Peter begins interrupting Hugh within Hugh's first 3 sentences. He's so typical of those w/his ideological leanings - arrogant, condescending, self-righteous. Placing all emphasis and importance on himself and his own "intelligence". Ole Pete would do well to have a huge dose of humility shoved up his pompous arse.
@@Edwinvangent, you could look at it from an intelligent pov rather than a bigoted point of view, ya know? The Bible, which consists of 66 books in total, has been relentlessly scrutinized by "experts" and scholars alike for literally Thousands of years and has never been disproven or even remotely uncredible. But, yeah usa moronic- LOL, you sound like what you're complaining about.
Edwin: Your statement proves that you’ve never read the Bible nor no studied where it came from and how it came about or you wouldn’t of made that statement
I suppose it shouldn't come as a big surprise that this preternaturally brilliant man, Peter Atkins, is so often criticized as arrogant and condescending precisely because he is so much smarter than the rest of us, or most. Evidence and Fearless rationality over cosmic wishful thinking and superstition all day baby!
Please do. Try try try to keep your mind open to the possibilities....Ask God to help you read his word, and show himself to you...I will pray that he reveals himself to you.
@@mcmanustony he have a Free will conscience brain heart instinct GOD given gifts to make hes own desitions no't given to him by some explosión or some hominidus 😂
Atkins’ argument against Ross seems to often be the equivalent of responding to arguments and evidence with “oh that’s pish posh”. How convincing this strategy is may simply depend on how strongly you trust his denials rather than weighing evidence and arguments. I’m not saying he has no other arguments but this seems to show up rather consistently in response to Hugh’s specific arguments.
Hugh's arguments are littered with logical fallacies and appeals to magic and wizards. Atkins puts it quite nicely when he says theists are being intellectually lazy. Instead of getting their hands dirty and trying to understand something, they just throw their hands up and say "we know the answer already... god did it"
@@pazuzil Please cite with timestamps where he appeals to “magic and wizards” (btw the Christian God is not some bearded man in the sky who casts spells on you, you obviously don't understand Abrahamic monotheism in the slightest) and please name and timestamp said “logical fallacies". Also, some of the greatest minds in science have been Christians. Here are a few along with their accomplishments… Isaac Newton - Father of Modern Physics and Calculus Wernher Von Braun - Father of Modern Rocket and Space technology Rene Descartes - Founder of Cartesian math and Analytical geometry Raymond Vahan Damadian - Inventor of the MRI Francis Bacon - Pioneer of the modernized scientific method Louis Pasteur - renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization John Eccles - Nobel prize winner for his work on the synapse Alexander Flemming - Man who discovered penicillin There are so many others, this list is a tiny bit of them…. Just think, what would the world look like without these "intellectually lazy" men?? Peter Atkins is nothing but a pompous jerk. He is a great chemistry professor in his own respect, but he really didn’t contribute anything groundbreakingly important to the scientific community. Also, I don’t think the idea of God is “intellectually lazy” in the slightest. Many brilliant people find God to be highly intellectually stimulating, it compels many people to study the natural world.. A theist holds that God has created everything in the natural world and that God upholds everything in the universe. So basically in the mind of a Christian God has done everything, just because we discover how it works doesn't mean God is removed from the picture, we're just discovering how God created stuff. Also Mike if you see this, thanks for your videos on the fulfilled prophecy, really helped in my understanding!
@@hspwr3521 You obviously dont know much about Hugh Ross's beliefs. He thinks a sky-wizard conjured the Universe out of nothing and then made the first human male by animating a clay figure and the first female from his rib. That there is the very definition of magic is it not? And what if some of the greatest minds in science have been Christians? Almost everyone who lived at the same time as these men identified as Christian including some of the dumbest people at the time. And how are the scientific accomplishments of these great scientists relevant to their views on religion? Newton had some crazy beliefs about numerology, astrology and alchemy... should we take his views on these subjects seriously because he was also a great scientist? come on ...
@@pazuzil Ok, on top of not pointing out the supposed "logical fallacies" committed on Ross' part, you missed my point entirely. Also, you ignored what I said, GOD IS NOT A SKY WIZARD. Neither the Koran, The Bible, or the Talmud have ever said God is a magic sky wizard who conjured the universe. The Abrahamic God is purported to be the space-less, timeless, and immaterial causal agent of the universe. The Bible never said that Adam was a clay figure, I seriously don't know what bible you are reading, I frankly think you haven't read a lick of it. Even if it did say that, that part of Genesis does not have to be taken literally to understand the core doctrines of Christianity. In addition I was listing those scientists to prove that one isn't necessarily intellectually lazy just because they believe in God, I was in no way saying we should believe everything they believe. Also, your incoherent and hard to read piece on how "everyone at the same time as these men were Christian" is just utterly and completely untrue. For instance Von Braun used to be a Nazi rocket scientist who was an atheist for most of his life, he was not exactly raised in a Christian environment. Damadian is still alive and was raised in modern times, the majority of people and scientists in this day and age are not Christians in the slightest. Pasteur lived during the 19th century, that's when Darwin's ideas were taking off and the majority of those in the scientific community were leaning towards materialism and a steady state universe model. John Eccles, lived in the 20th century, theism of any kind was not common in the scientific community and its influence on the people was waning. Flemming was in the same spot as Eccles.. Its astounding to me that you think it is within the bounds of rationality and empiricism to assume that something came from nothing, and that this something somehow arranged itself into planets and stars and on one of those planets there was a bubbling protein soup that somehow churned out all life we see today. I think your beliefs are somewhat fantastical dude, I think it perfectly reasonable and rational to assume a mind is at work behind these things. Also, don't try to respond to the bit above saying "wElL thE ScIenTiFIC cOnseNsuS saYS iT haPPEnEd tHaT WAy sO yoU DoNT kNow wHAT UR talkInG abOUT". Don't try using an appeal to authority/consensus fallacy like that on me. Unless you can personally justify your asinine beliefs here on the spot, you got nothing to say to me. Your beliefs seem to me to be far more ridiculous than Hugh's.
@@hspwr3521 1) The Koran, The Bible, and the Talmud describe a being who created the world out of nothing i.e. creatio ex nihilo in stages using nothing but a few words. If that isn't a wizard casting magic spells, I dont know what is. 2) Genesis 2:7 says "the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being." Another example of magic... 3) Not all wizards have a physical body. Didn't you ever play Dungeons and Dragons? 4) I never said everyone at the time were Christian. Instead I said most were. So quoting a few examples of non-Christian scientists doesn't counter anything I said 5) I also never said something came from nothing. I don't believe wizards exist or that magic is real. Thats your position
I think what strikes me is the difference in how these two men debate. Peter tends to be very confrontational and argumentative by using words like "lazy", "naive", "ridiculous" even arguing "No you don't" (even when Hugh admits that he does believe a certain fact). Almost like he can't make his point without it being personal and hurting / cutting the other person down. Hugh, in contrast, by not using that approach he comes across as more gentle, patient and and respectful.
As I have experienced, Most Aetheist behave defensive which can weaken their argument in that the hearer sees the defensive approach as anger and the Aethiest not totally believing their point. Also, Atheist Usually cannot provide logical evidence of their point of the world , man, mans' purpose, creation of the Earth, the universe and man; the most intelligent life form.
It's almost like one person is right and knows it, and the other knows he is wrong but is too proud to admit it 😂. One more win for the big man upstairs.
I am a volunteer apologist with Dr. Ross's ministry Reasons To Believe. I am amazed at his ability to give an answer for the hope He has but with gentleness and respect.
@Dan Delgado Who is guilty, then? Jesus or the man who abuse of his freedom to make bad choices? I really wonder if you want just blame God or the freedom we have.
@demi- dogg I don´t know why are you in that manner...Despite that, there is a confusion in terms of what Satan is. Satan was NOT created (evil) as an act of creation. It was, according to theology, a decision based, again, on free will, before being capable to know God, the demons themselves. So, yes, the most perfect reality could be the one with freedom, taking this into account. Apart from that point, I must assume you are only interested in Christian worldview. I wasn´t pointing out one subjective interpretation, as we should first consider theistic implications, to then make history and evidence to realize what is the most sensible statement of God.
@Dan Delgado Your incoherent babbling is pure ignorance. You comment on things which you have no authority or education on. Please enlighten us, with all of your endless wisdom, oh Mr. Delgado, what would your perfect creation entail?
What's amazing about Ross is it's less like he's trying to prove the other person wrong and more like he's presenting his evidence to evangelize directly to the other intellectual. God bless you Dr. Ross, smart people need Jesus too and you are a positive force in that battle.
Unbelievable!!! This guy said that he found confirmation of big bang and all physics correctly in the Bible... He clearly hasn't read the first chapter of Genesis... God created day and light and night 3 days before creating the Sun and moon... Then God gave all plants and trees for humans as food... A very informative and reliable story indeed... Every physicist, if he reads the genesis 1, will instantly embrace it as true... But he must be a true scientist... ======== And how do you look at the fact that Jesus exposed himself as Orthodox Jewish supremacist??? Who disrespects all non Jews by calling them dogs, animals in essence... This is Orthodox Judaism... Only Jews are worthy to be called children and the rest of humanity are animals. And Jesus said just that in Matthew 15... He said is sent only to Jews, that only Jews are children, and the feast are dogs... The story is repeated in Mark 7... Amen.
After watching this, I’ve decided that there is nothing in this universe more heartbreaking than watching a beautifully created human being reject the love of the one who created them.
@@michaelmichael2121Let's dissect that. He suffered a brutal death (the process of which lasted a few hours compared to other humans whose dying agony lasts for days, notwithstanding circumcision's undeniable torture) and considering that he was allegedly only dead for approximately 36 hours, a painful but shortlived 'sacrifice'. If he was the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system, he got off easy, for the animals sacrificed never lived to see another day 😮. But, here's the ultimate problem with your premise: if Jesus' sacrifice was the only means by which your God can offer salvation to mankind, then all humans who lived and died PRIOR to his sacrifice had not the slightest hope of being 'saved', for as allegedly Jesus himself said, "NO ONE comes to the Father, except by me" (John 14:6, corroborated by Acts 4:12 "salvation in no other name, but the name of Jesus"). That's 250,000 years, give or take, since modern homosapiens came on the scene; but, according to your worldview, God really manifested his love for us only about some 2,000 years ago! Before then, mankind was screwed, right? 😂 That's some serious cognitive dissonance, dude, though to be fair, I blindly believed that narrative for 45 years, so I empathize with your fealty to it.
Hugh wins this debate, hands down! Thank you Lord for giving Hugh such an excellent mind, communication skills, and a love for You and the truth of Your word, as well as his fellow man, with whom he shares all this knowledge.
Theism is more like the foundation of Science, which itself is Philosophy, and all that needs to be laid out. Hugh´s descent into that "fossils on the moon" notion is ridiculous. Abiogenesis, as tracked by Fritjof Capra, is requiring philosophical analysis to address the Physics in a vesicle. God created the Laws of Nature, and brought out Jesus Christ, and its HIS gifts that allow us to study Scientific Philosophy in the first place. Those Laws of Nature are what is behind abiogenesis, and its the Philosophy of getting around any limiting paradigms that is needed to understand those processes under those conditions.
Timothy Mostad Computer code more advanced than ours and more information than all encyclopedias combined written into the genes of the simplest amoeba. Way more believable then your Fairy Tale. You have nothing.
@Timothy Mostad Scientism has taken you out of Science´s legitimate viewpoint and into imagining that Religion is not a legitimate knowledge and activity domain. Karen Armstrong has made an important point with her talking about "mythos" and the real impacts of spiritual-religious practices. It´s only in part about the literal reality of the "gods" in question. They are religious entities that involve people in a kind of relationship to the Universe´s Creator/Source/God Entity facet. The Christian appropriation of ancient Greek Philosophy and eclectic resources, and initiation of a pluralistic world culture reflects Christianity´s own pivotal position in the metaphysical philosophical analysis. Science itself is a product of Christian Philosophy, in fact, a form of it.
i love how patient hugh was and how he was smiling the whole time when peter was saying something that he completely disagreed with. i love how he was extremely patient and was respectful.
@@mcmanustony if you read the Bible, you would see that the Bible is the first book (of any book religious or not) that spells out science. The book of Genius spells out the big bang. But ppl like you never want to hear what makes the Bible and its statements real and the truth. You call us fools.....
@@joymeyer4730 Oh grow up. I have read the bible cover to cover since childhood. It is bronze age folklore and nothing more. I'll leave you to your dependencies....
@@mcmanustony Why did you read the Bible? whats your purpose? I read the bible when i was little but because I was born a Christian, and almost everyone i know is a Christian... But alas i went and enjoyed Sin so much that I almost became an Atheist. But there came a time where i almost lost my life and before that happens i called out his name, Jesus... and guess what? he saved me... and my life went 360.. and i started reading the bible again, and the scriptures, the words hits different this time.. This that i thought i knew, i actually didnt, i can relate it to my everyday life,.in school, relationship, science, family i mean everything... Now i read the bible because i want to be closer to God... what about you?
I very much admire Hugh Ross's patience, he is constantly interuppted by Atkins's, yet he remains entirely undercontrol and even has a smile on his face. That is a man in love with Christ!
I am biased towards Hugh, but that's exactly what I was thinking, and am wondering if anyone had the same assessment. Atkins comes off as an arrogant, pompous, close-minded man.
Wow, you noticed the striking difference in their attitudes? I actually attended the same college where Atkins taught, and I vividly remember seeing him cruising around in his flashy gold Rolls Royce. It made me wonder, why the need for such extravagance when a simple bike sufficed for most folks?
John Lennox, in one of his talks at the Discovery Institute tells of a UK newspaper's interview with Stephen Hawkins, where Hawkins made the statement that belief in God was a fairy-story for those who are afraid of the dark. When the same newspaper approached him (Lennox) asking for comment, Lennox replied that atheism is a fairy-story for those who are afraid of the light.
Strange that you believe in a God but not what you see as scientific truth. If anyone is not understanding or knowing the god you advocate for, it is due to God himself. Read Romans 9:16.
@@mcmanustony You do not see that many highly intelligent scientists, such as Ross, who "learn some science" believes it points to a creator, God. The more science peals away at the information, the more evolution becomes impossible. If you don't want God to exist, you're no different than Peter. You will refuse whatever evidence comes before you.
he did give Adkins more than his fare share, but Atkins was hostile and provocative pressing for an emotional reaction to take advantage of. His tactic was thwarted. We were able to hear both sides and it did not erupt into chaos.
