JOHN LENNOX IS AMAZING!!! HE'S ABLE TO VIEW EVERYTHING, FROM A DISTANCE- OBSERVING ALL THINGS- FROM ALL ANGLES! HE IS SUCH A BRILLIANT, DEEP THINKER, AND VERY HONEST! THE WAY HE'S ABLE TO EXPRESS WORDS IN SUCH A VISUAL, REAL WAY- IS AMAZING! HE'S SO GREAT AT EXPRESSING WHAT IT REALLY MEANS, TO BE CHRISTIAN, WHY GOD IS OUR DIVINE, AWESOME GOD- WHO CREATED ALL LIFE, WITH SUCH GREAT POWER, AND BRILLIANCE- WHICH IS SEEN! Peace, TRUTH, and Love
>All science is based on faith that the universe is rationally intelligible.
In the sense that, when the scientific method was first formulated it was a wild gamble, I agree. However, the history of the discoveries made through science attests to its power in description and prediction, as well as all the technology derived from scientific pursuits, JUSTIFIES that initial faith in a way that far outstrips the faith required for any religion.
John Lennox def does his homework. He backs up everything he says with some type of material. Best debater for christians in my opinion. He looks from both sides and still makes more sense to me than any athiest.
For the truth about religion try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life ' or John W. Loftus or Victor J. Stenger, ' God, the failed hypothesis' . Also interesting to have a look at the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani, with its god Osiris who weighs the heart to decide who can pass to the land of the living.[ The need to know the names of the gods & the negative confession & other magic texts to get there]. James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' and C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity'
Lennox: "How can rationality come from irrationality". Not only is this premise sneaky it's also fallacious. "The atheist world view is anti-rationality". Another empty, false, premise. Oh, and "subjective evidence" for Jesus rather than just historical evidence. A not so slight moving of the goalposts there. Summary: what makes Dr. Lennox feel good is the ultimate nature of reality.
After directly responding to two comments I realized that youtube is not the place for rational exchange. To those actually intending to intelligently explain their position I commend you, and politely recommend you take it elsewhere. On the topic of Dr. Lennox, he is a brilliant thinker, and a distinguished academic. Feel free to actually look him up and see for yourself.
this shit is sooo stupid just babbling on about nothing......christians always postulate an assumption as fact and then quickly jump foward...hello you forgot to prove there is a god
The same could be said of Darwinism, or any other system that would replace God. Darwinism has far less explaining power, and to say it has insufficient evidence is a gross understatement. As it stands I found his position rather articulate and well thought out. Maybe we should both watch it again.
Having watched that debate more than once, and having come away with a drastically different opinion, I suggest we both watch it again and re-analyze. I watched an uninterrupted video of it on Fixed Point Associations website, and it seemed to me that Dawkins dodged almost as many points as he answered.
You start mentioning science, then jump to Greek phylosophy to explain nature!!! Then you give for facts, for evidence, things that are just your personal opinions (shared by other "blind" people like yourself). Let me stop here. I got something else to do. But think about this: how come your EVIDENCE, doesn't convince me? do you know what EVIDENCE is? EVIDENCE, is for example, what science looks for and is based on!
.....with all the respect for homeless people.I made the comparison, because in our society, unfortunately, people get credit for their social (monetary) position, rather than for their "substance".And anyways many times, down the street you see people with mental problems, talking about God,or the Gov and, rightly. nobody pays attention to them. With you is more sad because you actually have college education.
.....with all the respect for homeless people.I made the comparison, because in our society, unfortunately, people get credit for their social (monetary) position, rather than for their "substance".And anyways many times, down the street you see people with mental problems, talking about God,or the Gov and, rightly. nobody pays attention to them. With you is more sad because you actually have college education.
Jhon, you are just blind. Look at the terrible effects religion has had on you. You have good science backround, you have communications skills and you occupy a media position for which you are not laughed at when you talk the nonsense you talk. If a homeless person would say the same things you say, he would get no credit and would be considered dumb (by intelligent, rational people). You are in a higher position than a homeless person, but the substance doesn't change..........
"Jesus rose from the dead" Sorry John Lennox that is not a fact. People rising from the dead is an impossible scenario never repeated or reproducible. Science is not compatible with your Jesus mythology.
I agree he has a brilliant mind - he wouldn't have three doctorates otherwise, but his arguments, if you listen carefully, rely heavily in conditional assertions such as "If there is a God who created it and God is a rational God..." These assertions are reinforced by his faith and his favoured scriptures. It is wrong to say atheists "do not want to believe" - they just don't see compelling enough evidence either for the existence or the need for a supernatural agent.
Typical... defending a deistic God (a creator who is unaware of us and/or doesn't care about us) to prove theistic God (a creator who is aware and does care about us)... Assuming any creator cares about their creation is an unsafe assumption.
Further, he's using the bible as evidence for the bible. For anyone who can't see why this is wrong: The origin of species is evidence for the origin of species; The Quran is evidence for the Quran; => They're all true, despite being incompatible.
I think this is a perfect example of someone who uses red herrings with confidence and in general does a good job of shifting the burden of proof. I can see why some simple minded people would be tricked.
Brilliant man, brilliant mind, and brilliant reasoning. There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ as described in the bible. However, athiests are still unconvinced because they do not want to believe. Their motto is "Please do not confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up"
"As a matter of history, Jesus rose from the dead." WTF? THATS the proof? What (in HIS words "ANCIENT historians" said? Well, that should prove it. Just as in the 1400-1600 hundreds historians proved that just about every king they happened to work for was direct descendants of Adam and Eve? History has ALWAYS been altered to fit the ones in power, what makes him think that first century Palestine or medieval Vatican is any different? As a scientist he should know more about source criticism.
@Hopefulfilment Why don't you quote correctly. He said that the New Testaments claims that Jesus rose from the dead and that can it be can be investigated by historians. Try to listen to what he says and not what you think he is saying...
@benaberry i believe in God and i don't fear death.. i've questioned everything from my culture to my religion... both have flaws, but the idea of there being a God or an initial yet infinite source of it all is difficult to automatically throw out as "pathetic" or "ignorant".... people didn't believe in the atom because they could not see it....same with God, but it will be centuries before we can prove "his" existence through science or anything "Earthly"..for now it's just spiritual
@benaberry I was born into it, and yes i don't want to die, but those are not reasons to not believe in God. That's like saying I was born rich and i don't want to be living on the streets therefore I shouldn't be rich.
I love how he ties religion and science together and then goes straight to Christianity. What about the other hundreds of religions and tens of thousands of gods that man has made up over the years? Or are we to accept that every other group on this planet got it wrong....except for the Christians? Please....
