John Lennox disarms with a smile - Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2021
- Watch how John Lennox responds to an aggressive question from Richard Dawkins?
Watch the whole video on our youtube channel, "Grasping The Nettle"
• Who is John Lennox - A...
A thousand blessings to this humble servant of God.
Only the strong can be truly gentle.
And the truly gentle, strong.
@@Irelandwithoutborders Great wisdom, indeed.
You can call it self- deprecation or humility, but it’s the sign of a man who understands his place and his God.
Science does not answer questions, it enables you to ask more. By the time science can prove God's reality, hopefully humanity will have evolved beyond the need to ask
That's some straight up bullshit. You have any f*cking idea how many questions science has answered? In comparison: how many question does religion answer? Yeah, that's about right.
@@RoonyKingXL …language, Timothy.
Science does answer lots of questions, but it can’t answer the big one.
Science can only deal with what’s inside the frame of naturalism.
Anything outside is super naturalism and by its very nature outside the remit of science.
Thank God there are many, many top notch scientists who rejoice in the supernatural rather than pretending such things cannot be.
As for humanity ‘evolving’ beyond the need to ask, Mr Dickinson obviously hasn’t read the end of the Book.
@@RoonyKingXL You totally missed my point, Every answer only leads to many many more ie; E=MC2 is technically wrong by virtue of the fact that it is incomplete
Ms Craske's comment is correct about science I personally think Science & Religion are opposite sides of the same coin FYI, I Love Science & everything it has bestowed upon us & I despise Religion with a passion, because I believe in GOD I think science is a closer look at how God makes things work, they are the same thing
@@RoonyKingXL Religion answers where morality comes from. Science does not.
Magical talking fairy rocks do not inform you how to behave, as you believe they do.
@@RoonyKingXL how do you tell the difference between good science and bad science, or do you just blindly embrace and follow science in general (good and bad) without questioning it ? everything must be challenged including religion as well. Science cannot answer everything, it is a tool to TEST things, just as maths is also used to test or model things. you need to get out of the one knowledge silo of 'science' that atheists are trapped in and open your mind by entering other knowledge 'silos' (the 'non-science' faculties at university) , that's what all the great creative minds did like Mozart, Handel, Einstein, Dali, Newton, Da Vinci, Michelangelo ........
Man with wisdom.
which one?
@@gknight4719 the person that believe in miracles with miracle worker.
@@daddada2984 really, you can prove a god by adding up numbers.
@@gknight4719 can you disprove God by adding numbers?
If there is no Designer? Why math is not random?
@@daddada2984 You can not prove or disprove a negative! but it is not a
truth claim", saying you do not accept the evidence that there is one!
The burton of proof is on the one that makes the claim that there is one.
JOHN LENNOX thinks that the weight of the subatomic particles is
just so for life to work! so there must be a creator! see a problem with that?
I could listen to J Lennox all day
It's fairly easy to sympathise with Dawkins. He's used to debating people with at least a modicum understanding of reality. To have Lennox against him was the equivalent of putting a flat-earther in a discussion with serious geologists, or a proponent of the rules of Fight Club in a meeting about local laws. That Lennox smiles while endlessly saying daft and daffy things doesn't mean he's of a calibre worth putting amongst serious discussions.
“I know you can” lmao dawkins is a little adorable in an infuriating kind of way
His arguments are embarring for atheist philosophers. He distorts logic in a rather naive manner.
Just a quick shout out to some of my mentors through the years. Men of God who were giants in the field of biblical theology :Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dr. John Walvootd, Dr. Norman Geisler, H. H. Hodge, Charles Rurie, Dr. John Feinberg, and Dwight Pentecost. Blessings to each as they built the church up with sound doctrine for the glory of God and His kingdom. 👍🙏
It's not a smile but a smug and arrogant expression, a condescending assertion of feeling superior to others.
Almost exactly how I would have done it. Walking on water? Making water into wine? Excuse me but the Bible says that without him nothing was made, that was made. Jesus spoke the universe into existence. The examples you bring up are trivial. Exactly what Came to my mind. Science is nothing more than man's attempt to explain God's creation. Nothing says God can't change that at anytime. As a matter of fact that's kind of what we're waiting on. Christ's return and a new heaven and a new earth
" Excuse me but the Bible says that without him nothing was made, that was made. "- excuse me but- so what?
