John's quote of Bertrand Russel is right "on point". Self-contradictory statements. This is very much like Carl Sagan's, "The Cosmos is all there is or ever will be", is not evidence based reasoning, thus, by "science", he does not "know" this to be a statement of fact. He's merely stating a belief which is not scientific, or even reasonable. This forum is a wonderful pursuit.
One of the best respectful and non antagonistic rational conversations on this matter and well represented from both sides. This dialogue should give pause for thought to both theists and atheists as both professors present practical and thoughtful inputs to the debate
Apparently Larry Shapiro forgot about the atheist gunman who killed college students by first asking if they believed in God, and then shooting them when he came up with his opening dialogue.
not to forget the shooter who shot a church in texas who was a hardcore atheist. Also lets not forget about Mao Zeodong, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin who were all atheist that did incredibly inmoral things.
@@camilojazzfernandes you are a laughingstock. The younger man believes in Darwin's theory of evolution which is scientifically impossible. There is not such this as a simple cell. Darwin thought that there was. He was COMPLETELY WRONG and he would agree with me if he was alive today. Laugh all your want it won't change the truth.
@Htx457 science is one of Gods' great gifts along with mathematics to help mankind's to understand His creation. Unfortunately some people having discovered these gifts, think science is God because it helps them understand to finite degree something of the infinite. This is how they become fools. The bible states that everything that is detectable is made from that which is undetectable. Scientists say it came from NOTHING. Even a child knows they are fools for thinking that.
As a Christian with an open mind I was looking for a good argument from Shapiro similar to what we have heard from Hitchins and Dawkins. What a disappointment. Sorry Larry. You are not a good ambassador for atheism. Lennox so thorough and convincing as always.
@@SamIAm-kz4hg Atheism needs an ambassador like water needs more wet. Since when is it rational that the supernatural needs no actual evidence while repeatable reality is suspect? The smug arrogance theists, resting on nothing more than faith has to be the most interesting and persistent aspect of religion.
@@adcrane “Repeatable reality is suspect” John never said that!! Did you even listen to John’s opening statement about science being based on many philosophical, that is metaphysical presuppositions that can not be proven, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. It’s a causally closed effectively complete system. The “natural sciences” are not synonymous with any quasi religion related to nihilism, fatalism or militant atheism. There are lots of things in science that we assume and believe that are rational to believe due to their explanatory power but they are not directly observable or empirically provable. The irony is that W Quine points this out in his famous essay (The Two Dogmas of Empiricism). Sorry but the fact is that empiricism is a dogma. Furthermore, the irony is that that we are all on equal footing at the very least under relativism whether you believe in the gods of blind, mindless, meaningless cosmic accidents or in absolute truth, goodness and ultimate justice!! I’m not making any appeals to authority but according to the award winning physicist William Bragg…. “Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - (Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1915). No offence intended all the best to you and your family and keep safe.
@@adcrane Not "smug" at all. It is Jesus Christ's commandment to all Christians. Romans 10:9-10 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
I am a little pussled by Larry believing in objective morals, that there are some things that are really evil/good without imposing God as the best explanation. Firstly, if you believe that a objective moral exist, then you acknowledge that it is authoritative and independent of social/human opinion. You can only be held responsible, if there is an obligation bestowed upon you. If there are no obligations, then how can anyone be held responsible for breaking any moral law? To whom/what objective reference, will they be accountable to? A moral law can only come from a moral lawgiver. The best explanation for a objective moral law, is that objective moral values, reflects God's character. Evil is therefore violation/rebellion against God's character. The will of God springs from his character/essence which is the foundation of all moral values.
Well spotted!! You can’t be a relativist or a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist and then claim to believe in objective morality!! It’s a contradiction in terms. Objective morality points to an absolute ontological ground of truth, reality, consciousness, meaning and purpose. This is why strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists are so desperate and determined to “prove” that moral subjectivism or cultural relativism is the more “coherent” world view! The statement or claim that “there is not one standard of objective morality” or the statement that “all morality and truth is subjective” is ironically presented as one universal absolute standard of (objective morality and truth). Thus it’s logical converse (objective morality) and absolute truth is real. Therefore the absolute object of morality and truth exists.
It's good to see 2 men dialogue without hatred for the other or the others beliefs. I find Richard Dawkins to be an absolutely hateful creature. Dr Lennox treats him kindly.
Truth is the logic that is always absolutely right, regardless of the physical world, fact is what happened in the physical world, and ‘real’ is the case that truth or fact reveals as it is.
[Fact, Reality, and Truth] ‘Truth’ is the logic that is always absolutely right, regardless of the physical world, ‘fact’ is what happened in the physical world, and ‘reality’ is the realization of truth as fact via materials. So whether it is truth or not is a matter of whether it is always right regardless of the physical space and time, whether it is a fact or not is a matter of whether it happened in the physical world or not, and whether it is real or false is a matter of whether the alleged fact is revealed as it is or not, that is, whether the truth or fact is hided, masqueraded or manipulated, or not. As a truth-performer, I want you to try to use them as accurately as possible. OnCharm Lee (Author of the Book “Humans, God, and Truth - Human Life is the Awakening Process”)
Truth and science? Science deals with facts, not truth. Truth is a value judgement. Philosophy and religion deal with truth, like love being the greatest power...
Not really true. We REACT to love. Love does nothing. Emotions never do anything. We must act upon them. Our desires and hates have NO power in themselves.
Luke Schwanke - Your post gave me a good laugh. Actually, Shapiro did say something interesting in that he feels some embarrassment at the mocking tone of some atheists. Good for him that he can distance himself from that immaturity.
Larry Shapiro seems like a nice enough guy, and he actually does not come across as a pompous know-it-all, which I always find to be a relief in the world of atheist debate. Even so, he seemed nervous and ill-prepared to face John Lennox, even in this relatively casual talk. He cited sources he could not always remember, made the common error of bringing up assumed Biblical inaccuracies by believing the Gospel accounts being written many decades to hundreds of years after the fact by "superstitious strangers", and incredibly suggested that miracles would have to be commonplace in order for them to be proven as miracles, a point I found to be awkward, odd, and completely off its meaning on what miracles actually are. Lennox countered the arguments with ease, as I have seen him do many times. The point he made from an excerpt in Shapiro's own book regarding an event involving Caesar crossing the Rubicon, which was written down about two-hundred years after the event, yet he believes that source to be reliable, was sheer genius. He was so charming, intellectually, emotionally and mentally stimulating--as always--that he was formidable just by showing up. He was gracious as usual, but had a couple of tongue-in-cheek moments, including mentioning that two of Shapiro's sources were involved in religion, one was found to be unreliable by most scholars, and another disagreed with Shapiro. Also, the team hat was a nice touch. :0) He did, however, get a little overexcited and began to talk over Shapiro a couple of times. The moderator was great with keeping order with all of that. Lennox did apologize for some of his mistakes. Unfortunately, Shapiro's best argument was also his worst, because he started off by saying that strong beliefs in supposedly rare events, such as ultra-rare diseases, must have very strong and accurate tests to measure them, but as to the potential application of beliefs painted in the most negative light--albeit understandably--given in regards to how these beliefs affect other people's rights, he flubbed big time on that, too, for bringing up abortion, which quashes the rights of the smallest citizens. In the end, even he admitted that science cannot answer all of life's questions, and he does believe in morality, which also falls outside of the scientific realm, which he admits on and off. Kudos to John Lennox, awesome Scholar, Mathematician, scientist, bioethicist, and person. Props to Shapiro, too, for agreeing to civilly discuss the issues, and, in fact, disagreeing with his atheist contemporaries about their lack of respect with those who hold different views than their own. I hope Shapiro's gentle approach catches on.
I don't believe in a painter because even though I see the painting I have never observed the painter, and so there is no 'evidence' that a painter exists. How smart of this atheist.
Larry has never met Gary Habermas’s minimal facts argument on the resurrection of historical Jesus! If you’re faith in the resurrection of Jesus needs some strengthening look up Gary Habermas.
Also saying you believe in God and actually doing what God says are two separate things. Which no one (and as far as I know Christians believe this to be especially true) completely does.
It amazes me when people say they lack a belief in an unobservable or that which can't be seen There's so many things having to do with science that are unobservable. But they do not keep people from believing in them or hoping them or thinking that they exist because of other theories and hypotheses. But if you haven't pursued God's nature you can't say that he's unobservable it's simply denial
[God never desires sacrifices, adulates, or prayers from human beings] Human beings have so far misunderstood God. The right god certainly exists. This correct god never desires sacrifice, flattery, or prayer from man. The right god is not lacking or personality to desire them. God only wants humans as secondary beings to realize everything properly and to be faithful to the right life. Don’t privatize God.
Lennox pointing out that science does not know how or why gravity exist is profound. There are just as many, if not more, "assumed" beliefs in science than there are in Christianity. Shapiro continues to make assumptions base on his atheism while saying God has to be proven by science. Our moral conscience alone shows God's presence. God's Word will stand for eternity.
@@lepidoptera9337 Whatever works for you. My post is from the very description of the Theory of Relativity. If you have a problem with that. You can take it up with the experts. That is your problem not mind. BTW you better be right in your assumptions about "God". If you're mistaken. You will exist in an eternity of regret. Your choice.
24:22 you just contradicted yourself, just a few seconds before you said that there is no empirical evidence for God, as if God were a contingent being. That's the error most atheists incur in.
H.T.: The only proven portion of evolution is species adaptation, which means that finches in different places have their beaks altered to better suit their environments. Just like human beings have different skin and hair for their respective climates and so forth. Also, dogs and cats bred to be smaller and tamer for use as pets, as well as having certain physical characteristics deemed favorable by human companions, such as long ears, shorter legs, etc. Still, the dogs are dogs--derived from wolves. Cats are derived from wild cats. Human beings are still people, regardless of skin, eye, and hair color, height, and whatever else. Finches are still finches. I agree that any argument that tells of further evolution has a long way to go to be proven.
megalopolis2015 okay if you’re saying adaptation is apart of evolution then I strongly believe you don’t understand what evolution is. It’s the process of advancing and bringing success to a species , not for a species to adapt in its environment. If it’s not advancing in its genetic coding and becoming more successful as a group than it’s not evolution .
