Prof John Lennox presents evidence that God exists

I really just posted this for the guy in the audience. His reaction was actually in another part of the program but I stuck it in here for comedic effect.

But after all the comments I decided to take a look at JLX's argument. Off the bat it is buffoonish blather. I had to keep replaying the video b/c my brain would shut down and my head would slam on my desk.

He can't deal with the fact that humans could possibly consider the universe to be "rationally intelligible" without (get this) the universe itself having intelligence behind it giving us a kick in the right direction. Say what JLX? What about Natural Selection? You know, that engine for generating species with intelligence sufficiently complex to ask big questions. No, instead he declares (out of his ass) that this means that there MUST be a God (Judeo-Christian no less) while he condescendingly waves his finger at the audience like a pompous tool. Ridiculous.

From ABC's Q&A program 18 July 2011.

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• prof
• john
• lennox
• oxford
• mathematical
• god
• proof
• QED

[BigLebowsk]

I like his face!

[iihippoii]

This is not evidence. This is an opinion combined with his faith. This clip has about as much to do with the scientific method as my opinions on the taste of a tuna sandwich.

[HannoverFisk]

fail

[ahhninjadragon]

@NilDesperandum777 you are good at turning the conversation on attacking me instead of building an argument against me.it doesnt work on me I dont have as much hate as you.

[ahhninjadragon]

@NilDesperandum777 I was talking about The Testimony of The Evangelists the clue was in the title the book relies on the fact that The Testimony of The Evangelists is true and I dont think it is.I didnt read it never said I did and will never read it either as it is self consistent argument like yours hence no evidence.try reading somthing that is not one sided

[ahhninjadragon]

@NilDesperandum777 I never read the book, but I did what you do to the bible. I listen to what other people say and use it because according to you thats the best way to get the truth of it. so you cant have it both ways

[NilDesperandum777]

@ahhninjadragon And as for , "you lead the conversation to the fact that we are talking how "they were socially normal"" AGAIN, not what I said. LEARN TO READ. Here's the sentence only a few posts down: "Secondly, I didnt say you said they were socially normal." SO....how exactly do you get what you wrote? Seriously, face it, your English is either not nearly as good as you think, or you have a a real problem with comprehension..not to mention honesty.

[NilDesperandum777]

@ahhninjadragon (From Cont.) ....NOT The Treatise On The Law Of Evidence as I had mentioned. So....you messed up and you, sir are a liar. You have not read The Testimony Of The Evangelist by Greenleaf or The Treatise On The Law Of Evidence, which mentions nothing about the Gospel writers. You surfed and found a little blurb and tried to pass of the opinon as your own...but you dont know what youre talking about...again. And that's a fact.

[NilDesperandum777]

@ahhninjadragon Well, let's be honest here...I mentioned Greenleaf a few times and you didnt so much as bat an eye to the mention or the quotes I provided, and now you're providing an opinion stating that you "know the book" ? Firstly, it's three volumes, and a textbook used at Harvard with respect to the rules of evidence. The book that you are claiming to "know" is called The Testimony of The Evangelists...(Cont)

[ahhninjadragon]

@NilDesperandum777 Simon Greenleaf's Treatise

the hole book as I know it relies on the fact that the gospel writers can be shown to be honest and I dont believe they are so how is that evidence?

you brought it up, in the contexts of evil,you know you did.

you lead the conversation to the fact that we are talking how "they were socially normal"when I wasnt I said they were psychologically handicapped normality has nothing to do with it we arnt talking about that