@1n354a He is a Christian and a Scientist so it would make sense for him to use that connection rather than using Islam. The man has 3 doctorates. These men on here are well read in almost every worldview. They are much more experienced than you and I. Christianity is not claiming to be true in absolute certainty, but we are saying that we have reason to believe in these things and that we do want to know and love the world in which God has created. Look into it with an openmind. Christ>religion
@luke2thab I don't care how many doctorates he has - I don't care how well read he is - I don't care about his experience. The argument that he makes in this video is nonsensical. The best resume in the world does not make up for a poorly argued claim.
@1n354a Would you could start by explaining the nonsensicalness of his "argument". I wasn't saying that just because he has a Doctorate means that he knows truth. All I am saying is that his thoughts are widely respected in the Scientific community. THAT is why Richard Dawkins debated him after saying that he wouldn't debate anyone but a bishop, pastor, or priest. This means that Lennox's perspective on science and faith is a respected one. Jesus's claim is documented and seems factual. :)
@luke2thab I have already stated it - that he tries to conjoin science and religion and somehow end up proving that the Christian god and Christianity are real without providing a shred of evidence to support his position and ignoring all other gods that exist today (or ever).
I can see why Dawkins would debate him as he is smarter than the average Christian fundie and would offer a very interesting conversation.
The Jesus claim is far from documented and is anything but factual.
@luke2thab ^ Well said. I despise the unexamined assumption many atheists and other skeptics seem to have that Christianity has no greater likelihood being true than any other religion, or that the truth claims of all religions are equal. They are not, and this often serves as a flimsy excuse to avoid examining their claims any more closely. Of course the apologist can't prove Christianity is true, but they CAN prove that it is justifiable. Good faith is informed, not blind.
When I saw the title 'Christianity and the Tooth Fairy", I thought this video was actually on to something - that is to say, making the appropriate equivalency.
@Triploblast1 There have been many atheists who investigated the historical person of Jesus Christ and his claims, using evidence and sound reasoning, came to the conclusion that he literally rose from the dead and gave their lives to Christ. They're not equal.
@lightbrownpoop Right - and there have also been a lot of atheists who have looked at the evidence presented by Joseph Smith and have become devout Mormons. Morons like Glenn Beck, for example. So I guess Mormonism must be true as well.
@Triploblast1 Satan is working full time, to pull everyone away from Christ. He is way smarter that us, and is very good at decieving us.
Look @ Christianty. Satan knows he cant win so he attacks from the inside out.
He causes disagreements, divisions, divorces, grudges, ect. within. this is why christianty has so many sects. If the spiritual realm was visible...people would be shocked at the things around us everyday. Everyone must be born again to avoid deception.
@brandisify Apparently he is smarter and stronger that Jesus, because he is unable or unwilling to defeat him. He just lets Satan continue to cause the problems you describe.
The whole thing is madeup. Just like how Batman can never quite defeat the Joker. He always needs a recurring enemy to keep the comic book sales going.
Science? Historical Science? Does this Lennox chap not have any shame?
This conveniently created quasi science does not prove the supernatural claims of the Bible have any validity at all. Yes we cannot the repeat the Battle of Waterloo, does that mean it is made up? Perhaps (unlikely though) however if we had an account that claimed Wellington fielded an army of Ogre's we might justly be suspicious.
He has failed to demonstrate a shred of real evidence. Hard facts? My arse.
"Christianty is here to tell us that this physical plane is only temporary."
Exactly! It TELLS us, it does not demonstrate, it does not prove or seek to prove. It just tells. Well the old lady who reads tarrot cards and the crazy guy who thinks he has been abducted by aliens also "tells" us stuff.
My reply to the Chrisitianty "telling" me stuff is so what?
"otherwise you would be waiting for your brain to make decisions"
WTF are you talking about? Who is "you" if not your brain?
@ma049 LOL common man - if you read their book and took what they said without question then you too would be party to this special knowledge!
And the nice thing is that if one Christian tells you something that you don't like, go talk with another as they will have a completely different take on things.
Christianity combined with science is our best bet instead of making assumptions like the big bang and evolution. Man can't try and predict a past which we havn't observed. So I say we depend on the Holy Bible for the creation and the past which we never will be able to observe. Let science test observable things from NOW and not the PAST. Science can only go so far.
Professor, my ass. I won't bother looking up this buffoon's "credentials" because he obviously has no understanding of science. I'd wager this lying sonofabitch is a "professor" at Liberty "University".
Oddly ( and unlike other apologists ) he doesn't often use maths to prove god, most likely because he knows it's rubbish, and is a tad embarrassed about it.
@friendofthefunk "Atheism is "anti-rationality?" What??? This guy is full of crap."
Lol, did you even understand Professor Lennox's point? He didn't say that science is anti-logic, because he believes in science and he believes it to be rational because a rational God was behind it. What he did say is that atheism is anti-rational because atheists claim that they are rational and the reason they say they exist is through a process which can cause the brain to be irrational. So how trust it?
@Eragon1880 Are you being obtuse on purpose? The brain can function irrationally (Lennox's rant is a good example) and can also be used rationally (such as to apply the scientific method to gain understanding or advance technologies).
" all science depends on a fundamental faith that the universe is rationally intelligent " - semantics... not intelligent, simply bound by reality, by laws ( as we arbitrarily call them )
" if the human brain has been cobbled together then we might not expect it to be reliable " - ummmm, so all brains are unreliable - except his?
Babbling on and on and making no sense. Then throwing god in where it suits him.
Such a good video! I love that he pointed to science, history, and the idea that a personal relationship is the way to understand a personal God. Thanks for posting this!
"If your brain is JUST random atoms bouncing, why should be believe what we think, why is it reliable",, well, because the way the atoms bounce is ANYTHING BUT RANDOM!! And brains that produce un-reliable thoughts tend led their owners off a cliff. Evoultion!
You know, you can put the word "just" infront of anything. Its just the universe. Its just science. Its just a thoery. Its just math.
know what's funny? some atheists have doctorates and some theists have doctorates, but i found a lot of people with many doctorates are usually theists. lennox has 3.
lol too bad he is a liar. There is no evidence of your god. That's where your stupidity begins. A Doctorate doesn't mean anything if you can't use logic and reason, and common sense.
This guy sounds intelligent but his reasoning for justifying is just rubbish. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just because a book says that a supernatural event happened doesnt mean that it happened. If so, wouldnt the historical events of the acts of the gods of the ancient Greeks be true too?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Here's an interesting question: Isn't that statement ITSELF an extraordinary claim, and if so, doesn't it too REQUIRE extraordinary evidence to prove that it is the case?
Nope. Its an easliy supported rule of thumb. One we use every day. Based on sound statistics and reasoning.
If someone claimed that it rained yesterday, and I saw my car was wet, that would be enought, the statement is likely true. Because rain is common enough. I'd put the odds that it rained at 99.99
But, if some claimed that a space alien dumped a bucket of space water on my car, that would be a different matter. Based on my experience on this earth, I'd put those odds a bit lower.