@@megalopolis2015 - I think your argument is a sad one. Inbreeding dogs, or any other animal, by interference by humans, getting really bad mutations for our bizarre taste, is in no WAY a case for evolution. It is like saying "Humans inbreeding with each other, father to daughter, mother to son, son to sister, over and over over hundreds of years, although it produces horribly crippled children with life threatening diseases and conditions, is something I find cute." Or "...their children are cute, or potentially cute." Destroying an animals DNA for cosmetic desire in deranged humans is just bizarre to me. A Chihuahua would never last in the natural world. In no way is that an example of evolution. Animals do the exact opposite of that. They breed with only the strong and exclude the sick, disease, mutated. It is a sick thing in my opinion. But obviously opinions rule in that area.
“These views are in conflict with his own world view” Exactly and well said!! He can’t prove, justify or ground metaphysical presuppositions such as truth, the prescriptive laws of logic, conscious agents, objective morality, meaning and purpose, morals and ethics, empiricism (science itself) in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. This causally closed effectively complete system is self refuting unless you appeal to something absolute outside the system. Under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism the “atheists” truth claims are just brain chemicals and nothing more substantive than the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur. Under this causally closed effectively complete system “we” all are just the brains user illusion of “self” and are nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over. Does the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubble over with truth and logic when it claims that atheist regimes create less criminality and safer communities. Can the science project of vinegar and baking soda take the credit for its circular logic and self contradiction (No True Scots Man Fallacy). Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Their existential crisis and epistemological crisis not the theists!!
@@georgedoyle7971 Exactly! And well said!! Though well beyond the attention span of those who claim that they can "think" for themselves. 😉 One of my favorite questions to ask the atheist-that generally gets nothing but silence-is: _Are you a brain or do you use a brain to think?_ 🧠❓🤪 How can they answer and not incriminate themselves at the same time-and undermine their own claims?
[What You Need to Understand for Your Ultimate Truth] The limit of all of them is that they do not know exactly the followings: 1) the physical world that we feel as the five senses is finite, incomplete, always changing, temporarily existing, very passive and relative, and so secondary or posterior. 2) There certainly is a prior world of intangible reasons (eg. mathematical and philosophical logics) that transcends these temporary physical worlds, whose properties are diametrically opposed to them and are always right to the secondary beings. 3) Life is an intermediate being between these two worlds, whose body interacts with the physical world and spirit interacts with the reason world, while the soul leads the body, and thus the greater the soul, the more active in spirit and the larger (more spacious and longer) lived. So they all do not fully understand the worlds of material, life and reason/truth. not comprehending the following things: what are the properties of material or matter? How are the laws of physics and universal constants determined, and what are the difference from the truth? Why do the changing laws of physics contain unchanging reasons? How is different between fact, realization and reason/truth? What is life different from substance? In detail, how is thought possible in life? what is consciousness and intelligence? what is soul, spirit and mind, and how are they different? what are desire, will and activeness, how do they occur, and how do they work? what is virtue/goodness, beauty and truth, and what is their relationship to each other? why does truth never change, and why does it appear anywhere anytime in the physical world? why do people say that the world of truth is the world of God, that God appears everywhere alive without death, and that life is large and widely alive if it knows a lot of truth? what are the basic attributes and the ultimate state of ethics and morality, and why the life need them? and what are sin and responsibility in willing life? I realized all of them as a whole without any gap and contradiction, and I live now only freely and peacefully without any desire, fear, worry, doubt or pride. OnCharm Lee (Author of the book “Humans, God, and Truth - Human Life is the Awakening Process”)
Larry just does not get it and that gets in the way of his understanding. He's looking for natural reasons for supernatural occurrences and cannot see evidence known to be true and Dr. Lennox brought forth. John Lennox missed some opportunities to clarify, but still in the end, was quite a good defender of the faith.
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
Naturalism always is. It eats itself like a cancer. "I have doubts about what you believe. I cannot believe in what you believe. I only believe in what I can see. But I'll use LOGIC to make my argument. Oh... and by the way.... evolution is true because I assume it is." Shapiro is quite shallow.
The answer to this question is so obvious to me that I wonder how anyone could argue from the contrary. I am not surprised however, in fact it is exactly the kind of presupposition that I would expect the naturalist to adopt in an attempt to justify their position. The surprising part is that they believe it is a philosophically defensible position to the point they would attempt it in a debate. What does this suggest about the Atheist then who seem so brilliant in some regards and yet simultaneously, so monumentally dense? God said that all mankind was evidenced by way of their conscience and the very created order itself and when they hold this truth in unrighteousness, God himself gives them over to strong delusions. There is still time to repent and turn from your wicked ways and turn to Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life!
Shaphiros opening statement is an exercise in violating the law of non-contradiction for Stalin and Mao were atheists and both murdered millions. Likewise, some have murdered vast multitudes in the name of God or some faith system. This seems to say both atheists and deists have the same core problem of total depravity or as the ancient writer stated--"there is none righteus, not even one...." But it is also true that most atheists and deists are not as bad off as they could be and they thus practice things which are relatively good because they both share a common origin. This of course is the fact that both, although greatly marred by sin, are made in the image of God.
Not just killed multiple millions but killed their OWN people just because. Killing OTHERS from other nations, maybe because they have other views or cultures you find repulsive, is one thing. That could be justified by many people. But killing your OWN people just because you can is another kind of evil in itself and defines atheism to me. In the end Shapiro only has his opinion and nothing more. No foundation he can even prove. Just "I like chocolate..... my opinion. It may change tomorrow or 10 years later."
[The truth, God, Natural Law and Relative Value: the truth is never the same as the physical law or the relative value.] The physical world is constantly changing and temporary. The universe in which we live is opened in unity, and thus all the physical entities in our universe are constantly changing and transient. Reason is always right, regardless of the existence of the physical world. Reason is logic that is always right even if there is no physical world as well as a person who thinks. (I call the reason world as God-world.) The existence of the physical world and all the phenomena that take place in the world are instances in which the reasons are temporarily realized by means of material. Any physical or natural law, which is the causal law for the changes in such a physical world, is not the reason itself. But the laws of the physical world about such continual changes contain internally reasons like mathematical logics that never change. I call those reasons realized in our universe as truths. (We may call the truth world as God-world.) As long as we feel and think only of the phenomenon of the physical world, we cannot see any absolute reason or truth but we can only discuss the relative values as each physical entity.
I have a question for people of all religions, there are currently over 4000 different religions in the world today, what is it that makes yours the correct one?
On the whole, I'm in agreement with Mr. Lennox, but as for whether or not the universe is a closed system, (obviously unprovable either way given how vast it is), it would seem that the idea that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed is pretty dependent on the universe being a closed system. One new text tells us that there are seven Superuniverses, with millions of local universes in them, each one created and controlled by a Paradise Creator Son and a Universe Mother Spirit. It goes on to say that not all of the local universes exist yet. There is creating yet to be done. When a local universe comes into being, they bring with them a relatively standard amount of matter and energy. That would be the 'not closed' part of the system. But we have yet to detect any new universes coming into existence, like one moment a section of space is empty, and then suddenly there's a massive gaseous cloud there. Would it even be hot enough for us to see?
H e makes the perfectly fsit pont that people just*don'* obviously cannot come back to life once dead so the s-ocalled resuurection is*obviously* pure in vention. If it *canot* be true it *Is* not true justt as fatty lenox simply *cannot* be a christian - not being able to jump that high therefore the little pork chop *Is* not a chraristian he is just another tubby smug swaggering dreaming machine, oi and a rather poorly executed uncle tom act .
Shapiro opens with irritating snobbery. I haven't watched all of this yet but I think it's safe to say that I will remain entirely unpersuaded regarding his world view.
Until people understand that Christ IS truth they will never understand. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS. Jesus is the way the truth and the life and no man can come unto the father but by him. This is about God manifest in the flesh to teach us about himself. Perfect love perfect self-sacrifice with a plan from the foundation of the world to redeem mankind back to himself, duping Satan who did not realize that Resurrection meant a new creation that Satan could not touch. It is beautiful. It is elegant. Everything in creation was made by Christ for Christ and through Christ and in this creation he is king of kings and Lord of lords and there is no other. He is the alpha and the Omega he is the first and the last. He is omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient. Who was and is and is to come. Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father the risen Savior and we will one day be like him, in the resurrection of the body.
I don't think I'm a BAD person. No idea what he means by bad. If by bad I assume he means not beneficial (which just means bad), then I wonder what transcendental basis he has for his morality. If your view of morality can be eventually (meaning the absolute source of view) traced to the personal preference then he isn't bad in his own mind, but then neither is the member of ISIS who doesnt think he is bad for selling children as sex slaves.
“No idea what he means by bad” Fair point me neither!! The fact is that “not bad” is a value claim, an “ought” claim but it’s common knowledge in analytical philosophy that… “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume). To claim that you can appeal to the “natural sciences” to prove, justify and ground value claims commits the (Is/Ought Fallacy or the Naturalistic Fallacy). “Not bad” according to who? A chemical and biological robot? Or perhaps a bag of meaningless chemicals. “Not bad” according to a cosmic accident, a cosmic toss of the coin!! Or perhaps “not bad” according to the accidental arrangement of the cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea. The belief that life can come from non life and that the irrational creates the rational is so improbable it is incredible!! The fact is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism there is no such thing as “bad” as there is no such thing as “truth” because it’s all relative, arbitrary and ad hoc. The clue is in the word “relativism”. A strictly reductive, materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. It’s a question begging fallacy and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. The fact is that it consists in asserting the claim that there is no absolute “truth” as if this were absolute “truth” itself? Oblivious to the irony of declaring it to be “absolutely” true that there is nothing but the relatively true!! It’s synonymous with saying that there is no language or writing that there is no writing. In fact, every idea is reduced to relativity, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion undermines itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion clearly contradicts itself if it is “true” and by contradicting itself logically proves thereby that it is totally false and is an atheistic, nihilistic fantasy. Its first absurdity lies in the fact that it is a logical fallacy, a (Special Pleading Fallacy). An implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by magic, from a relativity that is declared to be the only “absolute” possibility. It’s like believing that if you just screamed loud enough “there is no such thing as sound”!! then sound will cease to exist!! “When our pride usurps Truth, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, an ego driven reality.”
