@borgoff55 Yep. This guy bored me to tears and in an argumentative essay, you start out with your main point and prove it. So in this guys essay he showed his point. I don't really care to listen to an old man babble on about his opinion anyway. I don't really care whether or not god exists anyway, so I should probably stop paying attention to atheism v religion debates anyway.
@borgoff55 Yep. This guy bored me to tears and in an argumentative essay, you start out with your main point and prove it. So in this guys essay he showed his point. I don't really care to listen to an old man babble on about his opinion anyway. I don't really care whether or not god exists anyway, so I should probably stop paying attention to atheism v religion debates anyway.
@borgoff55 Yep. This guy bored me to tears and in an argumentative essay, you start out with your main point and prove it. So in this guys essay he showed his point. I don't really care to listen to an old man babble on about his opinion anyway. I don't really care whether or not god exists anyway, so I should probably stop paying attention to atheism v religion debates anyway.
@ashunga543 Oh, well, if a "justifiable reason" is all that is required, then theism has been providing those for thousands of years. Many people have many justifiable reasons for belief in a Higher Power. Unless you are conflating "justifiable reason" with "scientific reason", in which case you're putting a pretty big burden of proof on yourself to demonstrate that only what can be known scientifically is justifiable...
@CoryTheRaven "Unless you are conflating "justifiable reason" with "scientific reason" Really? is that a pretty big burden of proof? Perhaps I don't have the proof to explain that all possible things to be known are scientifically justifable. However, I can provide the proof that it is the BEST justifiable system in determining and explain reality, in comparason to anything else that has been proposed. Thus, we should use what is BEST and not what is merely wishfull thinking in my opinion.
@ashunga543 Best at explaining WHAT about reality? I can think of a great many things in my life which science says next to nothing about except that in involves chemicals floating around in my brain. Like Lennox, I am not a reductionist: describing the structure of complex systems does as much to explain the system as the chemistry of the pigments does to explain the content of a painting. You've still taken on the burden of proof to demonstrate that only what is scientific is real.
#1 @CoryTheRaven the content of the painting can all be understood through scientific processes. The psychology of the artist, the anthropological interpretation of culture that decifers meaning from the paitning, The biological and neurological reactions supporting a specific emotion response to the painting. The historic understanding that supports the cultural interpretation for contextual meaning behind a piece of art.
#2 @CoryTheRaven Does none of this seem able to demonstrate why we react or understand somthing in a specific manner? Or Why we derive a unique meaning that is subjective to ever person when they view a piece of art, through multiple scientific processes?
@ashunga543 You're still getting a fairly flat interpretation of a painting by reducing it to the scientific. To talk about its emotional effect in terms of neurology or its message in terms of cultural anthropology or the artist's intention in terms of psychology is a fairly academic approach that misses the most fundamental reality of a painting: a painting is meant to be experienced...
@CoryTheRaven "a painting is meant to be experienced..." ok sure, yes it is. That doesn't mean that experience is not an inherent response to all those academic approaches I listed. I'm not say that your not experiencing somthing, im simply saying the explanation for that experience is understood due to the result of those academic approaches.
@ashunga543 A physical explanation of that experience, sure. But that's not the whole experience. Neurology no better *explains* the effect of a painting on you than hormones *explains* your relationship with your partner. Once again you're talking about a very flat, reductionist idea of what counts as an explanation.
@ashunga543 ...For this I side with C.K. Chesterton (and to paraphrase him): Romanticism is more vital and real than rationalism because rationalism is life as someone sees it while romanticism is life as someone feels it.
Plus, if I was a New Atheist, then my logical conclusion from psychology, anthropology, biology, neurology, history, cultural understanding, etc. is that obviously because the effects can be understood scientificially, therefore there actually is no painting.
@CoryTheRaven "therefore there actually is no painting." I don't see your point. I can walk into an art museum, view a piece of art, understand that the value of this material item is simply a sociocultural construct. However, that doesn't mean I still can't appreciate it or experience it. Actually, being aware of its constructed value gives me a unique view on it the piece. I can also still appreciate the skill of the artist. It also doesn't mean Im not emotionally responsive.
@ashunga543 My point was a facetious stab at New Atheist reductionism which says that because religious experience can be understood neurologically and relighious institutions can be understood sociologically that therefore there are no gods (the genetic fallacy). By analogy, being able to study the chemical effects of a painting proves that there is no actual painting.
@CoryTheRaven O, well I think were missunderstanding each other as I would never be concluding these reasons as proof of no god, and I'm also in agreeance with you on New Athiest conclusions, as I feel the movement is too "Hard" Athiest than Soft, which is what I consider myself personally. I'm not attempting to make an arguement here to say the possibility of god is not possible.
#2 @CoryTheRaven Well what "counts" is going to be a subjective depending on the viewer/audience of a piece. Sure you could say "the painting provided me a spiritual experience as I observed." sure......That however doesn't guarantee truth though. The observer may "believe" its truth but I think the debate of spiritual vs non-spirtual is to attempt to justify whether its real or just a self-construction. Sure, if someone believes its a spiritual experience ok...so what then lol
@ashunga543 The only way someone's self-confession of a spiritual experience looking at a painting could be false is if they are lying. You are in absolutely no position to assertain otherwise whether or not they had a spiritual experience (I guess unless you had electrodes attached to their temporal lobes). Are you suggesting that if someone has a spiritual experience looking at a painting and you don't that THEY'RE not being truthful? How does subjectivity equate to not being true?
@CoryTheRaven No, I'm not suggesting they're lieing about there experience in being spiritual, but I am suggesting that it is valid possibility that they missinterpreting that experience to be spiritual. Now, I admit, it is 'technically' possibility that it is spirtual, but I think if we look in areas of Psychology and other academic fields it is considerably more "likely" thereby more "reasonable" to assume it isn't.
@ashunga543 You're committing the genetic fallacy by assuming that because a spiritual experience is neurologically structured that it is somehow not spiritual. If I were to attach electrodes to someone's temporal lobes and notice a spike in activity, I would take that as evidence of a real spiritual experience. How do you know that you're not the one misinterpreting things because of a philosophical commitment to reductionism and materialism?
@CoryTheRaven Actually, no, your assuming that i am commiting to the genetic fallacy, when I clearly stated and quote "Now, I admit, it is 'technically' possibility that it is spirtual." Never denieying in the possibility and commenting to give credit that I could possibly be wrong. I am not stateing absolutes in my arguements, so I may not fall into the genetic fallacy.
@CoryTheRaven "which puts the burden of proof back on you to demonstrate that the only things that are real are things that are physical." Well I feel then that is presented in areas of nerurology. Now I will admit im not an expert in that field, but I do have some understanding that 'ideas' and thoughts exist in the forms of chemical and electrical reactions in the brain. Which means then 'yes' they are physical and can be effect by the physical brain.