@@mcmanustony think long and hard on your position son. For every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord of the earth. He's going to judge you one day and if you don't fall under his grace that he's provided? He is going to sentence you to eternity in hell. Is your sarcastic wit worth all that? You're gonna do the bowling that's guaranteed where you go is up to you.
“” THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD “
The fool believed this statement
@@alexnik1181
I AM GLAD TO BE A "" FOOL FOR JESUS" THAN A. " BRIGHT LIGHT". IN HELL. WHERE MOST OF THEM ARE NOW AND THE REST HERE SOON TO FOLLOW INCLUDING YOU
YOUNG FELLOW. IF YOU DO NOT REPENT OF YOUR PRIDE AND SINS GOD STATES
" THE WISDOM OF GOD IS FOOLISHNESS TO MEN". AND
"" GOD RESISTS THE PROUD BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE"
THE CHOICE IS UP TO EACH PERSON WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE LOVE MERCY AND FORGIVENESS OF JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY WHO SHED HIS BLOOD TO PAY FOR OUR SINS WHICH NEITHER WE OR ANY OTHER CAN DO SO ALL WHO BELIEVE CAN JOIN HIM IN HEAVEN OR SIMPLY WALK AWAY BELIEVING THAT THERE MUST BE ANOTHER ANSWER OUT THERE SOMEWHERE AND THAT IF WE LOOK HARD AND LONG ENOUGH WE WILL FIND IT
BUT I WOULD NOT BE LOOKING FOR EVER. BECAUSE TOMORROW OR EVEN TODAY IS NOT PROMISED TO ANYBODY I HAVE KNOWN MANY IN MY TIME WHO SAID. "" SEE YOU NEXTWEEK"". OR ""SEE YOU TOMORROW". ONLY FOR ME TO VISIT THEM IN A BOX A FEW DAYS LATER
@@tonymorfea6319 I pity you. But can't help you.
@@alexnik1181
WELL THANK YOU BRIGHT YOUNG FELLOW FOR YOUR EMPATHY
BUT I HAVE TO HONESTLY ADMIT THAT OVER 7 YRS OF UNIVERSITY DID NOT MAKE ME THE SMARTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD NOR HAVE I ANY DESIRE TO BE. I WILL LEAVE THAT FOR THE MORE AMBITIOUS ONES OUT THERE WHO WANT TO
" MAKE A NAME ". FOR THEMSELVES I AM JUST CONTENT TO BE A SIMPLE MINDED
FOLLOWER OF JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY WHO THOUGHT A SCUMBAG LIKE ME WAS WORTH
SAVING !!!
@@tonymorfea6319 If believing a lie and being simple minded is what makes you happy, then I'm very sorry for you. It's your life.
John Lenox is a true treasure!!!
That's for sure! I'm surprised we arrived here around the same time!
Shame on those two Gentleman. Is their self-conscoiusness so week, that they need taunt and slander Mister Dawkins in an interview like debate. Simple disgusting und prooving the point, that they are not right.
"Opposite to [Godliness] is atheism in profession, and idolatry in practise. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes and no more on either side of the face, and just two ears on either side of the head, and a nose with two holes and no more between the eyes, and one mouth under the nose, and either two fore legs or two wings or two arms on the sholders and two legs on the hips, one on either side and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, and within transparent juices with a crystalline lens in the middle and a pupil before the lens, all of them so truly shaped and fitted for vision that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These and such like considerations always have and ever will prevail with mankind to believe that there is a being who made all things and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared." - Isaac Newton
Thanks for posting this.
@@GhostBearCommander You're welcome.
Great quote. Thanks!
Newton was born and died too early to know about evolution.
Had he been alive at the time of Darwin or later, we can be pretty sure he would have understood it, and not have said any of the above.
He probably wouldn't have believed in astrology either.
Newton believed in alchemy.
Disarms? Full disclosure of a mind captured by anti-rational memes of claims of a supernatural creator seems to be a better summary and description and of this cherry-picking of a video. Too bad about Lennox! Held hostage.
