Werner Heisenberg, the Father of Quantum Physics, said "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist; but at the bottom of the glass, God, is waiting."
Werner Heisenberg was not the father of Quantum Physics, he was one of many quantum mechanics, a better candidate would be Kepler and his three-body problem which predates Werner Heisenberg.
@@hoopmania9912 Sorry, you lost me there. They use evidence to test God? You mean if you give them evidence of God, they will use it to test God? How can they test... Mmm.. God? Even if God came down, many wouldn't believe? Why not? Have you ever heard anyone saying I don't believe in the sun? If God is evident to all , no one will say they don't believe. And you didn't answer me. What is the evidence for God that you have? I have no intention of testing anyone. Promise.
@@farvision Demanding evidence for God is a bit like a character in your dream last night demanding evidence of his/her dreamer (i.e. you!) How would/could the dreamed character possibly gain any such evidence (of you, the dreamer) when they were ultimately nothing but an image in your own dreaming mind?
Evidence: 1. Jesus's fulfilment of prophecy 2. Jesus's resurrection 3. Existence of the universe 4. Existence of life 5. Structure & design of DNA 6. Over 10,000 archaeological discoveries confirming the accuracy of the Bible 7. Hundreds of references to a cataclysmic flood in every culture around the world 8. Physics of radiation (deadly, and life-giving = energy) 9. Orbit of Earth 10. Properties of water 11. Rationality of universe 12. Design in universe 13. Blood types 14. Archaeological discoveries 15. Paleontological discoveries 16. History 17. Human moral conscience 18. Human ability to perceive purpose in the way things are 19. Miracles 20. The fossil record Billions of other pieces of evidence you'll find, if you would only seek them (or Him).
@@atheistangel007 Some people consider him wrong. We have choices in listening and paying attention. I make different choices and consider he is right. Good luck to you. Good luck to atheist angels, may they broaden their minds.
I've been saying this same thing for years but I've been using the wrong terms to describe it. Hats off to John Lennox for telling us a more convincing way of explaining what's obvious to Christians and other believers. It's a different category.
But it's really not. Things either exist, or they do not, and the only category that science deals with, is what DOES exist. Right now, ANY "god" is in the "does not exist" category as there is zero hard evidence for any, and a "god" by common definition simply cannot exist. Mr. Lennox is terribly wrong on every single one of his claims.
@@kateknowles8055 Why can't he answer a simple question? i.e. Why would an intelligent designer the designer of the universe- design us to crap out stinky filthy dirty turds, to be able to have wet farts in public, and to crap our ourselves by accident. Are we to conclude this intelligent designer couldn't think of a better design? such as making human turds taste and smell like Cadbury's chocolate.
@@DrMontague I suppose God included turds in the human design and made them smelly deliberately so that we wouldn’t play with them … they are a good way of getting rid of used foodstuff, they are also an essential part of the composting cycle … and are symbolic of the death and resurrection scheme. Your objection to that part of design theory seems aesthetic rather than scientific.
Prof Lennox’s words are like gifts from God. Oh thank you Prof for sharing your wisdom with us. Every time I listen to Prof L (even over and over to the same lecture) I get more and more! Love this humble wise and brilliant man.
@@DrMontague Would it help if you cut some rich foods and increase your portions of parsley and celery, scientifically experimentally? My designer gives me interesting choices day by day (and I am not a robot).
@@kateknowles8055 You don't know my diet, But surely your intelligent designer could have designed you in such a way that you don't get skid marks on your knickers, that you can't accidentally crap yourself in public, spare care workers the joy of having to clean up other peoples excrement,
Sometimes. It is fascinating but a lot of it is theory and then that changes. And then your stuck. But here is a quick run down. This is a temporary world. It changes. Man changes. But God does not change. When it is said, for God so loved the world. He still does 2000 years later. Men put value on human life by their credit score or what they own. God does not. He values every life the same for it is he who breathed his very life into man. And no he does not consider men and women differently even though we may have different rolls in this world.
@@alinucalinuc4124 Let's start with his first claim, about putting God into the "wrong category", Stephen did not. When it comes to reality and science, there is only 1 category, something either exists and is true, or it does not and is not, there is no in between. If a god existed, then it would be a matter of science and everything that deals with reality, there are no other "categories" for this.
