Does God Exist? (Michael Shermer vs John Lennox)

[searchtheoracles]

good and evil is mentioned in genesis 2:9 : ṭôb ra‛ râ‛âh - after: tree [of] knowledge(‛êts da‛ath).

[Voltar143]

@benjaminfair1 religions must be distinguished by examining them and testing them. Quaran for example contradicts the bible and its own claim. Hinduism is only a man made idols and ideas, budhism is an atheistic religion. But Christianity stands out and make sense out of all types of religion including atheism

[Voltar143]

@benjaminfair1 Isaiah 45:7 First of all, the Hebrew word for evil, "rah," is used in many different ways in the Bible. In the KJV Bible it occurs 663 times. 431 times it is translated as "evil." The other 232 times it is translated as "wicked," "bad," "hurt," "harm," "ill," "sorrow," "mischief," "displeased," "adversity," "affliction," "trouble," "calamity," "grievous," "misery," and "trouble."

Here in Isaiah 45:7, He is talking about calamity.

[666TheBloodLust666]

I know this statement will be unpopular however I believe it has to be submitted... Alot of people want to blame God for peoples violent responses to please God... Well my response to that is why don't people begin to find fault in themselves instead of blaming God...

[Nietzschean1000]

Why God never got a PhD ----------------------- 1. He had only one major publication. 2. It was written in Aramaic, not in English. 3. It has no references. 4. It wasn't even published in a refereed journal. ... 7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited. 8. The Scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results. 9. He unlawfully performed not only Animal, but *Human* testing. 10. When one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it by drowning his subjects.

[Nietzschean1000]

John Lennox is saying fluffy word without any sense. is he talking or chewing gum? A man: God, how much is a million dollars to you?

God: It is but a penny.

A man: God, how long is a million years to you?

God: It is but a second.

A man: God, could you please give me a penny?

God: Sure, just a second.

[Nietzschean1000]

Although the most acute judges of the witches and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheless was non-existent. It is thus with all guilt.

Friedrich Nietzsche

[dlorenzo725]

I was not impressed with Shermer's arguments.

[josefantom156]

I always learn something new from atheists in these debates and believers rant the same verses.

[wingedarr0w]

Holy Fuck, at 53mins, did John Lennox just say that it was okay for his sister's child to die because it gave them something to talk about?

[Guit12100]

@wingedarr0w No, they are both simply greatful that John didnt die as well as her child. Which enabled John to talk with her and to help her. Talking is one of the most important tools we have to help people through hard times. Thats pretty obvious. There are good AND bad things, to believe that there are only bad is just foolish.

[mblackchurch]

@AkshayDavid1 It is impossible to have a one-way relationship. I have a relationship with my husband who I speak to, travel with, love with, have fun with and it is returned. So, don't quote the book of Matthew where Jesus said "there will be many who say Lord lord..." I've been there and there's NOTHING you're going to teach me, particularly about relationships. I've been places that would keep you awake at night..all for a one-sided relationship. Know why? He doesn't exist.

[mblackchurch]

Lennox talks about his children and having them and taking the chance that they grow up to love him. But he never mentions that if they didn't he was going to torture them for the rest of their lives. (Much less for an eternity).

[mblackchurch]

@AkshayDavid1 Then why do so many xians become atheists? Please don't answer me with the rhetoric "they weren't real xians"...because I was one once. I was a missionary- a follower and believer in the teachings of Christ! I was a REAL XIAN...much moreso than I've seen with a lot of others who make the same claim. But in doing missionary work, I came close enough to enough horror to realise there is no god. We are here alone and alone we must try to cope. We are human animals.

[benjaminfair1]

@mblackchurch What makes horror horrible, if there is no evil? Why is there such a thing as evil unless there is good. What makes good unless there is some standard by which we can differentiate between good and evil? If there were no God, there would be no good and evil; just actions between humans. Many Christians are confused by the presence of evil and suffering, but their presence doesn't mean God doesn't exist; it just means humans are evil and perpetuate it upon each other.

[mblackchurch]

@benjaminfair1 That's an old and warn out argument. What makes it good to strap on a bomb and martyr yourself for your god in one country and not another? Culture has a lot to do with it. The other is intrinsic to our nature. We know this by studying both the selfishness of toddlers as well as their innate ability to empathise. As for xians, according to the book of Isaiah, their god created evil and good. But I'd never swear to it.