So Dawkins criticised JL's methods of inquiry and called it unscientific. And JL's is not even defending. JL just proved Dawkins point.
Utter nonsense. Richard Dawkins has a good deal of credibility and that is based on his work as a scientist. Lennox is just spouting stuff that he has absolutely no evidence of. That is what we live with now, even considering what science has given us and the harm that religion has empirically caused (and continues to do). Dawkin has reasons to be angry at such charlatanism.
As far as I can tell, Not a single person on this comments page has watched the actual full debate & therefor should not be commenting about its content!! Go do that first then come back & make educated comments. I respect Lennox and am puzzled that he would endorse this little snippet of quasi truth.
To even have a discussion about God in the first place, shouldn't His properties be considered? If he's Spirit, as scriptures say, how do you evaluate that through science and what then is the premise of this debate?
I guess this would be answered by the laws of logic that leads us through the observation of nature, to the understading that there is a God. I hope have helped and sorry by my english, it's not my native language.
That's why the religious have faith, they dont have facts. You need to rely on faith in order to believe in dogmatic bullshit, they are as gullible as they get
@@FactStorm
Everyone has faith, it's just some people put their faith in different things. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. Also, what's with all the petty hostility?
@Johnny Don Do you even hear yourself?
There are also scriptures and historical accounts of Hinduism, Judaism, Islam etc.
That's an entirely separate question as to whether the supernatural exists or not, and whose version of religious faith (out of the thousands out there) is correct. Wth do manuscripts have to do with cosmology? You really think ancient people knew more than we did? These primitive tribes didn't even know of earth's orbit or what germs were. People of faith should sit their asses down, for they have no credibility. It's called belief for a reason, and it wouldn't be called faith had it been empirical knowledge.
It just amazes me how indoctrinated and out of touch religious people are. When the the mind is hijacked by wretched theological doctrines during childhood, then its hard to shake them off during adulthood. The dogmas get ingrained so deep to the point of no return, that is why it if often futile to try and reason with an imam, priest, rabbi, guru and other knuckleheads of their sorts.
You think that by simplistically saying "for Christianity the dead sea scrolls and the fact that there and even the romans can attest to this account", it seals the deal on your religious claims? Hilarious if it wasn't so tragic and pitiful.
Btw, take that cross off our flag, you do know we are a secular country right..and if you reply with "bUt OuR MoTtO SaYs In GoD wE TrUsT!" then it will prove further just how unoriginal you are. It will showcase an amateur who can't even get the basics right.
@@FactStorm Other then the scriptures of the Jews you mentioned, which is basically the first books of the Bible, no other religion on earth has a book like the Bible. None are based on historical fact, nor do they show any scientific knowledge, nor do they have any prophesy in them. Your ignorance of what the Bible teaches shows in your comment, for instance, you said; "What do manuscripts have to do with cosmology? You really think ancient people knew more than we did?" -No they didn't, but God gave some of them insight to things we didn't know till just recently. Such things as the earth 'hangs on nothing', 'the earth is a sphere', 'the stars are numerous', 'the earths winds have a pattern', 'there are waterspout's and springs on the ocean floor' etc. I could go on here all day. Explain to me how would they know such things millennia before man discovered them? Careful study of Biblical scholastic works is due on your part in a big way before you go calling others 'pitiful'. The only one to be pitied here is you in your ignorance. On your final comment; You are a fool if you think we live in a secular country. It may be under the control of secular devil worshipping people at the moment, but many people possibly 50% are still God fearing and will eventually stand firm for what is right and just. People like you will be found on the wrong side of things if you don't change.
John Lennox is honourable gentle fool.
I believe all that JESUS did do and still does.
He needs a smile. When it comes to debating religion that's the only thing he's got.
John Lennox is the grandad any Christian would like to have
What a passive aggression.
Love you Jhon
I find it easier to believe that Jesus could do all these miracles...easier than believing molecules to man..
exactly
Have you tried reading books?
Very very true Dan. 👍 you are not a mistake.
