Michael Shermer and Alister McGrath: Is God a Figment of Our Imagination?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 вер 2017
- The Religion and Society Series seeks to generate critical conversations on matters of faith, society and public interest. The purpose of the series is to play a catalytic role in helping shape discourse around topics that deeply matter to individuals and society.
Our dialogue brings together two leading thinkers who have thoughtfully wrestled with this question, each not only having embarked on a personal pilgrimage, but each bringing a lifetime of erudition, experience, and insights to bear on this theme. Alister McGrath, the athiest who would become a theist, and Michael Shermer, the theist who would become an atheist. This engaging dialogue was hosted at Convocation Hall, University of Toronto.
DR. MICHAEL SHERMER is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and Presidential Fellow at Chapman University. Dr. Shermer received his BA in psychology from Pepperdine University, MA in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his PhD in the history of science from Claremont Graduate University.
As a public intellectual Michael regularly contributes Opinion Editorials, book reviews, and essays to the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Science, Nature, and other publications, along with over 200 consecutive monthly columns in Scientific American, where he has been a regular contributor since 2001. He has appeared on such shows as The Colbert Report, 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, Larry King Live, as well as interviews in countless science and history documentaries aired on PBS, A&E, Discovery, The History Channel, The Science Channel, and The Learning Channel.
Dr. Shermer’s next book is "Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for Immortality, the Afterlife, and Utopia." His latest book is "The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom." His previous book is "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies-How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths." He also authored "Why Darwin Matters: Evolution and the Case Against Intelligent Design.” Dr. Shermer’s most famous book is "Why People Believe Weird Things, on pseudoscience, superstitions, and other confusions of our time."
According to Neil deGrasse Tyson, “Michael Shermer is a beacon of reason in an ocean of irrationality.” And in the words of the late Stephen Jay Gould (from his Foreword to Why People Believe Weird Things): “Michael Shermer, as head of one of America’s leading skeptic organizations, and as a powerful activist and essayist in the service of this operational form of reason, is an important figure in American public life.”
DR. ALISTER MCGRATH is a scientist, theologian, minister, and intellectual historian. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford.
Aside from being a faculty member at Oxford, McGrath has also taught at Cambridge University and King’s College, University of London. Studying chemistry as an undergraduate at the University of Oxford, he eventually received three doctorates there: a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology, and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History.
McGrath is noted for his work in relationship between science and religion and his opposition to New Atheism, having had formal dialogues with both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Among his best-known books are "The Twilight of Atheism," "The Dawkins Delusion," "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life," and "A Scientific Theology." He is also the author of a number of well known textbooks on theology.
McGrath's main research interest at present is the area of thought traditionally known as “natural theology,” which is experiencing significant renewal and revitalization at the moment. He addressed this theme in detail at his Richardson Lectures at the University of Newcastle-upon Tyne (2008), his Gifford Lectures at the University of Abedeen (2009), and his Hulsean Lectures at the University of Cambridge. The Richardson Lectures have been published as "The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology" (Blackwell). His Gifford Lectures were published as "A Fine Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology." His Hulsean Lectures has been published by Wiley-Blackwell, entitled “Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology.”
One thing I've noticed about these comments is that people tend to believe that whatever they believed before watching the video was confirmed by their advocate on the stage. I guess that speaks to the eloquence of both presenters. What is even more remarkable is that most of the comments, though at times rather harsh, are nevertheless basically polite. That is what we need. Personally I think it would be good for debaters of religion to make a distinction between "religion" and "religious fundamentalism," but if we can go in respecting each other as people a huge part of the battle has been won.
How do you conclude that it has anything to do with the eloquence of the speakers?
Are you meaning to dismiss the bias of the listeners or the fact that there was no intention of being influenced alternative to their previous held beliefs.
Very few people in my experience are able to be impartial to Truth. Which I think is associated with their subjective reality.
Definitely, onboard with the claim of respect
Yeah the distinction between religion and religious fundamentalism is a serious problem-so much strawmanning happens here. There are deep differences denominationally but so often they get lumped together as if they are the same belief structures.. as if Roman Catholics are the same as Protestants, as if southern Baptist fundamentalists believe the same as Lutherans, etc. Many of the new atheist crowd do a huge disservice to the more scholastic and nuanced views here.
DO I wish that I could carry on living and eventually inhabit a magical land full of all my old and lost family, friends and pets? Do I wish there was a guy upstairs with a bunch of powerful assistants looking down and generally making sure everything will end up allright? Of course! WHo wouln't? Especially as the hoops religion makes you jump through arent that great. Unfortunately there is no credible evidence to support it. I am not an atheist because I want to be, I am one because it is the only logical position.
What so many neglect to understand is that religion is the very thing that Christ was continually contrastively dismantling as He often confronted the religious leaders of the time He was here on earth. All throughout generations religion has deceived masses of people. Religion has always been man's continual failing attempts to satisfy God. Rather, God wants to make us a new creation in Christ Jesus. Although this may be misconstrued as religion it is not. No, rather when one is BORN AGAIN on the basis of hearing and accepting the gospel, God then supernaturally changes our heart by changing what we champion in life even if we don't always live it. We nevertheless know that God has truly reconstructed who we are. This is true no matter how hard the sceptic will deny and debate it. God meant what He said that it is not His will that any should perish. Rather than religion, true repentance comes when we allow God into our lives through Christ as He will sanctify-ably conform us into His image and this will be undeniable.
1 Thess 5:23-24. " Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely. And may your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will do it." Thus, we cannot prove there is a God but God will prove Himself to us but It must be exclusively through Christ. Thus, I think that, that is the very thing the sceptic and/or atheist really don't to allow for in their lives. Again, "He who calls you is faithful; he will do it."