[benjaminfair1]

@mblackchurch You're talking about moral relativism, I'm talking about moral objectivism. Suicide bombing is evil no matter what country you live in, even if the people of that country or the entire world say it isn't. This is moral objectivism. I do agree with you that the awareness of morality is intrinsic to our nature, but please tell me why that is. You are wrong about the bible; God didn't create evil because evil is the absence of good like darkness is the absence of light.

[mblackchurch]

@benjaminfair1 You say god didn't create evil? I beg to differ: Isaiah 45:7: King James Version (KJV) "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Morality is intrinsic to our nature because we are not only naturally empathetic, but we are also social animals.And social animals must adapt to their particular tribe and the social norms of that tribe (humans in this case but applies to all animals).

[benjaminfair1]

@mblackchurch You're taking this hand-picked verse and translation and banking on the use of a single word, and then you take it out of context. I could use another translation that has different wording and then your whole argument dissolves. My point stands, evil is not a thing unto itself, it is the absence of good. And you are still supporting moral relativism. Are some things evil regardless of social norms?

[mblackchurch]

@benjaminfair1 What I am doing is pointing out what should be the most obvious. And that is that morality is not only innate, but also cultural. You say that strapping on bombs is immoral in any society. But death is the answer for infidels according to the word of Allah as seen in the Qur'an. It is completely moral. You are just tap dancing and splitting hairs to impress me. I am not impressed. Please quote the verse as you WISH to see it. Then I will tell you why it's wrong

[Guit12100]

Genesis 2:9 " In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Clearly mentions good and evil.

[mblackchurch]

@Guit12100 The questioner was reading the original Hebrew. That's why Lennox accepted this as a failure on his part to understand. Much is lost in translations...that's the biggest problem with the Bible..or at least one of them.

[spenceII]

One cannot simply explain the existence of meaning of words on a menu through the physics of paper and ink alone. Without a brain, the paper and ink of a menu do not carry meaning; meaning is a product of the brain. To demand an explanation of the meaning behind written language while constraining any answers to discussions of the chemistry of paper and ink, excluding references to the processes of an evolved brain is either foolish or dishonest.

[benjaminfair1]

@spenceII I agree, its the same as naturalism's constraint that the explanation of the existence of the universe be found in natural causes. Yet, since natural laws didn't exist until after the universe was created, and the cause of the universe had to occur before the universe existed (which was also before natural laws existed) then the cause of the universe was necessarily supernatural (outside of natural laws).

[spenceII]

@benjaminfair1

I fail to see the similarity, though I am short of sleep. I agree with what you said in regards to the idea that the state from which the universe arose need not conform to the laws operating within that universe, however would have worded it differently. I would not describe the state from which our universe arose as 'supernatural'. Instead I would simply consider such a state as a more fundamental level of nature, from which our universe sprouted.

[benjaminfair1]

@spenceII I was talking of the similarity between constraining the determination of the meaning of words to their physical properties, and constraining the cause of the universe to physical laws within it. The constraints seem to have a similarity to me.

[enuff761]

Lennox wins this debate pretty handily. For some reason Shermer has trouble winning debates. He should really stick to debunking holocaust denial, those debates he could win. Shermer isn't awful in this debate, but Lennox is very difficult to defeat when debating the existence of God.

[Spaceman2451]

Dr. Shermer totally won this debate but Dr.Lennox did well.

[toronto444444]

If we go back to the beginning, we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests. If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them. Baron D’Holbach

[toronto444444]

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. Delos B. McKown Quote

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

 Edward Gibbon Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Ingersoll

[toronto444444]

Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions. Blaise Pascal Quote You’re basically killing each other to see who’s got the better imaginary friend. Richard Jeni Quote

[toronto444444]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg Quote

[toronto444444]

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. Christopher Hitchens

[toronto444444]

Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. Thomas Jefferson, founding father

[toronto444444]

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle. Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard’s Almanack (1758) Lighthouses are more helpful then churches. Benjamin Franklin

[toronto444444]

Religion just shows that some people have not evolved intellectually. Only the truly simple and those devoid of the ability of critical thinking subscribe to the fiction that is religion.

[toronto444444]

There is no god. Why keep debating it? No religion or religious person has ever provided one shred of evidence for the existence of a god. Most of the key figures of the bible didn't even exist. There is not a single piece of physical evidence for jesus, moses or abraham. The bible is not a reference for morality except as an example of immorality.