"Based on my experience on this earth, I'd put those odds a bit lower. " - But that only BEGS the question, Steve. It doesn't answer it. It presupposes that it is our PERCEPTION and SENSES that determine the truth of the proposition, which is not the case.
Your rain example is at best an oversimplification, because rain is not the only highly plausible alternative to explain the evidence. (cont.)
As to your retorical style, BASSP, I noticed, BASSP, that people use other peoples names this way, BASSP, to try to belittel them. Note Sarah Palin and "Charlie", BASSP. As, I noticed that you said that I arguments "BEGS the question", BASSP, without demonsrtating how it does. Also, "oversimplification"? How simple should I have made it? Isn't that what examples are for? Did you at all support that statement?
"As, I noticed that you said that I arguments "BEGS the question", BASSP, without demonstrating how it does." - Actually, I did demonstrate how is begs the question by giving you my example question on earth's distance from the sun.
Not to offend you in any way, but your grammar is off and very different from the grammar of your initial response to me. Sounds suspicious, but hopefully that won't deeply affect this conversation we're having. (cont.)
"Also, "oversimplification"?" - By oversimplification, I mean that you are implying that rain is the only valid example based on probability, to explain the water when there is a list of other options that can also be true. Ex: sprinkler, someone else washed the car, another car drove past and splashed puddle water on your car, etc. Though some of these options are less likely, they are still reasonable conclusions. That is why it is impossible to classify an extraordinary claim by probability.
Also there are specific events that are considered next to impossible but are still accepted as as the best answers to explain certain phenomena. Ex: how did the universe get be at such and such a distance from the sun? This is a question that does not even relate to our universal experience. The answer is so infinitesimally less likely, yet it is still the most reasonable answer. So probability cannot be a factor in defining what is an extraordinary claim, nor can the factor of our experience.
I'd look at the number of earth-sized bodies. I'd look at the number of starts, and the size and number of envelopes that would capture a planet.
I'd then look at the number or planet size bodies that are infact planets, and the number that are free from a start. If the numbers seems to fit with reality, I'd say there is nothing to explain. If it wasn't, I'd think "whats going on here", and I'd used the tools of sceince to investigate.
"If the numbers seems to fit with reality, I'd say there is nothing to explain." - The numbers would already explain the how the earth got to that specific distance. (I meant to say 'earth' rather than the 'universe', so my apologies on that) The explanation is already there.
"If it wasn't, ...I'd used the tools of science to investigate." - Okay, so do you believe that science is the only valid method of ascertaining knowledge and truth?
"Also there are specific events that are considered next to impossible but are still accepted as as the best answers to explain certain phenomena."
Because they are explanations that best fit the evidence presented. Not just a randomly chosen point of several explanations that conveniently fits what is needed.
This is a rather important omission. Small quirks like this permeate much of your rhetoric.
"Not just a randomly chosen point of several explanations that conveniently fits what is needed." - Haha! That actually proves my point. Things that are less likely to happen or are untestable, can still be legitimate answers or explanations to certain phenomena, natural OR supernatural.
Obvious example: the Laws of Logic, which are not scientifically testable.
"Those aren't physical laws." - I never said they were. I said that science cannot test everything, especially logic, because science PRESUPPOSES logic.
Logic is is what CONTROLS reality, not the other way around.
Logic is not a force. It is a developed concept. It 'controls' nothing.
Also, using presupposition in that sense is a misnomer. Science doesn't test Logic because Logic is not a physical law. It is a concept. Mathematics, likewise, isn't 'tested'. It is a defined concept. As is literally everything that is abstract.
This not only demonstrates a limited grasp of logic on your part, but it also fails to assert your position.
"Here's an interesting question: Isn't that statement ITSELF an extraordinary claim, and if so, doesn't it too REQUIRE extraordinary evidence to prove that it is the case?"
This is a bad attempt to 'turn the question on itself'. Stating that highly dubious claims require alot of evidence is setting a standard to overcome skepticism.
Understandably, people that subscribe to something that doesn't measure up are prone to try to deconstruct that.
Agreed the "experience" of one person is not objective to the skeptical observer. But to then automatically label it universally subjective is a bit dangerous. I understand the dilemma of the skeptic in that for a Christian who claims an ongoing experience of relationship with God because it HAS to be defects in their psyche/ability to reason. Take for instance skeptics reaction to Antony Flew aligning with theism (not Christianity), he's been labelled cenile and/or he was coerced into his view.
That is a very true statement. If I have no experience of God, no matter how hard someone tells me of their experience it won't impact me...but I think if we can see an obvious change in behaviour and someone is claiming that this is a direct result of a spiritual transformation although I would agree there might be any other reason for it (they could just be nuts or afflicted with the 'God Virus') but I think it starts to become more objective in the actions of the people involved.
"...I think it starts to become more objective in the actions of the people involved."
This is truer than anything. Christians need to understand that if the only way to validate their claims is through how their actions are affected, then it is hard to take them seriously when accusing one another of not 'truly being christian'.
If the clear majority is batshit insane, it doesn't speak well for the few rational christians there are.
Sure and I take it more seriously when those actions are not for self preservation or advancement as opposed to some tele-evangelism. I'd disagree that it is the only way because I would consider it to be experience coupled with historical analysis on Jesus/Resurrection which is not so subjective. You've hit a good point on what is 'truly being Christian' just as some atheists disagree of probability of God (0-49%)there are differences in opinions on what constitutes a Christian.
This is probably the biggest problem with hardcore apologetics in that you can't argue people into Christianity, but hopefully if nothing else it enables non Christians to assess texts in an historical context and then even though they still might reject it, at least they are more aware of what they are rejecting. I'd say that just because you can't argue people into Christianity, doesn't mean an argument can't be provided for a reasonable belief in its claims. Good observation though.
"I'd say that just because you can't argue people into Christianity, doesn't mean an argument can't be provided for a reasonable belief in its claims."
I would somewhat debate this. Especially given the long history of intellectual dishonesty associated with the christian/creationist movement.
Their claim is that the entire natural order was radically and spontaneously suspended - yet they can't show that suspending the natural order at all is even possible.
As one that takes for granted a 14 billion year old universe and adheres to the processes of evolution I don't quite get hardcore creationism and see it as a failure to consider the context of Genesis (which certainly wasn't hardcore science). I guess what I was getting at was the Resurrection; if that didn't happen then regardless of how we got here, Christianity would be false. But if it did happen....well that would be pretty important.
hmmmm I don't know about that. I'd have to enquire as to what probability calculus was being used?? As far as science goes even if I conceded zero evidence for God, I'd could only be met with zero evidence against (mainly because I don't know of an experiment which can reliably test for 'God'). So if probability for and against is both zero and therefore equal doesn't that by definition mean that scientifically speaking we are dealing with a 50/50?
the big issue for both sides is how they relate their evidences to the question of God's existence. I think what we need is a testable hypothesis which can be carried out. This is why the Resurrection is so important! Because unlike any interpretation of God we have an intervention into human history which can then be tested. If you concede the man existed, we have to go from there. To start with the question of demonstrating the supernatural subverts this and goes to an untestable position.