@CoryTheRaven The point i'm attepting to make is "what is the most credible system of determining what is real." In examples such as "Beauty," to see if it actually is real, I simply think of it in this manner: If humans were not around, "would beauty still exist?" From how I see it, no. As the scientific evidence (specifically psychological evidence) reveal, "beauty" is a mental construction. However, does that guarantee it could be spiritual..sure, but why would I assume otherwise?
Yes, and that makes it real. Whether or not the concept of beauty would exist if there were no minds around to contemplate it is irrelevant because there ARE minds around to contemplate it. It exists as an idea. It is very much a part of our reality.
Unless you're reducing "real" to "physically measurable", which puts the burden of proof back on you to demonstrate that the only things that are real are things that are physical.
@ashunga543 You put the same burden of proof on yourself by stating that any beliefs arrived at irrationally are necessarily delusions. Rationality is only one human faculty. By stating that only it is reliable, you have deemed empiricism, aesthetics, amotions, intuition, imagination, revelation and every other cognitive process to be delusional... Apparently beauty, as an example, is a delusion because finding a person or a scene beautiful is not an analytical, rational process.
Truth isn't a consideration. Science looks at evidence and measurements. ALL measurements are approximations. So "truth" isn't a consideration, only how accurate and precise the measurements are, and what the most parsimonious theories are to explain the data.
Truth isn't a consideration. Science looks at evidence and measurements. ALL measurements are approximations. So "truth" isn't a consideration, only how accurate and precise the measurements are, and what the most parsimonious theories are to explain the data.
Sigmund Freud was a fraud, who allowed the ladies of Austria to speak naughty against a fee which did allright for him. It did not make him an authority on theology, though.
I actually find this guys pretty funny. His argument style is very aware of the audience he wants to reach. His method is not to draw conclusion but to use a kind of rhetoric that creates apparent hole in the athiest argument, then he leaves it to his christian listener to fill the gap he has made with god... in all, a useless contribution.
No, wait, possibly. Depends on what kind of athiest your talking about, one that is so on the basis of science, or one tha is so on the basis of not believeing in a god. For the latter your comment could be true, however, I in all my optimism would expect that an athiest based on science would not have this approach, they would constantly test their own theories and try to disprove their own works, thus every time they fail to disprove it, they strengthen it. Get what im saying?
@thag0dfather11 Yep, I follow you. However, all atheists' beliefs are essentially stating a disbelief in God. Some find their intellectual reasons for disbelief more in science than in other aspects of consciousness, culture, or history. I guess my point was that, basically, most atheistic arguments against God are attempts to point out logical fallacies in belief in God. I concede that much of Christian Apologetics is really just the same method applied in a different way.
For fuck sake. Every time you get this Stalin and Hitler crap. The crimes they commited were not commited in the name of atheism but because of some other psychopathic ideology.
@sebah1991 really? Is that why in the Soviet Union Atheism was declared "the only scientific truth" and religion "the opium of the masses", and the fact that 21 million orthodox christians where shot dead in the gulags? You cant b.s your way into saying religion justifies violence therefore it sucks, but when we find coffins in the history of your lack of belief, you say "ah well, they just happen to be atheist". Biggest cop out ever.......
In my opinion, Lennox has brought forward very interesting arguments and examples. However all these statements he has made can be countered by simple facts and simple questions, whether they are science based or not. I am atheist myself and I believe that faith in god is irrational because there is no evidence to believe in him.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper ....saying there is no evidence to believe in God, is like looking at the Mona Lisa in a museum and saying there is no evidence to believe that Leonardo DaVinci ever existed.
based on that logic: who created the "beautiful" thing that is god?
The problem with god (the creator) is that he cannot be excused from the laws of our world. My biggest issue with him is that he stands hand-folded as crimes and disasters keep taking lives every day. If i were god, I'd send my angels to save us, not hidden, but on the surface so everyone can believe. Doesn't that make more sense than toying with us and our faith?
@GaryLyons what a horrible analogy. We know DaVinci lived, c'mon that's the best you can do. The actual painting is evidence. If the mona lisa just appeared w/o ownership then you're analogy would work. I think you're trying to get at the fact that we are here clearly god exists. But y would god take such extreme measures to hide himself. If i created a masterpiece, be sure everyone would know. Don't give me that free will/choose to worship bs neither.
@lordrazr~ exactomundo my friend! You said: "The actual painting is evidence." ~ Amen, just like the actual universe is evidence for God, because it is absolutely impossible for the Mona Lisa to just come together by chance and purely naturalistic means without a mind behind it because there is obvious intelligibity behind it. Same goes with the universe, there is obvious intelligibility behind it, so obviously it is impossible for it to come about by purely chance and naturalistic means. Amen!~
@GaryLyons for those of us who thought the universe was art work. There is no intelligence behind the universe bro. Every second a star dies; galaxies colliding into each other; gamma ray bursts that destroy everything in there path for light years; black holes; asteroids, etc. That's evidence for design? Now you're going to have give an example of this intelligent design you're talking about, b/c i dont see it.
@lordrazr ...start with DNA...do you not know that there is more information in one single DNA molecule than there is in the entire congressional library? And this is intelligent information. Information comes from a mind, not by accident and purely naturlaistic means. No wonder Psalm 19:1 says - "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
@GaryLyons yeah it had billions of years to develop.So this creator did one thing well you're saying,failed at everything else.I mean i gave you 5 and could've given a lot more, you gave me 1.That same DNA also replicates viruses,when infiltrated as well, that's not too intelligent. FYI it codes for proteins, four letters (ACTG), it doesnt literally store information like a computer. Simple binary could have sufficed, don't need four letters. What ur reading now only uses 2, god sux he needs 4.
@lordrazr "This is the verdict; God has given us eternal life; this life is in His Son. Those who have the Son have life, those who do not have the Son of God do not have life." (1 John 5:11-12)
@lordrazr ~everyone on the planet can believe anything they want. But the cool thing about truth is that it remains true no matter who believes what. And the truth applies to all of humanity no matter how intensely the lie is embraced. You can certainly reject God, refuse His grace in Jesus. And then the truth will still apply to you & God will give you exactly what you want in the end. All eternity separated from Him. Hebrews 9:27 - "It is appointed for man to die once; then the judgement."
@GaryLyons Any long molecule has about the same information as an equally long strand of DNA. Take a cup of sand. Write down the exact weight, shape, color, and position of EVERY grain of sand in that cup. That is INFORMATION, and it was IN a CUP OF SAND because that's where you got it.
