago
Lennox's position is that God is not dependant on what we do not understand. This is the same as saying that god is not dependant on what we cannot do. So in the same way as knowing the mechanics of gravity has no bearing on God, neither does our ability to manipulate it.
So if we one day break the speed of light, or create life we will simply be impressive humans. Not Gods.
Tsaritsyn83 2 years ago
Well, if this is the way to understand Lennox's position then I'm afraid it is an effective argument against the idea of God. If the deeply mysterious are being unraveled, and better explanations are offered for things which have ordinarily been attributed to the Supernatural, I think it will persuade people to dismiss a God. However, It may be that in the end, the belief in a God may not disappear but I suppose it would show that there's something innate that hankers after the numinous.
Obinna1 2 years ago
Many religions have indeed used some form of theology as an explanation of "the deeply mysterious" but not all. In order for the dissolution of mystery to result in the rejection of the God hypothesis, it is necessary for mystery and God to be mutually interdependant. In other words, does a universe we totally understand leave room for a God? I think this question is worth exploring, and would personally argue that it does, as the God hypothesis is more interested in purpose than mechanism.
Tsaritsyn83 2 years ago
It may never be possible to fully understand the entire universe. So I don't think it is necessary to construct disbelief on the fact that humans are not omniscient at present. But its easy to see that with advances in human knowledge, the patina of mystery slapped unto the Universe--one that begs for a belief in God - is gradually peeled away. There will always be room for God (going by ur argument) because Purpose/Intentionality are meaningless to matter. It belongs to minds/the numinous.
Obinna1 2 years ago
I agree. Furthermore I propose that if purpose is meaningless to matter, then no understanding of matter can be used to confirm or deny purpose. Thus, advances can challenge numinists, but not all theists. So we need to search elsewhere in the philisophical toolbox to tease out our answer. What would a Godly universe look like? How would it differ from a Godless one? Can we tell the difference?
Tsaritsyn83 2 years ago
I propose that the best way to begin a constructive discussion would be to agree on some definiton of what a "God" is. I propose that "God" refers to an overarching purpose for the way things are and how they transpire. This may not encompass all forms of polytheism, but I hope covers the basic idea of "God" for most contemporary religions. Feel free to challenge this, or offer alternative definitions.
Tsaritsyn83 2 years ago
Thanks for discussion start^^
MatterofLuck 2 years ago