How do you know that? Well, first you assume that naturalism is true... even though you have no good reasons for believing that naturalism is or even could be true. _Am I right?_
Kish - That's like saying "someone who died 2,000 years ago never existed". That's as ignorant as saying "because birds can fly they are not limited by gravity". God made gravity so it only makes sense He would not be limited by it. Same with time, matter and space. Your argument makes sense on no level. No one ever said "God is beyond space and time". He made them. He can be outside of them and in them simultaneously. It would be like saying "a person cannot stick their finger in water without being outside the water". It is just ignorant in the extreme. It defies logic.
@@lepidoptera9337 cute. Of course we’ve all moved on from high school science to the real stuff. You remember how we learned how the little fish died and sank to the bottom and lay there getting covered up by silt for years? 😂
Larry comes across unfortunately as far more driven by his beliefs than hevis aware of. Some statements - something improbable does indeed need more evidence, however statements stating that miracles are a violation of nature is plainly untrue. A miracle (unexplainable event that can not be reasonably expected to occur based on normal observation) can occur when more information, for example, is entered into an existing system without that injection of information being observed. Science sees this all the time within quantum mechanics, etc.
Resting upon these 2. Intent, based, and foundation. 1st. Love God so we may know why we are given science nor technology is for 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself truly without ceasing but delight. Is like why do science nor technology? Is like how can you and me show off to God without our neighbors. Thy intent and foundation of thy actions. HOSTS of YESHUA Jesus will look at. Is like are you doing science and technology for our innocents youngs sons and daughters upon all the tribes of judah. The HOSTS of YESHUA Jesus delight hearing the laughter of our innocents youngs sons and daughters. Nothing more innocents. Noone will enter in. Unless you and me have to be a Child by choice indeed. Be a child beloved. Sincere conversations with God comes with sincere answers beloved. Likewise with foolished talk. Will be measured indeed. Truth and peace be REUNITED. God's Will be done upon all the tribes of judah and upon all dry GROUNDS nor the world. Intent and foundation. YESHUA Jesus. Why give life and take it away? Why make comments nor do science and technology for what? Your intent. The tree produces fruits can be eaten or spit out! Be a tree that can be eaten including science and technology. I wonder how the world will be beloved. 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself. Intent and foundation. Beloved consider this Will of God. Fruits can be eaten beloved. Thy own life is indeed worth asking why? Why give life and take it away God? Remember sincere conversations comes with sincere answers. Do you blame a man who looks at you? Who is worth more than anything nor everything that exists! All things that exists God made just for you! Therefore you are more beyond valuable! Nothing is wasted but increased beloved. Truth and peace reunite. Judge not yet ye be judge beloved. But do judge the tree by it's fruits! Is like if God comes to you hungry? Can thy fruits be eaten or spit out like the fig tree. Fruits with no taste! Be cast out! Science nor technology or what ever. Can it be eaten. Different kinds of explanations. At the end is the explanation can be eaten for our innocents youngs sons and daughters. Or kill our neighbors. And brings tears to my neighbors. I don't need to see my neighbors being killed. Just to know what evil means. Beloved seek the kingdom of God and its righteousness. Foundation 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself truly without ceasing but delight. Judge the tree by it's fruits beloved. Also acknowledge the HOSTS of YESHUA are the RESTORER and will bring what is intended according to God's Will. It's a privilege indeed. Humble to washed our neighbors feet. Likewise able to bound giants by their hands and feet. Loving one another beloved. God rather not wants sacrifice but for me and you comes to repentance by choice indeed. To BECOME alive again. Why talk at all? By the attributes of God! Comes with sincere tears, conversations and REPENTANCE with God. Pure in hearts. We are more than able. How much is thy breath is worth? Can't talk without life. Now, same you did not put the sun nor stars and gave thy life privilege to experience life. To define. By becoming a child.
wouldnt even agree there being truth in-science, taking it as philosophically-serious as it somewhat is presented in the title. science is more about scientific (the integral word) insight and collected data, which may turn theory one day - whith basically the only truth happning being the claims of honest approach by the scientist corresponding to what could be called reality, or being, to use a more philo-term.
outside science, its a truth, that science enables us creating social media, which can be used by religious people, to harrass the very thing enabling-them to do, for reasons of what basically is a categorical error in their concluding and- well basically that, like said.
Because atheists don't like Christians to have control of morality. They want to silence us. THEY want to control morality and force it on us. It is hypocrisy on a huge scale. Atheists have destroyed science, biology, logic and morality.
[Evidence, Reason/Truth/God World and Physical world] There are two types of evidence, physical evidence and logical evidence. You should not believe in physical evidence alone. Rather, physical evidence is temporary and logical evidence is more certain and permanent. The problem is that the illogical imagination or fancy created by people arbitrarily is called as logical. You need to know that the physical world itself as well as the many facts that take place in any physical world are the temporal realizations of reason through mediation of material. I call the world of reason that exists even without the physical world as the God world, and the reasons that are realized in our universe in among countless reasons as the truths. In reason there are pure reasons that are not realized in our universe, nor in any other universe. OnCharm Lee (Author of the book “Humans, God, and Truth - Human Life is the Awakening Process”)
@@howharditis8655 - You can edit your own comment to make it have sense. Putting a coma after science destroys your comment. There are 3 dots above each other to the far right of your comment. You'll see if you touch it you'll have a few options. Edit is one. Touch it and... you can modify your comment.
20:30 - Funny, but the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Why would you take the word of a bunch of thieves and liars and murderers and rapists if they tell you they are Christians? Many of them probably do believe in the existence of God... but even then, a majority believing that God exists doesn't tell you anything about what they believe about God other than that God exists. As for WHY Larry believes that life actually has value or that objective moral values and duties do exist... He left those blank, as so many of those who 'lack belief' in the existence of God but can't justify the beliefs they do have, do. Anyhow...
@@jessebryant9233 - Shapiro put heavy weight on the "assumption" his search (for some random poll with zero value) about the beliefs of inmates could be trusted. He had zero facts. He merely had empty claims and assumptions. Like you said, he trusted liars about their word. He trusted rapists about their respect of others value. Would Shapiro want to get in a cell with a murderer and value their opinion? No. Not if he valued his life. Not if he had common sense. He literally had zero arguments FOR atheism or science against God. He had only 1 thing in this debate. That was doubt. Typical atheist. No actual science ever.
@@jessebryant9233- It is almost like trusting a judge you KNOW is corrupt (maybe in prison). They may KNOW the law. They may be graduates with the highest scores. But we no longer put trust in them. If.... we have common sense. Naturalism defies common sense. It eats itself like cancer.
No disrespect, but after listening to quite a few atheist response to the Bible and Christ, it’s hard to take most of their arguments seriously.. The people who wrote about Christ raising from the dead were also martyred for their belief, and some of the people who read about what happened were also alive when I the events were reported to have occurred, so they could have easily investigated to see whether or not the claims were true.. Science is a method of observing the natural world, and it is based on verifiable truth. But science as a philosophy requires faith.
VARITAS means TRUTH, yes?? But what sort of a TRUTH do you expect from an atheist whom you invited to your University Forum on TRUTH - to mean YAHWEH's TRUTHS??? It's a bad thing to invite that atheist guy! What were you expecting to learn from that atheist or what do you expect him to learn from the discussion?? BAD IDEA!!
It was a very good idea. Shapiro had ZERO evidence for his doubts. He just had doubts. He believes in only what he can see, experience.... but used logic to try to make his case. It worked horribly for him. Having doubts about God in no way gives atheism credence.
If you expect God to appear as a burning 🔥bush in order for you to believe ...you loosing the whole point...Gods ultimate gift is his empirical lack of evidence...that what allows free choice... Looking empirical evidence, for God is a loss cause,and thank God...imagine if we can observe him or her it's morning...
The new answers book 2 p. 70 says "DNA is so compact that a one square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over seven billion Bible's." The complexity of DNA and irreducible complexity SCREAMS out intelligent design. THE reason why people don't wanna believe is because they love their sin and so they wanna suppress the truth of God, Romans 1:18-22 the Bible says "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." Verse 28 says "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind." It's funny when bringing up the fine tuning argument that the atheist says to the Christian that "well, most of the universe is not fine tuned for life", well in the context of the fine tuning argument as evidence for intelligent design, the Christian doesn't care if most of the universe isn't fine tuned for life, because the argument applies for here on earth and atheists have to make the logical fallacy of jumping into another context of where the Christian isn't attempting to even go because the Christian doesn't need to. There are actually a number of scientists with PHDs in astronomy astrophysics and geneticists who believe in God. And A few reasons why when liberal "scholars" attack the Bible I don't take it seriously, Liberal scholars once said that king belshazzar never existed in Daniel 5 then they found archaeological evidence that he did, the same with king David, German scholars said the Gospel of John could not have been written as early like Christians believe but the manuscript fragment p52 proved those "scholars" wrong. Bible critics use to say that Moses didn't write the first 5 books of the Bible because writing wasn't around back then but then they found the code of Hammurabi which proved that writing was around hundreds of years before the Exodus. For years, critics said that the name ‘Canaan’ was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible but the finding of the ebla tablets proved them wrong. Bible critics use to criticize the story of Jesus healing a man by the pool of beshsaida because that wasn't found at that time, the pool but then it was. Bible critics use to say that the hittites never existed then certain things things were found like the hittite royal library. The reliability of the scriptures transmission was also secured when they found the dead sea scrolls which contained books of the Bible that were over a thousand years earlier then the oldest copies that they had at that time. Sir William Ramsay proved Bible critics wrong on a number of things about the Apostle Luke's writings in the Bible and proved Luke was accurate on what he wrote. Scholars at one time were skeptical of Luke being accurate in referring to Lysanius being the tetrarch of Abilene around A. D. 27. However, the credibility of Luke’s gospel record continues to be reinforced by archeological discoveries. An inscription was found on a temple from the time of Tiberius (the Roman emperor from 14 - 37 AD), which named Lysanias as the Tetrach of Abila near Damascus, just as Luke has written. "The Popular handbook of archaeology and the Bible" Page 181 says "Today nearly 100 Biblical figures, dozens of Biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research. Moreover, the Israeli Antiquities Authority has over 100,000 artifacts [discovered in Israel since 1948] available on their data base." Also the New testament even non Christian scholars will admit that it's the best attested work of antiquity out of all the documents of the ancient world and we have more evidence for Jesus then anyone else in the ancient world. 2 Peter 1:16 says "We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." P.S. Jesus said "So it will be at the end of the age,the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will throw them into the furnace of fire, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:49-50. Jesus also said "You are my friends if you do what I command you." John 15:14. Jesus taught that the only way to be saved is to choose him as your Lord and Master, repent and believe that he died for the sins of his people on the cross see John 14:6.