[satyu131089]

I pity the uploader for thinking that a debate such as this needs to be won at all!

[daNDayati]

Michael Shermer is an honest skeptic... Lennox is an apologist .. Shermer addresses religious claims the way any rational person would (with disbelief). Lennox rationalizes religious nonsense. best put..."The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not". -- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer . Michael Shermer is that cynic.

[jadagod]

"i worship a god who made me in his image" if that's not wishful thinking in don't know what is

[danielfact]

funny Q&A part

[mcub3d]

i love how the description is so unbiased... FYI Michael Shermer has a PhD as well..

[xmenprince]

El Internet pesa aproximadamente 50 gramos , entonces la informacion si es de hecho una cosa material.

The Internet weight about 50 gr, so actually the information is a material thing.

[cmottes]

God bless Dr. John Lennox.  What a wonderful voice of simple truth from a great mathematician, brilliant mind and humble heart.

[Ebzyy]

God Bless you John Lennox for what you're doing ! And I pray for all the atheists in the world that God will open their hearts! what other people say cannot convince you like God can if you are willing to ask him into your life for yourself. xo

[Spaghettimonster777]

Unbeliveable.... I shouldnt watch these. Only makes me more depressed.

[sablemase]

Lennox sounds like he's giving a sermon at church. I Can't finish this.....

[GaryLyons]

@sablemase ..Lennox is only speaking the truth. The reason you can't finish this is because it rings true to you and you want to continue to hold on to the lie. I pray you repent and receive this truth. For this grace with humility, repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. May God bless you!

[sablemase]

@GaryLyons It is impossible for you to know "Lennox is only speaking the truth". I understand the idea of a deity brings comfort, but it's not good for humanity. A crash course in human history, in regards to religion, will reveal humankinds ignorance and misery, rather then its requited love of god.

How do you know, you were born into the right religion? 70% of the world disagrees with you. Anyways, as we become more civil, religion will continue to dye out. Region has no future. THANK GOD

[GaryLyons]

@sablemase~I wasn't born into my faith that I have now. I came to know Jesus as Lord and Savior when His Word exposed my sin and my need for His grace. So you are wrong there. And God brings truth, yes it is comforting to know He loves you, but the reality of His judgement also brings a reality check. And 100% of the world can believe the lie, but that will not change the truth. And Jesus is clear: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one goes to the Father except through Me." John 14:6)

[sablemase]

@GaryLyons Have you read the Koran, Upanishads/ Veda, and or other holy books of popular religions? How do you know their isn't a better theory of life on hand?

Your comments are, in their self, dogmatic. Statements such as "will not change the truth" are absurd. You can respectively state your opinion, but don't confuse opinion with fact.

Your discourse in reality is scary. Statements of knowing the unknown are dangerous and you are not contributing to the well being of humankind.

[GaryLyons]

@sablemase ...I can assure you that the truth remains true no matter who believes what. And the truth applies to everyone no matter what lie you choose to embrace. And Jesus Christ contributed to the well being of mankind in a radical way. He died so mankind can be forgiven of their sins and receive eternal life in Him. This is fact my friend, I understand your desperation to deny truth so you can continue in sin with as light of a conscience as possible. But again the truth still is true.

[sablemase]

@GaryLyons You can not proclaim to know something that is impossible to know. You have no rational argument. It's the same song different comment.Obviously you don't know what the definition of truth is, so let me help you.

Truth -conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.

a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths." -dictionary-com

You can not include 'fact' in your comments. Don't respond w/o a rational statement! THANKS

[GaryLyons]

@sablemase ...there is nothing more rational than Jesus Christ, not only is He fact, He is truth itself. He is the very definition of truth. And I do know Him, and the best part is that you can know Him too. The problem is that He is not only truth, He is Light. And He gives a reason why you do not even want to approach Him or know Him. He says: "Light has come into the world, but men loved darknessrather than light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light."

[quakerman7]

@sablemase Student to J.L.: 'I am an agnostic. I believe that there are some things we don't know and cannot know.' J.L. 'So, you believe there are some things that cannot be known?' Student: 'Yes' J.L. 'How do you know that?' Me: You see this (from the student) as a self-refuting statement. It is like when Stephen Hawking said, 'Philosophy is dead.' while in the same break making a philosophical statement. J.L. master at exposing these. At which point does JL make some of his own?