@@mcmanustony
I studied anthropology in university,,,wrote an essay on the topic of evolution vs. Creation
My prof liked it,,,could not refute it
It takes as much or more faith to believe in molecules to man as it does to believe in creation
Take care,,thanks for the comment
@@dandyer2616 do you think you’ll ever get beyond stupid slogans to the level of connected thought?
"Disarms with a smile". Did you ever see a video where Lennox didn't have a permanent smile. It's such a triviality to believe that Jesus turned water into wine. The God that created the universe turning water into wine on a social occasion? How trivial can a God get? I wouldn't say that Richard Dawson was angry. He was incredulous.
Are you aware that the universe does not exist in the Bible? Both versions of the Genesis creation are asinine. God creates 1 land, 1 sea, and multiple skies. He does not create a planet in a solar system in a universe. Name one thing more than 500 miles from Jerusalem the Bible accurately describes.
@@steveebling8480 Genesis is pure etiology. I agree with you: the old testament people knew nothing of the universe. But Christians believe that God created the universe.
@@albertgainsworth Why?
@@steveebling8480 Dr.Hugh Ross believes that God created the whole massive universe so the Earth would exist as a platform for Jesus to do his thing ----- as I understand it.
@@albertgainsworth Ross suffers from biblical delirium. The Bible thinks earth is the center and essence of the world and what we now know is the universe exists to serve us. Consider Genesis. God spends 83% of his time creating earth and 17% (one day) creating the universe. It simply reflects the scientific ignorance of the time and gives us no insight into anything.
😀
Dawkins said that given enough time a car could evolve into an airplane. Why waste time with this scoffer my brothers and sisters?
Cars did evolve into airplanes. Animal evolution is based on genetics.
@@steveebling8480 what? Lol
@@steveebling8480 It's based on a lie from the pit of hell. Evolution us spiritual. The body devolves. The end
BY MAN you fool... which is exactly what happened''''
Curtis Bell Just LOL
Dr Dawkins is a man who BELIEVES drinking wine or his favourite drink will get him through life that he has no other way of dealing with but ESCAPING from. dr Dawkins in my opinion is like the boys who bullied ELISHA the prophet but not being aware of the environment he lives in something as savage much like a bear is- intervenes. a bear being a metaphor.
What?
@@Zura_Lanch if you don't know maybe you are not as clever as you think you are.
@@gjeacockeThat's probably more attributable to your merciless mangling of written English. And are you sure the Elisha story helps you? A ruthless psychopathic god sends bears to kill children for mockery? Sums up religion perfectly..."kiss my arse with prayer, or I'll torture and kill you". What a healthy belief system.
I wonder if Jesus ever made Port.
Does Mr.Lennox not know, that "LOGOS" mostly symbolizes (means) "utteration" iow some-thing (detectable) namely caused by the brain, asserting=object-IZING=FAKING=NOT caused by the imaginary (PSYCHE=inside-brain-effect)?
Please get rid of the adds that cause stress to people who don't have stress and continue trying to put words in our minds so they can make money out of people misery
Dawkins didn't use ridicule. He used logic. Lennox only thinks it was ridicule because Dawkins made him look ridiculous as a so-called scientist.
They cannot belive that God turned watter into wine but they belive in a multiverse that they don't have any evidence or any kind of proof?
We believe in a universe, for which there is no doubt, and we consider a multiverse as a POSSIBILITY.
One believes a God can do miracles. The other believes that inert matter can produce both Intelligence and Life by Chance.
One or the other is correct. There is no Third way.
"There is no Third way."- between religion and your silly strawman? Of course there is. The laws of physics and chemistry are not chance. Natural selection is the OPPOSITE of chance.
Nothing is impossible with God. Luke 1:37.
But did he produce a god?
Your God is imaginary. As are all gods. =
@@nothinghere1996 Interesting thinking. But everything in our lives evolved from bits and pieces of the universe. Any beliefs of what exists beyond the universe are just that: beliefs. Make a list of what humans have believed and tell me what good a belief is.
@@nothinghere1996 All right, what do you observe?
@@nothinghere1996 Your lamps are not observable. So not you or anyone can observe them. You have imagined them and then believed your imagination...in short. Your ID correctly identifies you. Either show up with reasoned, factual argument or get lost.