Conceding that he may have existed is a far cry from validating existence of god.
Thus there is the problem. Evidence against only becomes an issue when there is a valid claim to be refuted. Faith in any kind of god(s) has yet to break the null hypothesis. There is nothing to disprove.
When you consider that all past 'evidences' for a god's existence have been demonstrated false, and that the biggest arguments supporting it are based upon outright lies...it says something about the position.
Mathenaut, Which 'what if' question is more significant than asking: Did God subject Himself to death to prove to humanity not only does He exist, but loves us beyond comprehension, and entered humanity to provide a foretaste of incomprehensible eternal reality for simply loving Him back out of our own free will?
As a person endowed with a curious mind, I would be very interested in this question you've eluded to.
What if the whole of the natural world we understand is undermined entirely by a significantly new discovery that makes the concept of the supernatural somewhat plausible? What if we discovered a way of identifying and harnessing the supernatural?
Both outlandish, but far more significant than something equivalent to "what if fairy tales were real?"
It's nice that Christ was a historical figure, but that lends no bearing to claims of magic, talking snakes, and the supernatural.
Toward that end, it is no more credible or veracious than any other line of mythology grounded in actual events with reference to real people (i.e. the majority of all fiction).
Lastly, information that points to design? No. If we chucked up everything we couldn't immediately answer to myth and magic, inquiry would die and we would return to catholic Europe.
The only thing logically defined about 'miracles' and the 'supernatural' are explanations about how such events are anything but.
While I understand that not all christians are the loopy non-sensical type, I still don't understand the inconsistency in picking and choosing what you will and won't accept at allegorical or literal.
I'll look into that essay though; and while the Catholic church provided it's bit in modern culture, the Dark Ages were nothing to marvel at.
Not the case, Mathenaut. Metaphysics, philosophy, delve deep into the subject. You may have a different personal belief, but exhaustive arguments have been made positively by philosophers of repute.
That's an affect of schism, but in terms of a la carte interpretation, that again is something specific to some communions, hardly all.
Standards hold to Scriptural interpretation as they do to any other discipline.
The allegorical and the literal are for the most part, apparent.
"All science depends on a fundamental faith that the universe is rationally intelligible."
No. Just no. Science attempts to explain what is observed in the universe, and simply put, some things aren't so easy to explain. There is no 'faith' involved, unless you're into the habit of making up explanations for the sake of feigning knowledge.
"I would be a fool to believe in god if there wasn't any evidence."
Thus, the stance behind the atheist position. He disregards it so...
Most interestingly, he cites subjective experience as 'hard fact', by referencing the positive ends of people who have supposedly found his particular god.
What about those who have fallen from faith? What do you say to the Atheists who believed so strongly, then turned away after they opened their eyes?
As for the mind being unreliable, it is. Much is not understood, particularly of functions leading to social and mental disorders.
We all ultimately make the assumption that our mind is capable of understanding what is out there. I fail to see universal constant as a proof for the existence of god.
Sorry, disconnectedness detector Allarm!!!!!!!!
ShadeToSun 2 months ago
JOHN LENNOX IS AMAZING!!! HE'S ABLE TO VIEW EVERYTHING, FROM A DISTANCE- OBSERVING ALL THINGS- FROM ALL ANGLES! HE IS SUCH A BRILLIANT, DEEP THINKER, AND VERY HONEST! THE WAY HE'S ABLE TO EXPRESS WORDS IN SUCH A VISUAL, REAL WAY- IS AMAZING! HE'S SO GREAT AT EXPRESSING WHAT IT REALLY MEANS, TO BE CHRISTIAN, WHY GOD IS OUR DIVINE, AWESOME GOD- WHO CREATED ALL LIFE, WITH SUCH GREAT POWER, AND BRILLIANCE- WHICH IS SEEN! Peace, TRUTH, and Love
TheWayandWordofLife 2 months ago
>All science is based on faith that the universe is rationally intelligible.
In the sense that, when the scientific method was first formulated it was a wild gamble, I agree. However, the history of the discoveries made through science attests to its power in description and prediction, as well as all the technology derived from scientific pursuits, JUSTIFIES that initial faith in a way that far outstrips the faith required for any religion.
TheGeneralCritic 3 months ago
John Lennox def does his homework. He backs up everything he says with some type of material. Best debater for christians in my opinion. He looks from both sides and still makes more sense to me than any athiest.
liebengood24 3 months ago 3
7 minutes and 52 seconds of hot air. Religious hucksterism at it's finest.
lumpheadthump 4 months ago
John Lennox says; I'm a Christian pretending to be a scientist, derp! I see all kinds of magic stuff, derp! I have no evidence for Gods, derp!
bigboy45454545 4 months ago
For the truth about religion try Robert M. Price, ' The reason driven life ' or John W. Loftus or Victor J. Stenger, ' God, the failed hypothesis' . Also interesting to have a look at the 1500BCE papyrus of Ani, with its god Osiris who weighs the heart to decide who can pass to the land of the living.[ The need to know the names of the gods & the negative confession & other magic texts to get there]. James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' and C.S. Lewis, 'Mere Christianity'
zytigon 5 months ago
Comment removed
jbass02 5 months ago
Lennox: "How can rationality come from irrationality". Not only is this premise sneaky it's also fallacious. "The atheist world view is anti-rationality". Another empty, false, premise. Oh, and "subjective evidence" for Jesus rather than just historical evidence. A not so slight moving of the goalposts there. Summary: what makes Dr. Lennox feel good is the ultimate nature of reality.
jbass02 5 months ago
After directly responding to two comments I realized that youtube is not the place for rational exchange. To those actually intending to intelligently explain their position I commend you, and politely recommend you take it elsewhere. On the topic of Dr. Lennox, he is a brilliant thinker, and a distinguished academic. Feel free to actually look him up and see for yourself.
ajacmac 5 months ago
@ajacmac Thank you!
starfannumberone 5 months ago
this shit is sooo stupid just babbling on about nothing......christians always postulate an assumption as fact and then quickly jump foward...hello you forgot to prove there is a god
charles030981 5 months ago
@charles030981
The same could be said of Darwinism, or any other system that would replace God. Darwinism has far less explaining power, and to say it has insufficient evidence is a gross understatement. As it stands I found his position rather articulate and well thought out. Maybe we should both watch it again.
ajacmac 5 months ago
@ajacmac what is your position on god?
charles030981 5 months ago
It was fun watching Dawkins rip this guy to shreds
Snarkonymous 5 months ago
@Snarkonymous
Having watched that debate more than once, and having come away with a drastically different opinion, I suggest we both watch it again and re-analyze. I watched an uninterrupted video of it on Fixed Point Associations website, and it seemed to me that Dawkins dodged almost as many points as he answered.