William Lane Craig has called Hugh Ross "evangelicalism's most important scientific apologist". So he is probably quite famous in his own circles. But the majority of Christians today either accept evolution or the simpleton young earth approach. Hugh Ross interpretations are speculative, forinstance his idea that Adam and Eve were literal people made 50,000-150,000 years ago.
You are hearing what you want to hear. Hugh never resolved Atkins’ question: how does an agent exist outside of time and space. How can anything exist in nothing? It is a logical contradiction. What does “before time” even mean? Spaceless timeless makes no sense, and such a being does not comport with the god of the Bible at all, a god that experiences regret, and so causes a flood to kill every baby, etc, and so on. And the only reason that people make the “space less timeless” assertion about god is your tactical retreat to the Kalam syllogism. But those properties do not comport with the god of the Old Testament.
I hv been following and reading books of Dr Hugh Ross, Dr John Lenox, and Jordan Peterson for decades, they are intelligent, elegant, faithfull, yet humble human being that God gave wisdom to testify the truth in scientifical and spiritual explanation. Hope there will more like them in the comming future . Also my respect to the moderator who made this talk/debate quite neutral and balanced. Thanks for sharing the video🫰👍
If Ross is Intelligent he would conclude that there is zero evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity, and that there is a plethora of evidence that religious literature is man made. He clearly desires an all seeing father because he does not want to face reality I.e. born, live die.
@@johnsnowdon4886 sometimes being calm and patient speaks louder than a boastful man who can throw out logical words like he's got the higher ground. Atkins gets a huge F in debate, Hugh Ross gave some decent arguments. So did Atkins, but he's got such low cognitive awareness to realize his own pride.
Hugh, A+. Peter, well, we'll be praying for you sir. To call a fellow scholar, a peer in this case, "intellectually lazy," tells people everything they need to know about Peter's position. In the end, you said it all. No matter what evidence is presented, you would still not concede that there is a Creator. So there you have it.
@@debfiel6585 your arrogance is disgusting. You have beliefs you can no more demonstrate than you can walk on water. Peter Atkins for obvious reasons doesn’t share your beliefs. Cope.
Ross IS intellectually lazy. Your approval is not needed to point that out. Both have a record of scientific achievement. One is WAY more significant than the other and spans several decades. Here’s a clue: it’s not Hugh Ross.
EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW 🙇🏾♂️ AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL CONFESS THAT HE ☝🏾 IS LORD .. AS IT IS WRITTEN IT SHALL BE DONE 🕊️🙏🏾 I ENJOYED WATCHING THIS SPIRITUAL BATTLE .
Those that abuse capitals not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare that the abuser is a raving lunatic. Clearly goddism turns goddists into hysterical raving lunatics
Ok, you are an hysterical loony; you have convinced me of that, happy now? Bollox shouted is still bollox Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child. You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish that is a matter for you; I only have to se the wretched tings used to dismiss the user as an ass;I immediately know not to bother to read whatever the user of such asinine and infantile symbols writes, so the utility of the vile things is to save me from wasting my time on an imbecile child, which for whatever reason you seem to wish to be taken and clearly are, for no adult with wits and learning would use them.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public. On whatever jag you may be it clearly turns its adherents into hysterical lunatics; Of whatever tree you are the fruit little loony hysteric, it is best avoided.
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child. You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish that is a matter for you; I only have to se the wretched tings used to dismiss the user as an ass;I immediately know not to bother to read whatever the user of such asinine and infantile symbols writes, so the utility of the vile things is to save me from wasting my time on an imbecile child, which for whatever reason you seem to wish to be taken and clearly are, for no adult with wits and learning would use them.
HE gives too much of his own opinion. In that setting he is the moderator, not the person debating. He felt compelled to add to what they (the two debaters) were stating; or at least to clarify what they said. It was unfortunately not very professional.
@@mcmanustony It may be ,. had you the wits to be specific or were able to define science but you are about to demonstrate that you lack the wits for either. I think the dopey goddist may be a bit autistic and has been got at by the goddists that claim to be christians, and suppose the way of christ (the details of which it is impossible to determine)necessarily has anything to do with the god fiction, which is one rare example of when it is apt to use the word literally, inasmuch as, the god fiction literally is a deus ex machina- a literary device. If you need an explanation simply invent one. the dopey guy has not the wits to question his own preconceptions snd presumptions, but who has? There is nothing objectionable about the idea of god; what is asinine and infantile is the anthropomorphic idolatry- god as a person -as the say in their crazed version of reasoning" like .. "us". I don't know what christ prescribed *for* what and the funny thing is that those that deceive themselves that they could possibly be able to be able to christians, have no better or worse idea than I have .
Well said. He claims to be an open mined scientist in one sense but he clearly doesn’t believe what he claims. When he said that there is no evidence that could convince him of the existence of God then logic would suggest that his beliefs are not in fact based on evidence but in just tearing down what ever possible explanations made by a theist. If theism is belief then does atheism then become an undefinable non belief system with no causal agent and no beginning when everything came from nothing. Isn’t that blind faith? Sounds like a fairy tale.
Dewey Cox this is typical of atheist/ Bible believer debates. Believers are well mannered, respectful and tolerant whereas the atheists are usually cynical, rude and arrogant.
Johan Weakley Actually it’s just typical of Peter Atkins. I’ve seen many of his interviews/debates and it’s always this, without exception. He demands space to develop his arguments and never reciprocates that courtesy. A true narcissist, maybe even bordering on sociopath.
Dr. Hugh Ross is being slept on way too much. He is a very smart and respectful man who deserves to be way more famous than he is for his brilliant work
Hank Moody: Yes; Ross reminds you of the character and antics of another person 2000 years ago by the name of Jesus, the Messiah; doesn't it? God bless you.
It’s too bad the host and Adkins are constantly interrupting and talking over Hugh. It says a lot about Hugh’s calmness and confidence that he can navigate these discussions.
@@WeighedWilson Why is it wrong to judge? If you walk down the street and see a guy beating up his girlfriend and insulting her, you would make a judgement of that guy, would you not? Judgement is integral to making assessments and decisions, without it you left rudderless and adrift. You have to call out what is wrong, such as arrogance, in order to learn what flawed, maladjusted behavior is. That's what acwilsn is doing, and I see no problem with it. Christian, or otherwise.
I got very worked up with this debate. Is such a repetitive story when it comes to Christianity. The world doesn’t have questions for us Christians, the world questions us. They don’t want an answer, they want to disagree to every answer without giving it any thought whatsoever. I love how Hugh Ross represents God. So calm and collected, humble and respectful, slow to speak and quick to listen.
Hugh Ross has a wonderful calmness about him. He is the epitome of a Christian man. Peter keeps butting in when Hugh is speaking...full of his own importance. importance
One of the things that I most respect about Dr. Hugh Ross that he seeks out the strongest opposing views to debate, and addresses every hard question. He does not hide in little self affirming echo chambers like many do. No pivoting, evading, or antagonism. He is the last man standing at the end of the point/counterpoint process.
It's fascinating to hear Peter's scientific reasoning in defence on atheism, I especially enjoyed his 'no it's not', 'no it isn't' and 'no I'm not'. Those years of study really shine through.
If you could quit sneering in ignorance long enough to get off your arse and READ some of Atkins actual scientific work you'd not post such a pitiful comment. Atkins is one of the most distinguished scientists alive. Ross is not. Do you know how books work?
@@davidmcintyre7908 Pure mathematics- I did research on indecomposable modules over valuation rings. My work in music overtook this before finishing though I did settle an outstanding conjecture of my supervisor on minimal generating sets for these modules. Why? What possible relevance does my academic history have to this debate?
@ByHisCall I like watching debates that are organized and respectful on both sides. I have listened to a few debates where they take the opposite stand i.e. an atheist takes a theist approach and a theist takes an atheist approach. Those kind of debates include diving in opposite world views and really can make you shake your own world view. I used to debate like this in my biology class when I was in 9th grade. It was stressful for me, but it really gave me confidence in my original world view.
Hugh Ross is a gentleman and a scholar. He gives a lesson in humility. His faith is unshakable, you can almost feel the Holy Spirit working inside of him. Thank you to Justin as well for the excellent moderating/interview skills.
This wasnt a popularity contest. Ross may be a nice guy, but Atkins has a far more rational position and presented far more robust arguments than Ross did
Jace Izzonn Yes, Peter is not yelling and has an inside voice. But you’re right, he is terribly antagonistic and throws ad hominems left and right, and uses this ridiculous rhetoric to denounce the other side.
Atkins- “tell me this...” Ross- “the answer is...” Atkins- “no that’s lazy” Ross- “here’s where you’re wrong” Atkins- “no it’s not” Ross- “here’s a scientific answer” Atkins- “no its not” Umm.... Atkins arguments are really poor. And he shows himself to be close minded.
Actually I would assert that Atkins responses are not arguments at all but rather simple rebukes. An argument actually advocates for a theory, fact, opinion, etc that is opposed to the other side of the debate and he has yet to offer anything of informational value. Instead when Ross poses an argument Atkins rebuttal consists of "No"! Lol. Talk about intellectually lazy!
Very true. Even when you show someone and abundance of evidence or proven wrong, they still will not budge in their own theory. An atheist death sounds very sad, that their body will just shut down and return to earth...then that's it, nothing more.
Hugh Ross is a real example of how to share our faith. It's a shame we don't all have his intellect. Hopefully we can learn from his approach and God will help us. It's not about proving who is right. It's about being saved in the end of this life.
Thank God we all don't have Hugh's intelligence, or we might all believe in his foolish teaching of billions of years, NOT SCRIPTURAL, that's for sure.
Study to show thyself approved unto God. A workman who need not be ashamed. Hugh is ALWAYS studying, researching, reading and writing. It's amazing what God can teach us if we are willing.
@@hollyfanatic8686 Justin Brierley. He's a Christian, and to an atheist it does show, but I agree he does manage to keep much more impartial than most moderators, Christian or not!!!
Peter looks like no one's given him a hug in a long time. Dr.Ross looked like he wanted to lean over and give him that hug. What a gentleman & great man of God. In today's scientific community, being a Christian is like a straight man trying to be a fashion designer. Let's keep in in our prayers. He's a voice we need to hear.
When people want to do or say something for themselves, do that, but don’t include by saying we need or let us continue to do whatever, you do it, if you want to pray for someone then you do it, it doesn’t make sense if you include other people’s, could be that others don’t agree with what you want to do. I mean come on it sounds very prideful to make yourself the leader of your ways. Example I will pray for both of these men, but I’m not going to include you and anyone else, like if I thought everyone thinks like me. ( watch how Karen this sounds, let’s keep in in whatever in in means our prayers, no not us, you, you do it, it’s your idea not our idea.)
I was just thinking the same thing. Why when people want to do something, why do they have to include others? Like they need back up? Just do it on your own. Unbelievable!!!
Dopey is not a christian, he does not have the nous There*Are_No* christians for the same reason that there are no can-stand-on-their-own shoulders_ians. Dopey who could well be autistic is merely parroting what he has been told. Like you he has not the faintest idea what it might mean to be a christian
Seems like Hugh was the doctor while Atkins was the politician. Hugh was clearer on why he thought something where ATKINS would just basically say, “no it’s not” with no evidence for why he thought that.
Dr. Atkins inadvertently explained his hostility toward the possibility of God when he said that he wasn't allowed to think (ask questions) by his religious parents. As Christians we need to be very careful not to dismiss /alienate people who want explanations.
I had plenty of effort hiding my atheism from my parents and never bothered asking questions about anything. Even as first grader i saw my mother as ignorant about basic science. I still remember her watching simple scientific documentary and saying that its bullshit propaganda and she has no ideas how monkeys can turn into humans. I had no idea why her comprehension was so bad. Documentary wasnt even interesting but i got more information out of it as 7 year old then mother of 2. Better asking questions from teachers and approaching library. Parents can be selective with their own goals as what their vision of parenting is.
but as we get older we should look at our need to know the truth rather than just keep a grudge or hostility toward those who didn't treat us well in the past. we know that blaming parents for what we are now doesn't justify our failure. blaming others implies that that person acknowledge something goes wrong, but refuse to improve , throwing the blames to others instead. something i realize about how parents treated us in the past, they treated us that way because that's all they know. They could have known better, but that's all they knew. what should we do then? Well, now let's pray for them and hopefully the will repent. we also can help them to see this life better.
There*aren't_any* christians for the same reason that there*aren't_any* can-stand-on-their-own-shoulders_ians, and what the fcuck has the god fantasy got to do with the way of christ, which is not dissimilar to asking what the supposition that there fairies Has to do with the king's pawn opening in chess or fixing a dripping tap(or the kinderlander say faucet)
Hugh Ross is very gracious and patient with Atkins! I know who I respect more out of this discussion. As always it is thought provoking and enhances one's understanding of science, theology, philosophy and cultural pressures. I could listen to Ross any time for a long time. Thank you.
Julie Barker - If you like listening to charlatans like Ross and his imaginary friend in the sky , then you will also enjoy listening to another woo woo merchant Deepak Chopra. although Ross is better qualified to discuss physics. Like all the religious he talks about evidence for his imaginary friend but never comes up with any . If he did have any evidence he would be receiving a nobel prize in theology.
@@markoerakovic9899 evidence of theists being wrong is easy....Islam and Christianity can't *both* be right...so there's evidence that at least one is wrong....if all the religions can argue with each other until one wins then we can start a discussion.
@@markoerakovic9899 wrong on so many levels. Jesus is *not* more important than Mohamed in Islam. Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus is the lord and saviour, if you don't accept this then you burn for eternity in hell....Islam rejects this idea. Also most biblical figures *don't* exist in the Qur'an....some do but not most. No...Islam and Christianity are not both possible as they make exclusive claims, you clearly haven't read both the Qur'an and the bible, if you had you wouldn't say this.
@@markoerakovic9899 yes I have read those books. There are passages in the bible that make it clear you need to believe in Jesus to gain access to heaven, you'd need to play with words to interpret it any other way and I think all brands of Christianity accept this. But surely you can see that by your own admission, there are many religions/branches that disagree on fundamental points.....therefore the texts *must* be ambiguous, which would suggest they're not divinely inspired/written. I'm sure the creator of the universe could find a better way to communicate with his subjects.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge" Psalm 19
Richard Luciano Oh come on.. nothing is something.. infinite multiverse is finite etc.. I thought science has ruled a creator out. Sounds like science is grasping for straws.
