Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate - Has Science Buried God?

Oxford Museum of Natural History hosts this fascinating and controversial debate on the existence of God. Professor John Lennox explains how science points to an intelligent creator and Richard Dawkins offers a counterargument.

When Dawkins was asked if he ever considered God, he said, ""Yeah maybe I have, but if I have, so what? It doesn't make it true. That's what it matters."

To this I'd like to ask him, how does he know if "it" is not true? Haven't seen any evidence? How does it matter to the very existence of God? Does God disappear just because you think you haven't seen any "evidence?" Someone is appealing to his own ignorance here if you ask me. ;) BTW, why would God have any need to create any other gods anyway?

vid by : fixed-point.org

• Category

  Education

[SawZaag]

Ah yes, Mschocolalicious, the "personal experience" the big Jesus jaunt. "Holy spirit" anyone? Or maybe a little glossolalia session? Yeah? How's the lobe doing? Manage to re-ignite it, did you? YOU WERE DUPED!!

[Jessica Payne]

Which God are you talking about by the way? No the evidence does not point towards a God. People just think because they don't understand evolution, or how the Big Bang works, or can't wrap their heads around it, that God must have done it. That is not evidence.

[Jessica Payne]

Don't feel sorry for me. I will live my life like it's the only life I get, while you guys think that you get to live after death. I feel sorry for you. Truthfully I put the story of God and the story of Fairies in the same category. They're both made up for kids, and eventually it's time to put childish things away.

[Jessica Payne]

The universe doesn't owe you meaning. Are you a creationist? Evolution is actually a fact. Which God by the way? An intelligent person does not say, " I don't like evolution, so that means that a man in the sky popped out of nowhere, and created everything with his magical powers." There is no evidence to any God existing, ( and faith does not count) and there is loads of evidence for evolution. You people never try to prove yourselves right. You only try to prove Atheists wrong.

[D. EmP.]

youre not understanding nwt aim asking. totally missed the whole point.

[Mschocolalicious]

Thankfully I can rely on my own personal experiences for why I believe in God and these experiences are sufficient enough for me to say I know without a shadow of a doubt there is a God and so will you when you depart from this earth. I'n just sorry you choose to find out the hard way.

[Mschocolalicious]

An intelligent one. Why would any rational person consider all the complexities that exist and believe there is no intelligence orchestrating the process as incomprehensible as the universe and the DNA patterns appear to be. You suggest I believe we are a byproduct of some evolutionary process that has no meaning but randomly evolved through energy, matter and natural selection which implies no purpose for life. I think that rationale is stupid.

[Ohubblington]

The evidence points more to the flying spaghetti monster, THAT'S the point.

God is good right?

Humans aren't very tasty, yet spaghetti is brilliant. Therefor the FSM is the true deity, for he trumps the christian god in quality of taste.

This ''argument'' (obviously flawed, there is no god besides the FSM) proves more then your statements, don't you think? Saying that atheists ignore the evidence is a bold and profoundly ignorant claim. Please explain the proof for your PARTICULAR God.

[SawZaag]

You may perceive the "evidence" as pointing to some "god", Gary, but where's the evidence of "god"?

[Gary Lyons]

The evidence points to God, thats the point. I wonder why atheists ignore the evidence just because they do not like where the evidence leads. What kind of thought process is that?