ajacmac 5 months ago
my comments have to be read FROM BOTTOM UP! FROM BOTTOM UP, LIKE NATURE DOES THINGS, (evelution: bottom , up)NOT FROM TOP DOWN! you idiot
gennarog 6 months ago
You start mentioning science, then jump to Greek phylosophy to explain nature!!! Then you give for facts, for evidence, things that are just your personal opinions (shared by other "blind" people like yourself). Let me stop here. I got something else to do. But think about this: how come your EVIDENCE, doesn't convince me? do you know what EVIDENCE is? EVIDENCE, is for example, what science looks for and is based on!
gennarog 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.....with all the respect for homeless people.I made the comparison, because in our society, unfortunately, people get credit for their social (monetary) position, rather than for their "substance".And anyways many times, down the street you see people with mental problems, talking about God,or the Gov and, rightly. nobody pays attention to them. With you is more sad because you actually have college education.
gennarog 6 months ago
.....with all the respect for homeless people.I made the comparison, because in our society, unfortunately, people get credit for their social (monetary) position, rather than for their "substance".And anyways many times, down the street you see people with mental problems, talking about God,or the Gov and, rightly. nobody pays attention to them. With you is more sad because you actually have college education.
gennarog 6 months ago
Jhon, you are just blind. Look at the terrible effects religion has had on you. You have good science backround, you have communications skills and you occupy a media position for which you are not laughed at when you talk the nonsense you talk. If a homeless person would say the same things you say, he would get no credit and would be considered dumb (by intelligent, rational people). You are in a higher position than a homeless person, but the substance doesn't change..........
gennarog 6 months ago
It does not matter how "intelligently" he tries to wrap his arguments, it still is nothing but: BUT THE BIBLE, AND GOD, AND GOD AND THE BIBLE !
Balalaika74 6 months ago
"Jesus rose from the dead" Sorry John Lennox that is not a fact. People rising from the dead is an impossible scenario never repeated or reproducible. Science is not compatible with your Jesus mythology.
kaduisaui 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling And how do you know your Superman is the only Superman and the Clark Kent Superman ??
gregrutz 7 months ago
Not the world view bull shit. AAHHHHHHHHHH
gregrutz 7 months ago
Very interesting. I really enjoyed watching this!
TestAmenT12341 7 months ago
@MrTruthhurts777
I agree he has a brilliant mind - he wouldn't have three doctorates otherwise, but his arguments, if you listen carefully, rely heavily in conditional assertions such as "If there is a God who created it and God is a rational God..." These assertions are reinforced by his faith and his favoured scriptures. It is wrong to say atheists "do not want to believe" - they just don't see compelling enough evidence either for the existence or the need for a supernatural agent.
myfanwy7 8 months ago
Typical... defending a deistic God (a creator who is unaware of us and/or doesn't care about us) to prove theistic God (a creator who is aware and does care about us)... Assuming any creator cares about their creation is an unsafe assumption.
Further, he's using the bible as evidence for the bible. For anyone who can't see why this is wrong: The origin of species is evidence for the origin of species; The Quran is evidence for the Quran; => They're all true, despite being incompatible.
boenrobot 9 months ago
I think this is a perfect example of someone who uses red herrings with confidence and in general does a good job of shifting the burden of proof. I can see why some simple minded people would be tricked.
phenomballer666 9 months ago
Brilliant man, brilliant mind, and brilliant reasoning. There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ as described in the bible. However, athiests are still unconvinced because they do not want to believe. Their motto is "Please do not confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up"
MrTruthhurts777 9 months ago
@MrTruthhurts777 Where can I find this overwhelming evidence?
ISISbandLive 7 months ago
Hai
DeathrowRecords1995 10 months ago
"As a matter of history, Jesus rose from the dead." WTF? THATS the proof? What (in HIS words "ANCIENT historians" said? Well, that should prove it. Just as in the 1400-1600 hundreds historians proved that just about every king they happened to work for was direct descendants of Adam and Eve? History has ALWAYS been altered to fit the ones in power, what makes him think that first century Palestine or medieval Vatican is any different? As a scientist he should know more about source criticism.
Hopefulfilment 10 months ago
@Hopefulfilment Why don't you quote correctly. He said that the New Testaments claims that Jesus rose from the dead and that can it be can be investigated by historians. Try to listen to what he says and not what you think he is saying...
FruKaos 10 months ago
@benaberry i believe in God and i don't fear death.. i've questioned everything from my culture to my religion... both have flaws, but the idea of there being a God or an initial yet infinite source of it all is difficult to automatically throw out as "pathetic" or "ignorant".... people didn't believe in the atom because they could not see it....same with God, but it will be centuries before we can prove "his" existence through science or anything "Earthly"..for now it's just spiritual
gangstamind187 11 months ago
Lol! stunning news! 5:06 The new testament claims that Jesus rose from the dead! Well That's obvious xD
SamuelFriberg 1 year ago
People dont believe god due to maths or deeper thinking, they believe because they are born into it and the fear of death.
benaberry 1 year ago
@benaberry I was born into it, and yes i don't want to die, but those are not reasons to not believe in God. That's like saying I was born rich and i don't want to be living on the streets therefore I shouldn't be rich.
pntblnguitarists 10 months ago
Not impressed.
IanEColeman 1 year ago
"if the human brain has been cobbled together, we might not expect it to be terribly reliable"
Yes, exactly. That is how religion came to be.
daofeishi 1 year ago
I love how he ties religion and science together and then goes straight to Christianity. What about the other hundreds of religions and tens of thousands of gods that man has made up over the years? Or are we to accept that every other group on this planet got it wrong....except for the Christians? Please....
1n354a 1 year ago
@1n354a He is a Christian and a Scientist so it would make sense for him to use that connection rather than using Islam. The man has 3 doctorates. These men on here are well read in almost every worldview. They are much more experienced than you and I. Christianity is not claiming to be true in absolute certainty, but we are saying that we have reason to believe in these things and that we do want to know and love the world in which God has created. Look into it with an openmind. Christ>religion
luke2thab 1 year ago
@luke2thab I don't care how many doctorates he has - I don't care how well read he is - I don't care about his experience. The argument that he makes in this video is nonsensical. The best resume in the world does not make up for a poorly argued claim.
1n354a 1 year ago
@1n354a Would you could start by explaining the nonsensicalness of his "argument". I wasn't saying that just because he has a Doctorate means that he knows truth. All I am saying is that his thoughts are widely respected in the Scientific community. THAT is why Richard Dawkins debated him after saying that he wouldn't debate anyone but a bishop, pastor, or priest. This means that Lennox's perspective on science and faith is a respected one. Jesus's claim is documented and seems factual. :)
luke2thab 1 year ago
@luke2thab I have already stated it - that he tries to conjoin science and religion and somehow end up proving that the Christian god and Christianity are real without providing a shred of evidence to support his position and ignoring all other gods that exist today (or ever).