You see that's not an excuse he was there for a debate he failed to debate. When anyone with a weak argument turns to insult, rather than FACT not theory, peter uses words such as, unthinking and lazy even when his opponent states that he believes something. Peter then says no you don't. That is not debating that's kindergarten level debate. @@mcmanustony
Hugh "You are compressing all temporarity into cosmic time." Atkins "No I'm NOT. I don't (even) know what that means." Me "Precisely. That's my summary of this debate." 33:50
What a brilliant question “what evidence would science have to give you in the future for you to believe that there is a Creator”! Justin did an excellent job as a host !
he read some of it and it was enough, its a book of nonsense, how many pages of nonsense you read doesn't change that, he is a scientist that knows religions are made up nonsense and he doesn't waste his time with them because he is a scientist doing science and writing a lot of books on science
@@davespond9176 String Theory in essence is described as strings of energy vibrating at differing frequencies to create all the varying densities of matter. Yes or no?
I have watched a lot of these debates and I find them tremendously interesting! An observation I've made, is that the atheists tend do be (or at least seem to be) more bitter and unhappy in their demeanor...this video is a prime example. I find that an interesting observation.
I think much of it is bc the atheistic worldview is in on itself depressing. No purpose, no ultimate value, no right or wrong, no purpose to the person's struggles. I see some of that in a neighbor of mine who is an atheist and father of a down syndrome girl. All the struggles I see the family go through are completely pointless in his point of view. Therefore the guy himself can't help but look depressed
@@BrentSilberbauer Yeah, i see that too. Specially in guys like peter atkins, richard dawkins and christopher hitchens. I watched a debate between christopher hitchens and frank turek and my goodness... the guy really didn't wanna let frank talk. I'm no body language expert but i could see smugness and arrogance in the mere neck and body position CH was sat. And there was a point in wich is hard to describe by writing but i'll try. He took verses out of context from the words of Jesus (so clearly out of context that everybody likes Jesus, christians, atheists, muslims, and nobody uses this texts to attack him cuz is CLEAR he's not meaning those things literally), and as he was saying each quote he went like: "Din't he say (rises the indicator finger, making a "1")'out of context phrase that makes Jesus look bad out of context', Yes he did! (Raises middle finger with the indicator, making a "2") didn't he say 'out of context quote to make Jesus look bad'? Yes he did!" so on and so fourth like, 4 times. Now just imagine that scene, with him having a smug look and neck pesition (the neck position also says a lot in body language), tell me, won't you think something along the lines of "how old are you? 15?". I mean, even his brother who's a christian and used to think like CH and even wrote a book "rage against God", guarantees point blank that all this agressiveness is not due to "rationality or logic" as atheists brag about, but as he says in his book's title... a rage against God, a massive will that he doesn't exist. They want, with all their beings God NOT to exist, cuz they wanna be Gods of their own lives. So any person who wants to say that God's real and has demands, enrages them. That's not me saying, is Christopher hitchens' brother, peter hitchens. Watch the video "peter hitchens. God DOES exist", is 8 minutes long
I am neither atheist nor theist. I might consider myself an observationist. If you step away from a pre conceived notion of "God" you can observe both groups equally and un biased. My observations have concluded that because the arguments are inevitably a very emotional issue for both theists and atheists alike. Both groups of followers are prone to offer emotional feelings and personal ideas to the discussion and impose their concepts as fact which inevitably turns the 'discussion' into an argument.
@@ObjectiveEthics are you willing to be an observe for the rest of your finite time? Im a Christian, by feelings its more to be Atheist, but by intellectual it more to be theistic, Christian. As they say science can't answer everything. Just thinking of what best explains reality.
Let Hugh Ross make his case when he speaks. Atkins consistently interrupted him and even the moderator did too. It's unreal how little courtesy and decorum these two thought to give Mr Ross who stayed polite throughout it all.
Peter is staring downwards when he is speaking, thus meaning that his creative brain is hard at work. Opposite to this, is Hugh, who has great eye contact and able to speak truth. Peter is also prideful and feels he has it all figured out. Hugh, has a clear understanding that this is all bigger than he is. What a great debate! Hugh hands down has presented himself professionally and respectfully.
"9 different kinds of nothing and each of these nothing is actually something" that made me laugh out loud. How far are some willing to go in refusing God.
A war in in heaven (or in the heavens) & still waring hence spiritual warfare & 1/3 of angels being cast out of heaven...what Satan thought of as a successful assassination (my interpretation of salvation through Jesus) turned out to be a sacrifice for our sake!
Revelation, during God's wrath, tells how atheists will beg rocks to fall on them, rather than bow down to God and accept Jesus. It's sad to see how Atkins has chosen that same attitude.
LoveU Bae, please read carefully the Bible that describes death as we understand it to happen to humans now. Easy task. Start in Psalms, then move over to Ecclesiastes, (means teacher). Those two books will give you sound understanding of death. You will discover how your statement about what you believe happens at death conflicts completely with the inspired word God gave us in his Word. You can't go wrong, studying David and his son Solomon.
Exactly what I tell atheists " Don't you fret when I talk about death, hell and such things, because, I am just deluded".And they still carry on trying to argue with me But well said LoveU blessed, well said
Another point I forgot to state: Every human is appointed a probationary period to make their decision for loyalty to God or Satan. If they have not made a true and continuing decision for God by the time of their death, their record will be marked as loyal to Satan. Since death terminates everyone's probation period, what choice we make before death is recorded as our final choice. Be warned: make your choice now. You don't have any assurance how long you will have life. Choose Jesus Christ and his great love for you. He wants you to choose Him and be saved for His kingdom of love.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:01 🌌 The debate explores the origins of the laws of nature, featuring astrophysicist Hugh Ross and atheist Peter Atkins. 00:27 📚 Hugh Ross, president of Reasons to Believe, supports scientific evidence for a creator and Christianity, while Peter Atkins, former Oxford professor, argues the laws of nature can be explained without God. 01:09 🌌 Hugh Ross traces his journey to faith through studying astronomy, recognizing the universe's beginning, leading to belief in a Creator. 03:14 🔬 The debate delves into the Big Bang, fine-tuning of the universe, and the origin of life. Ross emphasizes evidence supporting a theistic model. 06:12 🌌 Peter Atkins aims to explain the origins of the laws of nature through principles of simplicity, indolence, anarchy, and ignorance, opposing the need for a divine explanation. 08:27 ❓ Atkins challenges theistic explanations, arguing for science's pursuit of naturalistic explanations and criticizing religious perspectives. 12:19 📖 Ross defends theism using evidence from the origin of the universe, life, humanity's uniqueness, fine-tuning, and the Bible's scientific predictions. 18:01 🔍 A key point of contention emerges: Did the universe have a beginning? Ross asserts causality beyond time and a divine origin, while Atkins questions the application of causal relationships before time. 22:34 🤔 Atkins remains optimistic that science will eventually explain the origin of the universe without invoking a divine creator, while Ross maintains that theism provides a more satisfying explanation. 23:29 📖 Ross mentions that the Bible's predictions about the universe aligning with modern scientific understanding impress him, whereas Atkins dismisses religious texts as fantasies. 23:57 🌌 The expansion of the universe is described in biblical texts and has been recognized by Jewish scholars long before scientific discovery. 25:16 🕰️ Creation ex nihilo: The universe's existence out of nothing contradicts eternal existence proposed by other beliefs like Hinduism and Confucianism. 26:26 🌌 Lawrence Krauss' "universe from nothing" doesn't actually demonstrate the universe's origin from absolute nothing; it proposes something existing for fluctuations. 28:02 🌀 The challenge of imagining absolute nothingness and the transition to something raises fundamental questions about causality and existence. 29:25 🔀 A hypothesis of symmetry leading to conservation laws suggests that the emergence from nothing preserved its properties, resulting in the universe's fundamental laws. 31:59 🌌 The fine-tuning argument suggests that the universe's constants and properties are so precisely set that life is possible, which raises questions about design and purpose. 33:36 🌌 The fine-tuning argument can be addressed through the multiverse hypothesis, but its theoretical nature and causality challenges make it less satisfying for some. 40:45 💰 The analogy of piling pennies to the moon illustrates the incredible precision required for fine-tuning to allow the emergence of life in the universe. 46:13 🪶 Exploring the possibility of other forms of life, the limits of human understanding, and the broader significance of life in the cosmos. 48:43 🌍 Hugh Ross highlights the idea that papers published by scientists might be influenced by the multiverse theory rather than originating solely from their minds. 49:12 🔍 Ross discusses the possibility of an infinite number of universes having life if one appeals to the concept of actual infinity, challenging the multiverse hypothesis. 49:39 🧠 Ross contrasts his belief in a God with Peter Atkins' view of a "mindless" God, rooted in Anglican theology's idea that the universe's complexity implies a divine mind. 50:21 ⚖️ Atkins criticizes Ross's use of cause and effect, particularly in terms of the second law of thermodynamics, and points out misunderstandings of the law. 50:49 🔄 The conversation moves towards a break, acknowledging the lively debate between Ross and Atkins on the origin of the laws of nature. 51:03 🎙️ The host, Justin Brierley, previews the upcoming segment and the ongoing discussion between Ross and Atkins. 51:15 🔗 A quick promotion for Premier Christian Radio's app is presented, relating to the show's theme of conversations between Christians and skeptics. 51:29 🗣️ The discussion returns to Peter Atkins, who delves into the second law of thermodynamics and its interpretation as it relates to decay and chaos. 52:23 📖 Atkins emphasizes the context of the word "decay" in ancient writings, pointing out its relevance to their surroundings and not to the modern concept of thermodynamics. 53:03 🌌 Atkins discusses the perception of entropy in the universe and its implications for disorder, while Ross argues that local structures can emerge from decay. 53:16 🕊️ The conversation shifts towards theological implications, where Ross asserts that fine-tuning evidence is enhanced within a redemptive theological framework. 54:39 🔍 The discussion challenges the fine-tuning argument's explanations and its application within different belief systems. 55:06 🌀 Ross addresses the idea of cosmic heat death and asserts that redemptive theology promises a divine rescue from it. 55:20 📜 Atkins engages in a discussion about evidence and falsifiability, expressing skepticism about the potential to prove the existence of God. 56:30 🌌 Ross presents his view on evidence-based belief and its relationship to atheism, highlighting the progressive proof of being right. 57:45 🕊️ The discussion explores whether evidence could persuade Atkins to believe in God, with him suggesting such evidence is highly unlikely. 58:59 🔐 Atkins emphasizes his view that it's unlikely for any evidence to change his atheistic stance, considering it more likely that he'd go mad. 59:55 🤔 Both debaters discuss whether they'd want their beliefs to be proven wrong, showing contrasting perspectives on their convictions. 01:00:21 🔄 The debate concludes with a consideration of evidence, beliefs, and the desire for their respective stances to be challenged.
@@bundleofperceptions1397 What is *_your_* actual evidence? You simply, lazily made a broad sweeping comment without offering any basis whatsoever for doing so.
Unbelievable!!! This guy said that he found confirmation of big bang and all physics correctly in the Bible... He clearly hasn't read the first chapter of Genesis... God created day and light and night 3 days before creating the Sun and moon... Then God gave all plants and trees for humans as food... A very informative and reliable story indeed... Every physicist, if he reads the genesis 1, will instantly embrace it as true... But he must be a true scientist...
Jesus is always knocking at the door....waiting to enter our hearts....to grant us free gift of eternal and abundant life, why dont we let Him come in ?
Agree, all of us Christians should pray for Atkins and all humans who deny God and his offer of Salvation. Like the guy Pazuil ( sp of his last name). He posted alot on this issue
OH WOW! What an honest man this Peter Atkins is! I've never seen a debate end with one side completely conceding all rationale by the end. He literally said that there's nothing that could convince him that God exists, yet he calls the Christians the lazy scientists! This show is living up to its name! Even the guests are unbelievable...
IKR? I saw 3 debates with atheists in wich their methodologies are such that they make it impossible for ANYTHING to count as evidence for God. First is this one where PA says that he would have to see, and that even if he did see he would doubt his sanity, therefore.... nothing would ever count as a proof for God with such a methodology. The second was michael shermer against david wood (and david does point out how themethodology makes it impossible to see anything as proof of God), Michael Shermer says that highly advanced aliens' tech would be indistinguishable from God, therefore, anything that points out to God, He just says "aliens". That way NOTHING will serve as evidence for God. Another one i saw was David silverman (atheist) saying: "We are open minded. We just want evidence (the more the atheists brag about this, the more convinced i am that it is BS), the difference is that when we find something that we don't know how to explain naturally and say 'GOD'. We just admit we don't know." See the error in the methodology? I get the "God of the gaps" objection, but the way he framed it in the debate, EVERYTIME something that might actually point to God he's just gonna say "i don't know. The explanation MUST be natural. Can't be God, Can't insert God when i can't explain naturally". So nothing will EVER serve as a proof of this supernatural being cuz if it seems supernatural or done by God the answer will be "i don't know. Can't insert God just bc i don't know the (natural) answer"... if that's his methodology, when is he EVER gonna see anything as proof for God? Never. The more debates i watch the more i see that most atheists just DON'T WANT God to exist, and Christopher Hitchen's christian brother assures that. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't so often insist in methodologies that clearly make it impossible for anything to serve as evidence for God. But of course... they "just want evindence".... Bull----!
@@John-X what’s funny about “the science”? It’s shorthand for a hard won scientific consensus. Ross’s views are rejected and refuted by what’s known. “Funny”? Good god you’re easily amused
@@jesusfreak7777 i do not believe in boogeymen because i know they are just stories used to scare children and those with child like minds. When you disprove Frankenstein's monster Dracula werewolves and Bigfoot, Ill use the same method to disprove your boogeyman story
I'm so glad I stuck around until the end! The final part of the discussion was the root of it all. Amazing moderator and extraordinary scientists. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
@@mcmanustony Atheism destroys the foundation of science - because it destroys the mind. Molecules have neither thoughts nor free will. Merry Christmas ❤️
@@immanuel829 This is just bigoted nonsense. Try to get out more and interact with adults to see how it's done. Hugh Ross seems an affable enough man....he gave up science a long time ago and has been a full time apologist ever since.