What a stupid your God is???😂😂😂
Nice civil debate. I am with Dr. Shermer's positions but both were well spoken on behest of their side.
I like this type of debate (although it felt more like a discussion at times). Neither of them arrived “locked and loaded” with talking points. It felt genuine. I know one criticism of Shermer has been that he’s too laid back in debate settings, but I think when he’s matched with someone of similar temperament, a good rhythm can be established.
Alister Edgar McGrath is a Northern Irish theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, Christian apologist, and public intellectual. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford, and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College.
He likes the idea of a god so he is devoted to defend the belief that a god exists and not just any god.
@@JamesRichardWiley So he is an idiot with a teaching permit. OK.
This was a very enjoyable debate to watch, I tend to side with Michael Shermer in the end.
I am impressed that Professor McGrath is still at it.
@WhoDarestheMAN gamer respected pastor - does not exist
@WhoDarestheMAN gamer people who make money lying to people don't get my respect
@evidenceonlythanx give us "evidence only thanx" of the shit you're talking about...don't be juvenil
@evidenceonlythanx just a word of advice, you don’t need to capitalize words to stress them or to get your point across. Nor will an insult in every comment ever convince someone to change their mind. I often think that the sort of abrasive attitude exemplified here does a disservice to the atheist position, especially as someone who is on the same ‘side’ as you.
It’s so hard to believe that adults can actually believe in the impossibility of God. The sheer impossibility of God is staggering.
But atheists like Krauss have determined that 'nothing' is impossible.
The impossibility of Naturalism is really fascinating, in that physics and thermodynamics are 'self organizing' agencies with increasing complexity over time.
@@jacobostapowicz8188 Yes, maybe so, but, that doesn’t change the fact that the existence of God is NOT one of those things in the realm of possibility.
@@maxxwellbeing9449Actually, everything ever is impossible with or without God or a creator. There really shouldn't be anything anywhere, just nothing is actually more probable than reality and the mystery of the now
@@jacobostapowicz8188 Nice analogy…but, there is still no God. That impossibility is no mystery of the current reality.
If Santa Klaus was substituted for God in McGraths argument he wouldn't have to change any of it. His argument boils down to the idea that faith accompanied by supernatural belief is more interesting than the lack of it. But many of us don't need supernatural beliefs to find life interesting and personally meaningful.
St. Nicholas was a real person.
When Alister quotes Dawkins as saying he cannot be absolutely sure God doesnt't exist, rather too much is being made of this. Dawkins is taking a proper scientist's position. Dawkins also said that he doesn't believe that a giant teapot follows the same orbit as the Earth but no one sees it because it is the other side of the sun. But again he says that the proper position is that you cannot absolutely rule it out.
Wow! I really like Michael Shermer. He has a very honest conversational way about him. Dig that. I really liked Alister as well...and think he made some great points...but....I feel like I could have a beer with Michael. He just seems.....real.
McGrath is basically arguing that god exists because he wants it to exist. The argument of having to have ethics or even human nature grounded in something transcendent is a pretty ridiculous claim to make. God has always been a concept of things unknown.
Then how did the natural come into existence because the natural cannot create the natural therefore the must be some force of supernatural to cause the natural.
Monotheism, a product of more a less a thousand years, The Axial Age Revolution, WHEN humans' cognitive capacities took an HUGE leap forward, cemented the one god-ness concept. A smart move TOWARDS meeting our innate evolutionarily developed spiritual needs, uniting ever increasing sizes of human populations, and giving us som guideposts to live by and work, coordinate, and collaborate together. RATHER more than LESS on all accounts.
McGrath's point is that for those who believe, God is not a figment of their imagination is like astrophysicists who believe in dark matter, dark matter is not a figment of their imagination.
Matt Steeves what evidence? At this point there is no testable evidence it is all conjecture and opinion.
Hmmm. A beige suit with black shoes and a black suit with brown shoes. Just like the debate, problematic for both.
Funny observation
After listening to several of McGrath’s lectures and reading a few of his works I have concluded that his entire position is based on an equivocation, if that’s the right word. He frequently states that science can only prove certain things but can’t prove “the big questions in life”. I believe that these “questions” are simply bad questions. Asking “what’s the meaning of life” for example is as pointless as asking “what’s the meaning of electromagnetism?”. Asking “why am I here?” is as daft as asking “”why is there a weed in my garden?” Asking “what is the purpose of life?” Is like asking “what is the purpose of blue?”
He also demands that atheists “prove atheism, which is ridiculous, since atheism Is nearly always defined as a lack of belief in any gods. Alister- prove your lack of belief in fairies.
I agree. As a scientist he should focus on the scientific reasons for his shift from atheism to theism. Inability to answer the questions simply proves inability to answer the questions and nothing more.
Spot on, spot on.
So called believers themselves don’t even believe. I’ve seen and know tons of them that don’t do any of the things their Religion requires. Everything from fornication, smoking, drinking, lewdness, lust, etc etc etc are parts of their everyday life yet they claim they’re Christian, Muslims etc and believers in God🤦♂️.
@@smkngunzzz1843 So from your perspective, doe's that demonstrate the non-existence of God or are you just making an observation of God's people and where do you stand on the God issue?
Respectfully, it seems to me that a fair question to the atheist is, can you prove conclusively that there is no God or if you will, a creator? Even though very effectively debated, I don't know that this can be proven any more than proof of God. Therefore, we will always have people on both sides of the fence going back and forth. Either position takes faith. Thus, there are plenty of good presentations from both sides providing ample amounts of persuasion to defend the position you/they may hold. Therefore, the person considering which position is most acceptable, must diligently weigh out all the given arguments and subscribe to the one which is most meaningful to them and by all means rigorously put it through the test. As well, we must realize that whatever questions are being asked, we will never have all the answers.
