@bigwick03 All of it. Jn 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.---Jesus is the Word, and inspired every word written in the Bible. Do what you want.
@thewarriorsrok Did you not comprehend the part about a Book w/ 100% accurate prophecy. The overwhelming majority of historians attest to the reality of this Jesus figure. Now you'll have to decide if what this Book w/ 100% accurate prophecy is true regarding its claims about Jesus.
@filoIII That's bullshit, show me the fucking evidence bro. And 100% accuracy? The accuracy that bats are a type of bird, or that demons cause disease? That the earth has corners and was flooded with more water than exists on the planet? Give me a break motherfucker, I'm way too smart to be a christian.
1st, we're not brothers, seeing you're of your father the devil (Jn8:44). 2nd, your foul language doesn't impress me much, seeing how I was once a foul-mouthed, drunken sailor. If you're not aware that that, taxonomically speaking, bats were only fairly recently taken out of the bird category, then the rest of what you say must be taken w/ a grain of salt. In the ancient hebrew days, all flying animals were considered birds. Now, bats are considered mammals. Just different categorization.
@filoIII first of all bro, I don't give a fuck about what impresses you. What impresses ME on the other hand is evidence, which you didn't provide yet. And if the change from bird to bat is such a slight and obvious one, then why the fuck didn't your god know that ahead of time?
@thewarriorsrok You show conclusive evidence Aristotle was real. There are WAAAAAAAAAAY more manuscripts that attest to the reality of Jesus and what He did than we have for Aristotle, yet you won't make the same claim for him. The overwhelming majority of liberal scholars, who are not Christians, attest there was this figure named Jesus. All you have to do is decide if He was God or not.
@filoIII Would you be so kind as to list a few of the "manuscripts that attest to the reality of Jesus". And please leave out the books written by Christians hundreds of years after the purported event
@filoIII - Jesus didn't write the bible, multiple desert nomads did.
- The bible isn't 100% accurate. It's actually full of contradictions. And the prophecies that are "true" are just vague readings that can be twisted to make anything seem true. People do the same thing with Nostradamus' book and believe he was a prophet.
- Nothing in the bible is special unless you desperately want to believe it is. Everything could have, and was written by regular human beings.
God revealed Himself as male. It is not about culture that we laugh or cringe when you refer to Him as a woman, it is because we believe He told us and that he knows what he is talking about.
I hate that atheists try to say it's a lack of belief. The only thing you can lack belief in is something you are completely unaware of. As soon as you understand that there is the idea of God out there you form a belief about it. You either believe He is there, or you believe He isn't and you will live your life according to that belief.
@DMatthewHenry Sematics, and bad ones at that. I do understand the idea of god, and I do not believe in him - nonbelief - lack of belief - statement is untrue - not properble, take you pick.
His point is there is no combining idea behind atheism, other than we agree that there is no god.
Its amazing how even the most popular atheist' have to redefine what 'Atheism' means to fit their beliefs. Atheism is not just "a lack of belief in God(s)" it it the rejection or denial of belief in God(s). Huge difference
@REDRAGON12345 There's no difference at all. If you reject a belief, then that just means you lack that belief. That's not the same thing as denying the _existence_ of gods, which is what theists try to claim.
"Those questions can be solved with night beverages"?????? Exactly, that's just an excuse to not answer the question. :P If "God did it" is not an answer, is drinking beverages the answer? Foolishness. We're not questioning "How it is created"=Science but we are asking "Who did it?" This guy is a waste of time.
@Wordlaw12 And an atheist/agnostic is someone who has a lot more faith in their nonsense than we have in ours, because you require more faith in what you belief than we do in our beliefs.
Dude there is no faith with atheism or agnosticism. I'm an agnostic and my standpoint is I don't know. Agnostics may lean toward there not being a god but we don't know. An atheist may come to the conclusion that there is no god. Some may even say that they know there isn't one(atheist). But for the most part they are open minded enough to believe that there could be, we don't know for certain, neither do you. But you claim that you do know there is a god and in graphic detail.
@Wordlaw12 "for the most part" isn't none. You shouldn't make false generalizations. There aren't many psychopaths in the united states, however that's not to say that there are no psychopaths in the united states. The definition of Atheism is defined as either the belief that god does no exist, or that one does not know. Your not allowed to make the blatant lie that no atheists have belief, for only the agnostic atheists are without belief.
I didn't say that atheist don't have belief I said "for the most part" they don't have belief. I'm well aware there are exceptions to everything. When I said "some may even say that they know there isn't one(atheist)." It was an assumption, I didn't mean that all atheist are strong atheist.. It's hard really describing the two, because when you think about it a weak atheist pretty much is an agnostic. But "some" may still consider themselves atheist. I wasn't lying about anything
@Wordlaw12 "Dude there is no faith with atheism or agnosticism" I apologize If I appear contentious but It's rather annoying to me when people attempt to claim that atheism cannot be a belief.
I really don't know where your stance is on the matter, if your arguing on the behalf of atheism or if you're a theist who thinks that atheist have the same level of faith as believers do. Atheism by definition is a lack of belief. So where is the belief at? What type of deity do atheist believe in? They don't believe in a personal god, thats theism. Atheist do believe in other things, however, I don't know where your coming from when you allude atheism as also being a belief system?
@Wordlaw12 I'm neither an atheist or a theist, I argue only for the side of reason. Atheism as well as Theism is a word view, and both require belief unless you're an agnostic atheist. Most atheists claim there is no god and also attempt to relinquish themselves of the burden of prove by lying about their particular brand of atheism. You can't have your cake and eat it to, if your making assertions the burden of proof befalls you. I'm not directing this at you of course.
Atheist: Looks at the evidence. Concludes there is none to support the proposition "God". Ignores "God" like everyone else ignores pink unicorns and dragons.
Theist: Doesn't bother with evidence. Believes simply claiming something is equivalent to knowledge.
Agnostic: Does not understand the difference between these two.
@Wordlaw12 Furthermore belief is not synonymous with deity's, supernatural entities,etc. It simply shows a false equivocation that atheists believe the positive claim "god does not exist" is not one based in faith.
@Wordlaw12 Atheist means to have no belief in any god of any sort. If you're an Atheist and have a belief in God is not impossible....you're definitely not an atheist. This is why most contradict themselves.
One can never know what preceeds this natural world unless one steps up into the supernatural... how do I know what lies in my palm unless I look at it from above? from DIFFERENT place? thats why I say that scientists can never come to the REAL cause...they have no overview..they can not know what WHOLENESS of universe is..they dont even know how limited they are in their views,,they follow some track of mind never getting nowhere...However we hear them say their fancy "Who knows what lies ahead
To say "God did it" means nothing?..yes if there is no faith and sicerity involved..only someone silly keeps repeating "I dont know" even if evidence lies right in front of him!.. God gives us evidence and thats why we say "God did it!"
@clovek456 What evidence? I do not know the entire workings of my TI calculator, so should I try and find out, be humble in accepting i don't know or assume there are miniature Taiwanese people in it making it work?
@kenzie0201 I agree that one cannot achieve anything unless one becomes humble. However there is no place for humility when one is called to believe and say yes to the evidence that has been given to us.This evidence is direct and must be received directly not scietifically. In other words if we are not willing to say "yes" to life before any analyses we can never come to satisfactory answer. One doesnt have to know how the tv works but that doesnt stop from saying how beautiful is what I see...
As pessoas, principalmente os ateus, deveriam deixar suas preferências de lado e ir pelo caminho onde as evidências apontam. Se dizem intelectuais, mas na verdade seu conhecimento (digo aos ateus) é parcial, e com relação à teologia, são verdadeiros ignorantes.