[sablemase]

@quakerman7 I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say? Agnosticism is a 'self-refuting statement'? I don't know when 'JL' makes some of his own. But when every statement comes from the Christian bible, that in its self is a problem. One will never be able to prove stories that have been passed down 2k years ago. See were I'm getting at? Christianity's bible is one of thousands of holly books. Jesus story isn't anymore credible than the other religions.

[quakerman7]

@sablemase listen to more J.L. debates. (also ravi zacharias and michael ramsden). When you say 'prove', are you thinking like a 'historian' or a 'mathematician' - they are equally valid disciplines of study. The bible is definitely more credible because of its massive textual sourcing & analysis - you can trace lineages and families & scholars spend their professional lives doing just that. Christianity's claim is that god has written himself into history - actual events with support docs.

[quakerman7]

@sablemase Explanation of agnosticism comment: Hard-agnostics say, 'There are some things that cannot be known.' JL points out that if that statement is true, then, logically, the statement itself might fall under the category of 'those things that cannot be known to be true.' It is therefore a self-refuting statement that hard-agnostics make - how can they be sure you see? Soft-agnostics correctly hold the position, 'I do not know now, but may come upon evidence later' and not self-refute.

[sablemase]

@quakerman7 That's a lot better. Thanks for clearing it up for me. I understand what you are saying but it's still kind of twisting it. The what ifs scenario but I'm not hard agnostic but, an Agnostic Atheist. ( please don't dissect Agnostic Atheist lol) Thanks again for the comment sir !

[quakerman7]

@sablemase Watch JL, Ravi Zacharias & Michael Ramsden - about 40 hrs should do it. And i'm not saying just listen to their sermons (though they are great)... listen to their debates. So, you are A.A. That's a good start for complexity, but nobody beats the sheer odd juxtaposition of Conservative and Mystic like 'Evangelical Quaker' (me). Question: what evidence would convince you? (And don't say: God ripping open the sky.) If you are serious, we can pick this up in email chain (aliased).

[sablemase]

@quakerman7 well, my biggest hang up isn't the existence of god. There very well could be a god. My hang up is individual religions. If we were in the middle east, we would be writing each other over an Islam video. No bible from any religion will convince me of a certain, already discovered deity. It's impossible to prove something from a book of stories. The only way I'll be convinced is when I die and open my eyes to hopefully a Deist god.

[quakerman7]

@sablemase That is a big risk you are taking. Do you think you will have a choice at that moment? In any case, I challenge your statement 'it is impossible to prove something from a book of stories'. It seems that you are making your decision before gathering evidence. Do you think that the Bible's historicity is so weak? In any case, the Bible can be shown to be a collection of writings that was guided by someone who is outside of Time. Have you ever studied prophecies? I can give links.

[sablemase]

@quakerman7 It's a big risk for anyone. What if one dies as a Christian, but Islam is right. What if one dies and awakens to Zeus standing in front of him or her. If Christianity had overwhelming evidence in its bible, 70% of the world wouldn't be divided into Islam, Hinduism,Deism, ect..... I have studied the Bible and the Koran.

[quakerman7]

@sablemase I find it interesting. Jesus performed many miracles, but he did so in a way that were as subtle as they were complete. Oftentimes, of the crowd that was *right there*, half the people believed and the other half did not. He never did things that would absolutely force someone to change his mind if that person was already antagonistic (with exceptions like James & Saul of Tarsis). In the end, you must decide for yourself, not simply follow what 50, 60, 70% of the crowd is doing.

[quakerman7]

@quakerman7 It is difficult to get anywhere with such tight restrictions on text length. Would you like to continue longer discussions in email? I can spin up a new alias or use one I already have.

[quakerman7]

@sablemase If the evidence were equally weighted between Yahweh, Allah & Zeus, then yes, we would all have a real problem. Of course, OT prophecy weights to Yahweh, as does the Resurrection of the prophesied Annointed One (greek: Christ). You error in the 2nd line is in the use of the word 'overwhelming'. The whole point of trying to build a true and loving relationship is that one does *not* overwhelm the beloved. One woos... gently and carefully.

[funbunch]

The guy who said that it is the tree of knowledge and not the tree of knowledge of good and evil @1:21:22 was wrong. Genesis 5:8 כיH3588 ידעH3045 אלהיםH430 כיH3588 ביוםH3117 אכלכםH398 ממנוH4480 ונפקחוH6491 עיניכםH5869 והייתםH1961 כאלהיםHידעיH3045 טובH2896 ורע׃H7451 with the last 3 words being 'knowledge', 'good', 'evil.' The hebrews Strong's reference are as follows.