In Shannon information, one bit is answering one, yes/no question, for the receiver. If a parent is watching a birth, and someone waves a blue blanket him, that blanket is one bit of information: boy
@GaryLyons said "it is absolutely impossible for the Mona Lisa to just come together by chance and purely naturalistic means without a mind behind it"
Are you joking? Get a canvas the same size as the ML. Figure out some random way of pouring, spattering, brushing, etc a lot of paint on it
Now take THAT random painting, AND the Mona Lisa, and have some third, random painter exactly match EITHER ONE of them. If you give it long enough, it will duplicate both, but no way to tell which one first
@GaryLyons No, we know how that sort of painting is manufactured. We can often tell whether a painting is real or not by seeing whether the minerals in the paint were available to the artist at that time.
OTOH, if you take a Da Vinvci painting, and a totally random painting of the same size, a random painter could make an exact duplicate of either, and there is no way to predict which one would happen first.
He has bad arguments. Its a perfectly rational evolutionary strategy to propagandise gullible people with irrational religious bullshit to maintain a cosy academic position or be a priest. Not to mention the added incentive of all the false adoration and respect you get from brainwashed and conforming fools to boost your ego and wallet.
the discoveries in science are such a bad example because you don't believe in science, it's not the same brain process. anyone who does not understand as much is simply an imbecile.
Oh dear... after reading some of the comments here from @blopajmbar62 and others... I feel sorry for you guys... it scares me that anyone could be impressed by the empty ramblings of this clown
If John Lennox is one of the finest Christian academics, then they don't have a lot to say. I listened closely to this video and what I heard was a load of waffle, BS and plain old obfuscation.
His point wrt science being based on "faith" (and so must be delusional) is rubbish. Scientific research often begins with someone having a "belief" ("faith") wrt how something works, but science drops these beliefs in the face of no/weak evidence, following the research. It's not blind/baseless faith!!
I love all this "Oh Dawkins got owned, Hitcens and Dawkins get owned all the time" silliness. That's all subjective, and opinion, and nobody can say for a fact who wins a debate without taking polls before and after the debates to measure the impact it had on the audience, and every time I saw Dawkins or Hitchens in a debate against people where this happened, they in fact, did win.
@sonofthunder79 Also, Intelligence Squared had a rather larege 3v3 debate with both Hitchens AND Dawkins on the atheistic side concerning whether or not atheism was the new fundamentalism...guess who won?
@summiter07 "it's not arrogance when you can back it up" said one Mohamed Allie. it's the truth. it's the truth , this genius owned Dawkins. i've seen many debates of dawkins and hitches owning christians like crazy and im not afraid or ashame to say it but this time im being honest when i say this guy owned those guys ;)
@blopajmbar62 Dinesh D'Souza, Frank Turek, there's actually quite a few guys the just own Dawkins, and Hitchens. John Lennox does do it with such ezz though, lot of fun to watch. Fact is Dawkins and hitchens really don't have much to stand on, both are speaking in field they have no expertise in. Dawkins should really stay in the lab, as Dinesh D' Souza has insisted so many times, and Hitchens should stick to politics.
@callofduty497 " even the highest-rated-commenters who hate on D'Souza and O'Reilly do not even dare to mock Lennox's unearthly intellect. "
- Oh they dare mock him, and they successfully mock him...all the time.
I agree he's better than D'Souza and O'Reilly.. but then again, there's forms of plant life that are more convincing than those two....so it's not a huge recommendation.
Ahem: There is a God. That is my opinion. If you don't like it, then that's your problem. You are free to bleat on by using caricatures and straw men, then thinking the arguments are sound as much as you like.
@assym2006 i also looked at your history of comments and noted with curiosity that you post the grossly generic phrase "There is no God" on all sorts of christian vids. not sure how many people your persuading there if that's your goal and im not sure what else your goal could be.
@assym2006 I'm not arguing semantics here. sure there are Christians out there that don't necessarily practice the love part that Jesus stressed. And Christians troll too. Does it make it acceptable? No. not really. So how about that further evidence to support your trol-I mean comment?
@assym2006 listen im all for opinions. however, when you say something like that on a video like this its obvious you just want a response. so i gave you one. if you want to conduct yourself in a semi-intelligent manner, then provide further evidence of your claim.
@max2right wow you are so right. haha just kidding. why would make such an extreme, (not to mention obviously false) statement? please, why in the world would you say this? help me understand
So, I'm 3:15 in and he's yet to make any rational argument at all. He doesn't understand any of the topics he's brought up. I can't listen to him any more. He's clearly an idiot.
@Antifides The paradox of this statement is that rationality and reason are founded on faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. Furthermore, I would argue that very few people would actually agree with your assessment of the first 3:15 of this video.
@jlangston23 Faith is belief without evidence or logical support. Rationality is based on evidence and logical support. These two terms do not go together.
As they say, truth is not a popularity contest. Whether many people agree that he doesn't make rational arguments is irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't make rational arguments.
@ivlfounder Faith is one of the most delusional and useless things a human can have. Your statement ranks up there with "ignorance is awesome" and "idiocy is great."
If faith is so great, I want you to have faith that there's a powerful dark spirit behind you at all times, and it can and will kill you whenever it feels like it... like now? Or now!
@ivlfounder "very highly respected scientists were starting to say motor driven flight was impossible." This is an argument from authority, a logical fallacy.
"Every attempt before them had failed." So? Birds demonstrate that it's possible.
@ivlfounder If they had not tried because "highly respected scientists were saying it was impossible" then they would have succumbed to a logical fallacy.
Yes well assuming that's true my memory is that an argument from authority fallacy only exists when the "authority" is not an authority on the topic at hand.
@ivlfounder An argument from authority means that the authority's opinion is being accepted on his credentials alone, rather than actual evidence.
Physicists may have many differing opinions on physics; you could probably cite two contradicting opinions on a single physics subject from physicists; that is why arguments from authority are fallacies.
@jlangston23 And that, is how logic works; if it can support a false conclusion, it isn't logical. That's how I tell the difference.
@ivlfounder It's good that they used logic, in face of scientific authorities telling them they were wrong; you know, the logic that arguments of authority aren't valid.
@ivlfounder Let's put it this way, unless you can prove they were acting on faith and not, say, scientific knowledge and a desire to accomplish what no one else had, you're just fabricating this whole idea of yours that faith is beneficial in some way.
@Antifides Again, you are acting on faith - this time, in what you believe to be rational. Can you prove why one thing is rational and why another thing is irrational? Why should not good logic be just as misleading as bad logic? Furthermore, beliefs are founded on faith! Definition of 'Belief' according to the Oxford-English Dictionary 1. The mental action, condition, or habit, of trusting to or confiding in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance, confidence, FAITH.
@Antifides And your proof is? Ask yourself why should rational thinking not be just as misguided as rational thinking? Why is being rational more favorable than irrational? Is it rational or irrational to assert that the material world itself is nothing more than a reflection of the imagination and why is this so? Is it rational to assert that everything can be answer by the natural sciences?