@engwaldopereira1 voce tem uma visao tao errada do ateismo que doi.. vc acha que os ateus sao uma organizacao? ser ateu é simplesmente nao acreditar em deus. ponto. Nao tem mais NADA pra unir o nosso "grupo". É como dizer que todas as pessoas de direita sao burras. É absurdo. Eu sou ateu desde que tenho 12 anos de idade e sei mais sobre religiao que o 98% dos cristaos que eu conheco. Entao vai generalizar assim na sua casa. Aqui na internet, tenta falar coisas mais sustentadas em argumentos.
@bernytheman, eu postei foi para os ateus limitantes, se a carapuça não serviu pra vc, desculpe-me, quanto a existência de Deus, os crentes acreditam em Deus, não por fé cega, segundo R. Dawkins, fundamentada na ignorância, fazemos inferências fundamentadas em evidências dentro de diversas áreas de conhecimento (científico, filosófico, histórico, teológico...) ops. a Teologia existe sim, no Brasil, é reconhecida pelo mec e é oferecida em diversas universidades por todo mundo.
@engwaldopereira1 Ah, e só pra voce saber, a teologia nao existe. Teologia é o estudo de Deus e como nao se pode provar que Deus existe, como podemos estudá-lo? É absurdo. E a minha parcialidade é igual a sua. Ou voce acha que nao é parcial? Todo mundo é. A única diferenca é que nós pedimos evidencias pras coisas que acreditamos, do mesmo jeito que todo mundo faz quando é acusado judicialmente de qualquer coisa. Só que a gente extrapola isso pro resto das nossas vidas.
I really disagree when everybody start to make hateful comments, I´m an atheist, but I don´t get fun from insulting people who hold faith, I could not care less about their believes. If you are concern about education, well then do something about it, don´t waste your time hating people, there is a lot of that shit, we need intellectuals, and being an atheist does not make you brighter, studying and analyzing things does. In order to stop insane people(who may come from anywere) think and teach
@MultiNature Rationality simply cannot penetrate someone who believes in a talking snake. If someone believes that, then let them believe that and stay at peace yourself. Don't ever become bitter towards religion because of its irrationality. Irrationality isn't the reason for our world's problems. Hatred is. I grew up Mormon and I can honestly say that even though they believe that the first man and woman lived in Missouri, they are nonetheless loving, beautiful, hard working, honest people.
@tpstrat14 I'd say that's a bit sweeping? Is there any reason Mormons can't be dark and evil bastards like the rest of humanity shows signs of ever so often?
About the irrationality, yes, be irrational all they want, but if it negatively affects another that is bad. therefore when some people, say, interpret the Bible literally we have problems because that is ethically against most modern medicine. At times, irrationality causes some of the problems, sometimes even by leading to hate.
@Solensherre No, there is no reason Mormons can't be evil. I was just being optimistic about all of humanity by saying that. I was saying that even though they believe in crazy things, they're still really nice people just like you and me. Religion has nothing to do with our world's problems. People THRIVE in hatred, so we find scapegoats to place blame on, but the state of the world is no one's fault. We ALL need to take responsibility...
@MultiNature i do because i am so fucking sick of prayer and people blessing me and political policy and sara palin and on and on and on and on. i wish people that are religious would fuck off and die
@phildirt3 I am sure that you HATE religious fanaticism, yet you are acting THE SAME FUCKING DETESTABLE WAY, behaving like a teenager, mad with everyone. I'm from Mexico and as a scientist I do get tire of nonsense thinking, but radical and violent response is just as stupid as it can gets. You dont have to be condescending with people you don't like, but being such a prick will cause you many problems. Resolving issues in that way (with violence) is the reason why the world is so fucked up.
@MultiNature I know your comment is 8 months old, but look back on it if you wil... I may be a Christian, but you are the most kind person I've seen today... :)
I hate these new anti-theists and their love of their so called intellectuals. They are not "free thinkers" in any aspect at all, but rather emotional teenagers who discovered Richard Dawkins and the internet and thought it was the greatest damn thing ever. I have nothing against normal atheists, only the anti-theists who don't know shit about philosophy.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Many people practice the same reasoning they condemn. Religious folk are correctly cited as using the argument "Well, God did it. There's no further answer. God did it, so just accept it and deal with it." I fully agree that religious people say this. I also observe that atheists use the argument that "Well, the universe is just that way. Order comes from chaos. Biology comes from non-biology. The Cosmos just works that way, so deal with it and move on." I see no reason to condemn either of them
"Or does the masses have a point and atheists are a bit egocentric?"
Okay, I guess you are going to trot out a logical fallacy, namely an Argumentum ad populum. I would explain it to you, but you can easily go on Wikipedia for further education. You can also read up on all the other logical fallacies you no doubt use to make other poor arguments.
@Guardian9191 "Or does the masses have a point and atheists are a bit egocentric?"
Okay, i guess you are going to trot out a logical fallacy, namely an Argumentum ad populum. I would explain it to you, but you can easily go on Wikipedia for further education. You can also read up on all the other logical fallacies you no doubt use to make poor arguments with.
@Cummnz wooohh, what such a wise and intellectual being is doing behind the scenes right here on the youtube?
I bet you should go up there and reason with them. foolish, to listen and reason upon what has already been said is half way done, but to come up with the concept is ANOTHER. You probably master the subject right? what did you come up with that you didn't learn from someone else?
@BenG549 Now how can you tell she's christian? j/k- as wrong as it is to do so, I'd bet $1000 just by looking at her she's a christian. I feel like a heel for saying so, but there it is.
Good luck to Dr Shermer in showing how a contingent, rationaly intelligable universe can come from a non-enitity (let alone anything less than a rational, necessary being).
He's fallaciously conflating supernatural with paranormal, ignoring that supernatural literally means super (external) natural - that is, outside the universe.
@findo So how does an omnipotent intelligence come from a non-entity? How does anything come into existence without a "rational, necessary being"? Those who make the Watchmaker argument need your good luck; they fall right into an infinite regress every time.
And Supernatural = Paranormal. It's just semantics.
@MrTamzarian "Those who make the Watchmaker argument need your good luck; they fall right into an infinite regress every time."
Uh, no - an eternal necessary entity is exactly what is required to avoid an infinite regress. If there is a first cause (and the rational intelligibility of the universe needs this) then it, by definition, must be eternal and necessary. The infinite regress is only a problem for those who reject a first cause, as the universe is itself temporal and contingent.
Says who, and by who's definition? And what is the universe contingent on?
The universe seems temporal to us because we have our own conceptions of time that we project onto it. But, really, the universe is time.
Where you see "rational intelligibility" I see chaotic randomness. If our universe is truly the creation of some deity, than it is either a cruel sadist or completely inept. Maybe we're just the product of some science fair mishap at a celestial elementary school? ;)
- Says basically every physicist and philosopher I've ever come across (ever heard of the big bang?), and by the normal understanding of what 'contingent' and 'temporal' means in philosophy and ontology.
"Where you see "rational intelligibility" I see chaotic randomness"
- if the universe weren't rationally intelligible we couldn't even do science. That we can, that we can begin to understand it means it is rationally intelligible.
You keep saying "contingent", but that word means nothing without context. The statement, "you are contingent" is nonsense. Contingent on what? And if you don't know the answer, why assume that any contingency exists? (I've already addressed the misuse of "temporal", I think) I don't think these ideas on what a first cause is/should be deserve the confidence you present them with. It sounds like white noise to me.
And how did the big bang get dragged into this? :)
@MrTamzarian "that word means nothing without context." - the context is ontology. Entities are either contingent (could have been otherwise) or necessary (could not have been otherwise) & temporal or eternal (this is not just about how it 'seems' - the big bang says so, as it shows the universe was not always as it is, that it had a 'beginning') - and all the evidence shows that the universe is both temporal and contingent.
Ah, you’re using “rational intelligibility” as a euphemism for the laws of nature. But how are they evidence of creation? As Einstein famously put it, did god have a choice when creating the universe? Mutations, extinction events, failed solar systems, black holes, etc. point to the reality of the random chaos we live in. That we have a rare event where “beauty” comes into existence doesn’t mean the machinery is in any way intelligible or purposeful.