Whizman Of course it is possible that I've missed a sound argument of Atkins against Ross'. Could you tell me the minute where this happened during the video? Because I don't have the time to watch it again.
Perhaps not anything "started it." Our universe may have been secreted out of yet another universe,which came from yet another, which then boils down to bubbles forming within an overarching (non-conscious) mega-verse that did not begin and will not end. It would have its own time separate from ours, so mini-verses within it can have their own apparent beginnings. Beginnings within a necessary mega-verse that never began. Why not? It's a philosophical idea as much as theism.
Texitlox Atkins is committed to atheism regardless of how unlikely "mathematically speaking" this universe exist to support advanced life. His theory isn't falsifiable and therefore isn't a theory at all.
Right? I kept pausing the video every second Peter talked. The guy is meant to be incredibly intelligent and accredited, but he argues like a four year old; very contrarian 😂 God has blessed Justin and Hugh with incredible patience. I pray He continues to bless them for using this gift to His glory
We should be praying for Mr. Atkins. He has lived almost all his life here on earth, he is close to his destination, it is just about time he turn to his Creator before it is too late.
Manu The kind of old drunk you meet in a pub who'll vomit in your shoes, punch you while you're not looking and touch up your girlfriend. Do you mean that kind of uncle?
Great minds debating, however, Dr Ross is far less defensive and far more honest as a pure scientist. Dr. Atkins come across as being the lazy one though he accuses Ross of that.
Phillip Castaneda You say lazy but the truth is he has never really had much to contribute in these types of debates other than a bad very attitude almost a typical bully without the fisticuffs. His debate with Stephen Meyers is pretty typical; old age however is slowing him down mentally. And the old second law of thermodynamics sidestep is as you say part of his typical lazy bullshitting.
Mr Ross for the win..no contest! This poor soul clearly rejects all possibilities of God! Mr Ross is such a gentleman through the entire debate. Love listening to Mr H. Ross..Thank you!!!
once he says "There's no evidence for God, zero, Nada!" Then he says "Yeah, i guess nothing would convince me otherwise, not even i Jesus showed up before me or if i died and saw God." Of course he says "there's no evidence!" then, when he admits nothing would convince him... he implies that the reason he doesn't believe is not because there's no evidence, since he himself admits nothing would work as an evidence for him. he's not just skeptical, he's stuborn and in denial, that's why he doesn't believe, nothing to do with lack of evidence, he lost the debate when he says at the same time that theres just no evidence for God and that nothing for him would count as an evidence, those two statements added together already made him lose the debate.
I couldn't see any strong atheistic argument from Atkins. He has more an attitude problem rather than being a rational, humble thinker. Hugh Ross is amazing. GOD LIVES !
All I can say is, when I grow old I wanna have the look/aura of Hugh who seems so calm, content & happy with what he believed in. I don’t wanna look like Peter who looks sad, stressed out and confused about the things that he is fighting for…
Hugh: "I've seen Nobel Laureates come to Christ, most of my colleagues came to faith." Atkins "Why do you think that is?" Hugh "They've been exposed to the evidence." Atkins "That evidence doesn't exist!" 17:00
@demi- dogg If you really look for statics about Nobel, something quite easy nowadays, you will find that, through history, there have only been 10% of non believers(including atheist, agnóstics, humanists... ), among which, only 10% in physics, so, a very weak percentage. Don't try to lie. Despite ther beliefs, it shows anything, apart from not contradiction,but don't try, nevertheless, to dismerit other fields of knowledge, even when, for example, there have been more writters into atheism than in phisics, chemistry and medicine altogether. I repeat, search information.
@demi- dogg So, you have a comment from two months ago, and now you are telling this lie in order to what? You are not so special to be deleted, nevermind... The world from your perspective, as it is when coming into irrationality of atheists, you destroy culture, remake history and you shut up whatever you don´t like. For example, yesterday, a not very smart atheist told me that how could I be a physicist and believe? After many arguments that he didn´t want to listen to, he even refuse that both Bohr or Pauli were believers and christians. You have a big problem, because truth for you don´t exist.
@Dan Delgado I am telling you facts about NOBEL PRIZES, as he refused to accept that vast majority of them are believers. And I have even counted the last 10 years, where we have seen many other. But keep on taking statics wrongly, because you don´t know how to understand them, it seems, as, for example, you are confusing lack of religion with lack of belief(Spoiler: Nothing to do). However, revise your sources of intelligence-belief. You will be surprised by what it really happens. Or even better... Why aren´t you telling that 58% of American Scientists are believers according to Pew Research centre, a 7% more than a century ago. Statics are not as you'd like.
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 This 10% also was given for deist, free thinkers and those. But, take into account that religion was pursued in 20th century in Rusia, and it is currently in many parts of the Wordl, as in China. So, it is an achievement, but read again what I was answering to firstly.
For more debates, updates and bonus content sign up at www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable-newsletter
yeah follow a book from 2000 years ago, that;s true progress give me a break... I guess usa moronic
Peter begins interrupting Hugh within Hugh's first 3 sentences. He's so typical of those w/his ideological leanings - arrogant, condescending, self-righteous. Placing all emphasis and importance on himself and his own "intelligence". Ole Pete would do well to have a huge dose of humility shoved up his pompous arse.
@@Edwinvangent, you could look at it from an intelligent pov rather than a bigoted point of view, ya know? The Bible, which consists of 66 books in total, has been relentlessly scrutinized by "experts" and scholars alike for literally Thousands of years and has never been disproven or even remotely uncredible. But, yeah usa moronic- LOL, you sound like what you're complaining about.
Edwin: Your statement proves that you’ve never read the Bible nor no studied where it came from and how it came about or you wouldn’t of made that statement
I suppose it shouldn't come as a big surprise that this preternaturally brilliant man, Peter Atkins, is so often criticized as arrogant and condescending precisely because he is so much smarter than the rest of us, or most. Evidence and Fearless rationality over cosmic wishful thinking and superstition all day baby!
I hate to say this because I'm proud to be an atheist but this video enlightened me of who God is. Maybe I'll give it a try to seek him.
Please do. Try try try to keep your mind open to the possibilities....Ask God to help you read his word, and show himself to you...I will pray that he reveals himself to you.
I think you're lying about being an atheist.
@@mcmanustony he have a Free will conscience brain heart instinct GOD given gifts to make hes own desitions no't given to him by some explosión or some hominidus 😂
@@raulmartinez429 How do you claim to know any of this?
You have already recognized God from god.
Hugh’s calmness and patience while debating is amazing. This man is gifted.
too bad he is wrong
@@davespond9176 He's wrong about what?
@@davespond9176 elaborate?
@@davespond9176 there is no right or wrong, wyh u want to lush your objective belief toward religious peoples?.
@@aimaniman5557 i have no idea what you are trying to say.
Atkins’ argument against Ross seems to often be the equivalent of responding to arguments and evidence with “oh that’s pish posh”. How convincing this strategy is may simply depend on how strongly you trust his denials rather than weighing evidence and arguments. I’m not saying he has no other arguments but this seems to show up rather consistently in response to Hugh’s specific arguments.
Hugh's arguments are littered with logical fallacies and appeals to magic and wizards. Atkins puts it quite nicely when he says theists are being intellectually lazy. Instead of getting their hands dirty and trying to understand something, they just throw their hands up and say "we know the answer already... god did it"
@@pazuzil Please cite with timestamps where he appeals to “magic and wizards” (btw the Christian God is not some bearded man in the sky who casts spells on you, you obviously don't understand Abrahamic monotheism in the slightest) and please name and timestamp said “logical fallacies". Also, some of the greatest minds in science have been Christians. Here are a few along with their accomplishments…
Isaac Newton - Father of Modern Physics and Calculus
Wernher Von Braun - Father of Modern Rocket and Space technology
Rene Descartes - Founder of Cartesian math and Analytical geometry
Raymond Vahan Damadian - Inventor of the MRI
Francis Bacon - Pioneer of the modernized scientific method
Louis Pasteur - renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization
John Eccles - Nobel prize winner for his work on the synapse
Alexander Flemming - Man who discovered penicillin
There are so many others, this list is a tiny bit of them…. Just think, what would the world look like without these "intellectually lazy" men??
Peter Atkins is nothing but a pompous jerk. He is a great chemistry professor in his own respect, but he really didn’t contribute anything groundbreakingly important to the scientific community. Also, I don’t think the idea of God is “intellectually lazy” in the slightest. Many brilliant people find God to be highly intellectually stimulating, it compels many people to study the natural world.. A theist holds that God has created everything in the natural world and that God upholds everything in the universe. So basically in the mind of a Christian God has done everything, just because we discover how it works doesn't mean God is removed from the picture, we're just discovering how God created stuff.
Also Mike if you see this, thanks for your videos on the fulfilled prophecy, really helped in my understanding!
@@hspwr3521 You obviously dont know much about Hugh Ross's beliefs. He thinks a sky-wizard conjured the Universe out of nothing and then made the first human male by animating a clay figure and the first female from his rib. That there is the very definition of magic is it not? And what if some of the greatest minds in science have been Christians? Almost everyone who lived at the same time as these men identified as Christian including some of the dumbest people at the time. And how are the scientific accomplishments of these great scientists relevant to their views on religion? Newton had some crazy beliefs about numerology, astrology and alchemy... should we take his views on these subjects seriously because he was also a great scientist? come on ...
@@pazuzil Ok, on top of not pointing out the supposed "logical fallacies" committed on Ross' part, you missed my point entirely. Also, you ignored what I said, GOD IS NOT A SKY WIZARD. Neither the Koran, The Bible, or the Talmud have ever said God is a magic sky wizard who conjured the universe. The Abrahamic God is purported to be the space-less, timeless, and immaterial causal agent of the universe. The Bible never said that Adam was a clay figure, I seriously don't know what bible you are reading, I frankly think you haven't read a lick of it. Even if it did say that, that part of Genesis does not have to be taken literally to understand the core doctrines of Christianity. In addition I was listing those scientists to prove that one isn't necessarily intellectually lazy just because they believe in God, I was in no way saying we should believe everything they believe.
Also, your incoherent and hard to read piece on how "everyone at the same time as these men were Christian" is just utterly and completely untrue. For instance Von Braun used to be a Nazi rocket scientist who was an atheist for most of his life, he was not exactly raised in a Christian environment. Damadian is still alive and was raised in modern times, the majority of people and scientists in this day and age are not Christians in the slightest. Pasteur lived during the 19th century, that's when Darwin's ideas were taking off and the majority of those in the scientific community were leaning towards materialism and a steady state universe model. John Eccles, lived in the 20th century, theism of any kind was not common in the scientific community and its influence on the people was waning. Flemming was in the same spot as Eccles..
Its astounding to me that you think it is within the bounds of rationality and empiricism to assume that something came from nothing, and that this something somehow arranged itself into planets and stars and on one of those planets there was a bubbling protein soup that somehow churned out all life we see today. I think your beliefs are somewhat fantastical dude, I think it perfectly reasonable and rational to assume a mind is at work behind these things.
Also, don't try to respond to the bit above saying "wElL thE ScIenTiFIC cOnseNsuS saYS iT haPPEnEd tHaT WAy sO yoU DoNT kNow wHAT UR talkInG abOUT". Don't try using an appeal to authority/consensus fallacy like that on me. Unless you can personally justify your asinine beliefs here on the spot, you got nothing to say to me. Your beliefs seem to me to be far more ridiculous than Hugh's.
@@hspwr3521 1) The Koran, The Bible, and the Talmud describe a being who created the world out of nothing i.e. creatio ex nihilo in stages using nothing but a few words. If that isn't a wizard casting magic spells, I dont know what is.
2) Genesis 2:7 says "the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being." Another example of magic...
3) Not all wizards have a physical body. Didn't you ever play Dungeons and Dragons?
4) I never said everyone at the time were Christian. Instead I said most were. So quoting a few examples of non-Christian scientists doesn't counter anything I said
5) I also never said something came from nothing. I don't believe wizards exist or that magic is real. Thats your position
I think what strikes me is the difference in how these two men debate. Peter tends to be very confrontational and argumentative by using words like "lazy", "naive", "ridiculous" even arguing "No you don't" (even when Hugh admits that he does believe a certain fact). Almost like he can't make his point without it being personal and hurting / cutting the other person down. Hugh, in contrast, by not using that approach he comes across as more gentle, patient and and respectful.
As I have experienced, Most Aetheist behave defensive which can weaken their argument in that the hearer sees the defensive approach as anger and the Aethiest not totally believing their point. Also, Atheist Usually cannot provide logical evidence of their point of the world , man, mans' purpose, creation of the Earth, the universe and man; the most intelligent life form.
Hugh is a born again man, Peter isn't...
Atkins sounds frustrated...Ross sounds enlightened
Most atheists are confrontational and try to use any arguement to deny the existence of God.
It's almost like one person is right and knows it, and the other knows he is wrong but is too proud to admit it 😂. One more win for the big man upstairs.
I am a volunteer apologist with Dr. Ross's ministry Reasons To Believe. I am amazed at his ability to give an answer for the hope He has but with gentleness and respect.
Thank you for your volunteer work .
@demi- dogg
No idea what point you are trying to make ....?
@Dan Delgado Who is guilty, then? Jesus or the man who abuse of his freedom to make bad choices? I really wonder if you want just blame God or the freedom we have.
@demi- dogg I don´t know why are you in that manner...Despite that, there is a confusion in terms of what Satan is. Satan was NOT created (evil) as an act of creation. It was, according to theology, a decision based, again, on free will, before being capable to know God, the demons themselves. So, yes, the most perfect reality could be the one with freedom, taking this into account.
Apart from that point, I must assume you are only interested in Christian worldview. I wasn´t pointing out one subjective interpretation, as we should first consider theistic implications, to then make history and evidence to realize what is the most sensible statement of God.
@Dan Delgado Your incoherent babbling is pure ignorance. You comment on things which you have no authority or education on. Please enlighten us, with all of your endless wisdom, oh Mr. Delgado, what would your perfect creation entail?
What's amazing about Ross is it's less like he's trying to prove the other person wrong and more like he's presenting his evidence to evangelize directly to the other intellectual. God bless you Dr. Ross, smart people need Jesus too and you are a positive force in that battle.