@Antifides What evidence? Isn't what you perceive to be evidence perceived in the mind? Again, to believe anything has a certain leap of faith involved as I have already addressed. So again, you are acting on faith in asserting that it is rational.
@jlangston23 I really wish you would stop claiming that faith, which is a subset of belief, is an underpinning of belief.
Faith is only faith if it lacks evidence.
I have evidence for the function of my senses. Yes, that evidence is flawed in that it is perceived by my senses, but I am not aware of any alternatives.
Between the options "reality exists" and "reality doesn't exist," I have evidence for the first and none for the second.
@Antifides As I have already stated, belief is grounded on faith and its definition supports this. As such, what you BELIEVE to be rational or irrational, good logic or bad logic, good reasoning or bad reasoning is all a matter of faith. When you say that "truth is not a popularity contest" and that whether people agree is irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't make rational arguments, this begs the question of how any one knows that what they think is rational & irrational is the truth.
@Antifides The fact of the matter is that faith is an intrinsic quality of homo sapiens, whether it is faith in God, science, a spouse, or any other belief. I recognize this, and have come at peace with this. I have friends who are atheist as well as agnostic who will also point out that this is indeed the case. In fact, one of my atheist friends pointed out that by him believing in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, he is taking a leap of faith by doing so.
Singularities will always be argued. Creation, Jesus Christ, and even the end of time is argued within Christian circles. Hardened hearts created by pride and jest make the truth harder to come by. Pride and half-blind intellect is a defense mechanism for those who are afraid of the truth.
@SymphonicVoice "Creation, Jesus Christ, and even the end of time is argued within Christian circles." It certainly is because science rather than closing the gaps on God , is increasingly showing that the universe began to exist and is heading towards heatdeath as all usable energy is lost into the darkness of the abyss. And yes No ancient history professor has the slightest doubt as to the historicity of Jesus. Ah yes, hardness of hearts & pride do make accountability & truth illusory.
The science with faith is the greatest thing in this century. The professor is truly the leading scientist
cheretien66 3 weeks ago
Sounds like a majority of his argument is "IF God exists".
PcCAvioN 2 months ago
@PcCAvioN Not a majority, but still. Circumstantial evidence doesn't stand in a court.
PcCAvioN 2 months ago
@PcCAvioN good job watching the first 3 mintues
borgoff55 1 month ago
@borgoff55 Yep. This guy bored me to tears and in an argumentative essay, you start out with your main point and prove it. So in this guys essay he showed his point. I don't really care to listen to an old man babble on about his opinion anyway. I don't really care whether or not god exists anyway, so I should probably stop paying attention to atheism v religion debates anyway.
PcCAvioN 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@borgoff55 Yep. This guy bored me to tears and in an argumentative essay, you start out with your main point and prove it. So in this guys essay he showed his point. I don't really care to listen to an old man babble on about his opinion anyway. I don't really care whether or not god exists anyway, so I should probably stop paying attention to atheism v religion debates anyway.
PcCAvioN 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@borgoff55 Yep. This guy bored me to tears and in an argumentative essay, you start out with your main point and prove it. So in this guys essay he showed his point. I don't really care to listen to an old man babble on about his opinion anyway. I don't really care whether or not god exists anyway, so I should probably stop paying attention to atheism v religion debates anyway.
PcCAvioN 1 month ago
@PcCAvioN Sorry for repeating myself with "I don't really care...", I got distracted and lost my flow.
PcCAvioN 1 month ago
"i will not swear allegiance to the atheistic state" stopped watching right there. This guy is fucking retarded.
armandlluka 2 months ago
@armandlluka stop watching it, stop asking questions keep on being an ignorant atheist lol
6gunwalker 1 month ago 3
"why is belief in the toothfairy a delusion? because it doesn't exist."
no, its a delusion because its irrational and has no justifiable reason to believe it exist.
Techniquelly the toothfairy could exist, its just delusional to assume it would be.
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 Oh, well, if a "justifiable reason" is all that is required, then theism has been providing those for thousands of years. Many people have many justifiable reasons for belief in a Higher Power. Unless you are conflating "justifiable reason" with "scientific reason", in which case you're putting a pretty big burden of proof on yourself to demonstrate that only what can be known scientifically is justifiable...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven "Unless you are conflating "justifiable reason" with "scientific reason" Really? is that a pretty big burden of proof? Perhaps I don't have the proof to explain that all possible things to be known are scientifically justifable. However, I can provide the proof that it is the BEST justifiable system in determining and explain reality, in comparason to anything else that has been proposed. Thus, we should use what is BEST and not what is merely wishfull thinking in my opinion.
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 Best at explaining WHAT about reality? I can think of a great many things in my life which science says next to nothing about except that in involves chemicals floating around in my brain. Like Lennox, I am not a reductionist: describing the structure of complex systems does as much to explain the system as the chemistry of the pigments does to explain the content of a painting. You've still taken on the burden of proof to demonstrate that only what is scientific is real.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
#1 @CoryTheRaven the content of the painting can all be understood through scientific processes. The psychology of the artist, the anthropological interpretation of culture that decifers meaning from the paitning, The biological and neurological reactions supporting a specific emotion response to the painting. The historic understanding that supports the cultural interpretation for contextual meaning behind a piece of art.
ashunga543 3 months ago
#2 @CoryTheRaven Does none of this seem able to demonstrate why we react or understand somthing in a specific manner? Or Why we derive a unique meaning that is subjective to ever person when they view a piece of art, through multiple scientific processes?
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 You're still getting a fairly flat interpretation of a painting by reducing it to the scientific. To talk about its emotional effect in terms of neurology or its message in terms of cultural anthropology or the artist's intention in terms of psychology is a fairly academic approach that misses the most fundamental reality of a painting: a painting is meant to be experienced...
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven "a painting is meant to be experienced..." ok sure, yes it is. That doesn't mean that experience is not an inherent response to all those academic approaches I listed. I'm not say that your not experiencing somthing, im simply saying the explanation for that experience is understood due to the result of those academic approaches.
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 A physical explanation of that experience, sure. But that's not the whole experience. Neurology no better *explains* the effect of a painting on you than hormones *explains* your relationship with your partner. Once again you're talking about a very flat, reductionist idea of what counts as an explanation.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
Comment removed
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 ...For this I side with C.K. Chesterton (and to paraphrase him): Romanticism is more vital and real than rationalism because rationalism is life as someone sees it while romanticism is life as someone feels it.