Thus, although it cannot be proven to the skeptic, the Christian has a very legit claim by testifying that God has proven Himself to them without hypothesizing if that is the right word. The bible claims that His Spirit bears witness with our spirit. Those who have tested that claim through Christ by receiving Him by faith (even with all their doubts) come to find out this to be overwhelmingly factual.
105:10
2020 will be the best year EVER!
And that was the year when I gave up my career as a prophet.
Yes.
to dr mcghrath: the chistianity itself came up as a judaism without the stringency of jewish code of law and behavior. so, it was certainly an example of freeing yourself from the restraints of older cultural formation by inventing a new one.
I feel this point is seldom made
It’s not inventing a new one, rather building upon in it once a proffecy has come true
My answer to the debate title is "why does it matter? So many theists complain about god being hidden and not caring that I'm not seeing much difference between a non-existing god and a god who exists but doesn't care. Is there a difference between a non-existing dad and a dead-beat dad? Logically yes, Practically? No.
At 1:26:45 he begins to discuss the difference between a disconnected deity and one who came into history and experienced everything with us. What of the accounts in the Genesis account where God is purported to have been walking in the garden when Adam and Eve hid from him. If God before Jesus seemed rather distant and hadn't been amongst the rest of us before in history where does the Genesis account go? If we go with the idea that some parts were literally true and others were moral truths, which parts and why? Is the falling away literal truth or does it give people a reason to explain suffering? If the latter seems more probable or comforting to some I believe it isn't important to try to forcibly de-convert anyone but rather help people to understand that though their rather narrow minded beliefs are not intellectually honest and true from an evidentiary basis, the intent behind the beliefs in how they treat others does for the most part have a place in society.
where the hell did u get the idea that God was "walking" in the garden of Eden?
It seems to me that in his opening statement, Dr McGrath manages to completely avoid the subject of the debate and further more attempts to suggest that there is an equivalence between the faith one takes in the existence of a god and the faith we use in determining various realities of the world. Yes, you can argue that the non-religious use something you could call 'faith' in how they mould their world view, but it has a foundation that is objectively far more rational and logical than the religious world view.
It's a real shame he hasn't addressed the point of the debate at all as I was hoping for something more thought provoking than just the usual apologetic arguments dressed up in nice friendly language and delivered by someone with 'Dr' in front of his name.
Sorry, that's a question begging fallacy. To claim that the rational faith of logic, which you so quickly conceded, is distinct from religious faith, is question begging.
Language and Programming Channel can you give one piece of evidence that points to god? Remember, it has to to point EXCLUSIVELY to god and no other explanation, otherwise it’s not evidence at all.
There's a lot of that going on, not just in religion v science, but in politics and science internally as well. Today, it seems everyone is their own "prophet," where their beliefs, feelings or, sigh... "Opinions..." carry equal weight as evidence. In politics it might be "This group are all criminals/dangerous/pedos/whatever!!!" Claims that are easily dismissed with statistics and basic criminological analysis. When this is provided, it always fall back on the age old "their opinion" they are "allowed to have" apparently, even when it's wrong and they cannot defend it beyond them being allowed to have it.
In science internally, there's the global warming debate, a debate that shouldn't even be a debate, and "scientists" that take table crumbs from the fossil fuel industry say "it's not real!" Again, without being able to provide any evidence that can survive peer review.
And in religion, people talk out they ass as well, but that's not a new phenomenon I suppose.
Big J:"God loves all his children! Turn the other cheek! He who is without sin may throw the first stone!"
Some C:"But what about the blacks, jews, atheists or homosexuals? Surely not them? And if someone is really mean, or wont accept you, surely I can smite them? And in my opinion I am without sin, so I should be able to throw as many rocks as I bleeding please tyvm!"
Big J"... Aight, dad? These people are fucking idiots, can we get this crucifiction thing going? I want out."
I mean, it's like they don't even believe their own fiction.
I'm so tired of seeing them contrast atheism with christianity as though christianity is the only god claim atheists reject. Dunno how they can pretend like that with a straight face, and they are lucky to get docile Atheists like Shermer that don't rip this false rug from under them, leaving their entire argument in the sand
@@randomfandom33 it's not question begging. Just because atheism is the counter to Theism doesn't mean they do the same thing in the lives of their possessors. Theists use their beliefs to decide how to navigate life. Atheists reject the basis of those beliefs but that rejection doesn't direct our lives. Facts of the real world do instead. Big difference
A figment of one’s imagination does not prophesy things hundreds and thousands of years in the future and come true!!!!!!!!!!!
Like which things?
@@schmetterling4477: Read Isaiah 52:13 all the way through 53. Ask yourself who is it talking about? If you say Jesus you’d be right. But now realize this book was written 750 years before he was born!
@@kensmith8152 I have no idea who he is talking about. Neither do you. You simply want it to be Jesus. So what? So nothing. And, no, the book of Isaiah is not regarded as written by one author. Its history covers several different political chapters in the lives of the Jewish people from before to after the Babylonian exile.
@@schmetterling4477 I’ve shown these passages to all kinds of people from atheists to agnostics, Catholics and Muslims and Jews they all had come to the same conclusion. I think you’re being willfully ignorant with me
@@kensmith8152 I am simply honest with you. I have no clue who the text is talking about. Unlike you I can admit that. You, on the other hand, need it to be Jesus, which makes you biased.