Amen to that!
Unbelievable!!! This guy said that he found confirmation of big bang and all physics correctly in the Bible... He clearly hasn't read the first chapter of Genesis... God created day and light and night 3 days before creating the Sun and moon... Then God gave all plants and trees for humans as food... A very informative and reliable story indeed... Every physicist, if he reads the genesis 1, will instantly embrace it as true... But he must be a true scientist...
========
And how do you look at the fact that Jesus exposed himself as Orthodox Jewish supremacist??? Who disrespects all non Jews by calling them dogs, animals in essence... This is Orthodox Judaism... Only Jews are worthy to be called children and the rest of humanity are animals. And Jesus said just that in Matthew 15... He said is sent only to Jews, that only Jews are children, and the feast are dogs...
The story is repeated in Mark 7...
Amen.
immigrant george
Read navigating genesis
@@jamesveerdog2723
So, the message sent by God must be explained by humans because God messed Everything up???
immigrant george
Gods message must be interpreted correctly
This moderator is phenomenal. Challenging each side and being non-controversial. To essentially be invisible in the debate.
Amazing!
Fabled Narrative yes, agree with that.
Fabled Narrative he talks too much
Ngl the laughs kind of made me think he was Christian because everyone Atkind talked he laughed along with Hugh, but maybe he's just a happy guy.
Absolutely agree with this. Quite possibly the best moderator I’ve ever seen on religion or politics
He is laughing like a red faced moron whenever Atkins is speaking on issues that are beyond his nutsized brain
After watching this, I’ve decided that there is nothing in this universe more heartbreaking than watching a beautifully created human being reject the love of the one who created them.
God loves???
Peter has helped me believe in God. There's nothing more wonderful i could've ever imagined. A God! It's all true. Unbelievable!
@@hmmmahroof3602 Congrats for the most ignorant question of the week 👍
@@hmmmahroof3602 He suffered a brutal death in order that we can be saved. That's the proof of His love for us.
@@michaelmichael2121Let's dissect that. He suffered a brutal death (the process of which lasted a few hours compared to other humans whose dying agony lasts for days, notwithstanding circumcision's undeniable torture) and considering that he was allegedly only dead for approximately 36 hours, a painful but shortlived 'sacrifice'. If he was the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system, he got off easy, for the animals sacrificed never lived to see another day 😮. But, here's the ultimate problem with your premise: if Jesus' sacrifice was the only means by which your God can offer salvation to mankind, then all humans who lived and died PRIOR to his sacrifice had not the slightest hope of being 'saved', for as allegedly Jesus himself said, "NO ONE comes to the Father, except by me" (John 14:6, corroborated by Acts 4:12 "salvation in no other name, but the name of Jesus"). That's 250,000 years, give or take, since modern homosapiens came on the scene; but, according to your worldview, God really manifested his love for us only about some 2,000 years ago! Before then, mankind was screwed, right? 😂 That's some serious cognitive dissonance, dude, though to be fair, I blindly believed that narrative for 45 years, so I empathize with your fealty to it.
Hugh wins this debate, hands down! Thank you Lord for giving Hugh such an excellent mind, communication skills, and a love for You and the truth of Your word, as well as his fellow man, with whom he shares all this knowledge.
Amen to that
I would like to debate this fuckign child abuser Hugh Ross.
religion cannot win any debate those about magic claims.
Theism is more like the foundation of Science, which itself is Philosophy, and all that needs to be laid out. Hugh´s descent into that "fossils on the moon" notion is ridiculous. Abiogenesis, as tracked by Fritjof Capra, is requiring philosophical analysis to address the Physics in a vesicle. God created the Laws of Nature, and brought out Jesus Christ, and its HIS gifts that allow us to study Scientific Philosophy in the first place. Those Laws of Nature are what is behind abiogenesis, and its the Philosophy of getting around any limiting paradigms that is needed to understand those processes under those conditions.
Timothy Mostad
Computer code more advanced than ours and more information than all encyclopedias combined written into the genes of the simplest amoeba.
Way more believable then your Fairy Tale. You have nothing.
@Timothy Mostad Scientism has taken you out of Science´s legitimate viewpoint and into imagining that Religion is not a legitimate knowledge and activity domain. Karen Armstrong has made an important point with her talking about "mythos" and the real impacts of spiritual-religious practices. It´s only in part about the literal reality of the "gods" in question. They are religious entities that involve people in a kind of relationship to the Universe´s Creator/Source/God Entity facet. The Christian appropriation of ancient Greek Philosophy and eclectic resources, and initiation of a pluralistic world culture reflects Christianity´s own pivotal position in the metaphysical philosophical analysis. Science itself is a product of Christian Philosophy, in fact, a form of it.
i love how patient hugh was and how he was smiling the whole time when peter was saying something that he completely disagreed with. i love how he was extremely patient and was respectful.
A few things indicated to me he is a JW. Good patient listener!
@@izziebon No he is not a JW but a Christian Apologist who founded Reasons to Believe.
And Atkins continually interrupted Ross
James White should learn from him.
Hugh gave Atkins the right amount of time to display his ignorance and narrow minded approach to real science....A seared mind??
10 years ago this wonderful man was the one that put the nail in atheism’s coffin for me. Thank You 🙏🏼 Hugh Ross. God bless you.
Your man, as Peter put it, is intellectually lazy and lacks the reasoning of a scientist. He's more suited to the role of a preacher
Yikes.
@@CesarCloudsIt's amazing!
@@noahm44 What is?
Not being a bitter Atheist is amazing@@CesarClouds
Whoever the moderator is, excellent job. I like your work. Asking the right questions at the right time. Making comment when appropriate.
Yes, he is really into it and on top of it; very bright young man, thank you : )
I just found Dr. Hugh Ross today and this just what I needed in my journey to draw closer to God.
Get his many books. I started with 'Navagating Genesis'. It makes scientific and logical sense of the first 11chapters of the book of Genesis.
@@joymeyer4730 Or better still, books written by people who haven't forsaken science for a career in Christian zealotry.....
@@mcmanustony if you read the Bible, you would see that the Bible is the first book (of any book religious or not) that spells out science.
The book of Genius spells out the big bang. But ppl like you never want to hear what makes the Bible and its statements real and the truth. You call us fools.....
@@joymeyer4730 Oh grow up. I have read the bible cover to cover since childhood. It is bronze age folklore and nothing more.
I'll leave you to your dependencies....
@@mcmanustony Why did you read the Bible? whats your purpose? I read the bible when i was little but because I was born a Christian, and almost everyone i know is a Christian... But alas i went and enjoyed Sin so much that I almost became an Atheist. But there came a time where i almost lost my life and before that happens i called out his name, Jesus... and guess what? he saved me... and my life went 360.. and i started reading the bible again, and the scriptures, the words hits different this time.. This that i thought i knew, i actually didnt, i can relate it to my everyday life,.in school, relationship, science, family i mean everything... Now i read the bible because i want to be closer to God... what about you?
I very much admire Hugh Ross's patience, he is constantly interuppted by Atkins's, yet he remains entirely undercontrol and even has a smile on his face. That is a man in love with Christ!
Why do you admire a man who loves a stolen corpse? ;-)
Humble guy!
I am biased towards Hugh, but that's exactly what I was thinking, and am wondering if anyone had the same assessment. Atkins comes off as an arrogant, pompous, close-minded man.
Wow, you noticed the striking difference in their attitudes? I actually attended the same college where Atkins taught, and I vividly remember seeing him cruising around in his flashy gold Rolls Royce. It made me wonder, why the need for such extravagance when a simple bike sufficed for most folks?
@@WhoHAAAAAHugh Ross, incredible Man.
John Lennox, in one of his talks at the Discovery Institute tells of a UK newspaper's interview with Stephen Hawkins, where Hawkins made the statement that belief in God was a fairy-story for those who are afraid of the dark. When the same newspaper approached him (Lennox) asking for comment, Lennox replied that atheism is a fairy-story for those who are afraid of the light.
Quote often repeated by Lennox with no attribution to originator Robin Sharma
He used to believe in God though. Maybe he just became depressed and jaded as he was abused.
...never heard that quip before but it is brilliant!
Copper wire : Invented by two men, fighting over a penny.
@@marksnider9378
Your copper wire shoot made me giggle. Good stuff!
Peter Atkins' thesis is a perfect example of "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22
Why don’t you learn some science rather than mindlessly regurgitating Bronze Age bigotry
Strange that you believe in a God but not what you see as scientific truth. If anyone is not understanding or knowing the god you advocate for, it is due to God himself. Read Romans 9:16.
You definitely have the names backward.
@@mcmanustony So, NOTHING is really not "NOTHING" as this Peter fool asserts? LOL--your foolish religion has been around since Cain.
@@mcmanustony You do not see that many highly intelligent scientists, such as Ross, who "learn some science" believes it points to a creator, God. The more science peals away at the information, the more evolution becomes impossible. If you don't want God to exist, you're no different than Peter. You will refuse whatever evidence comes before you.
Justin is the fairest moderator/interviewer around. And he’s completely composed and patient in the face of condescension and insults.
Agree
@ENFPerspectives I think not, the arbiter allows Peter Atkins to get away with far to many interruptions
Justin did his job very well. His personal technique should be studied.
he did give Adkins more than his fare share, but Atkins was hostile and provocative pressing for an emotional reaction to take advantage of. His tactic was thwarted. We were able to hear both sides and it did not erupt into chaos.
@@Rotterdam1940that shoes even less bias because he’s on the Christian side
Why Is Hugh Ross not as famous as guys like William Lane Craig or Ken Ham?? He is what Christians should listen to more
you're right
Because he is an old earth creationist
William Lane Craig has called Hugh Ross "evangelicalism's most important scientific apologist". So he is probably quite famous in his own circles. But the majority of Christians today either accept evolution or the simpleton young earth approach. Hugh Ross interpretations are speculative, forinstance his idea that Adam and Eve were literal people made 50,000-150,000 years ago.
Fernando Paulus ken ham is famous for absolutely wrong reasons. Hugh ross, lane craig, john lennox , francis collins are some awesome ones
@@drlerky2539 True. A lot of Christians consider old Earth creationists to be heretics.
Dr. Hugh has definitely dominated this debate
The truth stand's on it's own accord
You are hearing what you want to hear. Hugh never resolved Atkins’ question: how does an agent exist outside of time and space. How can anything exist in nothing? It is a logical contradiction. What does “before time” even mean? Spaceless timeless makes no sense, and such a being does not comport with the god of the Bible at all, a god that experiences regret, and so causes a flood to kill every baby, etc, and so on. And the only reason that people make the “space less timeless” assertion about god is your tactical retreat to the Kalam syllogism. But those properties do not comport with the god of the Old Testament.
@@maggiemoonpie2168 yes it does and that rabbit hole goes deeper than anyone seems to know.
Have an awesome year❤
I hv been following and reading books of Dr Hugh Ross, Dr John Lenox, and Jordan Peterson for decades, they are intelligent, elegant, faithfull, yet humble human being that God gave wisdom to testify the truth in scientifical and spiritual explanation. Hope there will more like them in the comming future . Also my respect to the moderator who made this talk/debate quite neutral and balanced. Thanks for sharing the video🫰👍
I love Hugh Ross. He has such a wonderful mind and calm caring demeanor
@trident3b did I say that? No. But he's right about allot of things nevertheless.
You’d have to not to kill the pompous ass he was “debating”
@trident3b maybe or maybe not
@trident3b his arguments makes him right. Atkins embarrassed himself when he tried to say absolutely nothing rolled into something
The other guy constantly tries to be insulting
Dr. Hugh Ross is very intelligent. He is also calm and patient.
OK calm and patient but what about reason and evidence ?
watch the whole debate. Dr. Hugh Ross clearly won this debate. :)
If Ross is Intelligent he would conclude that there is zero evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity, and that there is a plethora of evidence that religious literature is man made. He clearly desires an all seeing father because he does not want to face reality I.e. born, live die.
@@johnsnowdon4886 sometimes being calm and patient speaks louder than a boastful man who can throw out logical words like he's got the higher ground.
Atkins gets a huge F in debate, Hugh Ross gave some decent arguments. So did Atkins, but he's got such low cognitive awareness to realize his own pride.
He is Autistic too
Hugh, A+. Peter, well, we'll be praying for you sir. To call a fellow scholar, a peer in this case, "intellectually lazy," tells people everything they need to know about Peter's position. In the end, you said it all. No matter what evidence is presented, you would still not concede that there is a Creator. So there you have it.
Peter is a moronic narcissist.
Shitty human being.
Good luck Peter in eternity.👀
Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
@@debfiel6585 your arrogance is disgusting. You have beliefs you can no more demonstrate than you can walk on water.
Peter Atkins for obvious reasons doesn’t share your beliefs.
Cope.
Ross IS intellectually lazy. Your approval is not needed to point that out.
Both have a record of scientific achievement. One is WAY more significant than the other and spans several decades.
Here’s a clue: it’s not Hugh Ross.
EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW 🙇🏾♂️ AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL CONFESS THAT HE ☝🏾 IS LORD ..
AS IT IS WRITTEN IT SHALL BE DONE 🕊️🙏🏾
I ENJOYED WATCHING THIS SPIRITUAL BATTLE .
Those that abuse capitals not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare that the abuser is a raving lunatic.
Clearly goddism turns goddists into hysterical raving lunatics
Ok, you are an hysterical loony; you have convinced me of that, happy now?
Bollox shouted is still bollox
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you.
here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child.
You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish that is a matter for you; I only have to se the wretched tings used to dismiss the user as an ass;I immediately know not to bother to read whatever the user of such asinine and infantile symbols writes, so the utility of the vile things is to save me from wasting my time on an imbecile child, which for whatever reason you seem to wish to be taken and clearly are, for no adult with wits and learning would use them.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public. On whatever jag you may be it clearly turns its adherents into hysterical lunatics; Of whatever tree you are the fruit little loony hysteric, it is best avoided.
God shines through Dr. Ross’s attitude. 🙏🥰🙏🙏
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you.
here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child.
You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish that is a matter for you; I only have to se the wretched tings used to dismiss the user as an ass;I immediately know not to bother to read whatever the user of such asinine and infantile symbols writes, so the utility of the vile things is to save me from wasting my time on an imbecile child, which for whatever reason you seem to wish to be taken and clearly are, for no adult with wits and learning would use them.