George Moncayo "The complexity of DNA A and irreducible complexity SCREAMS out intelligent design" First off irreducibility was disproven by a theist scientist (among others). You may want to go look this up. Considering the kind of errors and problems that can occur with DNA, it doesn't actually "scream" anything of the sort. We have excellent support for the theory of evolution in DNA. We see evolution in progress in DNA. The vast majority of scientists who actually study DNA don't support your views of any screaming. That you then started quoting the Bible as if it is an historic document really screams "I'M MESSSED UP IN THE HEAD!" That's the only screaming I see here. After spending a lot of time here arguing against religious people like you, I see certain strange patterns appear. One of them is the rambling post without any sort of paragraphs. I'm not sure what psychological issue this is, but it seems quite common in the religious spewing sort of people. And simply making up things like "people don't wanna believe is because they love their sin" isn't supported by evidence. Non religious people are under represented in prisons. And less religious countries are some of the peaceful in the world. You might want to get your nose out of the bible and into some that deal with reality. I can't bother reading the rest of your post when you BEGIN with stupid claims.
Samiam 666 errors in DNA is because everything has been cursed by the fall and just because more people don't believe the Bible doesn't mean it's not true it just means they love their sin and suppress the truth and the argument of fine tuning, atheists have to make up the multiverse theory to attempt to refute fine tuning but we have evidence for fine tuning but not multiverse so if you go down that route then your the one going by blind faith.
Samiam 666 note micro evolution doesn't lead to macro that has never been observed in historical science and there are many scientists who agree with that. The ones that don't and say there can be a gain of information even though that's not true we only see a loss of info but scientists who say there is a gain only do so because they redefined the term and actually it's not a gain it's just a replication of information.
George Moncayo "micro evolution doesn't lead to macro that has never been observed" First off, I know you're not a scientist. There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. Go look it up. There is only evolution. Secondly, small changes in ANYTHING over time result in large changes. And since we are talking about BILLIONS of years, not only is it not hard to imagine this being the case, but we have incredible evidence of this from different sources. That you are unaware of this evidence, in no way means it "has never been observed". Go to Google Scholar and type in evidence of evolution. You will find tens of thousands of articles that deal with exactly this topic. Now, since you're not a scientist, you'll likely not understand any of it, since it is pretty specific science for which you will need a specific science degree. "there are many scientists who agree with that" Since we've already established that you're not a scientist, it also means that you have a shitty understanding of how science works. Scientists disagree about all sorts of things. But only evidence shows what is actually true. The fact that there are scientists who don't believe in evolution, is overshadowed by the vast majority of scientists (about 95% in fact) who DO support evolutionary theory. And why do you think that is? Because there's fucking evidence for it! Why did you choose to believe the 5%? If you went to 100 doctors, and 95 of them said you had cancer, would you side with the 5 who didn't think you did? Of course not, but inexplicably, here you do. Why? BTW, we know some of the problems with evolutionary theory. There are things we don't know or understand yet. But simply because we don't know things does NOT magically wipe away the evidence that this is happening. The DNA evidence alone is enough to prove evolution.
George Moncayo "everything has been cursed by the fall" You're just pulling that out of your ass. On the one hand you say it's designed. Then when I tell you what's wrong with it, you simply make shit up. Priceless. And you literally give no reasoning to think that any of what you say is factual. "just because more people don't believe the Bible doesn't mean it's not true it" So, using the same reasoning I can say I'm god. Please disprove I am. Remember, just because you don't believe I am, does not make it so. "atheists have to make up the multiverse theory to attempt to refute fine tuning" Incorrect. Most SCIENTISTS don't believe in a god, since there does not seem to be any reason to. There is actually some reasoning behind the multiverse theory. And SCIENTISTS can tell you what they are. Although the fine tuning idea is very interesting you of course can't explain how a god would know how to fine tune the universe. They just know? And why would a god need to fine tune anything? Can't god make animals talk, even though they don't have the brain power to do so? It is clear who is walking into this conversation with preconceived notions that they simply want to continue to believe. Personally I don't know if there is a god or not. But so far no one has ever been able to make a good case for one. So I don't believe in one. Then there's you.
@@tomellis4750 you should have some admiration for that brilliant mind and start thinking seriously about your existence, there’s a lot more than you think.
The Texas Church shooter was an atheist, however, I believe most Christians assume everyone is made with a God conscience, along with a moral compass instilled by God. So everyone, therefore, knows right or wrong and can be good moral people even if they are atheists: however, as GK Chesterton pointed out when cross examining the works of Frederick Nietzsche that if anyone truly, honestly, believed in whole adulterated atheism and (key point here) followed that view to it's crescendo that you would either go insane or become morally lacking in every regard. Atheism, ultimately, undermines humanity.
Morality is based on three points: 1. We all have an objective (not subjective) understanding of how to treat a person we deem innocent. It has been the same throughout history and societies. The only exceptions are some people with mental disorders. 2. We all have subjective views of who is innocent - based on heritage, beliefs, society, etc. Some people see homosexuals as full of sin, deserving death, while others see homosexuals as truly virtuous. Most sit somewhere in between. 3. We all rationalise sin. We find all kinds of reasons to forgive ourselves for our actions. It is only those who do something immoral and can not find a reason to forgive themselves that truly have remorse. They can drive themselves to despair by not being able to repent sufficiently for what they did and suffer perpetual remorse. Others just say " they deserved it" or "they asked for it", etc. and forgive themselves
Just listening to this. I’m a scientist with questions upon questions. However, Mr. Lennox was far more persuasive.
John's quote of Bertrand Russel is right "on point". Self-contradictory statements. This is very much like Carl Sagan's, "The Cosmos is all there is or ever will be", is not evidence based reasoning, thus, by "science", he does not "know" this to be a statement of fact. He's merely stating a belief which is not scientific, or even reasonable. This forum is a wonderful pursuit.
Glad to see Veritas Forum back after a 3 month break as it were. Glad to see Professor JL too.
I feel no waste of time listening to veritas forum... especially, Dr. lennox's speech inspires me so much~
John lennox is a gift from JESUS CHRIST.
John Lennox's explanation of Bayes' Theorem was amazing. I would love to listen to his math lectures.
You understand that amaze means stupefy?Perhaps you have been permanently amazed
I don't know what makes Lennox Lennox, but he's extremely sharp in cutting the arguments to the core. Excellence incarnate.
I always hit like before he opens his mouth,he is brilliant,God Bless you all.
Two gentlemen sharing mind-works with amazing dexterity. Beautiful demonstration of sharing world-views.
John Lennox is a Genius.
One of the best respectful and non antagonistic rational conversations on this matter and well represented from both sides. This dialogue should give pause for thought to both theists and atheists as both professors present practical and thoughtful inputs to the debate
Apparently Larry Shapiro forgot about the atheist gunman who killed college students by first asking if they believed in God, and then shooting them when he came up with his opening dialogue.
also, persecution of christians often leads to imprisonment of us which explains his observation that there aren’t a lot of athiests in prison.
Him saying there aren't a lot of atheists in prison is bullshit. There are a lot of guys there who don't believe in God.
not to forget the shooter who shot a church in texas who was a hardcore atheist. Also lets not forget about Mao Zeodong, Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin who were all atheist that did incredibly inmoral things.
Max Power slim
😘
What does Shapiro think of Athiest Stalen and Mao Tse Tung who murdered millions
Since Prof. Shapiro believes in tolerance, does he treat his dissenting students with tolerance or does he flunk them if they disagree with him?
Really saddened to see the younger be so unconvincing, was expecting much better, he was full of contradictory statements that lack true thought.
That is generally the case with atheists. Regardless of how old or young they happen to be.
56:42 that is correct, professor Lennox is right. He's quoting prophet Isaiah chapter 53.
The older guy is so convincing in his opening monologue! The young philosopher wasn't at all.
hahaha ... me thinks...the older philosopher was wasting my time and the young guy was making a lot of sense ... hahaha
@@camilojazzfernandes you are a laughingstock. The younger man believes in Darwin's theory of evolution which is scientifically impossible. There is not such this as a simple cell. Darwin thought that there was. He was COMPLETELY WRONG and he would agree with me if he was alive today. Laugh all your want it won't change the truth.
@Htx457 science is one of Gods' great gifts along with mathematics to help mankind's to understand His creation. Unfortunately some people having discovered these gifts, think science is God because it helps them understand to finite degree something of the infinite. This is how they become fools. The bible states that everything that is detectable is made from that which is undetectable. Scientists say it came from NOTHING. Even a child knows they are fools for thinking that.
This was the most peaceful debate I have ever listened to even though this forum wasn't a debate.