[narco73]

@K11IKB I keep getting people replying to my comment because it is one of the top comments. Like I have said before, I watched this video months ago, and I don't intend watching it again to answer comments like yours. If you genuinely want to understand this business I would recommend watching some more vids on the subject, assuming taking a university philosophy course is not an option. cheers.

[Legomyegoorj]

@BankHeistVideos You are welcome to that opinion, but I disagree.

Do you really think that discovery could have been made if it wasn't for scientists' having historically upheld the laws of logic? What if scientists had discarded the laws of logic during the age of the Enlightenment?

[Legomyegoorj]

@BankHeistVideos I believe philosophy is just one way one can come to believe in God. Some come to believe in God, or some designer, by using *science*--that is, NOT word games, as you think philosophy is; of course, you are endowed the right to your opinion, but just know that without the Law of Non-Contradiction, and other such rules of logic, of math, and so on, science would ultimately be nothing.

[Legomyegoorj]

@BankHeistVideos Perhaps there are things that come into being without a cause. Perhaps every single theistic argument fails outright. But it may still be the case that God exists.

Furthermore, what does it matter that a majority of scientists are agnostic or atheistic? What does that prove? That these individuals lack a belief that God exists. That in of itself does not show that the God hypothesis is false; such a claim would be a bad case of argumentum ad populi.

[Legomyegoorj]

@BankHeistVideos "Word games" seems like a cop-out to me, personally. He is indeed punctual, but I do not think he uses word games.

WLC also observes that in non-religious countries such as China, the church is growing ever so rapidly. So on a global scale, no, Christianity is hardly dying. But in the traditionally "Western" (who knows what that word now means) countries like the U.S., it is treading water, and indeed slowly sinking.

[Legomyegoorj]

@BankHeistVideos William Lane Craig does an excellent job of showing that Christianity and the theory of evolution are NOT incompatible.

But as for the talking snake, and the Man who can walk on water, you can't dismiss the possibility of a supernatural agent causing these supernatural effects merely on the grounds that all you can observe is natural causation.

And as for the boat, recall that there were no invertebrates or sea-dwelling creatures on the Ark, if it did ever exist.

[cheerluvur25]

@BankHeistVideos If Evolution is a proven fact, can you please explain to me where matter came from?

[dasschleg]

@cheerluvur25 You clearly do not understand what evolution entails if you think that is a valid question.

Evolution is not the explanation of matter.

[AhoSenpai]

Shermer says: "I don't know and you don't know"...

Sir if you don't know.. how do you know I don't know?

God gives us THE foundation of all knowledge - had there not been A PURPOSE for our senses, so that we can get knowledge through them. it would be true, that we couldn't know anything. If everything is just matter and energy, then our thougts are just random chemicals, we couldn't trust them. If God didn't create us with the purpose of knowing HIM, we couldn't know anything at all.

[SonofThunder120]

@BankHeistVideos I teach/lecture "intelligent design" LOL

You took "evolutionary science"!

Then you will be aware there is NO FOSSIL RECORD!!!

You will be aware the single cell has more moving parts than a 737, how did the parts arrive and from what?

You will be aware that that ALL you have learnt is theory/hypothesis

Clearly your just a "google" addict & plagiarise the works of others to sound clever, I acn smell it a mileaway.

[SonofThunder120]

@BankHeistVideos No, I do not want excuses and theory, I want conclusive answers, your links offer no answers based on fact, just fiction, a bit, well a lot like the clearly none existent fossil record.

LOL, for a fact you have never heard of the theory of "punctuated equalibrium", the theory invented becasue there is NO FOSSILRECORD!!!

You have still to answer my questions, yet you seem reticent to do so.

[SonofThunder120]

@BankHeistVideos Your a baseless liar, you have NEVER studied evolution, not ALL scientists after darwin accept evolution, the documentary "expelled the movie" CLEARLY exposes. It exposes you as a liar in your alleged quotes.

DNA has no evoluionary explanation at all, for example RNA is vital for proteins, yet proteins are needed for RNA, so please expalin the dilema of the relationship of RNA & DNA and how this came about?