Justin, you do such a great job hosting. Very fair. Giving both sides plenty of time to talk. Thanks for the content. Keep up the great work!
He was a terrible moderator. He spoke more than Dr. Ross did.
No he didn't, he doesn't let them finish their points
HE gives too much of his own opinion. In that setting he is the moderator, not the person debating. He felt compelled to add to what they (the two debaters) were stating; or at least to clarify what they said. It was unfortunately not very professional.
They should have just tied Peter up, knocked his teeth down his throat, and then let Hugh school them both.
Thanks :-)
One person is a personification of pride, and the other humbleness.
This is a really good comment.
The humility of the simpleton
@@vhawk1951kl the guy who abandoned science to peddle magic you mean?
@@mcmanustony It may be ,. had you the wits to be specific or were able to define science but you are about to demonstrate that you lack the wits for either.
I think the dopey goddist may be a bit autistic and has been got at by the goddists that claim to be christians, and suppose the way of christ (the details of which it is impossible to determine)necessarily has anything to do with the god fiction, which is one rare example of when it is apt to use the word literally, inasmuch as, the god fiction literally is a deus ex machina- a literary device. If you need an explanation simply invent one. the dopey guy has not the wits to question his own preconceptions snd presumptions, but who has? There is nothing objectionable about the idea of god; what is asinine and infantile is the anthropomorphic idolatry- god as a person -as the say in their crazed version of reasoning" like .. "us". I don't know what christ prescribed *for* what and the funny thing is that those that deceive themselves that they could possibly be able to be able to christians, have no better or worse idea than I have .
@@mcmanustony
He didn't abandon science, he explained its origin from the Creator.
It’s fascinating to me how peter really comes across as a simple minded fundamentalist.
Well said. He claims to be an open mined scientist in one sense but he clearly doesn’t believe what he claims. When he said that there is no evidence that could convince him of the existence of God then logic would suggest that his beliefs are not in fact based on evidence but in just tearing down what ever possible explanations made by a theist. If theism is belief then does atheism then become an undefinable non belief system with no causal agent and no beginning when everything came from nothing. Isn’t that blind faith? Sounds like a fairy tale.
What does that mean?
Hugh's patience is a gift from God. He was respectful throughout the debate even though it was not reciprocated.
Dewey Cox this is typical of atheist/ Bible believer debates. Believers are well mannered, respectful and tolerant whereas the atheists are usually cynical, rude and arrogant.
Johan Weakley
Actually it’s just typical of Peter Atkins. I’ve seen many of his interviews/debates and it’s always this, without exception. He demands space to develop his arguments and never reciprocates that courtesy. A true narcissist, maybe even bordering on sociopath.
I was getting pissed at the dude lol like your making you proposition look wrong when you keep questioning him and not letting him Finnish.
He is patient because he knows God exist... and is the creator of the universe
Because he is pissed listening creationist nonsense.. staying calm is really hard when you listening ignorant bigots..
Dr. Hugh Ross is being slept on way too much. He is a very smart and respectful man who deserves to be way more famous than he is for his brilliant work
I don't think he needs fame to do God's work.🙌🏼
Hank Moody: Yes; Ross reminds you of the character and antics of another person 2000 years ago by the name of Jesus, the Messiah; doesn't it? God bless you.
ABSOLUTELY !
He's deluded, nothing more.
God is going to give him his reward in heaven
even through just his personality and demeanor, God shines through Hugh, i just discovered this man but wow i admire him
Yessss he has so many wonderful videos and articles. He is remarkably intelligent. I think I am going to check out his book 🙌🙌🙌
I like him also for the same reasons.
@@SkyGazerForever1111 how was the book?
Exactly Britt! Exactly!
Me too!
I particularly liked the way Hugh remained polite and extremely engaging while being called naive.
It’s too bad the host and Adkins are constantly interrupting and talking over Hugh. It says a lot about Hugh’s calmness and confidence that he can navigate these discussions.
This is the way of debate. Find Hugh's many lectures. Or even better get his book called Navigating Genesis.
Adkins is too controlling and likes to hear himself talk and Huge is listening and expounding his own intuitive intelligence.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool does not delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions
One man exhibits grace and thoughtfulness, the other is full of insult and arrogance. I've seen this pattern before.
Hitch was the only one I could stomach to watch or listen to.
without watching the video, i can see that you are a christian. nobody judges like a christian.
@@WeighedWilson Why is it wrong to judge? If you walk down the street and see a guy beating up his girlfriend and insulting her, you would make a judgement of that guy, would you not?
Judgement is integral to making assessments and decisions, without it you left rudderless and adrift. You have to call out what is wrong, such as arrogance, in order to learn what flawed, maladjusted behavior is. That's what acwilsn is doing, and I see no problem with it. Christian, or otherwise.
Christ was judged by a non Christian & was given the death penalty. He rose from the dead!
@@08453300222 you're sure or you just want it to be true? Because if it's not you have no purpose to live anymore??
I got very worked up with this debate. Is such a repetitive story when it comes to Christianity. The world doesn’t have questions for us Christians, the world questions us. They don’t want an answer, they want to disagree to every answer without giving it any thought whatsoever.
I love how Hugh Ross represents God. So calm and collected, humble and respectful, slow to speak and quick to listen.
Are you suggesting any individual who has not acknowledged the existence of a god isn't interested in finding answers?
The Bible says in the end times the irrefutable evidence of God will be revealed to all.
@@theoskeptomai2535you are putting words in her mouth. Some people don’t want answers. They are just set in their so called intellectual arrogance.
They ask questions that they've already constructed an answer to. Disbelief is stubborn, but knows everything about nothing at all.
@@danielletracyanna lot of people actually wanted answers and become atheist.
Hugh Ross has a wonderful calmness about him. He is the epitome of a Christian man. Peter keeps butting in when Hugh is speaking...full of his own importance. importance
I love Dr Ross! He DESTROYED that guy. So much love and wisdom. It's amazing how good your arguments are when you have the truth
"So much love and wisdom." Some call it charme - that's his trick.
Well done Hugh, keeping your calm in the face of absurdity and arrogance. Much love Dr Ross ❤️
Peter was not that bad y'all need to relax in the comment section🤣🤣
@@ashley_brown6106 He was even worse.
Hugh is elegant. Peter is simple.
A5 comment 😂 👌🏾
Peter is Nervous and desperate lol
I AGREE AND VERY EDGY AND NERVOUS AND HE KEEPS INTERRUPTING (RUDE ) FELLA
Good one!
Peter is realistic. Hugh is deluded.
One of the things that I most respect about Dr. Hugh Ross that he seeks out the strongest opposing views to debate, and addresses every hard question.
He does not hide in little self affirming echo chambers like many do.
No pivoting, evading, or antagonism.
He is the last man standing at the end of the point/counterpoint process.
It's fascinating to hear Peter's scientific reasoning in defence on atheism, I especially enjoyed his 'no it's not', 'no it isn't' and 'no I'm not'. Those years of study really shine through.
If you could quit sneering in ignorance long enough to get off your arse and READ some of Atkins actual scientific work you'd not post such a pitiful comment.
Atkins is one of the most distinguished scientists alive.
Ross is not.
Do you know how books work?
HAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHA
seriously, i dont think he even gave one arguement for his reasoning the entire debate.
@@mcmanustony what was your PhD in?
@@davidmcintyre7908 Pure mathematics- I did research on indecomposable modules over valuation rings. My work in music overtook this before finishing though I did settle an outstanding conjecture of my supervisor on minimal generating sets for these modules.
Why? What possible relevance does my academic history have to this debate?
This is an amazing display of patience…if you listened for any length of time you know what I’m talking about
I love how Hugh didnt interrupt Peter once when he was going on and on and on. But as soon as its Hugh's turn- Peter cant be quiet.
Lol
Me too! I was thrilled with this. Fuckk i could not stand that other guy.
Thanks for this heads up. I will skip it. I can't stand interruptions like that. (No matter which side does it.)
@ByHisCall I like watching debates that are organized and respectful on both sides. I have listened to a few debates where they take the opposite stand i.e. an atheist takes a theist approach and a theist takes an atheist approach. Those kind of debates include diving in opposite world views and really can make you shake your own world view. I used to debate like this in my biology class when I was in 9th grade. It was stressful for me, but it really gave me confidence in my original world view.
@ByHisCall Common Atheist..
Hugh Ross is a gentleman and a scholar. He gives a lesson in humility. His faith is unshakable, you can almost feel the Holy Spirit working inside of him. Thank you to Justin as well for the excellent moderating/interview skills.
This wasnt a popularity contest. Ross may be a nice guy, but Atkins has a far more rational position and presented far more robust arguments than Ross did
I beg to differ...each to his own.
@@pazuzil Atkin's "rational position" is the universe coming out of nothing without a Creator. That's not rational.
Hugh has such a calm and beautiful confidence.
You could say the same about Peter👍
It’s because of his Asperger‘s
More like chief of the village of the damned or some Lynchian giant
Jace Izzonn
Yes, Peter is not yelling and has an inside voice. But you’re right, he is terribly antagonistic and throws ad hominems left and right, and uses this ridiculous rhetoric to denounce the other side.
It’s easy to be that confident when you’re completely delusional.
Love the way the discussions are unbiased and hugh's approach is calm indicating his comfort with his belief.
Atkins- “tell me this...”
Ross- “the answer is...”
Atkins- “no that’s lazy”
Ross- “here’s where you’re wrong”
Atkins- “no it’s not”
Ross- “here’s a scientific answer”
Atkins- “no its not”
Umm.... Atkins arguments are really poor. And he shows himself to be close minded.
Randall Chase spot on! Atkins is so stubborn and refuses to acknowledge any idea or data he doesn’t want to be true
Actually I would assert that Atkins responses are not arguments at all but rather simple rebukes. An argument actually advocates for a theory, fact, opinion, etc that is opposed to the other side of the debate and he has yet to offer anything of informational value. Instead when Ross poses an argument Atkins rebuttal consists of "No"! Lol. Talk about intellectually lazy!
Very true. Even when you show someone and abundance of evidence or proven wrong, they still will not budge in their own theory. An atheist death sounds very sad, that their body will just shut down and return to earth...then that's it, nothing more.
Absolutely spot on Randall.
I really agree with you. He's crippled before he starts as he stated he's never read the Bible!
Big kudos to the moderator in this debate. He ensured both sides were able to communicate their points and kept the conversation moving. Great job.
I thought the same. He was excellent.
I love how if you don’t know him you have no idea where he stands in his beliefs absolutely brilliant moderator, we need more like him
Don’t think so although he gets better in second part
Yes!
Hugh Ross is a real example of how to share our faith. It's a shame we don't all have his intellect. Hopefully we can learn from his approach and God will help us. It's not about proving who is right. It's about being saved in the end of this life.
Thank God we all don't have Hugh's intelligence, or we might all believe in his foolish teaching of billions of years, NOT SCRIPTURAL, that's for sure.
@@Notsureanymore441 wdym
Study to show thyself approved unto God. A workman who need not be ashamed. Hugh is ALWAYS studying, researching, reading and writing. It's amazing what God can teach us if we are willing.
Admiration for Dr Hugh Ross grows daily, he really points us to Jesus, the truth!
Thank you Dr Ross for being a shining example of Christ-likeness!!!!
Excellent moderator! He did not take a stance which I like a lot. Neutral and asking tough questions to both people.
He took a stance. You didn't pay attention enough. He clearly tilted towards Hugh Ross' position.
He’s first rate! What’s his name?
Not exactly true. He tilted more towards Ross' position. But he respected the British atheist position.
@@hollyfanatic8686 Justin Brierley. He's a Christian, and to an atheist it does show, but I agree he does manage to keep much more impartial than most moderators, Christian or not!!!
JezusisHeer777 he talks too much
Peter looks like no one's given him a hug in a long time. Dr.Ross looked like he wanted to lean over and give him that hug. What a gentleman & great man of God. In today's scientific community, being a Christian is like a straight man trying to be a fashion designer. Let's keep in in our prayers. He's a voice we need to hear.
When people want to do or say something for themselves, do that, but don’t include by saying we need or let us continue to do whatever, you do it, if you want to pray for someone then you do it, it doesn’t make sense if you include other people’s, could be that others don’t agree with what you want to do. I mean come on it sounds very prideful to make yourself the leader of your ways. Example I will pray for both of these men, but I’m not going to include you and anyone else, like if I thought everyone thinks like me. ( watch how Karen this sounds, let’s keep in in whatever in in means our prayers, no not us, you, you do it, it’s your idea not our idea.)
I was just thinking the same thing. Why when people want to do something, why do they have to include others? Like they need back up? Just do it on your own. Unbelievable!!!
Ross is no christian, he is an idolater that could no more be a christian the he could stand on his own shoulders.
Dopey is not a christian, he does not have the nous
There*Are_No* christians for the same reason that there are no can-stand-on-their-own shoulders_ians.
Dopey who could well be autistic is merely parroting what he has been told. Like you he has not the faintest idea what it might mean to be a christian
What sort of Hug M8?, Man hug...........???,If you're catholic keep your abnormal feelings for the poor innocent choir boys
It’s amazing how this chemist managed to say absolutely nothing about absolutely nothing
It was giving me a headache.
45:38 that middle finger. XD
@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia wowww he totally did that on purpose.
Seems like Hugh was the doctor while Atkins was the politician. Hugh was clearer on why he thought something where ATKINS would just basically say, “no it’s not” with no evidence for why he thought that.
@@TheRazmotaz it's a choice to DENY all the facts. Some simply do not Like The idea of a GOD. It terrifies them.
Ross: let’s look at what we find with experimentation and observations.
Atkins: That’s stupid and lazy.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA a funny old man.
Thats because it is stupid and lazy.
Dr. Atkins inadvertently explained his hostility toward the possibility of God when he said that he wasn't allowed to think (ask questions) by his religious parents. As Christians we need to be very careful not to dismiss /alienate people who want explanations.
I had plenty of effort hiding my atheism from my parents and never bothered asking questions about anything. Even as first grader i saw my mother as ignorant about basic science.
I still remember her watching simple scientific documentary and saying that its bullshit propaganda and she has no ideas how monkeys can turn into humans. I had no idea why her comprehension was so bad. Documentary wasnt even interesting but i got more information out of it as 7 year old then mother of 2.
Better asking questions from teachers and approaching library. Parents can be selective with their own goals as what their vision of parenting is.