Plus, if I was a New Atheist, then my logical conclusion from psychology, anthropology, biology, neurology, history, cultural understanding, etc. is that obviously because the effects can be understood scientificially, therefore there actually is no painting.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven "therefore there actually is no painting." I don't see your point. I can walk into an art museum, view a piece of art, understand that the value of this material item is simply a sociocultural construct. However, that doesn't mean I still can't appreciate it or experience it. Actually, being aware of its constructed value gives me a unique view on it the piece. I can also still appreciate the skill of the artist. It also doesn't mean Im not emotionally responsive.
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 My point was a facetious stab at New Atheist reductionism which says that because religious experience can be understood neurologically and relighious institutions can be understood sociologically that therefore there are no gods (the genetic fallacy). By analogy, being able to study the chemical effects of a painting proves that there is no actual painting.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven O, well I think were missunderstanding each other as I would never be concluding these reasons as proof of no god, and I'm also in agreeance with you on New Athiest conclusions, as I feel the movement is too "Hard" Athiest than Soft, which is what I consider myself personally. I'm not attempting to make an arguement here to say the possibility of god is not possible.
ashunga543 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
#2 @CoryTheRaven Well what "counts" is going to be a subjective depending on the viewer/audience of a piece. Sure you could say "the painting provided me a spiritual experience as I observed." sure......That however doesn't guarantee truth though. The observer may "believe" its truth but I think the debate of spiritual vs non-spirtual is to attempt to justify whether its real or just a self-construction. Sure, if someone believes its a spiritual experience ok...so what then lol
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 The only way someone's self-confession of a spiritual experience looking at a painting could be false is if they are lying. You are in absolutely no position to assertain otherwise whether or not they had a spiritual experience (I guess unless you had electrodes attached to their temporal lobes). Are you suggesting that if someone has a spiritual experience looking at a painting and you don't that THEY'RE not being truthful? How does subjectivity equate to not being true?
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven No, I'm not suggesting they're lieing about there experience in being spiritual, but I am suggesting that it is valid possibility that they missinterpreting that experience to be spiritual. Now, I admit, it is 'technically' possibility that it is spirtual, but I think if we look in areas of Psychology and other academic fields it is considerably more "likely" thereby more "reasonable" to assume it isn't.
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 You're committing the genetic fallacy by assuming that because a spiritual experience is neurologically structured that it is somehow not spiritual. If I were to attach electrodes to someone's temporal lobes and notice a spike in activity, I would take that as evidence of a real spiritual experience. How do you know that you're not the one misinterpreting things because of a philosophical commitment to reductionism and materialism?
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven Actually, no, your assuming that i am commiting to the genetic fallacy, when I clearly stated and quote "Now, I admit, it is 'technically' possibility that it is spirtual." Never denieying in the possibility and commenting to give credit that I could possibly be wrong. I am not stateing absolutes in my arguements, so I may not fall into the genetic fallacy.
ashunga543 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven "which puts the burden of proof back on you to demonstrate that the only things that are real are things that are physical." Well I feel then that is presented in areas of nerurology. Now I will admit im not an expert in that field, but I do have some understanding that 'ideas' and thoughts exist in the forms of chemical and electrical reactions in the brain. Which means then 'yes' they are physical and can be effect by the physical brain.
ashunga543 3 months ago
Comment removed
ashunga543 3 months ago
@CoryTheRaven The point i'm attepting to make is "what is the most credible system of determining what is real." In examples such as "Beauty," to see if it actually is real, I simply think of it in this manner: If humans were not around, "would beauty still exist?" From how I see it, no. As the scientific evidence (specifically psychological evidence) reveal, "beauty" is a mental construction. However, does that guarantee it could be spiritual..sure, but why would I assume otherwise?
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 ""beauty" is a mental construction."
Yes, and that makes it real. Whether or not the concept of beauty would exist if there were no minds around to contemplate it is irrelevant because there ARE minds around to contemplate it. It exists as an idea. It is very much a part of our reality.
Unless you're reducing "real" to "physically measurable", which puts the burden of proof back on you to demonstrate that the only things that are real are things that are physical.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
Comment removed
ashunga543 3 months ago
@ashunga543 You put the same burden of proof on yourself by stating that any beliefs arrived at irrationally are necessarily delusions. Rationality is only one human faculty. By stating that only it is reliable, you have deemed empiricism, aesthetics, amotions, intuition, imagination, revelation and every other cognitive process to be delusional... Apparently beauty, as an example, is a delusion because finding a person or a scene beautiful is not an analytical, rational process.
CoryTheRaven 3 months ago
didn't convince me..im still an athiest. and getting prouder by the day.
euroman32589 3 months ago
Truth isn't a consideration. Science looks at evidence and measurements. ALL measurements are approximations. So "truth" isn't a consideration, only how accurate and precise the measurements are, and what the most parsimonious theories are to explain the data.
xyxxyplughxyzzy 3 months ago
Truth isn't a consideration. Science looks at evidence and measurements. ALL measurements are approximations. So "truth" isn't a consideration, only how accurate and precise the measurements are, and what the most parsimonious theories are to explain the data.
xyxxyplughxyzzy 3 months ago
Sigmund Freud was a fraud, who allowed the ladies of Austria to speak naughty against a fee which did allright for him. It did not make him an authority on theology, though.
CJFCarlsson 4 months ago
why do people relate atheists to socialists?
mamushi72sai5575 5 months ago
@mamushi72sai5575
Why do people relate Christians to terrorist bombers or Hitler?
Good question, thats the point that Dr John Lennox was making.
H0tkebab 4 months ago
I actually find this guys pretty funny. His argument style is very aware of the audience he wants to reach. His method is not to draw conclusion but to use a kind of rhetoric that creates apparent hole in the athiest argument, then he leaves it to his christian listener to fill the gap he has made with god... in all, a useless contribution.
thag0dfather11 7 months ago
@thag0dfather11 Isn't that exactly what atheists do?!
GeetarAdam 7 months ago
@GeetarAdam did you read his comment?
Kingding6 7 months ago
@Kingding6 I guess not. The comment of yours that I replied to didn't seem to be a reply to someone else. I may have been mistaken. It happens. :)
GeetarAdam 7 months ago
@GeetarAdam
No, wait, possibly. Depends on what kind of athiest your talking about, one that is so on the basis of science, or one tha is so on the basis of not believeing in a god. For the latter your comment could be true, however, I in all my optimism would expect that an athiest based on science would not have this approach, they would constantly test their own theories and try to disprove their own works, thus every time they fail to disprove it, they strengthen it. Get what im saying?
thag0dfather11 6 months ago
@thag0dfather11 Yep, I follow you. However, all atheists' beliefs are essentially stating a disbelief in God. Some find their intellectual reasons for disbelief more in science than in other aspects of consciousness, culture, or history. I guess my point was that, basically, most atheistic arguments against God are attempts to point out logical fallacies in belief in God. I concede that much of Christian Apologetics is really just the same method applied in a different way.