As a Christian with an open mind I was looking for a good argument from Shapiro similar to what we have heard from Hitchins and Dawkins. What a disappointment.
Sorry Larry. You are not a good ambassador for atheism.
Lennox so thorough and convincing as always.
Ian Coombe
"As a Christian with an open mind..."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That's a good one.
@@SamIAm-kz4hg Atheism needs an ambassador like water needs more wet. Since when is it rational that the supernatural needs no actual evidence while repeatable reality is suspect? The smug arrogance theists, resting on nothing more than faith has to be the most interesting and persistent aspect of religion.
@@adcrane
“Repeatable reality is suspect”
John never said that!! Did you even listen to John’s opening statement about science being based on many philosophical, that is metaphysical presuppositions that can not be proven, justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. It’s a causally closed effectively complete system. The “natural sciences” are not synonymous with any quasi religion related to nihilism, fatalism or militant atheism. There are lots of things in science that we assume and believe that are rational to believe due to their explanatory power but they are not directly observable or empirically provable.
The irony is that W Quine points this out in his famous essay (The Two Dogmas of Empiricism). Sorry but the fact is that empiricism is a dogma. Furthermore, the irony is that that we are all on equal footing at the very least under relativism whether you believe in the gods of blind, mindless, meaningless cosmic accidents or in absolute truth, goodness and ultimate justice!!
I’m not making any appeals to authority but according to the award winning physicist William Bragg….
“Religion and science are opposed ... but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything. - (Sir William Bragg, Nobel Prize in Physics 1915).
No offence intended all the best to you and your family and keep safe.
@@adcrane
Not "smug" at all.
It is Jesus Christ's commandment to all Christians.
Romans 10:9-10 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Atheism is contradiction in action.
I am a little pussled by Larry believing in objective morals, that there are some things that are really evil/good without imposing God as the best explanation. Firstly, if you believe that a objective moral exist, then you acknowledge that it is authoritative and independent of social/human opinion.
You can only be held responsible, if there is an obligation bestowed upon you. If there are no obligations, then how can anyone be held responsible for breaking any moral law? To whom/what objective reference, will they be accountable to? A moral law can only come from a moral lawgiver.
The best explanation for a objective moral law, is that objective moral values, reflects God's character. Evil is therefore violation/rebellion against God's character. The will of God springs from his character/essence which is the foundation of all moral values.
Well spotted!! You can’t be a relativist or a strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist and then claim to believe in objective morality!! It’s a contradiction in terms. Objective morality points to an absolute ontological ground of truth, reality, consciousness, meaning and purpose. This is why strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists are so desperate and determined to “prove” that moral subjectivism or cultural relativism is the more “coherent” world view!
The statement or claim that “there is not one standard of objective morality” or the statement that “all morality and truth is subjective” is ironically presented as one universal absolute standard of (objective morality and truth). Thus it’s logical converse (objective morality) and absolute truth is real. Therefore the absolute object of morality and truth exists.
I'm only like 6 years late but 😂 yeah I was thinking the same thing I literally said it out loud when I heard him say that
It's good to see 2 men dialogue without hatred for the other or the others beliefs.
I find Richard Dawkins to be an absolutely hateful creature. Dr Lennox treats him kindly.
1:17:00 - And Larry argues against his own belief in objective moral values and duties! Incredible the regularity with which atheists do this...
Truth is the logic that is always absolutely right, regardless of the physical world, fact is what happened in the physical world, and ‘real’ is the case that truth or fact reveals as it is.
we were worms, and we read the bible, and we became living souls
[Fact, Reality, and Truth]
‘Truth’ is the logic that is always absolutely right, regardless of the physical world, ‘fact’ is what happened in the physical world, and ‘reality’ is the realization of truth as fact via materials.
So whether it is truth or not is a matter of whether it is always right regardless of the physical space and time, whether it is a fact or not is a matter of whether it happened in the physical world or not, and whether it is real or false is a matter of whether the alleged fact is revealed as it is or not, that is, whether the truth or fact is hided, masqueraded or manipulated, or not.
As a truth-performer, I want you to try to use them as accurately as possible.
OnCharm Lee (Author of the Book “Humans, God, and Truth - Human Life is the Awakening Process”)
Lennox has SWAG! Love the way he thinks.
The pork chop cannot " think" any more than you can - that little fatso is a dreamer and no christian(not being able to jump that high)
Truth and science? Science deals with facts, not truth. Truth is a value judgement. Philosophy and religion deal with truth, like love being the greatest power...
Not really true. We REACT to love. Love does nothing. Emotions never do anything. We must act upon them. Our desires and hates have NO power in themselves.
That time your stoked for a Veritas forum expecting an atheist to say something interesting or on topic................... still waiting.
Luke Schwanke - Your post gave me a good laugh. Actually, Shapiro did say something interesting in that he feels some embarrassment at the mocking tone of some atheists. Good for him that he can distance himself from that immaturity.
Luke - Correct. He really only had the same material as atheist bad comedians. Doubt.
Larry Shapiro seems like a nice enough guy, and he actually does not come across as a pompous know-it-all, which I always find to be a relief in the world of atheist debate. Even so, he seemed nervous and ill-prepared to face John Lennox, even in this relatively casual talk. He cited sources he could not always remember, made the common error of bringing up assumed Biblical inaccuracies by believing the Gospel accounts being written many decades to hundreds of years after the fact by "superstitious strangers", and incredibly suggested that miracles would have to be commonplace in order for them to be proven as miracles, a point I found to be awkward, odd, and completely off its meaning on what miracles actually are.
Lennox countered the arguments with ease, as I have seen him do many times. The point he made from an excerpt in Shapiro's own book regarding an event involving Caesar crossing the Rubicon, which was written down about two-hundred years after the event, yet he believes that source to be reliable, was sheer genius. He was so charming, intellectually, emotionally and mentally stimulating--as always--that he was formidable just by showing up. He was gracious as usual, but had a couple of tongue-in-cheek moments, including mentioning that two of Shapiro's sources were involved in religion, one was found to be unreliable by most scholars, and another disagreed with Shapiro. Also, the team hat was a nice touch. :0) He did, however, get a little overexcited and began to talk over Shapiro a couple of times. The moderator was great with keeping order with all of that. Lennox did apologize for some of his mistakes.
Unfortunately, Shapiro's best argument was also his worst, because he started off by saying that strong beliefs in supposedly rare events, such as ultra-rare diseases, must have very strong and accurate tests to measure them, but as to the potential application of beliefs painted in the most negative light--albeit understandably--given in regards to how these beliefs affect other people's rights, he flubbed big time on that, too, for bringing up abortion, which quashes the rights of the smallest citizens. In the end, even he admitted that science cannot answer all of life's questions, and he does believe in morality, which also falls outside of the scientific realm, which he admits on and off. Kudos to John Lennox, awesome Scholar, Mathematician, scientist, bioethicist, and person. Props to Shapiro, too, for agreeing to civilly discuss the issues, and, in fact, disagreeing with his atheist contemporaries about their lack of respect with those who hold different views than their own. I hope Shapiro's gentle approach catches on.
I don't believe in a painter because even though I see the painting I have never observed the painter, and so there is no 'evidence' that a painter exists. How smart of this atheist.
Larry has never met Gary Habermas’s minimal facts argument on the resurrection of historical Jesus! If you’re faith in the resurrection of Jesus needs some strengthening look up Gary Habermas.
Also saying you believe in God and actually doing what God says are two separate things. Which no one (and as far as I know Christians believe this to be especially true) completely does.
It amazes me when people say they lack a belief in an unobservable or that which can't be seen
There's so many things having to do with science that are unobservable.
But they do not keep people from believing in them or hoping them or thinking that they exist because of other theories and hypotheses.
But if you haven't pursued God's nature you can't say that he's unobservable it's simply denial
@@lepidoptera9337 you are an imp. Please don't be an imp
[God never desires sacrifices, adulates, or prayers from human beings]
Human beings have so far misunderstood God. The right god certainly exists. This correct god never desires sacrifice, flattery, or prayer from man. The right god is not lacking or personality to desire them. God only wants humans as secondary beings to realize everything properly and to be faithful to the right life. Don’t privatize God.
Jesus is the name of the Lord †♥
The lord is bullshit invisible invented
@@josegaleano1530 Jesus is Lord 💛
Lennox pointing out that science does not know how or why gravity exist is profound. There are just as many, if not more, "assumed" beliefs in science than there are in Christianity.
Shapiro continues to make assumptions base on his atheism while saying God has to be proven by science. Our moral conscience alone shows God's presence. God's Word will stand for eternity.
@@lepidoptera9337
The THEORY of Relativity only references or takes account of laws of gravitational forces. Not how it is generated.
@@lepidoptera9337
Whatever works for you. My post is from the very description of the Theory of Relativity. If you have a problem with that. You can take it up with the experts. That is your problem not mind. BTW you better be right in your assumptions about "God". If you're mistaken. You will exist in an eternity of regret. Your choice.
24:22 you just contradicted yourself, just a few seconds before you said that there is no empirical evidence for God, as if God were a contingent being. That's the error most atheists incur in.
God want us free...the lack of empirical evidence...is the best gift...
KEY point Shapiro made, the THEORY of evolution. It is NOT a proven fact. It has never been observed.
H.T.: The only proven portion of evolution is species adaptation, which means that finches in different places have their beaks altered to better suit their environments. Just like human beings have different skin and hair for their respective climates and so forth. Also, dogs and cats bred to be smaller and tamer for use as pets, as well as having certain physical characteristics deemed favorable by human companions, such as long ears, shorter legs, etc. Still, the dogs are dogs--derived from wolves. Cats are derived from wild cats. Human beings are still people, regardless of skin, eye, and hair color, height, and whatever else. Finches are still finches. I agree that any argument that tells of further evolution has a long way to go to be proven.
megalopolis2015 okay if you’re saying adaptation is apart of evolution then I strongly believe you don’t understand what evolution is. It’s the process of advancing and bringing success to a species , not for a species to adapt in its environment. If it’s not advancing in its genetic coding and becoming more successful as a group than it’s not evolution .