@MrTamzarian "Ah, you’re using “rational intelligibility” as a euphemism for the laws of nature. But how are they evidence of creation?"
Sort of - I'm using not as a euphemism, but to simply describe the fact that the universe IS rationallity intelligble - i.e. we can use our brains to understand it.
Einstein also pointed out that this rationally intelligibility was one of the great inexplicable facts about the universe; he could not see why it should be so. A rational first cause would do it.
@findo Or you could simply say that nature follows its own set of laws. Calling something "rationally intelligible" smells like you're begging the question.
Asking why the universe is so seems like a silly question to me. That's like asking why the color blue is blue. It just is. I think the proper response to these mysteries is to recognize our present ignorance and remain humble rather than invent unprovable god theories out of the ether. A fascinating discussion nonetheless--thanks!
@MrTamzarian It's not begging the question - the universe *is* rationally intelligible. I think it was Einstein who noted that the only unintelligible thing about the universe is that it is intelligible.
I don't think it is silly to ask 'why' - after all, that is what science and philosophy are about (though one seeks to understand the 'why' of mechanism or efficient cause, and the other the 'why' final cause. To suggest that I'm making a GOTG answer misses this mportant distinction.
@findo (and, yes, I know blue represents a part of the visible spectrum of light, so don't go there! ;) Merely just saying it could be considered a mystery why that little wavelength of electromagnetic energy produces that specific color, but the question seems nonsensical because that's just the way it is)
@MrTamzarian You're right that it's semantics - the study of meaning - because there is a semantic difference between the words. Simply saying 'it's just semantics' to defend conflation is a pretty weak defence.
@findo There is no problem with conflating the two. Both words mean exactly the same thing. You'll have to take that up with the fine folks at Mirriam-Webster, it seems.
The greatest mystery of all is how does someone as intelligent as Lennox manage to detach themselves from reality to such an extreme extent?! There are so many intelligent theists, it just doesn't make sense.
@SomePunkSucka "There are so many intelligent theists, it just doesn't make sense." - hehe.. well, if you beg the question like that, I'm sure it is puzzling! But if you take a less circular approach, perhaps the reason is that it is not as intellectually deficient as you first assumed.
Hey, I'm a Christian who would like to sincerely apologize for any Christians who came here to fight rather than to learn. Just know that not all of us are so ignorant as to automatically assume intellectual superiority while having no basis in logic and no evidence to support our view. That is not to say that there is no logic or evidence behind my worldview, it is merely a reference to the style in which many Christians (and non-christians) debate. Shermer and Lennox are both truly brilliant.
John lennox is a quote minor, which negates true imperical argument. Like a cornered desperate politician defending the rantings and actions of a dictator. I worry for him, for one day he will have to ponder the arguements of his apponents, not just scan them, looking for ways to manipulte them to suit his shortcomings.
Theists use a 'conversation stopper' like 'God did it'? Richard Dawkins and others also use this argument. There are many believers like myself who don't just settle for 'God did it'. We too ask questions because we look for evidence - not blind faith. The bible encourages me to 'Prove all things' (1 Thessalonians 5:21). If it were true, believers would've stopped digging for answers long time ago. Dr Hugh Ross would beg to differ - and many others. That's just an insult - not evidence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How can Shermer think he is going to call God a "she" and think he sounds intelligent. He obviously never tried to understand the Christian God. God doesn't have a sex he is referred to as Father and therefore masculine because of his Father figure image. What an idiot. Don't argue something you don't even know what you're talking about!
I am still a Christian, it takes way too much faith for me to be an athiest. Best wishes. He uses a lot of words to define a belief in a mechanical universe. But their is too much wisdom and law in creation, I call it God. God is a God of law, Jesus is mercy for Gods greatest creation, otherwise Justice (also a law) claims us all and Gods greatest love is subject to removal from his presence. Thats a brief to say 'it can be anything but that'. I also have personal experience of God.
@bnaur I'm a Christian too - and while I think there is more evidence and reason to be a Christian than an atheist, this soundbite you've used, as popular as it is, is counter-productive: it reinforces the false idea that faith = belief without evidence.
Lennox makes a much more riveting argument and also a much more convincing one in my opinion. Shermer is a typical atheist who believes that he has no beliefs. Lol to that. Poor Atheists.
Why is it's "dark matter" any less a "show stopper" than God did it? It didn't stop Newton from investigating God's laws in nature. It doesn't stop countless other curious believing scientists from exploring nature to understand how it was set up to work. "God did it" is just as much a "place holder" for the curious believer as some pseudo description.
Does every person have the curiosity of a scientist? No, and it's a practical thing that everybody doesn't pursue a life of science.
@MorganMarvinson What does one call an individual who does not believe in Zeus? There is no proper name for such a person. I agree that "atheist" is less than ideal if the person also believes in the Judeo-Christian god. But what term is appropriate to convey that he/she does not believe in Zeus or any other asserted gods that are not the Judeo-Christian god?
"Why is it's dark matter" any less a show stopper than God did it? "
Because we can see the influence dark matter has on the rest of the universe, i.e. we have evidence it's there. There is no such evidence for the existence of any gods.
An a-theist is without a god. As long as a person has one, he is not an atheist. The canned argument about being an atheist with regard to Zeus and other bygone deities is bogus, and I suspect that Drs. Shermer and Dawkins know it but still like to use the line.
"The canned argument about being an atheist with regard to Zeus and other bygone deities is bogus"
It's simply a figure of speech. It's a device for pointing out that not believing in the Christian god is not different from not believing in any of the other ones.
"It can't possibly be explained by science" is beside the point, the thing about it is that it has not been explained by science and therefore until it can explain it they don't even have a legitimate argument.
This man is simply brilliant...he is right up there with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and James Randi. Sometimes I just help but smile when I listen to them speak because I just feel richer for having had the experience of being educated. I was raised Christian and I spent quite a lot of time making fun of Atheists...never thought that I would become an intellectual and start thinking for myself. Bravo to all the intellectuals that contribute to the progress of mankind everywhere.
@andyrooney11 I couldn't agree more. Shermer is the man. I'm still a Christian though because I didn't join the whole liberal, hippie, "let's all hate God" movement haha. It's also just so much easier to define morality instead of going into an infinite regress which ultimately ends up in the random collision of atoms and dissolves into utter meaninglessness. I also don't see the downside in believing just in case there is a heaven. I mean, it's a win-win situation after you die in that case.
@andyrooney11 Just because you were raised "Christian" doesn't necessarily mean that you, yourself, were a Christian. I was raised by Christians as well but didn't actually become one until almost twenty years later when I realized that I needed to be saved. Being a Christian is a personal choice and not something that can be "pounded" into you as a child.
Anybody who is "up there" with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins is a poor representation of atheists. They are crummy philosophers and blatantly ignorant of world religions. They are not smart when it comes to those topics. Try to listening to more OPEN-MINDED atheists like Quinton Smith, Kai Nielsen, and Michael Ruse.
@BassP86 LOL more open-minded Atheists.... you mean like.... Atheists who believe in a god? Your criticism of my Atheist heros is bizarre. If you are so open minded go become a Hindu Christian Muslim Jew and then tell everyone that they are all correct and that everyone is completely wrong all at the same time. Now that would be REALLY open-minded! LOL
By admitting that there is so much that we don't know with science being 4 centuries old it's both silly to believe in something supernatural "a non explanation and simply a place holder" (for programmers think of an uninitialized variable/identifier)and to assume that it must all be physical ( materialism in the realm of science). In other words the by his logic you should pretty much just be agnostic. Just because you don't know everything doesn't mean you can't form a hypothesis. Irony?