I can see why Dawkins would debate him as he is smarter than the average Christian fundie and would offer a very interesting conversation.
The Jesus claim is far from documented and is anything but factual.
1n354a 1 year ago
@luke2thab ^ Well said. I despise the unexamined assumption many atheists and other skeptics seem to have that Christianity has no greater likelihood being true than any other religion, or that the truth claims of all religions are equal. They are not, and this often serves as a flimsy excuse to avoid examining their claims any more closely. Of course the apologist can't prove Christianity is true, but they CAN prove that it is justifiable. Good faith is informed, not blind.
Thagomizer 7 months ago
When I saw the title 'Christianity and the Tooth Fairy", I thought this video was actually on to something - that is to say, making the appropriate equivalency.
Triploblast1 1 year ago
@Triploblast1 There have been many atheists who investigated the historical person of Jesus Christ and his claims, using evidence and sound reasoning, came to the conclusion that he literally rose from the dead and gave their lives to Christ. They're not equal.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop Right - and there have also been a lot of atheists who have looked at the evidence presented by Joseph Smith and have become devout Mormons. Morons like Glenn Beck, for example. So I guess Mormonism must be true as well.
Triploblast1 1 year ago
@Triploblast1 Satan is working full time, to pull everyone away from Christ. He is way smarter that us, and is very good at decieving us.
Look @ Christianty. Satan knows he cant win so he attacks from the inside out.
He causes disagreements, divisions, divorces, grudges, ect. within. this is why christianty has so many sects. If the spiritual realm was visible...people would be shocked at the things around us everyday. Everyone must be born again to avoid deception.
brandisify 1 year ago
@brandisify Apparently he is smarter and stronger that Jesus, because he is unable or unwilling to defeat him. He just lets Satan continue to cause the problems you describe.
The whole thing is madeup. Just like how Batman can never quite defeat the Joker. He always needs a recurring enemy to keep the comic book sales going.
Triploblast1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There have been many atheists who investigated the historical person of Jesus Christ ....and gave their lives to Christ. ""
Well then the are thiest, not atheists.
ma049 1 year ago
Science? Historical Science? Does this Lennox chap not have any shame?
This conveniently created quasi science does not prove the supernatural claims of the Bible have any validity at all. Yes we cannot the repeat the Battle of Waterloo, does that mean it is made up? Perhaps (unlikely though) however if we had an account that claimed Wellington fielded an army of Ogre's we might justly be suspicious.
He has failed to demonstrate a shred of real evidence. Hard facts? My arse.
ma049 1 year ago
" Christianity combined with science is our best bet .."
Yeah, what does Christianity bring to table?
"instead of making assumptions like the big bang and evolution."
Assumptions? Evolution is a fact. The big bang is the best model science has so far for the origins of the Universe. It isn't an assumption.
". So I say we depend on the Holy Bible for the creation and the past which we never will be able to observe. "
The Bible has already been proved to be inaccurate.
ma049 1 year ago
@ma049 Christianty is here to tell us that this physical plane is only temporary.
This is not all there is, Your soul seperates from your body when your body dies.
YOU are just controling your body, otherwise you would be waiting for your brain to make decisions.
brandisify 1 year ago
"Christianty is here to tell us that this physical plane is only temporary."
Exactly! It TELLS us, it does not demonstrate, it does not prove or seek to prove. It just tells. Well the old lady who reads tarrot cards and the crazy guy who thinks he has been abducted by aliens also "tells" us stuff.
My reply to the Chrisitianty "telling" me stuff is so what?
"otherwise you would be waiting for your brain to make decisions"
WTF are you talking about? Who is "you" if not your brain?
ma049 1 year ago
@ma049 LOL common man - if you read their book and took what they said without question then you too would be party to this special knowledge!
And the nice thing is that if one Christian tells you something that you don't like, go talk with another as they will have a completely different take on things.
1n354a 1 year ago
Christianity combined with science is our best bet instead of making assumptions like the big bang and evolution. Man can't try and predict a past which we havn't observed. So I say we depend on the Holy Bible for the creation and the past which we never will be able to observe. Let science test observable things from NOW and not the PAST. Science can only go so far.
TYLERJB777 1 year ago
Professor, my ass. I won't bother looking up this buffoon's "credentials" because he obviously has no understanding of science. I'd wager this lying sonofabitch is a "professor" at Liberty "University".
fearguis 1 year ago
@fearguis Either that, or he is at Oxford, the same school as Dawkins.
CoachEgg 1 year ago
@fearguis I think you'll find he's a professor of Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at a little place called Oxford University. ;)
findo 1 year ago
@fearguis ....He's a mathematician.
Oddly ( and unlike other apologists ) he doesn't often use maths to prove god, most likely because he knows it's rubbish, and is a tad embarrassed about it.
Roper122 1 year ago
Atheism is "anti-rationality?" What??? This guy is full of crap.
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
@friendofthefunk "Atheism is "anti-rationality?" What??? This guy is full of crap."
Lol, did you even understand Professor Lennox's point? He didn't say that science is anti-logic, because he believes in science and he believes it to be rational because a rational God was behind it. What he did say is that atheism is anti-rational because atheists claim that they are rational and the reason they say they exist is through a process which can cause the brain to be irrational. So how trust it?
Eragon1880 1 year ago
@Eragon1880 Are you being obtuse on purpose? The brain can function irrationally (Lennox's rant is a good example) and can also be used rationally (such as to apply the scientific method to gain understanding or advance technologies).
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
" we would expect to see traces " - we don't.
" all science depends on a fundamental faith that the universe is rationally intelligent " - semantics... not intelligent, simply bound by reality, by laws ( as we arbitrarily call them )
" if the human brain has been cobbled together then we might not expect it to be reliable " - ummmm, so all brains are unreliable - except his?
Babbling on and on and making no sense. Then throwing god in where it suits him.
Roper122 1 year ago
Such a good video! I love that he pointed to science, history, and the idea that a personal relationship is the way to understand a personal God. Thanks for posting this!
danmeast 1 year ago 18
@danmeast I liked your comment. God bless
MarvinsKitchen 4 months ago
Wow, Lennox, what an illogical argument.
"If your brain is JUST random atoms bouncing, why should be believe what we think, why is it reliable",, well, because the way the atoms bounce is ANYTHING BUT RANDOM!! And brains that produce un-reliable thoughts tend led their owners off a cliff. Evoultion!
You know, you can put the word "just" infront of anything. Its just the universe. Its just science. Its just a thoery. Its just math.
It doesn't make the thing trivial.
stevekap8 2 years ago
know what's funny? some atheists have doctorates and some theists have doctorates, but i found a lot of people with many doctorates are usually theists. lennox has 3.
eddie2042 2 years ago 2
yeah but they are usually in bullshit discliplines like bible study lol
NegativeNick 2 years ago
lol too bad he is a liar. There is no evidence of your god. That's where your stupidity begins. A Doctorate doesn't mean anything if you can't use logic and reason, and common sense.