GeetarAdam 6 months ago
Argh this disgusting lying bag of shit makes me want to vomit...
bary1234 7 months ago
Wow, well said.
NorthNorth2009 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why does God rape his children : (
codownni 7 months ago
@assym2006
I think you spelt 'guy' wrong oh incredibly intelligent, immeasurably perceptive, highly enlightened being...oh wait
ch0s3nd3r 7 months ago 5
Intellectually weak speaker. Good stories that tell us nothing.
twiedenfeld 7 months ago
@twiedenfeld
nothing YOU want to hear you mean. nothing YOU want to give credibility to it seems
ch0s3nd3r 7 months ago
@assym2006 you will be come a christian.
mrmockle 8 months ago
For fuck sake. Every time you get this Stalin and Hitler crap. The crimes they commited were not commited in the name of atheism but because of some other psychopathic ideology.
sebah1991 8 months ago
@sebah1991 really? Is that why in the Soviet Union Atheism was declared "the only scientific truth" and religion "the opium of the masses", and the fact that 21 million orthodox christians where shot dead in the gulags? You cant b.s your way into saying religion justifies violence therefore it sucks, but when we find coffins in the history of your lack of belief, you say "ah well, they just happen to be atheist". Biggest cop out ever.......
jamaicanification 7 months ago
In my opinion, Lennox has brought forward very interesting arguments and examples. However all these statements he has made can be countered by simple facts and simple questions, whether they are science based or not. I am atheist myself and I believe that faith in god is irrational because there is no evidence to believe in him.
maxah1 8 months ago
@maxah1 "I believe that faith in god is irrational because there is no evidence to believe in him."
Faith means you believe without evidence.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 8 months ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper ....saying there is no evidence to believe in God, is like looking at the Mona Lisa in a museum and saying there is no evidence to believe that Leonardo DaVinci ever existed.
GaryLyons 7 months ago
@GaryLyons I agree with that analogy. Very true in fact.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 7 months ago
@GaryLyons
based on that logic: who created the "beautiful" thing that is god?
The problem with god (the creator) is that he cannot be excused from the laws of our world. My biggest issue with him is that he stands hand-folded as crimes and disasters keep taking lives every day. If i were god, I'd send my angels to save us, not hidden, but on the surface so everyone can believe. Doesn't that make more sense than toying with us and our faith?
cloudincloudout 7 months ago
@GaryLyons what a horrible analogy. We know DaVinci lived, c'mon that's the best you can do. The actual painting is evidence. If the mona lisa just appeared w/o ownership then you're analogy would work. I think you're trying to get at the fact that we are here clearly god exists. But y would god take such extreme measures to hide himself. If i created a masterpiece, be sure everyone would know. Don't give me that free will/choose to worship bs neither.
lordrazr 4 months ago
@lordrazr~ exactomundo my friend! You said: "The actual painting is evidence." ~ Amen, just like the actual universe is evidence for God, because it is absolutely impossible for the Mona Lisa to just come together by chance and purely naturalistic means without a mind behind it because there is obvious intelligibity behind it. Same goes with the universe, there is obvious intelligibility behind it, so obviously it is impossible for it to come about by purely chance and naturalistic means. Amen!~
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@GaryLyons for those of us who thought the universe was art work. There is no intelligence behind the universe bro. Every second a star dies; galaxies colliding into each other; gamma ray bursts that destroy everything in there path for light years; black holes; asteroids, etc. That's evidence for design? Now you're going to have give an example of this intelligent design you're talking about, b/c i dont see it.
lordrazr 4 months ago
@lordrazr ...start with DNA...do you not know that there is more information in one single DNA molecule than there is in the entire congressional library? And this is intelligent information. Information comes from a mind, not by accident and purely naturlaistic means. No wonder Psalm 19:1 says - "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@GaryLyons yeah it had billions of years to develop.So this creator did one thing well you're saying,failed at everything else.I mean i gave you 5 and could've given a lot more, you gave me 1.That same DNA also replicates viruses,when infiltrated as well, that's not too intelligent. FYI it codes for proteins, four letters (ACTG), it doesnt literally store information like a computer. Simple binary could have sufficed, don't need four letters. What ur reading now only uses 2, god sux he needs 4.
lordrazr 4 months ago
@lordrazr "This is the verdict; God has given us eternal life; this life is in His Son. Those who have the Son have life, those who do not have the Son of God do not have life." (1 John 5:11-12)
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@GaryLyons Oh now im convinced!
lordrazr 4 months ago
@lordrazr ~everyone on the planet can believe anything they want. But the cool thing about truth is that it remains true no matter who believes what. And the truth applies to all of humanity no matter how intensely the lie is embraced. You can certainly reject God, refuse His grace in Jesus. And then the truth will still apply to you & God will give you exactly what you want in the end. All eternity separated from Him. Hebrews 9:27 - "It is appointed for man to die once; then the judgement."
GaryLyons 4 months ago
@GaryLyons Any long molecule has about the same information as an equally long strand of DNA. Take a cup of sand. Write down the exact weight, shape, color, and position of EVERY grain of sand in that cup. That is INFORMATION, and it was IN a CUP OF SAND because that's where you got it.
In Shannon information, one bit is answering one, yes/no question, for the receiver. If a parent is watching a birth, and someone waves a blue blanket him, that blanket is one bit of information: boy
xyxxyplughxyzzy 3 months ago
@GaryLyons said "it is absolutely impossible for the Mona Lisa to just come together by chance and purely naturalistic means without a mind behind it"
Are you joking? Get a canvas the same size as the ML. Figure out some random way of pouring, spattering, brushing, etc a lot of paint on it
Now take THAT random painting, AND the Mona Lisa, and have some third, random painter exactly match EITHER ONE of them. If you give it long enough, it will duplicate both, but no way to tell which one first
xyxxyplughxyzzy 3 months ago
@GaryLyons No, we know how that sort of painting is manufactured. We can often tell whether a painting is real or not by seeing whether the minerals in the paint were available to the artist at that time.
OTOH, if you take a Da Vinvci painting, and a totally random painting of the same size, a random painter could make an exact duplicate of either, and there is no way to predict which one would happen first.
xyxxyplughxyzzy 3 months ago
He has bad arguments. Its a perfectly rational evolutionary strategy to propagandise gullible people with irrational religious bullshit to maintain a cosy academic position or be a priest. Not to mention the added incentive of all the false adoration and respect you get from brainwashed and conforming fools to boost your ego and wallet.
spudboyspud 8 months ago
this fat guy makes me laugh. :D
also, ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION !!!
the discoveries in science are such a bad example because you don't believe in science, it's not the same brain process. anyone who does not understand as much is simply an imbecile.
din80s 8 months ago
Oh dear... after reading some of the comments here from @blopajmbar62 and others... I feel sorry for you guys... it scares me that anyone could be impressed by the empty ramblings of this clown
nefmot 9 months ago
If John Lennox is one of the finest Christian academics, then they don't have a lot to say. I listened closely to this video and what I heard was a load of waffle, BS and plain old obfuscation.