Watched all of it 1:55:47
Nature goes on forever for everyone and everything to return as everyone and everything an infinite number of times through evolutionary processes. 🌌
The Big Bang was not an explosion and it looks nothing of the sort. Shermer should know better.
He changes his explanation depending on the crowd he speaks to. I think it’s just his way of making it easier to explain to a non-science crowd.
God doesnt help with suffering that doesnt end and has no cure, having belief may have some benefits over short periods of time but belief doesnt help long term suffering.
Sting theory is not a theory its a hypothesis that at the moment cant be tested.
Correct. I don't know what your stance is on god but "god" is also a hypothesis that cannot be tested either. So why believe it? Faith is just gullibility.
@@StaticBlaster When in doubt I take string theory. It doesn't threaten me with eternal torture.
@@schmetterling4477 That's true but you totally missed the point. I'm saying string "theory" is not even a theory in the usual scientific sense of the word. At best, string "theory" is a hypothesis. Currently, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. To me, how would you ever test a hypothesis that suggests extra dimensions of space. If it's unfalsifiable, there's no reason to believe it.
@@StaticBlaster absolutely true brother . Many scientist believe that string theory a T.O.E but it's just a random theory which we cannot unprove . And many modern popes , religious peoples and gurus relate string theory with their beliefs which is nonsense.
If I trust that the sun will rise tomorrow, I'm not using faith.
When I was a boy I believed what I was taught only sunday school talked about God but scientists had prooved evolution as fact thats what they told me at school and on TV. When I saw my son born and then develop into a person and experienced the love between us it seemed a miracle to me. I think thats when I started to grow up.
Pain, suffering, aging and death seem to be for both believers and atheists something that has to be accepted. It forces you to figure out for yourself what you believe in. It pushes you into a stark place that shows you what you are. There is no escape whichever way you turn. There is no use having a temper tantrum against Christians who may seem to accept this more easily so long as they don't hurt you in the process.
Is god a figment of our imagination?.............Yes. ...........End of debate!
What is McGrath talking about, this is not a debate about religion, and he did not offer any arguments for the existence of God
I have never had any communication with God. I also cannot believe in anything that is not my experience. Are Christians suggesting that I follow a Divine entity that I have personally never met?
Believe in a God if you must, but drop the religion.
Anyone who believes in god is just deceiving themselves. I don't want to live a lie. I don't understand why anyone else wants to live a lie.
@@StaticBlaster If God is a lie, then the truth is living is meaningless, therefore your qualm of why anyone would want to live a lie holds no rational justification. Do you even know the repercussions of denying God?
“We need some sort of belief system…” McGrath. Shermer destroyed McGrath in this debate.
Agreed!
Agreed
Atheists ignore their beliefs such as 'self organizing systems with increasing complexity' are natural consequences of thermodynamics and entropy.
Its an absolute ignorance because the forces and pressures from the environment is what biological systems work very hard against. How can life be the product of death?
I always find these conversations fascinating. If someone needs to DEBATE whether something exists (and the arguments in favor center mainly around concepts developed within the human mind and moral uncertainties) then it's a pretty clear statement that it doesn't :-)
Debate the existence of something, like animals mutating into different species with different chromosome counts and new body plans?
Or what about debating Abiogenesis as an historical fact but unable to reproduce in laboratory experiment under pristine conditions?
@@jacobostapowicz8188 not having an answer to any question never points to the god idea.
@@thomastucker5686The same goes for questions about abiogenesis and star formation as naturally emergent processes. Not having an answer doesn't point to "millions of years"
@@jacobostapowicz8188 correct, not having the answer just means, "I don't know". That is the best explanation to many questions. God is not an answer.
@@thomastucker5686Then what is the best method or metric to determine if the universe and life is self emergent or designed?
"... the galaxies are all expanding away from us - redshifted ..." Is the preceding statement empirically correct? How is it that astronomers and astrophysicists know that the observers and their associated reference frames are not blue-shifted, i.e., shrinking? I have suggested that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 and also that the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is approximately correct. Google "fredkin milgrom" and "seven sagacities of string theory with the finite nature hypothesis".
so most atheists really believe saying that there is no god is not tenable? do you?
Sorry Alistair, which scientists have said "this is how it is and will be forever?"
1:18:00 I feel Alister was on the spot and unable to think of a full response. Happens to everyone. I wish he would have also mentioned the fact that many or most of the bad things that happen are due to several factors. Human causes, so we can't put them on God. Or facts of physics and Nature. Greater still is the fact that if we didn't have free will, or if the world was simply apples and grapes, sleeping and fun times. That wouldn't be a life worth living. It may be shocking to us that we need the destruction and suffering to be fully whole. That is the circumstance and spice of life. See Michael wants a world, or thinks God should want a world that is pillowed walls and corks on the forks land. I like knowing when I walk I could fall thank you very much. If people focused on making what bad things happen better... instead of fighting and making things worse. Maybe we could tolerate the things we have to to survive. Maybe that's on us and the lesson of life itself.
Good effort at justifying 🎉 what you need to be true. What about the tooth and nail cruelty of nature? What free choice do animals have?
Why is Alister's accent so unique?
Because he has acquired an RP accent since he moved to England, before that he spoke with a Northern Irish accent. The result is this unique accent
Mankind is subject to the Creator God so if anything happens to us in this sinful world, sometimes we may suffer through transgression, as in secular law for a parallel whether by death or not. Refer to the.second of the Ten Commandments.
Shermer makes a ton of ought and morality statements that have no objective explanations in his worldview.
He does not mean by "ought" what you mean by "ought." You mean something mystical and supernatural by "ought," which obviously can only be supported by a religious worldview. But assuming that your worldview is necessary to support morality is not a good argument. You are merely presupposing what you are setting out to prove.