@@megalopolis2015 - I think your argument is a sad one.
Inbreeding dogs, or any other animal, by interference by humans, getting really bad mutations for our bizarre taste, is in no WAY a case for evolution. It is like saying "Humans inbreeding with each other, father to daughter, mother to son, son to sister, over and over over hundreds of years, although it produces horribly crippled children with life threatening diseases and conditions, is something I find cute." Or "...their children are cute, or potentially cute."
Destroying an animals DNA for cosmetic desire in deranged humans is just bizarre to me. A Chihuahua would never last in the natural world. In no way is that an example of evolution. Animals do the exact opposite of that. They breed with only the strong and exclude the sick, disease, mutated. It is a sick thing in my opinion. But obviously opinions rule in that area.
44:13-46:53. ABSOLUTE OWNAGE.
42:00 - Clearly Larry believes both in truth and in objective moral values and duties. But these views are in conflict within his own worldview...
“These views are in conflict with his own world view”
Exactly and well said!! He can’t prove, justify or ground metaphysical presuppositions such as truth, the prescriptive laws of logic, conscious agents, objective morality, meaning and purpose, morals and ethics, empiricism (science itself) in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. This causally closed effectively complete system is self refuting unless you appeal to something absolute outside the system.
Under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism the “atheists” truth claims are just brain chemicals and nothing more substantive than the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur. Under this causally closed effectively complete system “we” all are just the brains user illusion of “self” and are nothing more substantive than the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubbling over. Does the science project of vinegar and baking soda bubble over with truth and logic when it claims that atheist regimes create less criminality and safer communities. Can the science project of vinegar and baking soda take the credit for its circular logic and self contradiction (No True Scots Man Fallacy).
Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously?
Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Their existential crisis and epistemological crisis not the theists!!
@@georgedoyle7971
Exactly! And well said!! Though well beyond the attention span of those who claim that they can "think" for themselves. 😉 One of my favorite questions to ask the atheist-that generally gets nothing but silence-is:
_Are you a brain or do you use a brain to think?_ 🧠❓🤪
How can they answer and not incriminate themselves at the same time-and undermine their own claims?
[What You Need to Understand for Your Ultimate Truth]
The limit of all of them is that they do not know exactly the followings: 1) the physical world that we feel as the five senses is finite, incomplete, always changing, temporarily existing, very passive and relative, and so secondary or posterior. 2) There certainly is a prior world of intangible reasons (eg. mathematical and philosophical logics) that transcends these temporary physical worlds, whose properties are diametrically opposed to them and are always right to the secondary beings. 3) Life is an intermediate being between these two worlds, whose body interacts with the physical world and spirit interacts with the reason world, while the soul leads the body, and thus the greater the soul, the more active in spirit and the larger (more spacious and longer) lived.
So they all do not fully understand the worlds of material, life and reason/truth. not comprehending the following things: what are the properties of material or matter? How are the laws of physics and universal constants determined, and what are the difference from the truth? Why do the changing laws of physics contain unchanging reasons? How is different between fact, realization and reason/truth? What is life different from substance? In detail, how is thought possible in life? what is consciousness and intelligence? what is soul, spirit and mind, and how are they different? what are desire, will and activeness, how do they occur, and how do they work? what is virtue/goodness, beauty and truth, and what is their relationship to each other? why does truth never change, and why does it appear anywhere anytime in the physical world? why do people say that the world of truth is the world of God, that God appears everywhere alive without death, and that life is large and widely alive if it knows a lot of truth? what are the basic attributes and the ultimate state of ethics and morality, and why the life need them? and what are sin and responsibility in willing life?
I realized all of them as a whole without any gap and contradiction, and I live now only freely and peacefully without any desire, fear, worry, doubt or pride.
OnCharm Lee (Author of the book “Humans, God, and Truth - Human Life is the Awakening Process”)
Larry just does not get it and that gets in the way of his understanding. He's looking for natural reasons for supernatural occurrences and cannot see evidence known to be true and Dr. Lennox brought forth. John Lennox missed some opportunities to clarify, but still in the end, was quite a good defender of the faith.
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever. Amen.
Does anyone have a link to the full video of the last interview where he's talking about making your bed and climate change?
55:39 Shapiro's arguments are so ridiculous...
Naturalism always is. It eats itself like a cancer.
"I have doubts about what you believe. I cannot believe in what you believe. I only believe in what I can see. But I'll use LOGIC to make my argument. Oh... and by the way.... evolution is true because I assume it is." Shapiro is quite shallow.
The answer to this question is so obvious to me that I wonder how anyone could argue from the contrary.
I am not surprised however, in fact it is exactly the kind of presupposition that I would expect the naturalist to adopt in an attempt to justify their position. The surprising part is that they believe it is a philosophically defensible position to the point they would attempt it in a debate.
What does this suggest about the Atheist then who seem so brilliant in some regards and yet simultaneously, so monumentally dense?
God said that all mankind was evidenced by way of their conscience and the very created order itself and when they hold this truth in unrighteousness, God himself gives them over to strong delusions.
There is still time to repent and turn from your wicked ways and turn to Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life!
Shaphiros opening statement is an exercise in violating the law of non-contradiction for Stalin and Mao were atheists and both murdered millions. Likewise, some have murdered vast multitudes in the name of God or some faith system. This seems to say both atheists and deists have the same core problem of total depravity or as the ancient writer stated--"there is none righteus, not even one...." But it is also true that most atheists and deists are not as bad off as they could be and they thus practice things which are relatively good because they both share a common origin. This of course is the fact that both, although greatly marred by sin, are made in the image of God.
Not just killed multiple millions but killed their OWN people just because.
Killing OTHERS from other nations, maybe because they have other views or cultures you find repulsive, is one thing. That could be justified by many people. But killing your OWN people just because you can is another kind of evil in itself and defines atheism to me. In the end Shapiro only has his opinion and nothing more. No foundation he can even prove. Just "I like chocolate..... my opinion. It may change tomorrow or 10 years later."
Shapiro's comment about the aliens is too silly and ill intended.
superb
Science is just describing what God is in and created.
[The truth, God, Natural Law and Relative Value: the truth is never the same as the physical law or the relative value.]
The physical world is constantly changing and temporary. The universe in which we live is opened in unity, and thus all the physical entities in our universe are constantly changing and transient.
Reason is always right, regardless of the existence of the physical world. Reason is logic that is always right even if there is no physical world as well as a person who thinks. (I call the reason world as God-world.)
The existence of the physical world and all the phenomena that take place in the world are instances in which the reasons are temporarily realized by means of material. Any physical or natural law, which is the causal law for the changes in such a physical world, is not the reason itself.
But the laws of the physical world about such continual changes contain internally reasons like mathematical logics that never change. I call those reasons realized in our universe as truths. (We may call the truth world as God-world.)
As long as we feel and think only of the phenomenon of the physical world, we cannot see any absolute reason or truth but we can only discuss the relative values as each physical entity.
1:23:08 the flying spaghetti monster would be a contingent absurd being not even in the realm of science. Another ridiculous example from Shapiro.
Why is it so hard for atheists to realize GOD used scientific materials for creation? How can they not understand intelligence from a creator?
I have a question for people of all religions, there are currently over 4000 different religions in the world today, what is it that makes yours the correct one?
Kennan Dunn
You pick the one that suits you or none.
I have no religion but have experienced God.
Gerard: Your statement just now intrigues me. Could you tell me more about your experience?
Look up Ravi Zacharias - Jesus Among Other Gods. He gives a detailed explanation on your exact question.
megalopolis2015 try this.
www.celebraterecovery.com/index.php/about-us/twelve-steps
Gerard Jones
There is nothing there other than some cute quotes.
On the whole, I'm in agreement with Mr. Lennox, but as for whether or not the universe is a closed system, (obviously unprovable either way given how vast it is), it would seem that the idea that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed is pretty dependent on the universe being a closed system.
One new text tells us that there are seven Superuniverses, with millions of local universes in them, each one created and controlled by a Paradise Creator Son and a Universe Mother Spirit. It goes on to say that not all of the local universes exist yet. There is creating yet to be done. When a local universe comes into being, they bring with them a relatively standard amount of matter and energy. That would be the 'not closed' part of the system. But we have yet to detect any new universes coming into existence, like one moment a section of space is empty, and then suddenly there's a massive gaseous cloud there. Would it even be hot enough for us to see?
Larry Shapiro has scarcely opened his mouth before he starts playing the victim. Sort of sad.
H e makes the perfectly fsit pont that people just*don'* obviously cannot come back to life once dead so the s-ocalled resuurection is*obviously* pure in vention.
If it *canot* be true it *Is* not true justt as fatty lenox simply *cannot* be a christian - not being able to jump that high therefore the little pork chop *Is* not a chraristian he is just another tubby smug swaggering dreaming machine, oi and a rather poorly executed uncle tom act .
53:30 who’s the guy on the far left telling John Lennox to calm down.
Shapiro opens with irritating snobbery. I haven't watched all of this yet but I think it's safe to say that I will remain entirely unpersuaded regarding his world view.
Yep!!
Until people understand that Christ IS truth they will never understand. THIS IS NOT ABOUT CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS. Jesus is the way the truth and the life and no man can come unto the father but by him.
This is about God manifest in the flesh to teach us about himself. Perfect love perfect self-sacrifice with a plan from the foundation of the world to redeem mankind back to himself, duping Satan who did not realize that Resurrection meant a new creation that Satan could not touch. It is beautiful. It is elegant. Everything in creation was made by Christ for Christ and through Christ and in this creation he is king of kings and Lord of lords and there is no other. He is the alpha and the Omega he is the first and the last. He is omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient. Who was and is and is to come. Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father the risen Savior and we will one day be like him, in the resurrection of the body.