Dwaithy 2 years ago
This guy sounds intelligent but his reasoning for justifying is just rubbish. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just because a book says that a supernatural event happened doesnt mean that it happened. If so, wouldnt the historical events of the acts of the gods of the ancient Greeks be true too?
mrguitardo 2 years ago
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Here's an interesting question: Isn't that statement ITSELF an extraordinary claim, and if so, doesn't it too REQUIRE extraordinary evidence to prove that it is the case?
BassP86 2 years ago
Nope. Its an easliy supported rule of thumb. One we use every day. Based on sound statistics and reasoning.
If someone claimed that it rained yesterday, and I saw my car was wet, that would be enought, the statement is likely true. Because rain is common enough. I'd put the odds that it rained at 99.99
But, if some claimed that a space alien dumped a bucket of space water on my car, that would be a different matter. Based on my experience on this earth, I'd put those odds a bit lower.
stevekap8 2 years ago
"Based on my experience on this earth, I'd put those odds a bit lower. " - But that only BEGS the question, Steve. It doesn't answer it. It presupposes that it is our PERCEPTION and SENSES that determine the truth of the proposition, which is not the case.
Your rain example is at best an oversimplification, because rain is not the only highly plausible alternative to explain the evidence. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
As to your retorical style, BASSP, I noticed, BASSP, that people use other peoples names this way, BASSP, to try to belittel them. Note Sarah Palin and "Charlie", BASSP. As, I noticed that you said that I arguments "BEGS the question", BASSP, without demonsrtating how it does. Also, "oversimplification"? How simple should I have made it? Isn't that what examples are for? Did you at all support that statement?
By this reasoning, you owe me $100.
stevekap8 2 years ago
"As, I noticed that you said that I arguments "BEGS the question", BASSP, without demonstrating how it does." - Actually, I did demonstrate how is begs the question by giving you my example question on earth's distance from the sun.
Not to offend you in any way, but your grammar is off and very different from the grammar of your initial response to me. Sounds suspicious, but hopefully that won't deeply affect this conversation we're having. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
"Also, "oversimplification"?" - By oversimplification, I mean that you are implying that rain is the only valid example based on probability, to explain the water when there is a list of other options that can also be true. Ex: sprinkler, someone else washed the car, another car drove past and splashed puddle water on your car, etc. Though some of these options are less likely, they are still reasonable conclusions. That is why it is impossible to classify an extraordinary claim by probability.
BassP86 2 years ago
Also there are specific events that are considered next to impossible but are still accepted as as the best answers to explain certain phenomena. Ex: how did the universe get be at such and such a distance from the sun? This is a question that does not even relate to our universal experience. The answer is so infinitesimally less likely, yet it is still the most reasonable answer. So probability cannot be a factor in defining what is an extraordinary claim, nor can the factor of our experience.
BassP86 2 years ago 3
As to your example:
I'd look at the number of earth-sized bodies. I'd look at the number of starts, and the size and number of envelopes that would capture a planet.
I'd then look at the number or planet size bodies that are infact planets, and the number that are free from a start. If the numbers seems to fit with reality, I'd say there is nothing to explain. If it wasn't, I'd think "whats going on here", and I'd used the tools of sceince to investigate.
stevekap8 2 years ago
"If the numbers seems to fit with reality, I'd say there is nothing to explain." - The numbers would already explain the how the earth got to that specific distance. (I meant to say 'earth' rather than the 'universe', so my apologies on that) The explanation is already there.
"If it wasn't, ...I'd used the tools of science to investigate." - Okay, so do you believe that science is the only valid method of ascertaining knowledge and truth?
BassP86 2 years ago
"Also there are specific events that are considered next to impossible but are still accepted as as the best answers to explain certain phenomena."
Because they are explanations that best fit the evidence presented. Not just a randomly chosen point of several explanations that conveniently fits what is needed.
This is a rather important omission. Small quirks like this permeate much of your rhetoric.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
"Not just a randomly chosen point of several explanations that conveniently fits what is needed." - Haha! That actually proves my point. Things that are less likely to happen or are untestable, can still be legitimate answers or explanations to certain phenomena, natural OR supernatural.
Obvious example: the Laws of Logic, which are not scientifically testable.
Nice try though, Mathenaut.
BassP86 1 year ago
"the Laws of Logic, which are not scientifically testable."
Sciencefail. Those aren't physical laws. Those are definitions based upon real-world observation, plugged into a system that builds upon itself.
Whether or not it is 'likely' is beside the point. The matter is that the evidence points to one conclusion as opposed to another.
This is not a difficult concept.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
"Those aren't physical laws." - I never said they were. I said that science cannot test everything, especially logic, because science PRESUPPOSES logic.
Logic is is what CONTROLS reality, not the other way around.
BassP86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Logic is is what CONTROLS reality"
Logic is not a force. It is a developed concept. It 'controls' nothing.
Also, using presupposition in that sense is a misnomer. Science doesn't test Logic because Logic is not a physical law. It is a concept. Mathematics, likewise, isn't 'tested'. It is a defined concept. As is literally everything that is abstract.
This not only demonstrates a limited grasp of logic on your part, but it also fails to assert your position.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Here's an interesting question: Isn't that statement ITSELF an extraordinary claim, and if so, doesn't it too REQUIRE extraordinary evidence to prove that it is the case?"
This is a bad attempt to 'turn the question on itself'. Stating that highly dubious claims require alot of evidence is setting a standard to overcome skepticism.
Understandably, people that subscribe to something that doesn't measure up are prone to try to deconstruct that.
Just as many christians oppose all science.
Mathenaut 1 year ago
This argument can go both ways just because there's books that say God doesn't exist does'nt make it true
brian3413 2 years ago
Agreed the "experience" of one person is not objective to the skeptical observer. But to then automatically label it universally subjective is a bit dangerous. I understand the dilemma of the skeptic in that for a Christian who claims an ongoing experience of relationship with God because it HAS to be defects in their psyche/ability to reason. Take for instance skeptics reaction to Antony Flew aligning with theism (not Christianity), he's been labelled cenile and/or he was coerced into his view.
thetruthnothingless 3 years ago 2
If any credibility is to be granted to something subjective, then it need at least some objective component - some way, some means of being verified.
No such thing exists in christianity, nor any faith.
Mathenaut 3 years ago 2
That is a very true statement. If I have no experience of God, no matter how hard someone tells me of their experience it won't impact me...but I think if we can see an obvious change in behaviour and someone is claiming that this is a direct result of a spiritual transformation although I would agree there might be any other reason for it (they could just be nuts or afflicted with the 'God Virus') but I think it starts to become more objective in the actions of the people involved.
thetruthnothingless 3 years ago
"...I think it starts to become more objective in the actions of the people involved."