Morality is not objective so what’s the problem?
@@urasam2 That’s merely a claim. Plus if it were true, the problem is that it gives us no reason to accept Shermer’s personal, subjective, emotional opinion, if it has no actual objective weight.
@@celestialknight2339 It’s a claim that can be justified, unlike the claim that morality is objective, which cannot. A society functions by taking peoples’ collective subjective morality and objectifying it into codes of behaviour which are then enforced
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
- Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
- (To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
- Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou [art] God.
- And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
- No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
- The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
- For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.
- For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
- For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
- Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
- Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
- But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
- Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
- But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
- Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
- He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
- Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
It's FREE WILL God isn't crossing the line of free will... So he came among us he did what we wouldn't do.
Love cannot exist without free will..... He gives us the way, he gave us the truth , he died and Rose and have us life eternal, it's not difficult he wants a genuine free will relationship with his creation. He wants us to see how much he loves us and then turn our affection towards him.
It's personal individual experience available to all of us.
But we turn it affection back to ourselves. We deserve extinction for our actions.. We lay our babies on the alter of convenience.i don't want this child I'll terminate my living and growing child in my womb.(dead things dunt grow) we need to get over ourselves we can't create ourselves and can't sustain ourselves and I sure don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
It's FREE WILL God isn't crossing the line of free will
----I'm an atheist, and Calvinists tell me God always crosses the line of freewill.
.. So he came among us he did what we wouldn't do.
--------Why? God can forgive sin with a mere wave of his magic wand, no incarnation or crucifixion necessary. See 1st Samuel 12:13-18. Feel free to remind me that this was a case of God accepting child sacrifice. That way I can equate YHWH with Molech.
Love cannot exist without free will
---------So the saints who are in heaven and love god, still have freewill? If so, doesn't that mean there is a very real possibility that they will sin? Would a doctrine that we can sin after we get to heaven wreak havoc on biblical theology?
.... He gives us the way, he gave us the truth , he died and Rose and have us life eternal, it's not difficult he wants a genuine free will relationship with his creation.
------Then how do you explain so many millions of Christians giving up on god by sensing not the least bit of divine love? Must it always be that such people were never truly sincere toward God. Or does there exist a real possibility that your own theological opinions are flawed?
He wants us to see how much he loves us and then turn our affection towards him.
--------God very often just stands at the foot of the bed watching and doing while a little child is raped to death. Where is god's "love" for that child at that time? or did I forget that "God's mysterious ways" is the ultimate theological trump card?
It's personal individual experience available to all of us.
--------You don't know that to be true. you are merely parroting your own interpretation of the bible and pretending like it is beyond controversy. LOL. Do you attend a King James Only church?
But we turn it affection back to ourselves. We deserve extinction for our actions..
--------------This is literally NOTHING but preaching to the choir.
We lay our babies on the alter of convenience.
----------Many parents don't do that, fool. You are just blinded by the bible's own tendency to broad-brush everybody as equally bad, proving obvious error in the bible.
i don't want this child I'll terminate my living and growing child in my womb.
--------Blame it on your god, who pretends to have allotted an unchangable amount of living days for each person (Job 14:5) but who also takes personal responsibility for all human murder (Deut. 32:39).
(dead things dunt grow) we need to get over ourselves we can't create ourselves and can't sustain ourselves and I sure don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
-------------and I don't have enough stupidity to leap from "God exists" over to "he is relevant".
Are God and Nature One and the Same ? Take a look at some of atheist Richard Feynman quotes.. and decide for yourself.... DEFINITION OF NATURE - a creative and controlling force in the universe - The physical force regarded as causing and regulating the phenomena of the world............ BTW.. I inserted the word - GOD - to clarify the point I'm making'...
TO QUOTE FEYNMAN - “Nature (or God) uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.”
“I think nature's (or God’s) imagination Is so much greater than man's, she's never going to let us relax”
“... it is impossible to explain honestly the beauties of the laws of nature (or God) in a way that people can feel, without their having some deep understanding of mathematics. I am sorry, but this seems to be the case.”
“We have been led to imagine all sorts of things infinitely more marvelous than the imagining of poets and dreamers of the past. It shows that the imagination of nature (or God) is far, far greater than the imagination of man.”
“To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature (or God)... If you want to learn about nature (or God), to appreciate nature (God), it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.”
“Why nature (or God) is mathematical is, again, a mystery.”
“Nature (or God) has a great simplicity and therefore a great beauty”
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature (or God) cannot be fooled.”
“I am going to tell you what nature (or God) behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain’, into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”
“Nature (or God) uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire tapestry.”
“There's a big difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.”
― Richard P. Feynman
The one criticism that Christians cannot overcome is god's existence being irrelevant. It requires near lunacy on their part to insist that anybody who tried Christianity and found it unfulfilling, either wasn't in the right form of Christianity, or was insincere toward God.
You'll forgive the skeptic who concludes that today's Christians appear more interested in modern-unbelievers than even God is.
7:57 *big graceful questions* “I want to emphasize I am not criticizing atheists-I’m saying in this talk that it’s very difficult to make decisions about these big questions and inevitably we all end up as a matter of faith saying, ‘I think this is right, rather than this.’ And that really is the framework within which my conversations are taking place.”
Today God stubbed his big toe. On his left foot. He's holding his breath right now. He's got no person alive or dead to blame. I just might hate being God with no way to get fired.
Think about that word sin. Some human primate
Funny that you consider the Genesis account a mere campsite story while accepting the evolution story of fish turning into people as genuine history.