Great comment!
@@kiq654Irrespective of your personal view on this topic - any side being opposed to asking questions does more harm than good
but as we get older we should look at our need to know the truth rather than just keep a grudge or hostility toward those who didn't treat us well in the past.
we know that blaming parents for what we are now doesn't justify our failure.
blaming others implies that that person acknowledge something goes wrong, but refuse to improve , throwing the blames to others instead.
something i realize about how parents treated us in the past, they treated us that way because that's all they know.
They could have known better, but that's all they knew.
what should we do then?
Well, now let's pray for them and hopefully the will repent.
we also can help them to see this life better.
There*aren't_any* christians for the same reason that there*aren't_any* can-stand-on-their-own-shoulders_ians, and what the fcuck has the god fantasy got to do with the way of christ, which is not dissimilar to asking what the supposition that there fairies Has to do with the king's pawn opening in chess or fixing a dripping tap(or the kinderlander say faucet)
Hugh Ross is always a joy to listen to
Hugh Ross is very gracious and patient with Atkins! I know who I respect more out of this discussion. As always it is thought provoking and enhances one's understanding of science, theology, philosophy and cultural pressures. I could listen to Ross any time for a long time. Thank you.
Julie Barker - If you like listening to charlatans like Ross and his imaginary friend in the sky , then you will also enjoy listening to another woo woo merchant Deepak Chopra. although Ross is better qualified to discuss physics. Like all the religious he talks about evidence for his imaginary friend but never comes up with any . If he did have any evidence he would be receiving a nobel prize in theology.
Thomas Sheehy if you weren't so emotionally bounded you'd see that Ross is not speaking nonsense like Chapra.
@@markoerakovic9899 evidence of theists being wrong is easy....Islam and Christianity can't *both* be right...so there's evidence that at least one is wrong....if all the religions can argue with each other until one wins then we can start a discussion.
@@markoerakovic9899 wrong on so many levels. Jesus is *not* more important than Mohamed in Islam. Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus is the lord and saviour, if you don't accept this then you burn for eternity in hell....Islam rejects this idea. Also most biblical figures *don't* exist in the Qur'an....some do but not most. No...Islam and Christianity are not both possible as they make exclusive claims, you clearly haven't read both the Qur'an and the bible, if you had you wouldn't say this.
@@markoerakovic9899 yes I have read those books. There are passages in the bible that make it clear you need to believe in Jesus to gain access to heaven, you'd need to play with words to interpret it any other way and I think all brands of Christianity accept this. But surely you can see that by your own admission, there are many religions/branches that disagree on fundamental points.....therefore the texts *must* be ambiguous, which would suggest they're not divinely inspired/written. I'm sure the creator of the universe could find a better way to communicate with his subjects.
Huge Ross is marvellous. He has helped me to strengthened my faith in God
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge"
Psalm 19
“A belief system that isn’t falsifiable isn’t worth anything” damn, Ross is a savage
Man, Hugh is so steady. This guy could run a psych facility and never sweat.
like a student who hasn't got a clue.
Explain@@cipndale
@@rocketman3158 what
@@cipndale ? Explain what you mean.
It's called the holy spirit
Hugh Ross lives out the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself in his calm demeanor and loving attitude during this debate.
Absolutely agree!! Ross is a great testimony and Example of how to live as a Christian
I think I will look at Christianity after this. Just realized how silly atheists sound.
How did you come to these conclusions?
Richard Luciano
Oh come on.. nothing is something.. infinite multiverse is finite etc..
I thought science has ruled a creator out. Sounds like science is grasping for straws.
Da Koos What did you mean by "look at Christianity..."?
Richard Luciano He probably meant actually see what God has to say in the Bible and hopefully find Truth
Well I went to church today where they're preaching about love. It was good.
This is one of the best interviewers I have ever seen.
Justin Brierly is the best🙂
Atkins looks as if he has no joy in his life. But Ross looks as if he is full of joy.
That's utter nonsense. Lol
@@chlomyster8526 it's completely true. Open your eyes and look at them
@@stevenselleck5460 Atkins is simply weary of listening to lazy drivel
Very true! They opposite for Hugh
You see that's not an excuse he was there for a debate he failed to debate. When anyone with a weak argument turns to insult, rather than FACT not theory, peter uses words such as, unthinking and lazy even when his opponent states that he believes something. Peter then says no you don't. That is not debating that's kindergarten level debate. @@mcmanustony
Hugh "You are compressing all temporarity into cosmic time."
Atkins "No I'm NOT. I don't (even) know what that means."
Me "Precisely. That's my summary of this debate."
33:50
😂😂
Epic!
Savage!😅😅😅
Brilliant. Typical evolutionist. How did it get here evolution did it
He keeps repeating the word “naive” to try to elevate himself, but Hugh calmly and respectfully smacks him back down.
What a brilliant question “what evidence would science have to give you in the future for you to believe that there is a Creator”! Justin did an excellent job as a host !
How can Atkins attack the Bible when he hasn’t even read it?
he read some of it and it was enough, its a book of nonsense, how many pages of nonsense you read doesn't change that, he is a scientist that knows religions are made up nonsense and he doesn't waste his time with them because he is a scientist doing science and writing a lot of books on science
@@davespond9176 String theory is described in Genesis 1.
@@Dude_Slick nonsense
@@davespond9176 String Theory in essence is described as strings of energy vibrating at differing frequencies to create all the varying densities of matter. Yes or no?
@@davespond9176 Cat got your tongue Dave?
I have watched a lot of these debates and I find them tremendously interesting! An observation I've made, is that the atheists tend do be (or at least seem to be) more bitter and unhappy in their demeanor...this video is a prime example. I find that an interesting observation.
I think much of it is bc the atheistic worldview is in on itself depressing. No purpose, no ultimate value, no right or wrong, no purpose to the person's struggles. I see some of that in a neighbor of mine who is an atheist and father of a down syndrome girl. All the struggles I see the family go through are completely pointless in his point of view. Therefore the guy himself can't help but look depressed
Yeah the british guy was so arrogant, flippant and rude. Just off-putting behavior quite frankly.
@@BrentSilberbauer Yeah, i see that too. Specially in guys like peter atkins, richard dawkins and christopher hitchens. I watched a debate between christopher hitchens and frank turek and my goodness... the guy really didn't wanna let frank talk. I'm no body language expert but i could see smugness and arrogance in the mere neck and body position CH was sat. And there was a point in wich is hard to describe by writing but i'll try. He took verses out of context from the words of Jesus (so clearly out of context that everybody likes Jesus, christians, atheists, muslims, and nobody uses this texts to attack him cuz is CLEAR he's not meaning those things literally), and as he was saying each quote he went like:
"Din't he say (rises the indicator finger, making a "1")'out of context phrase that makes Jesus look bad out of context', Yes he did! (Raises middle finger with the indicator, making a "2") didn't he say 'out of context quote to make Jesus look bad'? Yes he did!" so on and so fourth like, 4 times. Now just imagine that scene, with him having a smug look and neck pesition (the neck position also says a lot in body language), tell me, won't you think something along the lines of "how old are you? 15?".
I mean, even his brother who's a christian and used to think like CH and even wrote a book "rage against God", guarantees point blank that all this agressiveness is not due to "rationality or logic" as atheists brag about, but as he says in his book's title... a rage against God, a massive will that he doesn't exist. They want, with all their beings God NOT to exist, cuz they wanna be Gods of their own lives. So any person who wants to say that God's real and has demands, enrages them. That's not me saying, is Christopher hitchens' brother, peter hitchens. Watch the video "peter hitchens. God DOES exist", is 8 minutes long
I am neither atheist nor theist. I might consider myself an observationist. If you step away from a pre conceived notion of "God" you can observe both groups equally and un biased. My observations have concluded that because the arguments are inevitably a very emotional issue for both theists and atheists alike. Both groups of followers are prone to offer emotional feelings and personal ideas to the discussion and impose their concepts as fact which inevitably turns the 'discussion' into an argument.
@@ObjectiveEthics are you willing to be an observe for the rest of your finite time?
Im a Christian, by feelings its more to be Atheist, but by intellectual it more to be theistic, Christian.
As they say science can't answer everything.
Just thinking of what best explains reality.
Found Hugh Ross today. This guy is Gods Scientist. Awesome.
Dude is amazing.
Very calm and sensible. I love the character.
@@fullarmor7599 me too, he is awesome!
That's the oxymoron of the century.
There’s others as well…Dr James Tour
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
- St Thomas Aquinas
That is a helpful quotation. Thank you. It helps to know this when meeting strangers.
Let Hugh Ross make his case when he speaks. Atkins consistently interrupted him and even the moderator did too. It's unreal how little courtesy and decorum these two thought to give Mr Ross who stayed polite throughout it all.
Hugh just sits there silent with that grin on his face. Peter just repeats his own theologies and “oh that’s nonsense.” Good job Hugh👍
Dr. Ross represents our Savior, Jesus Christ, beautifully in his peaceful presence and gracious demeanor!
Kimberly McKee exactly...he is exhibiting christ-likeness
Kimberly McKee absolutely
I agree, he seems like a lovely man. He is, unfortunately, deluded.
@@andy4ward.slavaukraini.364 : At least he kindof behaves - except for his nasty habit of public defecation.
And on the other hand, Peter looks very disturbed.
Peter is staring downwards when he is speaking, thus meaning that his creative brain is hard at work. Opposite to this, is Hugh, who has great eye contact and able to speak truth. Peter is also prideful and feels he has it all figured out. Hugh, has a clear understanding that this is all bigger than he is. What a great debate! Hugh hands down has presented himself professionally and respectfully.
"9 different kinds of nothing and each of these nothing is actually something" that made me laugh out loud. How far are some willing to go in refusing God.
Lol. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
A war in in heaven (or in the heavens) & still waring hence spiritual warfare & 1/3 of angels being cast out of heaven...what Satan thought of as a successful assassination (my interpretation of salvation through Jesus) turned out to be a sacrifice for our sake!
As far as they will be allowed
Revelation, during God's wrath, tells how atheists will beg rocks to fall on them, rather than bow down to God and accept Jesus. It's sad to see how Atkins has chosen that same attitude.
Hugh Ross just POWER bombed Peter Atkins through the debate table!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh my goodness.
1 Corinthians 1:19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” c
Tellalli Media WOW this verse blew my mind! I mean truly awesome to read! God knows all and is all. Thank you for sharing this verse.
@@Jayhawk99 Yes brother I am in awe myself everytime I read this verse how true and coherent it is. Glad you appreciate it. Be blessed.
No he didn't
I cant compete with that many exclamation marks!!!.. Told you!
God may You please Bless Dr Hugh even more.
If you don't believe, then don't worry because the second we die we will know the Truth.
LoveU Bae, please read carefully the Bible that describes death as we understand it to happen to humans now. Easy task. Start in Psalms, then move over to Ecclesiastes, (means teacher). Those two books will give you sound understanding of death. You will discover how your statement about what you believe happens at death conflicts completely with the inspired word God gave us in his Word. You can't go wrong, studying David and his son Solomon.
Exactly what I tell atheists " Don't you fret when I talk about death, hell and such things, because, I am just deluded".And they still carry on trying to argue with me
But well said LoveU blessed, well said
Another point I forgot to state: Every human is appointed a probationary period to make their decision for loyalty to God or Satan. If they have not made a true and continuing decision for God by the time of their death, their record will be marked as loyal to Satan. Since death terminates everyone's probation period, what choice we make before death is recorded as our final choice. Be warned: make your choice now. You don't have any assurance how long you will have life. Choose Jesus Christ and his great love for you. He wants you to choose Him and be saved for His kingdom of love.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:01 🌌 The debate explores the origins of the laws of nature, featuring astrophysicist Hugh Ross and atheist Peter Atkins.
00:27 📚 Hugh Ross, president of Reasons to Believe, supports scientific evidence for a creator and Christianity, while Peter Atkins, former Oxford professor, argues the laws of nature can be explained without God.
01:09 🌌 Hugh Ross traces his journey to faith through studying astronomy, recognizing the universe's beginning, leading to belief in a Creator.
03:14 🔬 The debate delves into the Big Bang, fine-tuning of the universe, and the origin of life. Ross emphasizes evidence supporting a theistic model.
06:12 🌌 Peter Atkins aims to explain the origins of the laws of nature through principles of simplicity, indolence, anarchy, and ignorance, opposing the need for a divine explanation.
08:27 ❓ Atkins challenges theistic explanations, arguing for science's pursuit of naturalistic explanations and criticizing religious perspectives.
12:19 📖 Ross defends theism using evidence from the origin of the universe, life, humanity's uniqueness, fine-tuning, and the Bible's scientific predictions.
18:01 🔍 A key point of contention emerges: Did the universe have a beginning? Ross asserts causality beyond time and a divine origin, while Atkins questions the application of causal relationships before time.
22:34 🤔 Atkins remains optimistic that science will eventually explain the origin of the universe without invoking a divine creator, while Ross maintains that theism provides a more satisfying explanation.
23:29 📖 Ross mentions that the Bible's predictions about the universe aligning with modern scientific understanding impress him, whereas Atkins dismisses religious texts as fantasies.
23:57 🌌 The expansion of the universe is described in biblical texts and has been recognized by Jewish scholars long before scientific discovery.
25:16 🕰️ Creation ex nihilo: The universe's existence out of nothing contradicts eternal existence proposed by other beliefs like Hinduism and Confucianism.
26:26 🌌 Lawrence Krauss' "universe from nothing" doesn't actually demonstrate the universe's origin from absolute nothing; it proposes something existing for fluctuations.
28:02 🌀 The challenge of imagining absolute nothingness and the transition to something raises fundamental questions about causality and existence.
29:25 🔀 A hypothesis of symmetry leading to conservation laws suggests that the emergence from nothing preserved its properties, resulting in the universe's fundamental laws.
31:59 🌌 The fine-tuning argument suggests that the universe's constants and properties are so precisely set that life is possible, which raises questions about design and purpose.
33:36 🌌 The fine-tuning argument can be addressed through the multiverse hypothesis, but its theoretical nature and causality challenges make it less satisfying for some.
40:45 💰 The analogy of piling pennies to the moon illustrates the incredible precision required for fine-tuning to allow the emergence of life in the universe.
46:13 🪶 Exploring the possibility of other forms of life, the limits of human understanding, and the broader significance of life in the cosmos.