This is truer than anything. Christians need to understand that if the only way to validate their claims is through how their actions are affected, then it is hard to take them seriously when accusing one another of not 'truly being christian'.
If the clear majority is batshit insane, it doesn't speak well for the few rational christians there are.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Sure and I take it more seriously when those actions are not for self preservation or advancement as opposed to some tele-evangelism. I'd disagree that it is the only way because I would consider it to be experience coupled with historical analysis on Jesus/Resurrection which is not so subjective. You've hit a good point on what is 'truly being Christian' just as some atheists disagree of probability of God (0-49%)there are differences in opinions on what constitutes a Christian.
thetruthnothingless 3 years ago
Comment removed
Lichoudaris 3 years ago
This is probably the biggest problem with hardcore apologetics in that you can't argue people into Christianity, but hopefully if nothing else it enables non Christians to assess texts in an historical context and then even though they still might reject it, at least they are more aware of what they are rejecting. I'd say that just because you can't argue people into Christianity, doesn't mean an argument can't be provided for a reasonable belief in its claims. Good observation though.
thetruthnothingless 3 years ago
"I'd say that just because you can't argue people into Christianity, doesn't mean an argument can't be provided for a reasonable belief in its claims."
I would somewhat debate this. Especially given the long history of intellectual dishonesty associated with the christian/creationist movement.
Their claim is that the entire natural order was radically and spontaneously suspended - yet they can't show that suspending the natural order at all is even possible.
Just 'god did it' nonsense.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
As one that takes for granted a 14 billion year old universe and adheres to the processes of evolution I don't quite get hardcore creationism and see it as a failure to consider the context of Genesis (which certainly wasn't hardcore science). I guess what I was getting at was the Resurrection; if that didn't happen then regardless of how we got here, Christianity would be false. But if it did happen....well that would be pretty important.
thetruthnothingless 3 years ago
What if the resurrection happened?
There are far more plausible and significant 'what if' questions to ask than that.
When one can establish and demonstrate that the supernatural even exists, then christianity can start to be taken seriously.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Also, probability of god is far below 50/50.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
hmmmm I don't know about that. I'd have to enquire as to what probability calculus was being used?? As far as science goes even if I conceded zero evidence for God, I'd could only be met with zero evidence against (mainly because I don't know of an experiment which can reliably test for 'God'). So if probability for and against is both zero and therefore equal doesn't that by definition mean that scientifically speaking we are dealing with a 50/50?
thetruthnothingless 3 years ago
the big issue for both sides is how they relate their evidences to the question of God's existence. I think what we need is a testable hypothesis which can be carried out. This is why the Resurrection is so important! Because unlike any interpretation of God we have an intervention into human history which can then be tested. If you concede the man existed, we have to go from there. To start with the question of demonstrating the supernatural subverts this and goes to an untestable position.
thetruthnothingless 3 years ago
Conceding that he may have existed is a far cry from validating existence of god.
Thus there is the problem. Evidence against only becomes an issue when there is a valid claim to be refuted. Faith in any kind of god(s) has yet to break the null hypothesis. There is nothing to disprove.
When you consider that all past 'evidences' for a god's existence have been demonstrated false, and that the biggest arguments supporting it are based upon outright lies...it says something about the position.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Mathenaut, Which 'what if' question is more significant than asking: Did God subject Himself to death to prove to humanity not only does He exist, but loves us beyond comprehension, and entered humanity to provide a foretaste of incomprehensible eternal reality for simply loving Him back out of our own free will?
As a person endowed with a curious mind, I would be very interested in this question you've eluded to.
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
What if the whole of the natural world we understand is undermined entirely by a significantly new discovery that makes the concept of the supernatural somewhat plausible? What if we discovered a way of identifying and harnessing the supernatural?
Both outlandish, but far more significant than something equivalent to "what if fairy tales were real?"
Mathenaut 2 years ago 2
Mathenaut - But don't the two questions you've offered infer the same end?
Scholars agree about the reality of Christ as historical. Most agree about the evidence concerning manuscript historicity.
We should be very careful calling something mythical when it is demonstrably not the case.
I believe -- to answer your questions -- that technology has caught up to information that points to design.
As for harnessing it?
Hyperion to a satyr.
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
It's nice that Christ was a historical figure, but that lends no bearing to claims of magic, talking snakes, and the supernatural.
Toward that end, it is no more credible or veracious than any other line of mythology grounded in actual events with reference to real people (i.e. the majority of all fiction).
Lastly, information that points to design? No. If we chucked up everything we couldn't immediately answer to myth and magic, inquiry would die and we would return to catholic Europe.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
In fact Christ's claims lead definitively to the miraculous and the supernatural, both of which can be defined logically, and have been.
C.S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay entitled "Myth Became Fact." I encourage you to read it.
Concerning metaphor,allegory in Scripture, take note that not all believers resemble early 20th century American tent revivalists.
Regarding design, Dr. Francis Collins may be of some initial interest.
Catholic Europe incidentally has provided some wonderful culture
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
The only thing logically defined about 'miracles' and the 'supernatural' are explanations about how such events are anything but.
While I understand that not all christians are the loopy non-sensical type, I still don't understand the inconsistency in picking and choosing what you will and won't accept at allegorical or literal.
I'll look into that essay though; and while the Catholic church provided it's bit in modern culture, the Dark Ages were nothing to marvel at.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Not the case, Mathenaut. Metaphysics, philosophy, delve deep into the subject. You may have a different personal belief, but exhaustive arguments have been made positively by philosophers of repute.
That's an affect of schism, but in terms of a la carte interpretation, that again is something specific to some communions, hardly all.
Standards hold to Scriptural interpretation as they do to any other discipline.
The allegorical and the literal are for the most part, apparent.
NilDesperandum777 2 years ago
"All science depends on a fundamental faith that the universe is rationally intelligible."
No. Just no. Science attempts to explain what is observed in the universe, and simply put, some things aren't so easy to explain. There is no 'faith' involved, unless you're into the habit of making up explanations for the sake of feigning knowledge.
"I would be a fool to believe in god if there wasn't any evidence."
Thus, the stance behind the atheist position. He disregards it so...
Oh, the irony.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Most interestingly, he cites subjective experience as 'hard fact', by referencing the positive ends of people who have supposedly found his particular god.
What about those who have fallen from faith? What do you say to the Atheists who believed so strongly, then turned away after they opened their eyes?
As for the mind being unreliable, it is. Much is not understood, particularly of functions leading to social and mental disorders.
This 'basis for rationality' nonsense is lol.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
He's speaking a sophisticated form of intelligent design.
DefaultPosition 3 years ago
We all ultimately make the assumption that our mind is capable of understanding what is out there. I fail to see universal constant as a proof for the existence of god.
killerbandit 3 years ago