@@radrook2153 It's primate history that was re-worded to not be called primate history too long ago to be tracked by prehistoric primates too busy busy not dying by the hand of other warring primates who believe that ghosts are real after they wake up hungover and the meat is gone because of course no other hungry animal on earth would steal food from a sleeping passed out primate animal who insists they are not an animal.
Is God a figment of our imagination? Without God we would not exist.... Are we a figment of His imagination? Do we exist.... or just a lucid dream.
Well, you were not dreaming that you failed high school science class. That was as real as it gets.
What does, 'He died for our sins' mean?
That is a fair question - which deserves a fair answer but I doubt the atheist will appreciate the reality of the situation.
Sin is the state of delusion you experience when you believe (partake) in a theory or doctrine (fruit) that has the mixture of lies (knowledge of evil) and truth (knowledge of good).
The scripture defines sin as missing the mark because it is the state of mind in which the delusional seek to justify their wicked behaviour.
If you do not repent of wicked behaviour - which is the transgression of the law - you will die in your sin (state of delusion).
In contrast: we are required to engender the eternal estate which we do by accepting Y'shua as our Lord and Saviour.
We (then) practice perfection by placating the ego to walk in humility.
When we avoid anger toward our brethren and lust toward another we manifest the Name of the Most High.
This exemplifies the Christ (within) to the glory of the Father in Heaven.
We do not need religion to worship the Most High and we do not need doctrines to love one another - since we are required to become as a child who has no religiosity or sexual orientation but a natural love for parents and others.
Y'shua told us to love one another as He loved us - and He laid down His life to prove this is a noble endeavour.
My Best Wishes ❤️ To Everyone
Alister McGrath really is inept you would think the Muppet would give it up after the beating he took at the hands of the Hitch.
@WhoDarestheMAN gamer Even if Hitch had been as pissed as a fart he still wiped the floor with him.
@@kwj171068 its debates like this that make me supremely confident as an atheist that I could decimate any "apologist" in a live debate. I can't believe how superficial this "debate" was. I was hoping for torn limbs and bombed hospitals.
Mr Shermer I agree with all your arguments- except for your comment on North Korea having no streetlights - Climate change....- Hey next to Trump he's got got the worst barber ever but having your Country "Unlight "at night actually benefits us all.
Professor McGrath speaks of the possibility of "religion going wrong", and engendering violence. Does he realise that when one, particular, 'religion' is violent, it is not "going wrong"; but acting in strict accordance with its scriptures: Kora Sira, Hadith? It is only when churchgoers become violent toward our fellow human-beings, "in the name of Jesus of Nazareth", that we see "religion going wrong". Professor McGrath needs to be much more specific on this point: especially since this was spoken in 2017. It will not do to simply speak of 'religion'. This is unfair to the various 'belief-systems' which classify themselves as 'religions'. As for Professor Shermer, when he speaks of 'science', he is describing 'scientism' (the belief that 'reality' only consists in what is quantifiable and measurable). I hope he has experienced lust, or love, beauty, awe at some point in his life: he certainly touched on 'taste' with regard to chocolate. Is it his hope and expectation that one day, 'scientism' will be able to account for these properties? As for scornfully laughing (as he does) at the God of Israel, and classifying that particular 'creator god' among the plethora of others which have come, and gone; one of the factors I have found astonishing is that our concept of the God of Israel has EVOLVED. Yes, we are creating GOD; rather than the other way around: but are we hard-wired to do precisely that? And does that creator God - who I believe was embodied in Jesus of Nazareth - assist in this process of construction/revelation; without violating our freedom as individuals? Professor McGrath's most important point was "learning to live with uncertainty". THAT is where many of the 'religious' fall down. They demand certitude. Biblical and Koranic literalism (fundamentalism) provides that certitude......along with all the barbarisms and cruelties which accompany such an approach to our scriptures, when we turn those scriptures into the God they are intended to HELP reveal. When the world of Professor Shermer is kinder to the 'outcast' than is 'religion'; you just KNOW religion - and iots GOD - are in trouble!
One would think we would get at least one good argument for the god idea. Then get me from the god idea to Jesus being a god. Some people don't need evidence to believe, they just think believing is a Devine practice.
It has always baffled me that Christianity is not understood as arrogance. Who dares to speak for the supreme being….
Theists who argue from the origins of values perplex me, as do the poor responses of their opponents. It seems to me that the theist argument always hinges upon a foundationalist epistemology. While Shermer does use the word "coherent" in response, I feel like all he would have to do is say that his opponent is speaking as though foundationalist epistemology is the only viable model when in fact that is not the case. Seems like a full stop to the entire argument to me.
All you have to say is something along the lines of, "You seem to think that foundationalist epistemology is all that is viable, but this is an unfalsifiable and untestable assertion. Coherentism is equally valid by these metrics."
could you explain it more?
@@lukasnorkunas7980 I'm an atheist, but Shermer's error in the Moral Arc is neglect of the fact that making any change to society necessarily always creates at least 3 new probems, so that as society progresses and changes, the latest form of society is nearly intolerably complex. "Why complex societies collapse".
26:45
I like the way the Christian is dressed all in white and the atheist in black. is this a subconscious attempt at portraying the epic struggle between the forces of good and evil? If so it seems that once again in this case the devil has all the best tunes.
white suit vs dark suit , very symbolic
Good catch!
I don't think anyone really knows for sure do they?
Shermer wins again! 👊💥
Critical thinking, rational enquiry and challenging the religious claims of priests and supernatural believers in debates like this, is much needed progress from the days when religion had all the power.