[SonofThunder120]

@BankHeistVideos As for the talking snake, read Revelation 12:12 and stop Googling"how to respond to religious nuts" you coward

[SonofThunder120]

@BankHeistVideos In your 1st post/attack, you claimed evil-ution a "proven fact", so again, I ask these questions, When was evil-ution a proved a fact? By whom? How? What evidence was used? Why still the debate? Why has the arena of "intelligent design" amongst scientists increased? Have you actually studied evolution in its many suggested forms? Please give examples of the many strands/doctrines/theories? I want answers, not theories, not micky mouse excuses Put up or shut up?

[SonofThunder120]

@BankHeistVideos My questions came first, so, answer mine then I will easily expose your obtuse questions with the righteous indignation they merit.

Put up or shut up.

[SonofThunder120]

@BankHeistVideos Well, clearly you have done no research, hence, either you did not understand the questions or points raised, do not have the answers, or, you have never done any research into the field of evolution VS creation, or, your just a typical armchair youtube coward who just attacks with impunity and without logic facts or truth?

Go figure.

[SonofThunder120]

@BankHeistVideos Evolution has over a trillion errors, go figure?

[SonofThunder120]

@BankHeistVideos Erm, was it?

When?

By whom?

How?

What evidence was used?

Why still the debate?

Why has the arena of "intelligent design" amongst scientists increased?

Have you actually studied evolution in its many suggested forms?

Please give examples?

[AtheistSpanker]

@BankHeistVideos If you wanted links then why wouldn't you ask for them in private message you phoney? Listen carefully...go to google search engine and type in "homeschoolers score. You don't even have to add the "higher." The list of hits will do it for you. You did do that...and you know I'm right. You're full of things to say but none of them are real. You're the talking snake and you think the world revolves around you. :) Why be so chicken ya knucklehead? As I said, Atheist are dumb. :)

[AtheistSpanker]

@BankHeistVideos Homeschoolers, those freaky kids whose parents kept them out of public school to avoid the teachings of evolution and such, consistently score higher than kids in public schools. They also score higher on college entrance exams. The vast majority of those kids are Christians. These statistics are well documented.

[reversao]

+1 to Lennox

[TMOvids]

I don't get why people are saying Lennox won this. He didn't put forward a single clear argument in the whole thing. He's at the level of Hitchens or Dawkins - people who don't put forward any good intellectual case, but are still persuasive popularists. Shermer is quite a bit above this.

[brbori]

the word becomes flesh..the immaterial becomes material .....

[MikeEnRegalia]

When and where did this debate take place? I wonder why people who spend a lot of time posting these debates on YouTube usually fail to mention the when and where in the text.

BTW: Epic fail for Lennox here - as usual. The question is "does god exist", and what does he do? Bring up Jesus and historical evidence which is circular in any case (bible -> god -> bible -> god -> ...).

[TMOvids]

@MikeEnRegalia Judging from the references being made, I think this was a few years back. I'm not sure the historical evidence for Jesus is a circular argument. The bible isn't somewhat accurate because of God, but because the historical method says so.

[IloveYOUviruses]

uffff only with the case for Jesus, Shermer was owned

[AtheistSpanker]

Atheists are dumb.

[MereChristianLogic]

I really like John Lennox. His administration was kind enough to contact me and tell me how they appreciate us as his students. John Lennox is a true man of the true God.

[narco73]

So I looked up the "german scholar" that is skeptical about the historicity of Jesus.

Turns out he IS an historian, with eleven books published on early christianity.

He just happens to be a professor of German as well. Surely being a professor in German and being an historian are not mutually exclusive?

I'd also note that Lennox is professor of mathematics. What would he say about his own right to talk about the subjects of the debate? Seems a bit contradictory.

[narco73]

Ok, so I' only half an hour in, but so far Lennox has committed nearly every logical fallacy in the book..

I don't think Shermer is a great speaker, but at least he is honest in his argument.

Bizzare that people in these comments think Lennox does a good job. Maybe he pulls his socks up further in. I'll keep watching.

[MrVirtualCoder]

@narco73 I dare you. Mention one. Only one.

[BassP86]

@narco73

Nearly every logical fallacy in the book? Sounds like nothing more than a copout, if you ask me.

[psycofloyd]

@narco73 Umm not really. You just have a bias if you haven't noticed. Heaven forbid you were actually in search of truth...

[HebrewTiger]

@narco73 Please name them and address each fallacy, I have watched this debate 3 times in all and didn't notice any. Did you make a drive-by comment and not plan to support your assertion?

[narco73]

@HebrewTiger My comment was from four months ago and I don't plan on watching this video again. If you can't recognize a bad argument that is not my problem.