48:43 🌍 Hugh Ross highlights the idea that papers published by scientists might be influenced by the multiverse theory rather than originating solely from their minds.
49:12 🔍 Ross discusses the possibility of an infinite number of universes having life if one appeals to the concept of actual infinity, challenging the multiverse hypothesis.
49:39 🧠 Ross contrasts his belief in a God with Peter Atkins' view of a "mindless" God, rooted in Anglican theology's idea that the universe's complexity implies a divine mind.
50:21 ⚖️ Atkins criticizes Ross's use of cause and effect, particularly in terms of the second law of thermodynamics, and points out misunderstandings of the law.
50:49 🔄 The conversation moves towards a break, acknowledging the lively debate between Ross and Atkins on the origin of the laws of nature.
51:03 🎙️ The host, Justin Brierley, previews the upcoming segment and the ongoing discussion between Ross and Atkins.
51:15 🔗 A quick promotion for Premier Christian Radio's app is presented, relating to the show's theme of conversations between Christians and skeptics.
51:29 🗣️ The discussion returns to Peter Atkins, who delves into the second law of thermodynamics and its interpretation as it relates to decay and chaos.
52:23 📖 Atkins emphasizes the context of the word "decay" in ancient writings, pointing out its relevance to their surroundings and not to the modern concept of thermodynamics.
53:03 🌌 Atkins discusses the perception of entropy in the universe and its implications for disorder, while Ross argues that local structures can emerge from decay.
53:16 🕊️ The conversation shifts towards theological implications, where Ross asserts that fine-tuning evidence is enhanced within a redemptive theological framework.
54:39 🔍 The discussion challenges the fine-tuning argument's explanations and its application within different belief systems.
55:06 🌀 Ross addresses the idea of cosmic heat death and asserts that redemptive theology promises a divine rescue from it.
55:20 📜 Atkins engages in a discussion about evidence and falsifiability, expressing skepticism about the potential to prove the existence of God.
56:30 🌌 Ross presents his view on evidence-based belief and its relationship to atheism, highlighting the progressive proof of being right.
57:45 🕊️ The discussion explores whether evidence could persuade Atkins to believe in God, with him suggesting such evidence is highly unlikely.
58:59 🔐 Atkins emphasizes his view that it's unlikely for any evidence to change his atheistic stance, considering it more likely that he'd go mad.
59:55 🤔 Both debaters discuss whether they'd want their beliefs to be proven wrong, showing contrasting perspectives on their convictions.
01:00:21 🔄 The debate concludes with a consideration of evidence, beliefs, and the desire for their respective stances to be challenged.
I lost God but this gives me hope in finding him once again
He never lost you, He loves you!
The gamechanger for me was consciousness and free will. You are more than a bunch of chemicals. Merry Christmas ❤️
God hadn't lost you. Prayers♡🙏🏽
He found you already!
He has always been with you!❤
Hugh Ross is a legend!
Yes, I'll bet his foolishness is legendary. Most of what he spouts on about is pure nonsense. Like most theists, Ross is sparse on evidence.
@@bundleofperceptions1397 What is *_your_* actual evidence? You simply, lazily made a broad sweeping comment without offering any basis whatsoever for doing so.
※ Shulamitefire ※ Incendiumata Amoriolio ※ yep!
Unbelievable!!! This guy said that he found confirmation of big bang and all physics correctly in the Bible... He clearly hasn't read the first chapter of Genesis... God created day and light and night 3 days before creating the Sun and moon... Then God gave all plants and trees for humans as food... A very informative and reliable story indeed... Every physicist, if he reads the genesis 1, will instantly embrace it as true... But he must be a true scientist...
@Colin Dowson So, one must have a PhD in NT Studies in order to be correct about Christianity? Please explain what Hugh is lying about. Thanks.
Peter Atkinson’s behavior tells you all you need to know about the strength of his position.
That's pretty presumptuous.
When you can't master the facts, indulge sophomoric attacks. Fits Atkinson to tee. At least, Dawkins could be gracious.
Sad to admit this, but you’re right.
just discovered Hugh Ross, man , his calmness, humility, patience, and all- moved me to my core! where does he get that?or should I say, from whom?
You know what the real amazing thought out of this whole debate is. God still loves Peter Atkins and longs for him to turn to Him.
Amen 🙏🏽
Jesus is always knocking at the door....waiting to enter our hearts....to grant us free gift of eternal and abundant life, why dont we let Him come in ?
@@kongchan437 Because man loves his sin and doesn't want the righteousness of God. Very sad.
Agree, all of us Christians should pray for Atkins and all humans who deny God and his offer of Salvation. Like the guy Pazuil ( sp of his last name). He posted alot on this issue
@@fredweber6585 how you know only Christianity is true
OH WOW! What an honest man this Peter Atkins is! I've never seen a debate end with one side completely conceding all rationale by the end. He literally said that there's nothing that could convince him that God exists, yet he calls the Christians the lazy scientists! This show is living up to its name! Even the guests are unbelievable...
IKR? I saw 3 debates with atheists in wich their methodologies are such that they make it impossible for ANYTHING to count as evidence for God. First is this one where PA says that he would have to see, and that even if he did see he would doubt his sanity, therefore.... nothing would ever count as a proof for God with such a methodology.
The second was michael shermer against david wood (and david does point out how themethodology makes it impossible to see anything as proof of God), Michael Shermer says that highly advanced aliens' tech would be indistinguishable from God, therefore, anything that points out to God, He just says "aliens". That way NOTHING will serve as evidence for God.
Another one i saw was David silverman (atheist) saying:
"We are open minded. We just want evidence (the more the atheists brag about this, the more convinced i am that it is BS), the difference is that when we find something that we don't know how to explain naturally and say 'GOD'. We just admit we don't know." See the error in the methodology? I get the "God of the gaps" objection, but the way he framed it in the debate, EVERYTIME something that might actually point to God he's just gonna say "i don't know. The explanation MUST be natural. Can't be God, Can't insert God when i can't explain naturally". So nothing will EVER serve as a proof of this supernatural being cuz if it seems supernatural or done by God the answer will be "i don't know. Can't insert God just bc i don't know the (natural) answer"... if that's his methodology, when is he EVER gonna see anything as proof for God? Never. The more debates i watch the more i see that most atheists just DON'T WANT God to exist, and Christopher Hitchen's christian brother assures that. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't so often insist in methodologies that clearly make it impossible for anything to serve as evidence for God.
But of course... they "just want evindence".... Bull----!
It's also funny how religiously he talks about _"tHe SciEnCe"_
@@dave9640 lol, the athiest creation: _"At first, there was nothin, and then it exploded"_ 😂
@@John-X do you have a source for that version of the Big Bang? Are you sitting on it?
It’s almost as if you’re just a lazy ignoramus…
@@John-X what’s funny about “the science”? It’s shorthand for a hard won scientific consensus. Ross’s views are rejected and refuted by what’s known.
“Funny”? Good god you’re easily amused
Dr Hugh Ross has been blessed with the gift of wisdom by God!!!
I'm telling you
crying shame he doesnt use it when it comes to zombies
@@davespond9176 you again 🤣 still trolling.
@@davespond9176 you may believe in zombies but can you prove that God doesn't exist??? 🤣🙏.
@@jesusfreak7777 i do not believe in boogeymen because i know they are just stories used to scare children and those with child like minds. When you disprove Frankenstein's monster Dracula werewolves and Bigfoot, Ill use the same method to disprove your boogeyman story
That was incredible. Special credit to the moderator, who did a fantastic job keeping up and making this easier to follow.
I'm so glad I stuck around until the end! The final part of the discussion was the root of it all. Amazing moderator and extraordinary scientists. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
There's only one practicing scientist here. Ross gave it up decades ago.
@@mcmanustony So you’re an atheist I guess? Lol😂 The amount of evidence y’all reject is insane.
@@mcmanustony Atheism destroys the foundation of science - because it destroys the mind. Molecules have neither thoughts nor free will. Merry Christmas ❤️
@@immanuel829 This is just bigoted nonsense. Try to get out more and interact with adults to see how it's done.
Hugh Ross seems an affable enough man....he gave up science a long time ago and has been a full time apologist ever since.
@@mcmanustony How come we have free will?
Atkins' main arguments:
-"No I'm/it's not" "Yes it is"
-"This is nonsense"
-"But I don't believe that"
Texitlox watch it again u missed most of this debate
Whizman Of course it is possible that I've missed a sound argument of Atkins against Ross'. Could you tell me the minute where this happened during the video? Because I don't have the time to watch it again.
Texitlox Nice try troll 🐸
Perhaps not anything "started it." Our universe may have been secreted out of yet another universe,which came from yet another, which then boils down to bubbles forming within an overarching (non-conscious) mega-verse that did not begin and will not end. It would have its own time separate from ours, so mini-verses within it can have their own apparent beginnings. Beginnings within a necessary mega-verse that never began. Why not? It's a philosophical idea as much as theism.
Texitlox
Atkins is committed to atheism regardless of how unlikely "mathematically speaking" this universe exist to support advanced life. His theory isn't falsifiable and therefore isn't a theory at all.
Justin is such a skillful moderator.
We need him in world diplomacy.
Exactly. His skill blows my mind.
Right? I kept pausing the video every second Peter talked. The guy is meant to be incredibly intelligent and accredited, but he argues like a four year old; very contrarian 😂 God has blessed Justin and Hugh with incredible patience. I pray He continues to bless them for using this gift to His glory
We should be praying for Mr. Atkins. He has lived almost all his life here on earth, he is close to his destination, it is just about time he turn to his Creator before it is too late.
Pretty sure his parents aren’t alive anymore
Absolutely.
Peter Atkins is the type of uncle every child would love to annoy/poke fun at. Not due to his worldview or opinions, but his apparent temperament.
Manu. Hopefully, your experience as an uncle has been/will be like mine: affectionate teasing, being laughed with, not at (I think!).
Manu
The kind of old drunk you meet in a pub who'll vomit in your shoes, punch you while you're not looking and touch up your girlfriend.
Do you mean that kind of uncle?
Great minds debating, however, Dr Ross is far less defensive and far more honest as a pure scientist. Dr. Atkins come across as being the lazy one though he accuses Ross of that.
Phillip Castaneda
You say lazy but the truth is he has never really had much to contribute in these types of debates other than a bad very attitude almost a typical bully without the fisticuffs. His debate with Stephen Meyers is pretty typical; old age however is slowing him down mentally.
And the old second law of thermodynamics sidestep is as you say part of his typical lazy bullshitting.
@@kymvanderkaag1474 to be fair, it's difficult for Atkins to debate someone who just says "god did it"
Kudos to Dr Ross! Polite, articulate, and knowledgeable!!!
Mr Ross for the win..no contest! This poor soul clearly rejects all possibilities of God! Mr Ross is such a gentleman through the entire debate. Love listening to Mr H. Ross..Thank you!!!
once he says "There's no evidence for God, zero, Nada!"
Then he says
"Yeah, i guess nothing would convince me otherwise, not even i Jesus showed up before me or if i died and saw God."
Of course he says "there's no evidence!" then, when he admits nothing would convince him... he implies that the reason he doesn't believe is not because there's no evidence, since he himself admits nothing would work as an evidence for him. he's not just skeptical, he's stuborn and in denial, that's why he doesn't believe, nothing to do with lack of evidence, he lost the debate when he says at the same time that theres just no evidence for God and that nothing for him would count as an evidence, those two statements added together already made him lose the debate.
I couldn't see any strong atheistic argument from Atkins. He has more an attitude problem rather than being a rational, humble thinker.
Hugh Ross is amazing. GOD LIVES !
All I can say is, when I grow old I wanna have the look/aura of Hugh who seems so calm, content & happy with what he believed in. I don’t wanna look like Peter who looks sad, stressed out and confused about the things that he is fighting for…
I noticed and thought the same thing…just look at the difference in expression and demeanor between the two.
@@emilys5024 the peace of God
A common trait among Christians. That is one thing that attracted me to it so strongly. As rianalouw points out, God's peace.
Delusion of faith.
Well, in all fairness, Peter has a few years on Hugh too. I think both men can be equally respected.
Hugh: "I've seen Nobel Laureates come to Christ, most of my colleagues came to faith."
Atkins "Why do you think that is?"
Hugh "They've been exposed to the evidence."
Atkins "That evidence doesn't exist!" 17:00
@demi- dogg If you really look for statics about Nobel, something quite easy nowadays, you will find that, through history, there have only been 10% of non believers(including atheist, agnóstics, humanists... ), among which, only 10% in physics, so, a very weak percentage.
Don't try to lie. Despite ther beliefs, it shows anything, apart from not contradiction,but don't try, nevertheless, to dismerit other fields of knowledge, even when, for example, there have been more writters into atheism than in phisics, chemistry and medicine altogether. I repeat, search information.
@demi- dogg So, you have a comment from two months ago, and now you are telling this lie in order to what? You are not so special to be deleted, nevermind... The world from your perspective, as it is when coming into irrationality of atheists, you destroy culture, remake history and you shut up whatever you don´t like. For example, yesterday, a not very smart atheist told me that how could I be a physicist and believe? After many arguments that he didn´t want to listen to, he even refuse that both Bohr or Pauli were believers and christians. You have a big problem, because truth for you don´t exist.
@Dan Delgado I am telling you facts about NOBEL PRIZES, as he refused to accept that vast majority of them are believers. And I have even counted the last 10 years, where we have seen many other. But keep on taking statics wrongly, because you don´t know how to understand them, it seems, as, for example, you are confusing lack of religion with lack of belief(Spoiler: Nothing to do). However, revise your sources of intelligence-belief. You will be surprised by what it really happens. Or even better... Why aren´t you telling that 58% of American Scientists are believers according to Pew Research centre, a 7% more than a century ago. Statics are not as you'd like.
@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 This 10% also was given for deist, free thinkers and those. But, take into account that religion was pursued in 20th century in Rusia, and it is currently in many parts of the Wordl, as in China. So, it is an achievement, but read again what I was answering to firstly.
demi- dogg omg I was really confused what was going on I’m like how tf is everyone roasting Atkins but that makes much more sense
God bless the kid he knows enough to interview these two
Kid?
Ander Son Right?
What is gods? And what means blessing?
All three are highly intelligent.
@@guillaumelecam6257 i said God i never said Gods