I don't think I'm a BAD person. No idea what he means by bad. If by bad I assume he means not beneficial (which just means bad), then I wonder what transcendental basis he has for his morality. If your view of morality can be eventually (meaning the absolute source of view) traced to the personal preference then he isn't bad in his own mind, but then neither is the member of ISIS who doesnt think he is bad for selling children as sex slaves.
“No idea what he means by bad”
Fair point me neither!! The fact is that “not bad” is a value claim, an “ought” claim but it’s common knowledge in analytical philosophy that…
“You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” - (David Hume).
To claim that you can appeal to the “natural sciences” to prove, justify and ground value claims commits the (Is/Ought Fallacy or the Naturalistic Fallacy). “Not bad” according to who? A chemical and biological robot? Or perhaps a bag of meaningless chemicals. “Not bad” according to a cosmic accident, a cosmic toss of the coin!! Or perhaps “not bad” according to the accidental arrangement of the cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea. The belief that life can come from non life and that the irrational creates the rational is so improbable it is incredible!! The fact is that under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism there is no such thing as “bad” as there is no such thing as “truth” because it’s all relative, arbitrary and ad hoc. The clue is in the word “relativism”.
A strictly reductive, materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. It’s a question begging fallacy and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. The fact is that it consists in asserting the claim that there is no absolute “truth” as if this were absolute “truth” itself? Oblivious to the irony of declaring it to be “absolutely” true that there is nothing but the relatively true!! It’s synonymous with saying that there is no language or writing that there is no writing. In fact, every idea is reduced to relativity, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion undermines itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity. The assertion clearly contradicts itself if it is “true” and by contradicting itself logically proves thereby that it is totally false and is an atheistic, nihilistic fantasy. Its first absurdity lies in the fact that it is a logical fallacy, a (Special Pleading Fallacy). An implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by magic, from a relativity that is declared to be the only “absolute” possibility.
It’s like believing that if you just screamed loud enough “there is no such thing as sound”!! then sound will cease to exist!!
“When our pride usurps Truth, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, an ego driven reality.”
*Whose* truth? Truth for whom?
*Whose science *Of_what*?
This atheist is one big contradiction
IF GOD IS BEYOND SPACE AND TIME THAT IS THE SAME AS NOT EXISTING AT ALL .
How do you know that? Well, first you assume that naturalism is true... even though you have no good reasons for believing that naturalism is or even could be true. _Am I right?_
Kish - That's like saying "someone who died 2,000 years ago never existed".
That's as ignorant as saying "because birds can fly they are not limited by gravity".
God made gravity so it only makes sense He would not be limited by it. Same with time, matter and space.
Your argument makes sense on no level. No one ever said "God is beyond space and time". He made them. He can be outside of them and in them simultaneously. It would be like saying "a person cannot stick their finger in water without being outside the water". It is just ignorant in the extreme. It defies logic.
how can seemingly brilliant people believe in a 2000yr old book from anonymous writers?
Similarly as you people believe in your desires
Shapiro is a lightweight in comparison. Science has pointed towards God and away from evolution.
@@lepidoptera9337 cute. Of course we’ve all moved on from high school science to the real stuff. You remember how we learned how the little fish died and sank to the bottom and lay there getting covered up by silt for years? 😂
@@lepidoptera9337 I major in not being a smug and arrogant. I think you have failed to keep up with the latest scientific developments.
Larry comes across unfortunately as far more driven by his beliefs than hevis aware of. Some statements - something improbable does indeed need more evidence, however statements stating that miracles are a violation of nature is plainly untrue. A miracle (unexplainable event that can not be reasonably expected to occur based on normal observation) can occur when more information, for example, is entered into an existing system without that injection of information being observed. Science sees this all the time within quantum mechanics, etc.
Resting upon these 2. Intent, based, and foundation. 1st. Love God so we may know why we are given science nor technology is for 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself truly without ceasing but delight. Is like why do science nor technology? Is like how can you and me show off to God without our neighbors. Thy intent and foundation of thy actions. HOSTS of YESHUA Jesus will look at. Is like are you doing science and technology for our innocents youngs sons and daughters upon all the tribes of judah. The HOSTS of YESHUA Jesus delight hearing the laughter of our innocents youngs sons and daughters. Nothing more innocents. Noone will enter in. Unless you and me have to be a Child by choice indeed. Be a child beloved. Sincere conversations with God comes with sincere answers beloved. Likewise with foolished talk. Will be measured indeed. Truth and peace be REUNITED. God's Will be done upon all the tribes of judah and upon all dry GROUNDS nor the world. Intent and foundation. YESHUA Jesus. Why give life and take it away? Why make comments nor do science and technology for what? Your intent. The tree produces fruits can be eaten or spit out! Be a tree that can be eaten including science and technology. I wonder how the world will be beloved. 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself. Intent and foundation. Beloved consider this Will of God. Fruits can be eaten beloved. Thy own life is indeed worth asking why? Why give life and take it away God? Remember sincere conversations comes with sincere answers. Do you blame a man who looks at you? Who is worth more than anything nor everything that exists! All things that exists God made just for you! Therefore you are more beyond valuable! Nothing is wasted but increased beloved. Truth and peace reunite. Judge not yet ye be judge beloved. But do judge the tree by it's fruits! Is like if God comes to you hungry? Can thy fruits be eaten or spit out like the fig tree. Fruits with no taste! Be cast out! Science nor technology or what ever. Can it be eaten. Different kinds of explanations. At the end is the explanation can be eaten for our innocents youngs sons and daughters. Or kill our neighbors. And brings tears to my neighbors. I don't need to see my neighbors being killed. Just to know what evil means. Beloved seek the kingdom of God and its righteousness. Foundation 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself truly without ceasing but delight. Judge the tree by it's fruits beloved. Also acknowledge the HOSTS of YESHUA are the RESTORER and will bring what is intended according to God's Will. It's a privilege indeed. Humble to washed our neighbors feet. Likewise able to bound giants by their hands and feet. Loving one another beloved. God rather not wants sacrifice but for me and you comes to repentance by choice indeed. To BECOME alive again. Why talk at all? By the attributes of God! Comes with sincere tears, conversations and REPENTANCE with God. Pure in hearts. We are more than able. How much is thy breath is worth? Can't talk without life. Now, same you did not put the sun nor stars and gave thy life privilege to experience life. To define. By becoming a child.
The scientific study of the crucifix fish proves the crucifixion. Look up "THE CRUCIFIX FISH - WHAT THE CRUCIFIX FISH REVEALS"
wouldnt even agree there being truth in-science, taking it as philosophically-serious as it somewhat is presented in the title. science is more about scientific (the integral word) insight and collected data, which may turn theory one day - whith basically the only truth happning being the claims of honest approach by the scientist corresponding to what could be called reality, or being, to use a more philo-term.
outside science, its a truth, that science enables us creating social media, which can be used by religious people, to harrass the very thing enabling-them to do, for reasons of what basically is a categorical error in their concluding and- well basically that, like said.
Mr. Shapiro …why to involve in this conversation FOX or politics…..it looks that you run out of arguments.
Because atheists don't like Christians to have control of morality. They want to silence us. THEY want to control morality and force it on us. It is hypocrisy on a huge scale.
Atheists have destroyed science, biology, logic and morality.
Are Wednesdays left handed? Why do all elephants read the London times in Chinese, are some other asinine questions that can be posed as clickbait.
[Evidence, Reason/Truth/God World and Physical world]
There are two types of evidence, physical evidence and logical evidence. You should not believe in physical evidence alone. Rather, physical evidence is temporary and logical evidence is more certain and permanent. The problem is that the illogical imagination or fancy created by people arbitrarily is called as logical.
You need to know that the physical world itself as well as the many facts that take place in any physical world are the temporal realizations of reason through mediation of material. I call the world of reason that exists even without the physical world as the God world, and the reasons that are realized in our universe in among countless reasons as the truths. In reason there are pure reasons that are not realized in our universe, nor in any other universe.
OnCharm Lee (Author of the book “Humans, God, and Truth - Human Life is the Awakening Process”)
There are many truth science is the tool that is used to unravel them
And yet in order to do science at all-a philosophy is required. That's rather curious, don't you think?
Without punctuation one can only guess at what you mean.
@@redfaux74 put a comma immediately after science.
@@howharditis8655 - You can edit your own comment to make it have sense. Putting a coma after science destroys your comment.
There are 3 dots above each other to the far right of your comment. You'll see if you touch it you'll have a few options. Edit is one. Touch it and... you can modify your comment.
1:06:34 that's the Muslim attitude.
20:30 - Funny, but the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Why would you take the word of a bunch of thieves and liars and murderers and rapists if they tell you they are Christians? Many of them probably do believe in the existence of God... but even then, a majority believing that God exists doesn't tell you anything about what they believe about God other than that God exists. As for WHY Larry believes that life actually has value or that objective moral values and duties do exist... He left those blank, as so many of those who 'lack belief' in the existence of God but can't justify the beliefs they do have, do. Anyhow...
Shapiro only had 1 thing in this debate. Doubts about God. He had no solutions. Only weak arguments.
@@redfaux74
And your comment is relevant to anything I said... how exactly?
@@jessebryant9233 - Shapiro put heavy weight on the "assumption" his search (for some random poll with zero value) about the beliefs of inmates could be trusted. He had zero facts. He merely had empty claims and assumptions. Like you said, he trusted liars about their word. He trusted rapists about their respect of others value. Would Shapiro want to get in a cell with a murderer and value their opinion? No. Not if he valued his life. Not if he had common sense.
He literally had zero arguments FOR atheism or science against God. He had only 1 thing in this debate. That was doubt. Typical atheist. No actual science ever.
@@jessebryant9233- It is almost like trusting a judge you KNOW is corrupt (maybe in prison). They may KNOW the law. They may be graduates with the highest scores. But we no longer put trust in them. If.... we have common sense. Naturalism defies common sense. It eats itself like cancer.
@@redfaux74
Yeah, and atheists love to quote them-blindly trusting the claims of such evil doers. Go figure...