[jgoltz37]

@narco73 : Can you point out a few parts where Lennox commits the logical fallacies?

[quakerman7]

@narco73 I repeat comment by jgoltz37: where is J.L. making logical fallacies? I have watched about 20 hrs of his debates and, so far, I have not yet seen his opponent attack his logic, only his conclusions and/or facts-in-evidence.

[BrightLight57]

Who is the liar?

1 John 2:22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son.

[SonofThunder120]

@BrightLight57 So true, so true.

By implication, this scripture when used as it should be really does show the depth of deception prevailing in the world today (1 John 5:19, 2 Cor 4:3-4, Rev 12:9)

ALL evolutionists, athiests, hindus, sikhs, jews, muslims and false christian denominations are on the "road to destruction" Matt 7:13-14.

Too, Romans 1:20 concludes, based on evidence and perception, its "inexcusable" to say no or doubt Gods existence or qualities

[arktheball]

Lols do you believe in athiesm? "Its not belief, its simply I dont believe in God." SO..... its a belief NOT god... therefore its a belief in the affirmative that NOT God... Schermer fail

[kidart89]

1:21:35 Epic! Hahah

[CyberBushBush]

I don't get why people feel the need to claim victory for their "team" over a debate like this. These are two people coming from very different worldviews and the debate was interesting. To imply the only thing to get from this video is a victory patch shows extensive intellectual destitute.

One of the biggest flaws that Lennox did in his arguments was argumentum ad populum. Granted, it tells something of people's conviction over their world view, but it isn't evidence for a deity.

[uralldiseasedXD]

hello

[vivaramones1]

Don't mean to sound rude but i thought it would be nicer to get rid of chapter menu text, and keep it consistent. Thank you :)

[gutbolt]

@vivaramones1 My guess is that this was pieced together from a bunch of 10 min parts and if you take out the text at the begining of the parts, you would lose the audio behind it. It's still better then clicking on a new part every 10 min :D

[SonofThunder120]

Stll no fossil record exists at all to prove any form of evolution, natural selection or punctuated equalibrium, fact.

[thunderbolt94]

@SonofThunder120

Wtf? Are you on drugs? Evolution has been proven time and time again so many times that it's pretty much a fact. And no transitional fossils? You mean like the countless transitional fossils, whether it be the evolution of insects, whales, invertebrates to fish, etc. You have to be kidding me.

[SonofThunder120]

@thunderbolt94 LOL!

For a fact you have not studied evolution and ride as a plagiariser on the back of conjecture and the sophistry evolution is propagandarised with.

I teach intelligent design and during the course destroy evolution at any level, "evil-ution" as it should be called.

Answer me this oh wise and learned one, please expalin the "cambrian explosion?"

[thunderbolt94]

@SonofThunder120

Ignoring your ridiculous claims that evolution is "sophistry", your claim that you can destroy "evil-ution" is just plain laughable.

And the Cambrian Explosion was not a literal explosion. Get your science correct. It was the sudden appearance of life that appeared around that time 545 million years ago that lasted around 5 to 10 million years, which is enough time for life to evolve.

Oh and btw, learn how to correct spell "explain" ;-)

[SonofThunder120]

@thunderbolt94 Your retardedness must be a by product of the limited intelligence handed down through primates, how your parents provided a living example of a specimen like you is just an example of how altruistic or stupid they themselves are.

"cambrian explosion" is not my phrase but that of paleantologists, please explain the why the phrase, dont provide mickey mouse token excuses for fear you expose your clear lack of knowledge in this field and risk humiliating your parents further.

[thunderbolt94]

@SonofThunder120

Your insults at me just demonstrate to any sane person looking at this comment thread your level of maturity and level of knowledge you have on basic science (which is pretty low).

For one, Cambrian Explosion is just a name given to help explain the sudden appearance of life. That's it. Just like The Big Bang is not a LITERAL explosion in space, its just a name used to describe the expansion of space. The Cambrian Explosion is the same idea, except for biological life.

[SonofThunder120]

@thunderbolt94 My insult, as you see it is a direct response to your unproved attack on me, fact.

I merely made a post to this video, it was YOU who felt the need to reply to my post, clearly logic, truth, fact and reasonablness have not matured in you as a human, perhaps the "selfish" gene is manifesting itself?

[SonofThunder120]

@thunderbolt94 The "sudden explosion" does not show from where all this life came from, fact.