@luvlatinmamis what the hell are you talking about? EVERYONE is either agnostic or gnostic about what they believe.... gnosticism has to do with knowledge and theism has to do with belief. I am an Agnostic Atheist, and most of us are. Your post does not make a lot of sense to me.... "science being 4 centuries old" ..... um are you fucking high? Science was being used in ancient Greece and earlier.... your math is a bit off.
@MrUsername5678888 so here is where you will feel silly. Shermer said that science is 4 centuries old. There is a difference between actual science and knowledge of the cosmos. The first scientist is generally agreed to be Newton because he used the scientific method as we know it today. The study or formal practice of science by definition is as shermer said, 4 centures old.
@luvlatinmamis I don't feel silly at all. I do not care if you use specific definitions to attempt to define something, the way Michael Behe presents his own concept and definition of irreducible complexity simply so he can set perameters that are not akin to the original definition, simply to then go on to insist by his own definiton irreducible complexity is valid, when it is not. In other words, compartmentalizing a broader definition to suit the particular need.
@MrUsername5678888 I don't know what that reference has to do with anything that I said to be quite honest. Cool explanation ( i don't agree ) but cool nonetheless.
I have reread your post several times and I must admit, as I was doing about two hours of replies and debates with people on here in rapid-fire succession, I misread a well-written post. I only skimmed it in this instance, and part of being intellectually honest is admitting when you did not take the time to really understand someone's point. I would NEVER feel silly for making a mistake of this kind, nor for apologizing to you. It only reminds me to read more carefully when without sleep.
@luvlatinmamis I think as many authors that we should include in the scientific method list of 'founders' Andrea Vesalio, Galileo Galilei and Da Vinci between other which would give us about one century more of life for the Scicence as a method of knowledge (what science is).
I have reread your post several times and I must admit, as I was doing about two hours of replies and debates with people on here in rapid-fire succession, I misread a well-written post. I only skimmed it in this instance, and part of being intellectually honest is admitting when you did not take the time to really understand someone's point. I would NEVER feel silly for making a mistake of this kind, nor for apologizing to you. It only reminds me to read more carefully when without sleep.
@andyrooney11 You don't think that comment is a little odd? You claim you stopped being a Christian when you 'became an intellectual' and 'started thinking for yourself'. What is John Lennox then? Surely he can't be unintellectual and not thinking for himself? What you are saying doesn't follow at all for many Christians.
@Guardian9191 I think that atheism is a lot like calculus for most people. It's not intuitive at first and they do NOT want to learn it. Once you learn it, though, people who refuse to try to understand the basics of it and deny its validity look kind of dumb.
@Guardian9191 Are Christians egocentric for not believing the Hindus? Are the Muslims egocentric for not believing the Zoroastrians? Are believers egocentric for thinking Atheism is wrong? Your question is ridiculous. Tired old accusations of Atheists being just a bit too smart for their own good. The most egocentric thing that any human being could possibly believe is that the creator of the universe is their best friend and he constantly does favors for them. And Atheists have egos???
@andyrooney11 Good for you, brother...or sister! Have you tried Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet or Richard Dawkins also? I think you'd be equally impressed.
filolll which book did Jesus write ?
bigwick03 1 month ago
@bigwick03 All of it. Jn 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.---Jesus is the Word, and inspired every word written in the Bible. Do what you want.
filoIII 4 weeks ago
As soon as Zeus writes a book w/ 100% accurate prophecy, I'll give him some serious thought. Until then, I'll stick w/ the Book Jesus wrote.
filoIII 1 month ago
@filoIII Show conclusive evidence that Jesus was real, and more importantly that there was something supernatural about him.
thewarriorsrok 1 month ago
@thewarriorsrok Did you not comprehend the part about a Book w/ 100% accurate prophecy. The overwhelming majority of historians attest to the reality of this Jesus figure. Now you'll have to decide if what this Book w/ 100% accurate prophecy is true regarding its claims about Jesus.
filoIII 1 month ago
@filoIII That's bullshit, show me the fucking evidence bro. And 100% accuracy? The accuracy that bats are a type of bird, or that demons cause disease? That the earth has corners and was flooded with more water than exists on the planet? Give me a break motherfucker, I'm way too smart to be a christian.
thewarriorsrok 1 month ago
@thewarriorsrok yea you sound smart.
jesselee34 1 month ago
1st, we're not brothers, seeing you're of your father the devil (Jn8:44). 2nd, your foul language doesn't impress me much, seeing how I was once a foul-mouthed, drunken sailor. If you're not aware that that, taxonomically speaking, bats were only fairly recently taken out of the bird category, then the rest of what you say must be taken w/ a grain of salt. In the ancient hebrew days, all flying animals were considered birds. Now, bats are considered mammals. Just different categorization.
filoIII 1 month ago
@filoIII first of all bro, I don't give a fuck about what impresses you. What impresses ME on the other hand is evidence, which you didn't provide yet. And if the change from bird to bat is such a slight and obvious one, then why the fuck didn't your god know that ahead of time?
thewarriorsrok 1 month ago
@thewarriorsrok You show conclusive evidence Aristotle was real. There are WAAAAAAAAAAY more manuscripts that attest to the reality of Jesus and what He did than we have for Aristotle, yet you won't make the same claim for him. The overwhelming majority of liberal scholars, who are not Christians, attest there was this figure named Jesus. All you have to do is decide if He was God or not.
filoIII 4 weeks ago
@filoIII LINK ME TO ONE
thewarriorsrok 4 weeks ago
@filoIII Would you be so kind as to list a few of the "manuscripts that attest to the reality of Jesus". And please leave out the books written by Christians hundreds of years after the purported event
azzy314159 1 week ago
@filoIII - Jesus didn't write the bible, multiple desert nomads did.
- The bible isn't 100% accurate. It's actually full of contradictions. And the prophecies that are "true" are just vague readings that can be twisted to make anything seem true. People do the same thing with Nostradamus' book and believe he was a prophet.
- Nothing in the bible is special unless you desperately want to believe it is. Everything could have, and was written by regular human beings.
JarethGT 4 weeks ago
@JarethGT Let's hear these "contradictions."
filoIII 1 week ago
@filoIII the BIBLE doesnt even say jesus wrote it....
LoVeInADiUniVerSe 2 weeks ago
@LoVeInADiUniVerSe The Bible says Jesus is the Bible. Get it?
filoIII 1 week ago
God revealed Himself as male. It is not about culture that we laugh or cringe when you refer to Him as a woman, it is because we believe He told us and that he knows what he is talking about.
DMatthewHenry 1 month ago
I hate that atheists try to say it's a lack of belief. The only thing you can lack belief in is something you are completely unaware of. As soon as you understand that there is the idea of God out there you form a belief about it. You either believe He is there, or you believe He isn't and you will live your life according to that belief.
DMatthewHenry 1 month ago
@DMatthewHenry Sematics, and bad ones at that. I do understand the idea of god, and I do not believe in him - nonbelief - lack of belief - statement is untrue - not properble, take you pick.
His point is there is no combining idea behind atheism, other than we agree that there is no god.
neuromatiker 1 month ago
Why is there a Scientology ad in the top right?
uriituw 2 months ago
He is using sound reason, but he is definitely ripping off Christopher Hitchens
JoshOSU73 3 months ago
i used to be an atheist until i found out i am god.
1empathy 3 months ago
"One god further..."
"I will be like the most high..."
And there you have it. Next up... Trans humanism...
m1chae15 3 months ago in playlist The Great Debate: John Lennox vs. Michael Shermer
Atheism and Agnosticism are beliefs, not faiths in the religious term.
H0tkebab 3 months ago
Its amazing how even the most popular atheist' have to redefine what 'Atheism' means to fit their beliefs. Atheism is not just "a lack of belief in God(s)" it it the rejection or denial of belief in God(s). Huge difference
REDRAGON12345 3 months ago
@REDRAGON12345 There's no difference at all. If you reject a belief, then that just means you lack that belief. That's not the same thing as denying the _existence_ of gods, which is what theists try to claim.