@@steveebling8480 spot on, if John Lennox was just a bit down the rabbit hole,
he did a head dive "down the hole" with that response!
1 Corinthians 15:3-4
1 Timothy 2:12
Hush.
@@FactStorm
Hope you aren't an atheist, otherwise you can't really make a case for that being immoral anyway
@@parker6936 Also, you would have to prove the link or exclusivity of religion with morality.
Why are most inmates religious? And why is the verse I posted (one of many) show immoral teachings since you claim religion to be the source of morality? If it is the case, it should show otherwise.
Seriously, you get everything wrong and have just embarrassed yourself. Takes one second to make a mess but an hour to clean it up. You really are a piece of work..totally devoid of reason.
@@FactStorm
A little touchy aren't we.
Before I begin, I would like to point something unrelated out. Your first comment to me started with "Also". Was this intentional? I'm asking because youtube has a history now of cenc0ring and hiding some comments from the public without letting the original commenter know. If you sent 2 separate comments to me, then I'm just letting you know I can only see one. I suggest logging out of your account and coming back to see that one of them is hidden. If you did only send one comment to me... why the heck does it start with "Also"??? It makes no sense, and you wasted my time thinking I was helping you.
Anyway, there seems to be a misunderstanding. I never claimed religion "owns" morality. But logically, if God doesn't exist, then OBJECTIVE morality doesn't exist either. Being an atheist, I think you would agree with this. Here's the kicker. If objective morality doesn't exist, then nothing is objectively right or wrong. It's all just a matter of subjective opinion/preference.
Which means you can't claim anything is immoral. All you're doing is stating your subjective opinion, but that holds no real argument. It's just your opinion.
@@parker6936 The point still stands, that is precisely what I am talking about. You are the one making a claim, its time to substantiate it. You presume deities and objective morality, then you tie them together: that's a plethora of fallacies.
Furthermore, I said nothing about atheism - its a redundant term I hardly care about. Atheism is nothing, its just disbelief in any given god. Everyone is an atheist, do you ever second guess your disbelief in zeus or krishna? No, you dont give it a thought, you dont lose sleep over it.
This is a shameful clip. Dawkins did not attack nor was he aggressive. They are just talking trash behind Dawkin's back simply because Dawkin's was challenging his supernatural beliefs. Shameful and anything from graceful.
They edited this and still this is the best they got? I'll stick with atheism.
Well Dawkins could ask if you believe in all those, would you also believe the homosexuals should be stoned to death and so on so forth on the same note of his earlier beliefs.
What did John disarm? Again, as Richard said, John is a scientist that believes Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, was born of a virgin. None of these miracles can and has ever been proven, and just because a book says so does not mean it happened. Many books say many things, silly books say silly things.
1) Congratulations to Dawkins for figuring out that the miracles described in the Bible are inconsistent with the scientific principles of this universe. Good grief. 2) If any position is anti-science, it is that this universe could create itself out of nothing, when we know that nothing can come from nothing. 3) Believing that God does not exist, when that has not been proven, is itself anti-science.
Richards dawkins "believes" he came of a hot mix of soup that came alive.
That agrees with my comment...thank you
Yeah, he believes it, supported by evidence as strong as the evidence of the existence of napoleon, or that the earth orbits around the sun.
Believe in a supernatural being like a god, is like believing in the existing of a teapot doing the same. See Russell's teapot for reference.
No, he does not, in anyway. That is what you believe he believes. You have no evidence of such belief by him. You are saying it because it makes you feel better and right. Dawkins is not interested in being right but he, is interested in what is true. That is not a personal stance. He is a scientist, interested in knowing where things came from and how they work, based on verifiable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence. Dawkins is not interested in belief. He is interested in what is true.
@@sfreddy This is how evolutionists"believe" life started, in the primordial soup. Their is no other alternitive to this. So he must believe in this. You need to research in what the definition of evolution is.
@@woobykal68 Again, you are quite mistaken in your view. A scientist does not believe. I am afraid I did not make my point clearly enough. Belief implies faith and, that is not what science is about. Science uses a method that verifies things by the process of verification through repeated, measurable results and it must be falsifiable. Faith, on the other hand requires the believer to do no such thing. I understand that people are quite entrenched in their beliefs and it is difficult to dusade them otherwise. I am not interested in being right but, I am interested in knowing the truth (in as much as I can). Science is the best tool, empirically, we have to do that. If that is not your interest, than it is not my job to change your mind.