It does not show any mutation from one life form to another, fact.

It does not show how plants developed, fact.

There is no fossil record of any species in this explosion showing gradual adaption or evolving, fact.

The big bang is a different subject, however, the universe operates with mathmatical precision, another fact you are clearly not aware of.

You offer no answer/explanation, just excuse/abuse

[thunderbolt94]

@SonofThunder120

1) first of all, you are confusing the origin of life with that of the sudden appearance of new life forms. Cambrian explosion is not talking about the origin of life itself, but new and different FORMS of life.

2) I recommend you look up "transitional fossils" into any academic resource.

3)Again, look up transitional fossils in any of the academic resources.

4) I took a university astrobiology course.

You're starting to come off ridiculous to sane people reading this.

[SonofThunder120]

@thunderbolt94 Wrong, I was making the point that in this period, there is no evidence of mutation/evolution

Please expalin the relationship between RNA and DNA?

How did this relationship start?

The single cell has as many moving parts as a 737, from where did this parts come from?

3 complicated objects in the universe are the human brain/optic nerve/eye. All 3 are need together to function for vision, one is wasted without the other, please explain the origins of these components?

[TheLaughingOut]

@SonofThunder120 Fact! LOL

Wow, what more can I do than mock that statement? I guess I could tell you to go to a museum of natural history, but you wont will you? Naw, you like your delusion.

[SonofThunder120]

@TheLaughingOut I have been, all I found was complete specimens, no natural selection, no mutations and no punctuated equalibrium.

As with the other example of of manipulated media peer pressure, you too have done not one shred of research, fact.

To you Einstien was a fool too because he believed in "intelligent design" too

So, whose the fool now, the one pro active in research or the TV armchair general?.

Oh by the way, why did evolution create the delusion?

[TheLaughingOut]

@SonofThunder120 Whether Einstein believed something or not is irrelevant.

"Why did evolution create the delusion?" Great question!

Because the individual humans who were more inquisitive tended to pass on their genes. We're always asking ourselves why something happened. It's only natural to ask why we exist or why the universe exists. Unfortunately most of us can't see that the question is begging the question. We have no reason to assume that there is a reason at all.

[SonofThunder120]

@TheLaughingOut For the sake of not humiliating yourself, I bet "what Einstien believed was irrelevent" LOL, I trying to work out if this comment is absurd or just downright contempt?

So evolution evolved the human brain, and from this inanimate onject came abstract thought and from this abstract thought it decieved itself about its own origin, huh, yep, this is not absurd its downright contempt.

[TheLaughingOut]

@SonofThunder120 LOL pathetic.

If all you can do is commit ad hominem fallacies then why would I bother? I feel sorry for you.

[poprockssuck87]

Also, when Shermer rebutted about comfort with Scientology not being different from the comfort of Christianity, making neither any more valid, I think Lennox's point was that the same could be said with the comfort of atheism and naturalism; that the same could be said of an atheist who, realizing that this is it and that we should understand events through that lens, could find "peace." However, Lennox wasn't using it to argue for Christianity, but dealing with the Problem of Evil that arises.

[poprockssuck87]

Shermer didn't really answer the first audience question all too well. His point about "destroy the brain and it loses function" isn't a valid refutation of the mind/non-material question. The same response could be given to the function of power wires running from my computer to the wall. If I destroy them, all function ceases with my computer. This, however, doesn't mean that all which causes my computer to function is these wires to the wall. No one is arguing that the brain isn't necessary.

[OccasionallyBearded]

@poprockssuck87 I agree. Damaging the circuits in a television set may result in the T.V. being unable to receive certain channels, or it may not have color anymore, or its sound quality may be reduced. If you fix the circuits, then the T.V. will once again have good sound or color or it will once again be able to receive its normal range of channels/ programs. But that doesn't prove that the programs (and the movies or sitcoms that appear on those channels) are caused and created by the T.V...

[Jeremiah20126]

wow, John Lennox is very intelligent.

[kockgunner]

Shermer's arguments are so elementary. I mean he's telling God doesn't exist because amputees aren't getting their limbs back? God created the laws of physics which are constant like He is.

[pureebreeze]

Already saw this debate but Im gonna watch it again. Oh yeah Lennox won

[MegaFraudbuster]

well done Lennox.

[TrueTaike]

Lennox is a bull dog who is going to chew on Shermer like rubber toy.