Springheel01 3 months ago
John Lennox demolished Shermer in this debate!! GOD IS GREAT!!..Thank you for this video :)
mellymel51029 4 months ago
@mellymel51029 John lennox has demolished every atheist in every debate haha.
bridemusiccanada 3 months ago
@bridemusiccanada Lennox! Ftw! :)
mellymel51029 3 months ago
Yes he has... and he backs what he says with evidence too. Brilliant. What a God send of a debater he is.
liebengood24 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there are people who are rational
and then there are people who don't believe in god
ofomatheblackbelt 4 months ago
"Those questions can be solved with night beverages"?????? Exactly, that's just an excuse to not answer the question. :P If "God did it" is not an answer, is drinking beverages the answer? Foolishness. We're not questioning "How it is created"=Science but we are asking "Who did it?" This guy is a waste of time.
Maivlias 4 months ago
Comment removed
ikawpipa 4 months ago
I disagree, we know the answer to us(life), the universe and everything....
Solensherre 4 months ago
Comment removed
Solensherre 4 months ago
Why have a debate when you can ridicule the art of discourse with crass and unneeded "comedy".
scar504 5 months ago
the christian debator won!
CyprusHot 5 months ago
I feel so sorry for Lennox, I've watched this whole thing and he really has no idea what he's talking about.
nanosyntax 6 months ago
The likes/dislikes bar at the right of this video seems so polluted.
OyonTheAdept 6 months ago
So the skeptic stops there :(
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
god dun did it
FUwogs 7 months ago
A Christian is a skeptic of skeptics.
rhinnawi95 7 months ago
@rhinnawi95 and believes in a talking snake.
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@sgunsgun2 And that everything came from something.
rhinnawi95 6 months ago
@rhinnawi95 including god?
sgunsgun2 6 months ago
@rhinnawi95
A Christian is a cherry picking follower of fairytales. You guys aren't skeptical of anything if the bible tells you not to be.
Wordlaw12 6 months ago
@Wordlaw12 And an atheist/agnostic is someone who has a lot more faith in their nonsense than we have in ours, because you require more faith in what you belief than we do in our beliefs.
rhinnawi95 6 months ago
@rhinnawi95
Dude there is no faith with atheism or agnosticism. I'm an agnostic and my standpoint is I don't know. Agnostics may lean toward there not being a god but we don't know. An atheist may come to the conclusion that there is no god. Some may even say that they know there isn't one(atheist). But for the most part they are open minded enough to believe that there could be, we don't know for certain, neither do you. But you claim that you do know there is a god and in graphic detail.
Wordlaw12 6 months ago
@Wordlaw12 "for the most part" isn't none. You shouldn't make false generalizations. There aren't many psychopaths in the united states, however that's not to say that there are no psychopaths in the united states. The definition of Atheism is defined as either the belief that god does no exist, or that one does not know. Your not allowed to make the blatant lie that no atheists have belief, for only the agnostic atheists are without belief.
scar504 5 months ago
@scar504
I didn't say that atheist don't have belief I said "for the most part" they don't have belief. I'm well aware there are exceptions to everything. When I said "some may even say that they know there isn't one(atheist)." It was an assumption, I didn't mean that all atheist are strong atheist.. It's hard really describing the two, because when you think about it a weak atheist pretty much is an agnostic. But "some" may still consider themselves atheist. I wasn't lying about anything
Wordlaw12 5 months ago
@Wordlaw12 "Dude there is no faith with atheism or agnosticism" I apologize If I appear contentious but It's rather annoying to me when people attempt to claim that atheism cannot be a belief.
scar504 5 months ago
@scar504
I really don't know where your stance is on the matter, if your arguing on the behalf of atheism or if you're a theist who thinks that atheist have the same level of faith as believers do. Atheism by definition is a lack of belief. So where is the belief at? What type of deity do atheist believe in? They don't believe in a personal god, thats theism. Atheist do believe in other things, however, I don't know where your coming from when you allude atheism as also being a belief system?
Wordlaw12 5 months ago
@Wordlaw12 I'm neither an atheist or a theist, I argue only for the side of reason. Atheism as well as Theism is a word view, and both require belief unless you're an agnostic atheist. Most atheists claim there is no god and also attempt to relinquish themselves of the burden of prove by lying about their particular brand of atheism. You can't have your cake and eat it to, if your making assertions the burden of proof befalls you. I'm not directing this at you of course.
scar504 5 months ago
@scar504
Atheist: Looks at the evidence. Concludes there is none to support the proposition "God". Ignores "God" like everyone else ignores pink unicorns and dragons.
Theist: Doesn't bother with evidence. Believes simply claiming something is equivalent to knowledge.
Agnostic: Does not understand the difference between these two.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@Wordlaw12 Furthermore belief is not synonymous with deity's, supernatural entities,etc. It simply shows a false equivocation that atheists believe the positive claim "god does not exist" is not one based in faith.
scar504 5 months ago
@Wordlaw12 Atheist means to have no belief in any god of any sort. If you're an Atheist and have a belief in God is not impossible....you're definitely not an atheist. This is why most contradict themselves.
YouBeMadlol 3 months ago
I only listened to the Q and A of this debate and I noticed that the atheist uses a lot of straw men.
Ohyewildthong 7 months ago
@Ohyewildthong
And the Theist?
Wordlaw12 6 months ago
@Wordlaw12 I sure didn't notice any.
Ohyewildthong 6 months ago
@Ohyewildthong .. I didn't notice any strawmen..
but I did notice a whole lot of trying to debate Richard Dawkins
( who wasn't there... and has made Lennox look stupid in the past )
which was a bit embarrassing really.
Lennox just isn't very good.
Roper122 6 months ago
LMAO, "let me clarify one thing, Athiest, Non-Theist, Agnostic, Bright..." Classic
jojogonzo 7 months ago
Why does everyone call Emmanuel a cunt?
TheRationalRant 7 months ago
haha. shermer totally took that henry the eighth line from d'souza :P
tha1ne 8 months ago
One can never know what preceeds this natural world unless one steps up into the supernatural... how do I know what lies in my palm unless I look at it from above? from DIFFERENT place? thats why I say that scientists can never come to the REAL cause...they have no overview..they can not know what WHOLENESS of universe is..they dont even know how limited they are in their views,,they follow some track of mind never getting nowhere...However we hear them say their fancy "Who knows what lies ahead
clovek456 8 months ago
To say "God did it" means nothing?..yes if there is no faith and sicerity involved..only someone silly keeps repeating "I dont know" even if evidence lies right in front of him!.. God gives us evidence and thats why we say "God did it!"
clovek456 8 months ago
@clovek456 What evidence? I do not know the entire workings of my TI calculator, so should I try and find out, be humble in accepting i don't know or assume there are miniature Taiwanese people in it making it work?
kenzie0201 8 months ago
@kenzie0201 I agree that one cannot achieve anything unless one becomes humble. However there is no place for humility when one is called to believe and say yes to the evidence that has been given to us.This evidence is direct and must be received directly not scietifically. In other words if we are not willing to say "yes" to life before any analyses we can never come to satisfactory answer. One doesnt have to know how the tv works but that doesnt stop from saying how beautiful is what I see...
clovek456 8 months ago
Ahhh, great job.
evolutionisscience 9 months ago
Every single argument here is a sophism, and can be EASILY refuted.