Miracles have occurred. Miracles are supernatural.
Therefore, the supernatural exists, thus the possibility of a God, exists.
No, you're just gullible
@@FactStorm Miracles have occurred. Miracles are supernatural.
@@eltonron1558 Nope, you can make claims all u want - but without proof it means nothing. you are so gullible..
@@FactStorm The origin of life, and mind, are miracles. Thou art the gullible.
None of this really matters. It's quite simple, you have to provide positive evidence of the existence of a god. Referencing "events" claimed to have happened in a book that most scholars agree, is problematic in many areas, does not make for the case of gods existence.
If there is a god, I should like to know it. But I am continually disappointed by it's proponents. I think it's time to move on from such a debate and engage with reality on it's own terms.
Sure. Please put gravity into a test-tube so I can study it, see it, hold it in my hands.
Please put morality into a test-tube so I can study it, see it, hold it in my hands.
Please put math into a test-tube so I can study it, see it, hold it in my hands.
Please put justice and love into a test-tube so I can study it, see it, hold it in my hands.
Please explain how a chemical which contains a code travels to your brain, your brain reads the code, then decides if something is good or bad. Codes (information/messages) have only been observed to come from a mind. Chemicals have no mind. Chemicals cannot create messages. So you want to "move on from such a debate and engage with reality on it's own terms" when you actually believe that magical talking fairy rocks tell you how to behave??????
@@CelticSpiritsCoven That's not the way you would test or describe gravity, morality or mathematics. But I think you know that, right?
You should go read some actual basic science books, as your expectations and descriptions are ridiculous.
@@PianoDentist The point just went above your head...
Most Atheists (like yourself) say they need "positive evidence" of god (like you stated).
What you really mean is that you want to SEE/TOUCH god before you would even consider believing in him.
Even though you cannot see nor touch anything that I mentioned. You believe in gravity because of it's effects, but you refuse to believe in god when we discuss his effects.
You can't put gravity into a test-tube but you believe in it anyway. So STOP demanding a different standard when it comes to god.
@@CelticSpiritsCoven We can independently verify the existence of gravity in various contexts and measure it's effects. We don't even have the existence of a god confirmed in order to look at which observable facts we can attribute to it. You are begging the question.
You're the one who seems to be demanding a different standard for your god.
@@PianoDentist We can independently verify the existence of god in various contexts and measure his effects.
But you simply refuse the evidence based on your subjective emotions, NOT from your intellect.
Evidence works like this........ I could say that you are a cat because you can make cat noises. However when we review ALL of the evidence, the likely outcome would be that you are not a cat.
So let's then analyze it in a different way....
We see scratches on our furniture. We see hairballs, we hear cat sounds in the house. A reasonable conclusion is that the cat scratched the furniture.
And so when we review ALL of the evidence of the effects of god upon this universe, a reasonable conclusion is that god designed it.
We see over 100 life-enabling constraints, delicately balanced, which if even one of these were off by an infinitesimal amount we wouldn't be here. I don't have FAITH that rocks could just decide to design a universe that precise. It's impossible because rocks have no mind and are unable to design anything. This IS actual evidence of a god.
And combining that with the many other evidences of his effects, we simply have to reasonably admit that god is the most reasonable answer.
It's YOU being the one who believes in magical talking fairy rocks.
Our generation has been blessed with great Christian apologists such as the late Dr. Walter Martin, Josh McDowell, Craig Evans, William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Lee Strobel, the late Dr. Norman Geisler, Michael Bird, and John Lennox, to name a few. 🙏
What about Ravi Zacharias?
Indeed. Ravi included ! 👍
@@randypacchioli2933 Despite his history of sexual predation? Despite his history of lying about being an academic at Oxford? Despite his history of lying about studying at Cambridge?
Nice to see where where your standards are....
I just did research on your statements about Ravi. While his academic credentials can be questioned, his sexual misconduct cannot be. You are right. I was referring to some of his books that I do have in my library in which what he states is biblically sound. My apologies.