No disrespect, but after listening to quite a few atheist response to the Bible and Christ, it’s hard to take most of their arguments seriously..
The people who wrote about Christ raising from the dead were also martyred for their belief, and some of the people who read about what happened were also alive when I the events were reported to have occurred, so they could have easily investigated to see whether or not the claims were true..
Science is a method of observing the natural world, and it is based on verifiable truth. But science as a philosophy requires faith.
No.
Colbert=
VARITAS means TRUTH, yes?? But what sort of a TRUTH do you expect from an atheist whom you invited to your University Forum on TRUTH - to mean YAHWEH's TRUTHS??? It's a bad thing to invite that atheist guy! What were you expecting to learn from that atheist or what do you expect him to learn from the discussion?? BAD IDEA!!
It was a very good idea. Shapiro had ZERO evidence for his doubts. He just had doubts. He believes in only what he can see, experience.... but used logic to try to make his case. It worked horribly for him. Having doubts about God in no way gives atheism credence.
If you expect God to appear as a burning 🔥bush in order for you to believe ...you loosing the whole point...Gods ultimate gift is his empirical lack of evidence...that what allows free choice...
Looking empirical evidence, for God is a loss cause,and thank God...imagine if we can observe him or her it's morning...
His epistemology is kindergarten stuff...
The new answers book 2 p. 70 says "DNA is so compact that a one square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over seven billion Bible's." The complexity of DNA and irreducible complexity SCREAMS out intelligent design. THE reason why people don't wanna believe is because they love their sin and so they wanna suppress the truth of God, Romans 1:18-22 the Bible says "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." Verse 28 says "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind." It's funny when bringing up the fine tuning argument that the atheist says to the Christian that "well, most of the universe is not fine tuned for life", well in the context of the fine tuning argument as evidence for intelligent design, the Christian doesn't care if most of the universe isn't fine tuned for life, because the argument applies for here on earth and atheists have to make the logical fallacy of jumping into another context of where the Christian isn't attempting to even go because the Christian doesn't need to. There are actually a number of scientists with PHDs in astronomy astrophysics and geneticists who believe in God. And A few reasons why when liberal "scholars" attack the Bible I don't take it seriously, Liberal scholars once said that king belshazzar never existed in Daniel 5 then they found archaeological evidence that he did, the same with king David, German scholars said the Gospel of John could not have been written as early like Christians believe but the manuscript fragment p52 proved those "scholars" wrong. Bible critics use to say that Moses didn't write the first 5 books of the Bible because writing wasn't around back then but then they found the code of Hammurabi which proved that writing was around hundreds of years before the Exodus. For years, critics said that the name ‘Canaan’ was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible but the finding of the ebla tablets proved them wrong. Bible critics use to criticize the story of Jesus healing a man by the pool of beshsaida because that wasn't found at that time, the pool but then it was. Bible critics use to say that the hittites never existed then certain things things were found like the hittite royal library. The reliability of the scriptures transmission was also secured when they found the dead sea scrolls which contained books of the Bible that were over a thousand years earlier then the oldest copies that they had at that time. Sir William Ramsay proved Bible critics wrong on a number of things about the Apostle Luke's writings in the Bible and proved Luke was accurate on what he wrote. Scholars at one time were skeptical of Luke being accurate in referring to Lysanius being the tetrarch of Abilene around A. D. 27. However, the credibility of Luke’s gospel record continues to be reinforced by archeological discoveries. An inscription was found on a temple from the time of Tiberius (the Roman emperor from 14 - 37 AD), which named Lysanias as the Tetrach of Abila near Damascus, just as Luke has written. "The Popular handbook of archaeology and the Bible" Page 181 says "Today nearly 100 Biblical figures, dozens of Biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research. Moreover, the Israeli Antiquities Authority has over 100,000 artifacts [discovered in Israel since 1948] available on their data base." Also the New testament even non Christian scholars will admit that it's the best attested work of antiquity out of all the documents of the ancient world and we have more evidence for Jesus then anyone else in the ancient world. 2 Peter 1:16 says "We did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." P.S. Jesus said "So it will be at the end of the age,the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will throw them into the furnace of fire, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:49-50. Jesus also said "You are my friends if you do what I command you." John 15:14. Jesus taught that the only way to be saved is to choose him as your Lord and Master, repent and believe that he died for the sins of his people on the cross see John 14:6.
George Moncayo
"The complexity of DNA A and irreducible complexity SCREAMS out intelligent design"
First off irreducibility was disproven by a theist scientist (among others). You may want to go look this up.
Considering the kind of errors and problems that can occur with DNA, it doesn't actually "scream" anything of the sort. We have excellent support for the theory of evolution in DNA. We see evolution in progress in DNA. The vast majority of scientists who actually study DNA don't support your views of any screaming.
That you then started quoting the Bible as if it is an historic document really screams "I'M MESSSED UP IN THE HEAD!" That's the only screaming I see here.
After spending a lot of time here arguing against religious people like you, I see certain strange patterns appear. One of them is the rambling post without any sort of paragraphs. I'm not sure what psychological issue this is, but it seems quite common in the religious spewing sort of people.
And simply making up things like "people don't wanna believe is because they love their sin" isn't supported by evidence. Non religious people are under represented in prisons. And less religious countries are some of the peaceful in the world. You might want to get your nose out of the bible and into some that deal with reality.
I can't bother reading the rest of your post when you BEGIN with stupid claims.
Samiam 666 errors in DNA is because everything has been cursed by the fall and just because more people don't believe the Bible doesn't mean it's not true it just means they love their sin and suppress the truth and the argument of fine tuning, atheists have to make up the multiverse theory to attempt to refute fine tuning but we have evidence for fine tuning but not multiverse so if you go down that route then your the one going by blind faith.
Samiam 666 note micro evolution doesn't lead to macro that has never been observed in historical science and there are many scientists who agree with that. The ones that don't and say there can be a gain of information even though that's not true we only see a loss of info but scientists who say there is a gain only do so because they redefined the term and actually it's not a gain it's just a replication of information.
George Moncayo
"micro evolution doesn't lead to macro that has never been observed"
First off, I know you're not a scientist. There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution. Go look it up. There is only evolution.
Secondly, small changes in ANYTHING over time result in large changes. And since we are talking about BILLIONS of years, not only is it not hard to imagine this being the case, but we have incredible evidence of this from different sources. That you are unaware of this evidence, in no way means it "has never been observed". Go to Google Scholar and type in evidence of evolution. You will find tens of thousands of articles that deal with exactly this topic. Now, since you're not a scientist, you'll likely not understand any of it, since it is pretty specific science for which you will need a specific science degree.
"there are many scientists who agree with that"
Since we've already established that you're not a scientist, it also means that you have a shitty understanding of how science works. Scientists disagree about all sorts of things. But only evidence shows what is actually true. The fact that there are scientists who don't believe in evolution, is overshadowed by the vast majority of scientists (about 95% in fact) who DO support evolutionary theory. And why do you think that is? Because there's fucking evidence for it! Why did you choose to believe the 5%? If you went to 100 doctors, and 95 of them said you had cancer, would you side with the 5 who didn't think you did? Of course not, but inexplicably, here you do. Why?
BTW, we know some of the problems with evolutionary theory. There are things we don't know or understand yet. But simply because we don't know things does NOT magically wipe away the evidence that this is happening. The DNA evidence alone is enough to prove evolution.
George Moncayo
"everything has been cursed by the fall"
You're just pulling that out of your ass. On the one hand you say it's designed. Then when I tell you what's wrong with it, you simply make shit up. Priceless. And you literally give no reasoning to think that any of what you say is factual.
"just because more people don't believe the Bible doesn't mean it's not true it"
So, using the same reasoning I can say I'm god. Please disprove I am. Remember, just because you don't believe I am, does not make it so.
"atheists have to make up the multiverse theory to attempt to refute fine tuning"
Incorrect. Most SCIENTISTS don't believe in a god, since there does not seem to be any reason to. There is actually some reasoning behind the multiverse theory. And SCIENTISTS can tell you what they are.
Although the fine tuning idea is very interesting you of course can't explain how a god would know how to fine tune the universe. They just know? And why would a god need to fine tune anything? Can't god make animals talk, even though they don't have the brain power to do so?
It is clear who is walking into this conversation with preconceived notions that they simply want to continue to believe. Personally I don't know if there is a god or not. But so far no one has ever been able to make a good case for one. So I don't believe in one.
Then there's you.
Why do you bring a Jew on and pretend he is a neutral intellectual?
Its tiresome.
John Lennox liar for god.
Lennox is legend.
Is that all you gotta say ? 😂 Why are you mad ? Do you feel hurt someone insulted your world view so beautifully?
Lovely Christian boy you are.@@Netomp51
@@tomellis4750 you should have some admiration for that brilliant mind and start thinking seriously about your existence, there’s a lot more than you think.
The Texas Church shooter was an atheist, however, I believe most Christians assume everyone is made with a God conscience, along with a moral compass instilled by God. So everyone, therefore, knows right or wrong and can be good moral people even if they are atheists: however, as GK Chesterton pointed out when cross examining the works of Frederick Nietzsche that if anyone truly, honestly, believed in whole adulterated atheism and (key point here) followed that view to it's crescendo that you would either go insane or become morally lacking in every regard. Atheism, ultimately, undermines humanity.
Morality is based on three points:
1. We all have an objective (not subjective) understanding of how to treat a person we deem innocent. It has been the same throughout history and societies. The only exceptions are some people with mental disorders.
2. We all have subjective views of who is innocent - based on heritage, beliefs, society, etc. Some people see homosexuals as full of sin, deserving death, while others see homosexuals as truly virtuous. Most sit somewhere in between.
3. We all rationalise sin. We find all kinds of reasons to forgive ourselves for our actions. It is only those who do something immoral and can not find a reason to forgive themselves that truly have remorse. They can drive themselves to despair by not being able to repent sufficiently for what they did and suffer perpetual remorse. Others just say " they deserved it" or "they asked for it", etc. and forgive themselves