Gazdo01 11 months ago
As pessoas, principalmente os ateus, deveriam deixar suas preferências de lado e ir pelo caminho onde as evidências apontam. Se dizem intelectuais, mas na verdade seu conhecimento (digo aos ateus) é parcial, e com relação à teologia, são verdadeiros ignorantes.
engwaldopereira1 11 months ago
@engwaldopereira1 voce tem uma visao tao errada do ateismo que doi.. vc acha que os ateus sao uma organizacao? ser ateu é simplesmente nao acreditar em deus. ponto. Nao tem mais NADA pra unir o nosso "grupo". É como dizer que todas as pessoas de direita sao burras. É absurdo. Eu sou ateu desde que tenho 12 anos de idade e sei mais sobre religiao que o 98% dos cristaos que eu conheco. Entao vai generalizar assim na sua casa. Aqui na internet, tenta falar coisas mais sustentadas em argumentos.
bernytheman 10 months ago
@bernytheman, eu postei foi para os ateus limitantes, se a carapuça não serviu pra vc, desculpe-me, quanto a existência de Deus, os crentes acreditam em Deus, não por fé cega, segundo R. Dawkins, fundamentada na ignorância, fazemos inferências fundamentadas em evidências dentro de diversas áreas de conhecimento (científico, filosófico, histórico, teológico...) ops. a Teologia existe sim, no Brasil, é reconhecida pelo mec e é oferecida em diversas universidades por todo mundo.
Abraço!
engwaldopereira1 10 months ago
@engwaldopereira1 Ah, e só pra voce saber, a teologia nao existe. Teologia é o estudo de Deus e como nao se pode provar que Deus existe, como podemos estudá-lo? É absurdo. E a minha parcialidade é igual a sua. Ou voce acha que nao é parcial? Todo mundo é. A única diferenca é que nós pedimos evidencias pras coisas que acreditamos, do mesmo jeito que todo mundo faz quando é acusado judicialmente de qualquer coisa. Só que a gente extrapola isso pro resto das nossas vidas.
bernytheman 10 months ago
I really disagree when everybody start to make hateful comments, I´m an atheist, but I don´t get fun from insulting people who hold faith, I could not care less about their believes. If you are concern about education, well then do something about it, don´t waste your time hating people, there is a lot of that shit, we need intellectuals, and being an atheist does not make you brighter, studying and analyzing things does. In order to stop insane people(who may come from anywere) think and teach
MultiNature 11 months ago 40
@MultiNature Very well put,
johneamer 8 months ago
@MultiNature Well said, sir!
GeetarAdam 5 months ago
@MultiNature I am theist, and i agree 100% with your comment, well said!!
luima23 5 months ago
@MultiNature Rationality simply cannot penetrate someone who believes in a talking snake. If someone believes that, then let them believe that and stay at peace yourself. Don't ever become bitter towards religion because of its irrationality. Irrationality isn't the reason for our world's problems. Hatred is. I grew up Mormon and I can honestly say that even though they believe that the first man and woman lived in Missouri, they are nonetheless loving, beautiful, hard working, honest people.
tpstrat14 5 months ago
@tpstrat14 I'd say that's a bit sweeping? Is there any reason Mormons can't be dark and evil bastards like the rest of humanity shows signs of ever so often?
About the irrationality, yes, be irrational all they want, but if it negatively affects another that is bad. therefore when some people, say, interpret the Bible literally we have problems because that is ethically against most modern medicine. At times, irrationality causes some of the problems, sometimes even by leading to hate.
Solensherre 4 months ago
@Solensherre No, there is no reason Mormons can't be evil. I was just being optimistic about all of humanity by saying that. I was saying that even though they believe in crazy things, they're still really nice people just like you and me. Religion has nothing to do with our world's problems. People THRIVE in hatred, so we find scapegoats to place blame on, but the state of the world is no one's fault. We ALL need to take responsibility...
tpstrat14 4 months ago
@MultiNature i'm a Muslim and this is the best commen i've ever seen..
barbarianwarlord 4 months ago
@MultiNature totaly agree
esraretin 4 months ago
@MultiNature i do because i am so fucking sick of prayer and people blessing me and political policy and sara palin and on and on and on and on. i wish people that are religious would fuck off and die
phildirt3 3 months ago
@phildirt3 I am sure that you HATE religious fanaticism, yet you are acting THE SAME FUCKING DETESTABLE WAY, behaving like a teenager, mad with everyone. I'm from Mexico and as a scientist I do get tire of nonsense thinking, but radical and violent response is just as stupid as it can gets. You dont have to be condescending with people you don't like, but being such a prick will cause you many problems. Resolving issues in that way (with violence) is the reason why the world is so fucked up.
MultiNature 3 months ago
@MultiNature Well said my friend.
YouBeMadlol 3 months ago
@MultiNature well said mate
j4manasseh 3 months ago
@MultiNature I know your comment is 8 months old, but look back on it if you wil... I may be a Christian, but you are the most kind person I've seen today... :)
blackneos940 2 months ago
I hate these new anti-theists and their love of their so called intellectuals. They are not "free thinkers" in any aspect at all, but rather emotional teenagers who discovered Richard Dawkins and the internet and thought it was the greatest damn thing ever. I have nothing against normal atheists, only the anti-theists who don't know shit about philosophy.
Walnut1871 11 months ago
@Walnut1871 agree...
clovek456 8 months ago
@clovek456 moron...
Wait, are we playing word association?
sexychrisb 7 months ago
Quotations
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
rick569 1 year ago
Many people practice the same reasoning they condemn. Religious folk are correctly cited as using the argument "Well, God did it. There's no further answer. God did it, so just accept it and deal with it." I fully agree that religious people say this. I also observe that atheists use the argument that "Well, the universe is just that way. Order comes from chaos. Biology comes from non-biology. The Cosmos just works that way, so deal with it and move on." I see no reason to condemn either of them
risswillis 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Or does the masses have a point and atheists are a bit egocentric?"
Okay, I guess you are going to trot out a logical fallacy, namely an Argumentum ad populum. I would explain it to you, but you can easily go on Wikipedia for further education. You can also read up on all the other logical fallacies you no doubt use to make other poor arguments.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Guardian9191 "Or does the masses have a point and atheists are a bit egocentric?"
Okay, i guess you are going to trot out a logical fallacy, namely an Argumentum ad populum. I would explain it to you, but you can easily go on Wikipedia for further education. You can also read up on all the other logical fallacies you no doubt use to make poor arguments with.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@Cummnz wooohh, what such a wise and intellectual being is doing behind the scenes right here on the youtube?
I bet you should go up there and reason with them. foolish, to listen and reason upon what has already been said is half way done, but to come up with the concept is ANOTHER. You probably master the subject right? what did you come up with that you didn't learn from someone else?
daniloorbolato 1 year ago
Another religiously educated Atheist!!!! When is all this brainwashing gonna start taking effect?
YesYou123333 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You spelled wrong, it's "John Lennon"
poisionarrowclean 1 year ago
6:22, check out the seriously pissed off christian woman in the bottom left of the screen!
BenG549 1 year ago
@BenG549 Now how can you tell she's christian? j/k- as wrong as it is to do so, I'd bet $1000 just by looking at her she's a christian. I feel like a heel for saying so, but there it is.
rrpostalagain 1 year ago
Good luck to Dr Shermer in showing how a contingent, rationaly intelligable universe can come from a non-enitity (let alone anything less than a rational, necessary being).
He's fallaciously conflating supernatural with paranormal, ignoring that supernatural literally means super (external) natural - that is, outside the universe.
findo 1 year ago
@findo So how does an omnipotent intelligence come from a non-entity? How does anything come into existence without a "rational, necessary being"? Those who make the Watchmaker argument need your good luck; they fall right into an infinite regress every time.
And Supernatural = Paranormal. It's just semantics.
MrTamzarian 1 year ago
@MrTamzarian "Those who make the Watchmaker argument need your good luck; they fall right into an infinite regress every time."
Uh, no - an eternal necessary entity is exactly what is required to avoid an infinite regress. If there is a first cause (and the rational intelligibility of the universe needs this) then it, by definition, must be eternal and necessary. The infinite regress is only a problem for those who reject a first cause, as the universe is itself temporal and contingent.
findo 1 year ago
Says who, and by who's definition? And what is the universe contingent on?