@@randypacchioli2933 "While his academic credentials can be questioned,"- no, those questions have been answered long long ago. He relentlessly lied his tits off about both institutions ...."While I did my research at Cambridge, commuting from there to Oxford where I am a senior research fellow at Oxford when not researching at Cambridge I reflected on my time at Oxford where I am a senior research fellow at Cambridge and Oxford while being at Oxford and Cambridge at the weekends when not at Oxford".....useless narcissistic liar. BOTH universities have confirmed he was associated with neither.
You can lay the armies of doubt down with a smile.
Dr Lennox has done that here.
Dawkins isn't an army of doubt. He's a rational adult unconvinced by evidence free accounts of hysterical nonsense.
Jesus was not God, and he never claimed to be God.
Performing miracles/magic was done by the Pharaohs aids in Egypt. It's does not mean that Jesus is God in the flesh. In fact if you read Deut. 13 it's clear that God will test the Israelites by sending false prophets that can do miracles.... Shun them.
What rubbish.
The deeper you get into fairy tales, the deeper you have to get into explanations to attempt to sound credible.
I completely agree. Take the theory of evolution for example. We now that the smallest organisms are tremendously complex and contain dna that has instructions for function and production. It surely must be a fairy tale that that complex code exploded from nothing and only grew more complex over time. Imagine adding information in an unguided process that gave way to the mind, laws of logic, beauty, art, etc. A widely know fairy tale indeed. 😉
@@JB-if1cx Brilliant comment :)
Miracles can't be explained through science..if it can be explained through science then it is no longer a miracle
Do not be fooled by Lennox at all. As usual, Lennox is playing the victim, "poor me" and lying. He brought #Dawkins wife early into the Alabama debate questioning her faithfulness to Dawkins and demanding proof. A ridiculous, rude and offensive question to pose on the fly in a debate. He also takes Dawkins words out of context, repeatedly, in order to boost his own dodgy profile and standing, he clearly envies Dawkins standing and wishes he was as highly respected as Dawkins.
Link?
@@gallowglass3764 at 33.00 Lennox asks "I presume you have faith in your wife, you can provide evidence for that, yeah?" ua-cam.com/video/zF5bPI92-5o/v-deo.html But then when interviewed by religious interviewers he plays the victim "Oh Dawkins was so aggressive I had to take the high road"
@@toneranger didn't necessarily seem rude. Both men shared a good laugh.
@@gallowglass3764 you can't ask your opponent in a debate to prove his wife has been faithful and then claim the opponent was aggressive by stating the facts of what you believe, eg. Lennox has been saying he was shocked when Dawkins introduced Lennox as "a believer of Jesus' ability to turn water into wine" when Lennox proudly believes exactly that. Mind you, it would have been much more beneficial back then if someone could turn saltwater into clean drinking water or dirty sewage into fresh ice cold sparkling water rather than wine, but not as fun. Even today Israelis are experts at desalination, they have to be. The Dead Sea is dead precisely because of the excess of salt in the water. So what a stupid thing to do, turn water into wine of all things when most people back then drank alcoholic drinks because the fresh water was rare and nigh impossible to access consistently back then and still for many people today.
@@toneranger um... OK. 😅
Lennox is NOT a scientist but rather a believer by faith only in a book called the Bible.
He is both :)
Exactly, he is NOT both. Not even in the same ball park.
@@abelmedina7879 science proves God’s existence not disproves.
@@isaacgangell4238 Oh ok
God is actually the author of everything including science and scientists. Lennox is relaxed and confident in what he believes, he doesn't put Dawkins down although Dawkins tries to belittle Lennox. Dawkins makes assumptions while Lennox quietly but confidently challenges them.
Nobody, and I mean nobody is more gullible than a religious person
This is comical. You really really have to a religious fanatic to believe anything that comes out of John Lennox mouth.
BLIND FAITH FTW.
"religion poisons everything" - christopher hitchens ..." atheism poisons one thing: religion. " -atto napz ..... plz plz plz read "the magic of reality" by richard dawkins. it's waaayyy more educational than the bible ever will be, and it has drawings too.