His point wrt science being based on "faith" (and so must be delusional) is rubbish. Scientific research often begins with someone having a "belief" ("faith") wrt how something works, but science drops these beliefs in the face of no/weak evidence, following the research. It's not blind/baseless faith!!
nefmot 9 months ago
This guy doesn't actually say anything. The biggest bag of wind I've ever heard. What an ass.
MrJIMMY3009 9 months ago
I love all this "Oh Dawkins got owned, Hitcens and Dawkins get owned all the time" silliness. That's all subjective, and opinion, and nobody can say for a fact who wins a debate without taking polls before and after the debates to measure the impact it had on the audience, and every time I saw Dawkins or Hitchens in a debate against people where this happened, they in fact, did win.
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi Well, apparently you didn't see these debates, because they , in fact, did lose.
sonofthunder79 10 months ago
@sonofthunder79 Really? Richard Dawkins debates John Maynard Smith. Look that up and come back to me.
BigLundi 10 months ago
@sonofthunder79 Also, Intelligence Squared had a rather larege 3v3 debate with both Hitchens AND Dawkins on the atheistic side concerning whether or not atheism was the new fundamentalism...guess who won?
BigLundi 10 months ago
@BigLundi The atheists did. By a large margin. Like they have in every single debate I've ever seen.
NikTheJew 8 months ago
@NikTheJew Thank you. :)
BigLundi 8 months ago
I have so much respect for John Lennox.
Seracinfinity 10 months ago
Thank God for this Man.
iftheyonlynew 11 months ago
No wonder Dawkins crushed Lennox in thier debate his arguments are so silly.
wowamonn 11 months ago
@wowamonn Did you watch the debate? Dawkins Said why he doesn't believe in a God. Lennox Gave a reason why he does.
Lennox said half the words of Dawkins And twice as much context.
commenteh 11 months ago
@commenteh I did watched the debate. Lennox arguments were shallow, silly and very, very weak.
wowamonn 11 months ago
@wowamonn hahahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahahahahhaa
JamesWitte 9 months ago
Lennox's arguments are ridiculous. Is he a solipsist?
DaGavinX 1 year ago
This genius owned Dawkins in the 2 debates they had . Hitchens could not stand a chance. That's what happens to arrogant atheists haha
blopajmbar62 1 year ago 17
@blopajmbar62
Doesn't this statement show your own arrogance as a theist? It is this attitude that pins Christians as bigots and insensitive
summiter07 1 year ago
@summiter07 "it's not arrogance when you can back it up" said one Mohamed Allie. it's the truth. it's the truth , this genius owned Dawkins. i've seen many debates of dawkins and hitches owning christians like crazy and im not afraid or ashame to say it but this time im being honest when i say this guy owned those guys ;)
blopajmbar62 1 year ago
@blopajmbar62 Dinesh D'Souza, Frank Turek, there's actually quite a few guys the just own Dawkins, and Hitchens. John Lennox does do it with such ezz though, lot of fun to watch. Fact is Dawkins and hitchens really don't have much to stand on, both are speaking in field they have no expertise in. Dawkins should really stay in the lab, as Dinesh D' Souza has insisted so many times, and Hitchens should stick to politics.
TrueTaike 11 months ago
@blopajmbar62 hITCHENS is not a strong debater.......Dawkins is the best
awuahnsiah 10 months ago
Lmao!
KevinVang1000 5 months ago
@blopajmbar62 Lol the only arrogance I see here is the arrogance of thinking that the other side is arrogant.
Ranokian 3 months ago
Darkins does not debate therefore he stops the intellectual thinking for all.
Dr. John Lennox on the other hand encourages intellectual thinking in the Christian & Atheist realm.
hyrocket 1 year ago
Lenox is confusing blind-faith with evidence-based faith.
SINTAXFREE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@callofduty497 " even the highest-rated-commenters who hate on D'Souza and O'Reilly do not even dare to mock Lennox's unearthly intellect. "
- Oh they dare mock him, and they successfully mock him...all the time.
I agree he's better than D'Souza and O'Reilly.. but then again, there's forms of plant life that are more convincing than those two....so it's not a huge recommendation.
Not sure how that uplifts you.
Roper122 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@assym2006
Yeah you're right about that, but people who don't agree with you and feel you're just here to troll have the right express that opinion too.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@assym2006
Ahem: There is a God. That is my opinion. If you don't like it, then that's your problem. You are free to bleat on by using caricatures and straw men, then thinking the arguments are sound as much as you like.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@assym2006 i also looked at your history of comments and noted with curiosity that you post the grossly generic phrase "There is no God" on all sorts of christian vids. not sure how many people your persuading there if that's your goal and im not sure what else your goal could be.
santisevenX 1 year ago
@assym2006 I'm not arguing semantics here. sure there are Christians out there that don't necessarily practice the love part that Jesus stressed. And Christians troll too. Does it make it acceptable? No. not really. So how about that further evidence to support your trol-I mean comment?
santisevenX 1 year ago
@assym2006 listen im all for opinions. however, when you say something like that on a video like this its obvious you just want a response. so i gave you one. if you want to conduct yourself in a semi-intelligent manner, then provide further evidence of your claim.
santisevenX 1 year ago
@assym2006 "ass"ym stop trolling
santisevenX 1 year ago
Religion is evil and dangerous.
max2right 1 year ago
@max2right wow you are so right. haha just kidding. why would make such an extreme, (not to mention obviously false) statement? please, why in the world would you say this? help me understand
somethingsimple291 1 year ago
What a genius....no wonder he's not an atheist.
EastofForever 1 year ago
@EastofForever Unlike the majority of the world's leading scientists right?
d34d23 8 months ago
She was weeping and she said
" Uncle John...surely you have something better than stupid stories about crying little girls in order to get some emotional response "
and I said
" Oh course dear.. I am going to misrepresent Dawkins arguments and crap on and on... but it helps if I can put a crying little girl in the story "
Roper122 1 year ago
So, I'm 3:15 in and he's yet to make any rational argument at all. He doesn't understand any of the topics he's brought up. I can't listen to him any more. He's clearly an idiot.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides The paradox of this statement is that rationality and reason are founded on faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. Furthermore, I would argue that very few people would actually agree with your assessment of the first 3:15 of this video.
jlangston23 1 year ago
@jlangston23 Faith is belief without evidence or logical support. Rationality is based on evidence and logical support. These two terms do not go together.