God wants us to get to know him personally in our lifetime. We can tolerate anything through Him and with Him. He doesn't cause the evil. He doesn't choose who lives or dies. he wants us to find things out fully and if she just does magic and makes all good, we would be evil robots, or friendly robots like in California.
Nell philpott What about priests rape children, whats that all about , God wants to that priests feel how children taste?🤮
Read Isaiah 45:7, god did create evil. Read "The Bible Dilemma" for more great insights.
I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist...God makes so much sense.
Which god
I swear if one more theist starts with “you don’t believe in God because you don’t want it to be true” I’m gunna lose my mind. I am an agnostic who is agnostic because I set out to PROVE Christianity true.... then I found out that it wasn’t.
There's no such thing as "agnostic"...If you don't know or can't know then you don't "believe" and are therefore atheistic
Agreed👍.
Great to see meaningful discussions like this taking place here in Toronto. Thanks to all involved in putting this on! We all have questions about God and existence, and conversations like this are worthwhile. Some good thoughts on both sides, though I felt Dr. McGrath was a bit vague in speaking to some issues (not all), and wasn't really engaging with the topics Dr. Shermer put forth. Dr. McGrath spoke of his feeling about belief in God, of how it is meaningful to him and humanity, and several times questioned the trustworthiness of scientific theory as an absolute truth. But it felt more like a rehearsed answer than challenging the thoughts of Dr. Shermer.
I felt he should have spent time asking Dr. Shermer about things we do know for certain - or at least questions that do point us towards legitimate belief in God. Specifically, questions around the origins of all life - that is, where did it all come from, even before the big bang - as well as the marvelous intricacies and seeming intelligent design of life at a micro-level (such as DNA), and the vastness of the universe, are necessary to bring to the table. These to me seem to be very good reasons to believe in a God. If this was flushed out (by people who are smarter than me) and it proved to hold up as I think it should, then there would be legitimate reason to believe in a creator God / being.
If this is the case, then it is more than reasonable to argue for things that seem impossible to us, such as the resurrection of Jesus, or the universal code of ethics implanted on humanity (as opposed to it simply being naturally developed - though of course there is some truth to this). Not only that, but it then allows us to say that God can do things which are beyond us, whether it makes sense to us or not. For example, Dr. Shermer made reference to the confusing statement that God sacrificed God to appease God. It does seem like nonsense, but so does saying nothing came from something in the beginning of all things. What if it simply happened, just like the beginning of all things, even though it is seemingly illogical?
These are very good points, I would also like to see these arguments used to defend a belief in God more often. I feel like it would more than justify the belief, like you said
A professor of science and religion? What the hell is that? Does he use starkly different methodologies in those fields?
Too tired to hear Dr. McGrath talking!
Who do you want to be more like: Irreverent Shermer or reverent McGrath?
I want to be on the side of the truth. That means I can never side with McGrath.
Nothing wrong with reverence--we can revere life and individual dignity, without requiring a supernatural overseer to make sure we do it.
@@schmetterling4477 😂
Alister WHY don't you have any evidence for your god?
@WhoDarestheMAN gamer Oh yes Stephen Meyer the guy who already believes in a god,so tell me why don't the rest of the field agree with him or you? so prove it you Muppet.
@WhoDarestheMAN gamer Sorry! That argument has been debunked ad infinitum and since god is even more complex than the "creation," then he too needs a creator.
ElectroShock Theists think that’s a foolish argument to ask who created God! Why?????????? Because “He” was always threre 🤣
@@kyaxara7321 if someone created god, it turns out, that the creator is god, and the created was not god. Being the uncreated creator is Aristotles definition god.
If you had to worship a deity, don't pick the one that allegedly committed biocide, except for whatever made it on a boat; not to mention committing, commanding, condoning slavery, sex slavery, infanticide, genocide, rape, torture...
Jesus is the only answer.
@@jacobostapowicz8188 So you are saying that you worship the God that commits, commands, condones slavery, sex slavery, infanticide, genocide, rape, torture...?
@@eristic1281He doesn't condone those things, read it again
@@jacobostapowicz8188 Are you saying that it didn't, for instance, murder the first borns in Egypt?
@@eristic1281It was the king of Egypt that commanded the midwives of Hebrew slaves to murder their male sons or throw them into the river.
You see the Israelites were enslaved for 400 years and God was delivering them from oppression, but you didnt actually read the story or understand it.
So then Moses is your hero, and Jesus had the most unfair trial and death in history and these 2 deserve justice?
Cool.
I choose the God Yahweh because He is the most interested and engaged God, a truly natural being that doesn't follow your expectations and predictions.
Do you think abortion is bad?
I am a Pantheist brought up as a Roman Catholic. As long as one's beliefs do not hurt other people then to each his or her own, be it Atheism/Agnostism or Christianity or the other belief systems, what ever get's you through life and beyond.
I'm just now listening to this great debate, and there are several topics I would like to comment on, but I think mentioning one is sufficient. And I do really hope poverty will be ended, however, you were wrong dr. Shermer and Jesus were right! Since covid-19 hit our world, poverty has increased everywhere! Just reminder dr. Shermer, Jesus did not there is no hope for poor. Please read Matt. 5-6 and 7.
Alister McGrath speaking with a child that babbles and giggles.
McGrath has no answers worth considering. He simply states and restates that he can't imagine our world without a god. That's not really compelling argument.
To believe that all of our existence and consciousness became from nothing without an intelligent creator is really far fetch.
0:23 Nice host! Her humor made me watch Mr. Shermer won the debate haha
Michael Shermer won the debate hands down. It was No Contest. Alister McGrath did not challenge the proposition that “God is a figment of our Imagination”, rather he was argued that the idea of “God” was essential since people derived meaning and morality from that idea. Shermer argued the contrary. But the God idea is no less a figment of our imagination simply because it is useful and meaningful; a useful concept to some, a redundant and problematic idea to others but in either ways still residing only in one's imagination.