The universe seems temporal to us because we have our own conceptions of time that we project onto it. But, really, the universe is time.
Where you see "rational intelligibility" I see chaotic randomness. If our universe is truly the creation of some deity, than it is either a cruel sadist or completely inept. Maybe we're just the product of some science fair mishap at a celestial elementary school? ;)
MrTamzarian 1 year ago
@MrTamzarian "Says who, and by who's definition?"
- Says basically every physicist and philosopher I've ever come across (ever heard of the big bang?), and by the normal understanding of what 'contingent' and 'temporal' means in philosophy and ontology.
"Where you see "rational intelligibility" I see chaotic randomness"
- if the universe weren't rationally intelligible we couldn't even do science. That we can, that we can begin to understand it means it is rationally intelligible.
findo 1 year ago
You keep saying "contingent", but that word means nothing without context. The statement, "you are contingent" is nonsense. Contingent on what? And if you don't know the answer, why assume that any contingency exists? (I've already addressed the misuse of "temporal", I think) I don't think these ideas on what a first cause is/should be deserve the confidence you present them with. It sounds like white noise to me.
And how did the big bang get dragged into this? :)
MrTamzarian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrTamzarian "that word means nothing without context." - the context is ontology. Entities are either contingent (could have been otherwise) or necessary (could not have been otherwise) & temporal or eternal (this is not just about how it 'seems' - the big bang says so, as it shows the universe was not always as it is, that it had a 'beginning') - and all the evidence shows that the universe is both temporal and contingent.
findo 1 year ago
@MrTamzarian "Where you see "rational intelligibility" I see chaotic randomness"
- and as it's rationally intelligible, you've got to somehow show how such rationality could come from the random chaos you speak of.
findo 1 year ago
Ah, you’re using “rational intelligibility” as a euphemism for the laws of nature. But how are they evidence of creation? As Einstein famously put it, did god have a choice when creating the universe? Mutations, extinction events, failed solar systems, black holes, etc. point to the reality of the random chaos we live in. That we have a rare event where “beauty” comes into existence doesn’t mean the machinery is in any way intelligible or purposeful.
MrTamzarian 1 year ago
@MrTamzarian "Ah, you’re using “rational intelligibility” as a euphemism for the laws of nature. But how are they evidence of creation?"
Sort of - I'm using not as a euphemism, but to simply describe the fact that the universe IS rationallity intelligble - i.e. we can use our brains to understand it.
Einstein also pointed out that this rationally intelligibility was one of the great inexplicable facts about the universe; he could not see why it should be so. A rational first cause would do it.
findo 1 year ago
@findo Or you could simply say that nature follows its own set of laws. Calling something "rationally intelligible" smells like you're begging the question.
Asking why the universe is so seems like a silly question to me. That's like asking why the color blue is blue. It just is. I think the proper response to these mysteries is to recognize our present ignorance and remain humble rather than invent unprovable god theories out of the ether. A fascinating discussion nonetheless--thanks!
MrTamzarian 1 year ago
@MrTamzarian It's not begging the question - the universe *is* rationally intelligible. I think it was Einstein who noted that the only unintelligible thing about the universe is that it is intelligible.
I don't think it is silly to ask 'why' - after all, that is what science and philosophy are about (though one seeks to understand the 'why' of mechanism or efficient cause, and the other the 'why' final cause. To suggest that I'm making a GOTG answer misses this mportant distinction.
findo 1 year ago
@findo (and, yes, I know blue represents a part of the visible spectrum of light, so don't go there! ;) Merely just saying it could be considered a mystery why that little wavelength of electromagnetic energy produces that specific color, but the question seems nonsensical because that's just the way it is)
MrTamzarian 1 year ago
@MrTamzarian "And what is the universe contingent on?"
- That is indeed the question!! ;)
findo 1 year ago
@MrTamzarian You're right that it's semantics - the study of meaning - because there is a semantic difference between the words. Simply saying 'it's just semantics' to defend conflation is a pretty weak defence.
findo 1 year ago
@findo There is no problem with conflating the two. Both words mean exactly the same thing. You'll have to take that up with the fine folks at Mirriam-Webster, it seems.
MrTamzarian 1 year ago
What a brilliant man!
fallgropen 1 year ago
Don't you wanna know how she did it?
... lol damn!
GreyLabyrinthine 1 year ago
The greatest mystery of all is how does someone as intelligent as Lennox manage to detach themselves from reality to such an extreme extent?! There are so many intelligent theists, it just doesn't make sense.
SomePunkSucka 1 year ago
@SomePunkSucka "There are so many intelligent theists, it just doesn't make sense." - hehe.. well, if you beg the question like that, I'm sure it is puzzling! But if you take a less circular approach, perhaps the reason is that it is not as intellectually deficient as you first assumed.
findo 1 year ago
Shermer's mind: "Okay make a joke, pause for laughter... don't laugh at you own joke. Dammit I did again!!"
iluvideos 1 year ago 24
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, I'm a Christian who would like to sincerely apologize for any Christians who came here to fight rather than to learn. Just know that not all of us are so ignorant as to automatically assume intellectual superiority while having no basis in logic and no evidence to support our view. That is not to say that there is no logic or evidence behind my worldview, it is merely a reference to the style in which many Christians (and non-christians) debate. Shermer and Lennox are both truly brilliant.
gmanswers 1 year ago
Comment removed
gmanswers 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shermer is a blabbering idiot.
FeelOfFriction 1 year ago
@FeelOfFriction Your ad hominem is worth nothing.
ThePTB 1 year ago
John lennox is a quote minor, which negates true imperical argument. Like a cornered desperate politician defending the rantings and actions of a dictator. I worry for him, for one day he will have to ponder the arguements of his apponents, not just scan them, looking for ways to manipulte them to suit his shortcomings.
nahtanaj 1 year ago
Theists use a 'conversation stopper' like 'God did it'? Richard Dawkins and others also use this argument. There are many believers like myself who don't just settle for 'God did it'. We too ask questions because we look for evidence - not blind faith. The bible encourages me to 'Prove all things' (1 Thessalonians 5:21). If it were true, believers would've stopped digging for answers long time ago. Dr Hugh Ross would beg to differ - and many others. That's just an insult - not evidence.
grizly1 1 year ago
Many great points
mountainmanbear 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How can Shermer think he is going to call God a "she" and think he sounds intelligent. He obviously never tried to understand the Christian God. God doesn't have a sex he is referred to as Father and therefore masculine because of his Father figure image. What an idiot. Don't argue something you don't even know what you're talking about!
shernajwine 1 year ago
I am still a Christian, it takes way too much faith for me to be an athiest. Best wishes. He uses a lot of words to define a belief in a mechanical universe. But their is too much wisdom and law in creation, I call it God. God is a God of law, Jesus is mercy for Gods greatest creation, otherwise Justice (also a law) claims us all and Gods greatest love is subject to removal from his presence. Thats a brief to say 'it can be anything but that'. I also have personal experience of God.
bnaur 1 year ago
I am still a Christian, it takes way too much faith for me to be an athiest. Best wishes.
bnaur 1 year ago
@bnaur I'm a Christian too - and while I think there is more evidence and reason to be a Christian than an atheist, this soundbite you've used, as popular as it is, is counter-productive: it reinforces the false idea that faith = belief without evidence.
findo 1 year ago
Lennox makes a much more riveting argument and also a much more convincing one in my opinion. Shermer is a typical atheist who believes that he has no beliefs. Lol to that. Poor Atheists.
june6jr 1 year ago
@june6jr
"typical atheist" - well, at least you're not biased lulz ^_^
HumaninSeoul 1 year ago
@june6jr The most delusional group of people ever....Atheists
shernajwine 1 year ago
I m almost impressed how much people talk about imaginary beings
omnissient 1 year ago
This Shermer is always a joke XD
TheConsciousMatter 1 year ago
lennox is a dumb shit
yatter1 1 year ago
bravo john
creeman007 1 year ago
Why is it's "dark matter" any less a "show stopper" than God did it? It didn't stop Newton from investigating God's laws in nature. It doesn't stop countless other curious believing scientists from exploring nature to understand how it was set up to work. "God did it" is just as much a "place holder" for the curious believer as some pseudo description.