As they say, truth is not a popularity contest. Whether many people agree that he doesn't make rational arguments is irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't make rational arguments.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
Faith is one of the most wonderful things a human can have.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Faith is one of the most delusional and useless things a human can have. Your statement ranks up there with "ignorance is awesome" and "idiocy is great."
If faith is so great, I want you to have faith that there's a powerful dark spirit behind you at all times, and it can and will kill you whenever it feels like it... like now? Or now!
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
Without faith the Wright brothers would never have flown.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
Comment removed
Antifides 1 year ago
Comment removed
Antifides 1 year ago
@ivlfounder How was faith involved?
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
If they didn't have faith in themselves why would they have even tried to fly?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Perhaps because they had evidence that it's possible?
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
Every attempt before them had failed and some very highly respected scientists were starting to say motor driven flight was impossible.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder "very highly respected scientists were starting to say motor driven flight was impossible." This is an argument from authority, a logical fallacy.
"Every attempt before them had failed." So? Birds demonstrate that it's possible.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
It would be silly to make an argument from authority if the authority was proven wrong.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder If they had not tried because "highly respected scientists were saying it was impossible" then they would have succumbed to a logical fallacy.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
Then why did you use a current tense?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Because I got lost in the minutiae, much like you are now.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
Yes well assuming that's true my memory is that an argument from authority fallacy only exists when the "authority" is not an authority on the topic at hand.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder An argument from authority means that the authority's opinion is being accepted on his credentials alone, rather than actual evidence.
Physicists may have many differing opinions on physics; you could probably cite two contradicting opinions on a single physics subject from physicists; that is why arguments from authority are fallacies.
@jlangston23 And that, is how logic works; if it can support a false conclusion, it isn't logical. That's how I tell the difference.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
Be that the case it's a good thing they continued to have faith even in the face of scientific authorities telling them they were wrong.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder It's good that they used logic, in face of scientific authorities telling them they were wrong; you know, the logic that arguments of authority aren't valid.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
If they were being purely logical they would have focused on the bike shop.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Let's put it this way, unless you can prove they were acting on faith and not, say, scientific knowledge and a desire to accomplish what no one else had, you're just fabricating this whole idea of yours that faith is beneficial in some way.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
If you don't believe they had faith I invite you to build your own flying machine and jump off a cliff.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Or, instead of ignoring my argument, you can prove they built and flew their airplanes on faith, instead of on science.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
I don't recall saying that science wasn't used.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Science functions on evidence. Faith excludes evidence.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
Then how do you explain scientists who are religious?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Science is a process; scientists are people. I don't see how you can equate the two.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
So you admit there are men and women who are both religious and legit. scientists?
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder I don't need to admit it; I never denied it.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
If faith and science are in conflict these people couldn't exist.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Science can make no comment on the supernatural.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
I wish Dawkins understood this.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
Comment removed
Antifides 1 year ago
@ivlfounder Science can make a comment on the influence of the supernatural on the natural.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
One of the funny things about science is a discovery frequently results in more questions.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@ivlfounder If that's a problem, I don't see it.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides
It's not so much a problem as it is amusing/annoying.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
@Antifides Again, you are acting on faith - this time, in what you believe to be rational. Can you prove why one thing is rational and why another thing is irrational? Why should not good logic be just as misleading as bad logic? Furthermore, beliefs are founded on faith! Definition of 'Belief' according to the Oxford-English Dictionary 1. The mental action, condition, or habit, of trusting to or confiding in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance, confidence, FAITH.
jlangston23 1 year ago
@jlangston23 "Can you prove why one thing is rational and why another thing is irrational?"
Yes.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides And your proof is? Ask yourself why should rational thinking not be just as misguided as rational thinking? Why is being rational more favorable than irrational? Is it rational or irrational to assert that the material world itself is nothing more than a reflection of the imagination and why is this so? Is it rational to assert that everything can be answer by the natural sciences?
jlangston23 1 year ago
@jlangston23 Every available piece of evidence supports the fact that the material world exists, so it's rational to believe that it does.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides What evidence? Isn't what you perceive to be evidence perceived in the mind? Again, to believe anything has a certain leap of faith involved as I have already addressed. So again, you are acting on faith in asserting that it is rational.
jlangston23 1 year ago
@jlangston23 I really wish you would stop claiming that faith, which is a subset of belief, is an underpinning of belief.
Faith is only faith if it lacks evidence.
I have evidence for the function of my senses. Yes, that evidence is flawed in that it is perceived by my senses, but I am not aware of any alternatives.
Between the options "reality exists" and "reality doesn't exist," I have evidence for the first and none for the second.
Antifides 1 year ago
@Antifides As I have already stated, belief is grounded on faith and its definition supports this. As such, what you BELIEVE to be rational or irrational, good logic or bad logic, good reasoning or bad reasoning is all a matter of faith. When you say that "truth is not a popularity contest" and that whether people agree is irrelevant to the fact that he doesn't make rational arguments, this begs the question of how any one knows that what they think is rational & irrational is the truth.
jlangston23 1 year ago
@Antifides The fact of the matter is that faith is an intrinsic quality of homo sapiens, whether it is faith in God, science, a spouse, or any other belief. I recognize this, and have come at peace with this. I have friends who are atheist as well as agnostic who will also point out that this is indeed the case. In fact, one of my atheist friends pointed out that by him believing in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, he is taking a leap of faith by doing so.
jlangston23 1 year ago
Singularities will always be argued. Creation, Jesus Christ, and even the end of time is argued within Christian circles. Hardened hearts created by pride and jest make the truth harder to come by. Pride and half-blind intellect is a defense mechanism for those who are afraid of the truth.
SymphonicVoice 1 year ago
@SymphonicVoice " Pride and half-blind intellect is a defense mechanism for those who are afraid of the truth. "
Absolutely true...but the christians keep believing that stuff anyway.
Roper122 1 year ago
@SymphonicVoice "Creation, Jesus Christ, and even the end of time is argued within Christian circles." It certainly is because science rather than closing the gaps on God , is increasingly showing that the universe began to exist and is heading towards heatdeath as all usable energy is lost into the darkness of the abyss. And yes No ancient history professor has the slightest doubt as to the historicity of Jesus. Ah yes, hardness of hearts & pride do make accountability & truth illusory.
Gericho49 1 year ago
This man is delusional, yet he seems like a smart guy. Shows what religion can do to people.
nmatters 1 year ago
@nmatters Wow, did you even listen to the points presented in the video?
Walnut1871 1 year ago
@Walnut1871 Yes. Indeed I did. Even though they weren't much of points for anything.
nmatters 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
clint25n go fuck yoself
Tomothydoesntcall 1 year ago
Lennox's central argument seems to