Shermer lost the debate. He gave school boy "arguments" and is ignorant of the answers to his complaints. He also has no idea what atheism is.
Of course McGrath challenged it, and even more, Shermer failed to defend it, and so lost the debate on that count alone. No contest.
No matter what debate it is you people always say the atheist won hands down. For a bunch of people who claim to not engage in wishful thinking it's convenient how atheists always think reality is on their side about everything all of the time and funny that a bunch of self proclaimed skeptics treat as some article of faith the notion that atheism is some super rational ultra great best thing since sliced bread.
The Christian won hands down
@@Chrisplumbgas 🙄
"In the beginning Man created god with his own image"...I think somebody deliberately deleted that part in Genesis while compiling the bible!
dr shermer you are ignorant about darwin' theory, as suggested by him, and also not up to date with the current state of research of orins of life.
What heightens and advances the pleasure of society is the excellency and the love of those with whom we converse. But the saints are the excellent of the earth; they are possessed of excellency of the highest kind, and they only are endowed with true excellency. Proverbs 12:6, “The righteous is more excellent than his neighbor”; and 17:27, “A man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.” And certainly in such conversation is the greatest delight to be found. Psalm 16:2-3, “My goodness extendeth not to thee; but to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.”
And as religion makes lovely, so it begets love, the purest and most ardent. Nothing so much tends to charity, peace, mutual benevolence and bounty as Christianity, and therefore nothing so much sweetens human society.
Wow, that one was easy, Dr. McGrath! Congratulations!
Alister McGrath outsmarted Shermer here -- since Michael Shemer didn't show his thesis in the debate (God is a figment of the imagination) he lost on that count alone.He also pulled the "God sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself", which was proven to be a false representation of Christianity -- it should be correctly "Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins to forgive us of our evil".
So who outsmarted you? You said McGrath outsmarted Shermer, then went on to basically say he defeated himself.
Jimmy Issa
""God sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself", which was proven to be a false representation of Christianity -- it should be correctly "Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins to forgive us of our evil"."
Bullshit, it is just two ways of saying the same thing.
"Michael Shemer didn't show his thesis in the debate (God is a figment of the imagination) he lost on that count alone."
McGrath didn't show that it isn't so you are clearly being biased because an impartial person would declare that it was a draw since neither side technically "proved" their case. But of course this is just a red herring fallacy as debates are not about "proving" your case, but just about who makes the most compelling case and Shermer won easily in my opinion.
I think you should take the title of the debate to be colloquial and not that literally that Shermer has to show that no Gods could exist. In a discussion like this it's still the person who is claiming God exists that needs to demostrate. The title is just meant to be flashy.
The moment he said “Darwinism”, I lost all possible respect for his “scientific” knowledge.
McGrath is British. 'Darwinism' doesn't have the same creationist connotations on this side of the pond as it does in the US.
Argument from ignorance, argument from authority...etc etc bla bla bla useless babble which is all any "theist" every had, has or will ever have
In typical McGiraffe fashion, he spells out exactly why belief in a god is a comforting delusion and why it’s more rational to be an atheist, then spends the rest of his opening telling us that something made him change his mind .. but he never ever gives us any reason other than “it makes sense to me”. He loves the sound of his own voice, bloviates incessantly and has never said anything of any substance. In my experience. PS just seen that I commented on this over a year ago! Whoops!
On a coming day every eye will see him
Whom, when and what if you're blind?
If Christianity is true, then the majority of people end up in hell basically because Yahweh is the all time champion of hide and seek. That this fact wasn’t even touched on seems odd.
The moderator keeps saying I invite you to interact with that idea. Who speaks like that?
Honestly, I don't know why people consider Michael Shermer an intelectual.
I would suggest his MA in psychology qualifies him as an intellectual
You can't spell "intellectual".
back then few people knew that the earth was not flat...
right now few people knew that the God is the creation of human mind...
The fossils stopped because there hasn't been a flood in awhile.
These two are well-matched in terms of personality, temperament, and knowledge. On balance, Shermer seems preferable simply because he sticks to the point in fairly plain language. McGrath uses too much verbiage, qualifies his statements, and floats away just a bit too often into metaphysical abstractions. Shermer should've picked up on this and held him down on some of it.
Can the dragon do anything that can be perceived by the senses that anyone could observe 😂
People loved darkness instead of light.
Shermer has no idea of prophecy as history in the future, so would not know about the prophecies of the Birth of Jesus by Isaiah and Daniel among other prophets. And from whom came prophe ies shows the omnipresent god (of Christianity)
At 48:45 Alister McGrath points out that the science of 100 years ago is now outdated. McGrath is missing the point.
What matters is science is verifiable and objective
Belief is not verifiable and not objective
Shermer has made this point many times. Shermer does a poor job of explaining this.
You know what would help show God isn't a figment of our imagination? Some evidence, not a long lecture on how we need science and faith.
God is not a figment of my imagination! To demonstrate this, i will proceed to use nothing more than just my imagination to tell you how god it more than just imagination.
I have it, do reply if you are interested to know @ rsheth618@gmail.com
The problem isn't so much that no one has presented god himself as proof; no one will ever do that. The problem is what is presented as evidence for god's existence. It's not likely that the two sides will agree on any piece of "evidence".
McGrath is lacking in intellectual prowess to such an extent that makes it easier for him to believe. He, like so many, wants to believe....needs to believe. And that in no way bolsters a case for the existence in a deity.