Does every person have the curiosity of a scientist? No, and it's a practical thing that everybody doesn't pursue a life of science.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Comment removed
HumbleHarry 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MorganMarvinson What does one call an individual who does not believe in Zeus? There is no proper name for such a person. I agree that "atheist" is less than ideal if the person also believes in the Judeo-Christian god. But what term is appropriate to convey that he/she does not believe in Zeus or any other asserted gods that are not the Judeo-Christian god?
HumbleHarry 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"Why is it's dark matter" any less a show stopper than God did it? "
Because we can see the influence dark matter has on the rest of the universe, i.e. we have evidence it's there. There is no such evidence for the existence of any gods.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
An a-theist is without a god. As long as a person has one, he is not an atheist. The canned argument about being an atheist with regard to Zeus and other bygone deities is bogus, and I suspect that Drs. Shermer and Dawkins know it but still like to use the line.
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
Comment removed
HumbleHarry 1 year ago
@MorganMarvinson
"The canned argument about being an atheist with regard to Zeus and other bygone deities is bogus"
It's simply a figure of speech. It's a device for pointing out that not believing in the Christian god is not different from not believing in any of the other ones.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
"It can't possibly be explained by science" is beside the point, the thing about it is that it has not been explained by science and therefore until it can explain it they don't even have a legitimate argument.
pelonisas 1 year ago
christians believe that god became a primate.... how much credibility do these people really have?
rysw19 1 year ago
This man is simply brilliant...he is right up there with Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and James Randi. Sometimes I just help but smile when I listen to them speak because I just feel richer for having had the experience of being educated. I was raised Christian and I spent quite a lot of time making fun of Atheists...never thought that I would become an intellectual and start thinking for myself. Bravo to all the intellectuals that contribute to the progress of mankind everywhere.
andyrooney11 1 year ago 60
@andyrooney11 I couldn't agree more. Shermer is the man. I'm still a Christian though because I didn't join the whole liberal, hippie, "let's all hate God" movement haha. It's also just so much easier to define morality instead of going into an infinite regress which ultimately ends up in the random collision of atoms and dissolves into utter meaninglessness. I also don't see the downside in believing just in case there is a heaven. I mean, it's a win-win situation after you die in that case.
illini554 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 Lennox is brilliant
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@andyrooney11 Lennox is brilliant
5tonyvvvv 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 Just because you were raised "Christian" doesn't necessarily mean that you, yourself, were a Christian. I was raised by Christians as well but didn't actually become one until almost twenty years later when I realized that I needed to be saved. Being a Christian is a personal choice and not something that can be "pounded" into you as a child.
101110b5 1 year ago
@andyrooney11
Anybody who is "up there" with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins is a poor representation of atheists. They are crummy philosophers and blatantly ignorant of world religions. They are not smart when it comes to those topics. Try to listening to more OPEN-MINDED atheists like Quinton Smith, Kai Nielsen, and Michael Ruse.
BassP86 1 year ago
@BassP86 LOL more open-minded Atheists.... you mean like.... Atheists who believe in a god? Your criticism of my Atheist heros is bizarre. If you are so open minded go become a Hindu Christian Muslim Jew and then tell everyone that they are all correct and that everyone is completely wrong all at the same time. Now that would be REALLY open-minded! LOL
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
By admitting that there is so much that we don't know with science being 4 centuries old it's both silly to believe in something supernatural "a non explanation and simply a place holder" (for programmers think of an uninitialized variable/identifier)and to assume that it must all be physical ( materialism in the realm of science). In other words the by his logic you should pretty much just be agnostic. Just because you don't know everything doesn't mean you can't form a hypothesis. Irony?
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis what the hell are you talking about? EVERYONE is either agnostic or gnostic about what they believe.... gnosticism has to do with knowledge and theism has to do with belief. I am an Agnostic Atheist, and most of us are. Your post does not make a lot of sense to me.... "science being 4 centuries old" ..... um are you fucking high? Science was being used in ancient Greece and earlier.... your math is a bit off.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 so here is where you will feel silly. Shermer said that science is 4 centuries old. There is a difference between actual science and knowledge of the cosmos. The first scientist is generally agreed to be Newton because he used the scientific method as we know it today. The study or formal practice of science by definition is as shermer said, 4 centures old.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis I don't feel silly at all. I do not care if you use specific definitions to attempt to define something, the way Michael Behe presents his own concept and definition of irreducible complexity simply so he can set perameters that are not akin to the original definition, simply to then go on to insist by his own definiton irreducible complexity is valid, when it is not. In other words, compartmentalizing a broader definition to suit the particular need.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 I don't know what that reference has to do with anything that I said to be quite honest. Cool explanation ( i don't agree ) but cool nonetheless.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis i left a comment on your channel apologizing for misreading your earlier comment. please check it out if you can, thanks.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@MrUsername5678888 I appreciate it. Thanks.
luvlatinmamis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have reread your post several times and I must admit, as I was doing about two hours of replies and debates with people on here in rapid-fire succession, I misread a well-written post. I only skimmed it in this instance, and part of being intellectually honest is admitting when you did not take the time to really understand someone's point. I would NEVER feel silly for making a mistake of this kind, nor for apologizing to you. It only reminds me to read more carefully when without sleep.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@luvlatinmamis I think as many authors that we should include in the scientific method list of 'founders' Andrea Vesalio, Galileo Galilei and Da Vinci between other which would give us about one century more of life for the Scicence as a method of knowledge (what science is).
Just my opinion.
Mugik17 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have reread your post several times and I must admit, as I was doing about two hours of replies and debates with people on here in rapid-fire succession, I misread a well-written post. I only skimmed it in this instance, and part of being intellectually honest is admitting when you did not take the time to really understand someone's point. I would NEVER feel silly for making a mistake of this kind, nor for apologizing to you. It only reminds me to read more carefully when without sleep.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 You don't think that comment is a little odd? You claim you stopped being a Christian when you 'became an intellectual' and 'started thinking for yourself'. What is John Lennox then? Surely he can't be unintellectual and not thinking for himself? What you are saying doesn't follow at all for many Christians.
Mylth 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 same here
ultraudv 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 Hey man, followed the same path as you...
Just wondering, looking at religion from the outside? Can it actually be so pathetically stupid and simple as it appears?
Or does the masses have a point and atheists are a bit egocentric?
Guardian9191 1 year ago
@Guardian9191 I think that atheism is a lot like calculus for most people. It's not intuitive at first and they do NOT want to learn it. Once you learn it, though, people who refuse to try to understand the basics of it and deny its validity look kind of dumb.
osgeek 1 year ago
@Guardian9191 Are Christians egocentric for not believing the Hindus? Are the Muslims egocentric for not believing the Zoroastrians? Are believers egocentric for thinking Atheism is wrong? Your question is ridiculous. Tired old accusations of Atheists being just a bit too smart for their own good. The most egocentric thing that any human being could possibly believe is that the creator of the universe is their best friend and he constantly does favors for them. And Atheists have egos???
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@Guardian9191 "Just wondering, looking at religion from the outside? Can it actually be so pathetically stupid and simple as it appears?"
Yes.
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
@andyrooney11 Good for you, brother...or sister! Have you tried Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet or Richard Dawkins also? I think you'd be equally impressed.
jonwalksred 1 year ago