Yeh, the universe is perfect for humans and life to live in! Asteroids, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, radiation, cosmic rays!!!!!! Wake up will you!??
The more I watch Mr. Lennox the more I like him. He is like Jordan B. Peterson and Thomas Sowell in that they explain very complex ideas, that are ingrained in us, very simply without being insulting or condescending.
He's talking nonsense though. Instead of offering evidence for the resurrection he says you need to accept a different kind of evidence! He says he doesn't use "god of the gaps" but then says his questions and answers "stop at god". He speaks nicely but it's word salad.
@@anthonyeaton5153 You are correct at different stages those in power who also enforced religion ignored scientific facts and also punished those who went against them. This goes against the core of Christianity. These days the RELIGION is not part of politics but still science confirms the bible and God and vice versa.
"Science confirms and explains what God has created." TRUE science does. There is a lot these days that flies the flag of science the way pirate ships used to fly merchant flags, and for the same reason.
@@anicecupoftea8303 Suffering is a moot topic. Have you checked out the stories of healing that are in the New Testament. Psalms also address many human conditions. Book of Job is a challenge if you are off work ill for a few days more than you wished. Prayer lists help some of us.
The christian claim is not "We don't know, therefore God did it.". The christian claim is far grander - God created everything, including that, which we know, that, which we don't know, that, which we could some day learn and understand and that, which we could never learn and understand.
Thank you for sharing your gift of wisdom and debunking the separation of God and science that has been pushed by acadamia and industry for decades now. King Jesus lives
Wow! Glad I listened. You have helped me to understand that items need to be placed in their right category. If no proper definition or understanding is established, it is easy to respond to questions from a different category and nothing really gets answered
How about science and tooth fairies? Science and astrology? Science and Santa Clause? Should I keep going? Do any of these examples help you understand? How about science and Poseidon? Science and Zeus?
@@DrMontague God designed us to enjoy everything in fine balance. BUT stinking(pollution) comes from the overdoing of any given thing (by not following the right principles, rules, and laws -This is called Sin in the bigger picture )we consume (physically mentally, and chemically, etc.) And The same stinking turds are not shit to other designed creations of God which are in a way doing the cleansing work of the stinking we become (plants and animals). So the intelligence is beyond measure to make us see what its grand depth scale and beauty and exuberance and whatnot?!! The Intelligent Designer Designed things absolutely marvelous and to be perfect in any observable measure. Thank you for being and the question sir. God bless you.
I just recently started listening to some videos of Lennox Im not certian about the existence of God. However, he is a brilliant man who knows how to convey information. Thanks for the video!
Nick, have you weighed the possibility that God exists and created everything?, or that absolutely nothing created everything?, which is a scientific impossibility. I love thinking about the truly miraculous nature of the cosmos, it fascinates me. I love reading about the fine tuning that you see in the universe and to me that points to an intelligent mind outside of time and space. There is a lot of evidence for Christ, His existence, His crucifixion and His resurrection
@brian mendenhall I think it's likely that a Supreme Being created the universe. But I'm not sure how one can go from the Supreme Being making the universe to God of the Bible.
@@nickh.44 Yes, the idea of an all creating God doesn't need the addition of any particular religious beliefs - including those of the Christian faith. In fact, it renders this whole theist vs atheist argument redundant and unnecessary. God = simply what is. And so the whole thing becomes very intimate and personal. No religious beliefs, dogmas, rituals, books, sermons or arguments required!
The more we look at the structure of the cell, and the complexity of the moving parts even within the cell, and keep going deeper past the combinations and sequences of the amino acids and carbohydrates, and even past the molecules and into the atoms, it evident that there has to a be a being with an intelligence and power far capable beyond our imagination. Darwin didn't know just how intricate and complex even the simplest of cells were, never mind the cells within a human body to come up with a joke of a theory of the origin of life. Well he didn't come up with it as it was thousands of years old, but now with the technology and the intellect that God has endowed us, we can see that what we've been taught at school about the origin of life and the pseudo-science of macroevolution were straight up lies. Unless you believe all this came from absolutely nothing. Then you should at least expect that a hurricane would go the the junk metal scrap yard and build a fully functioning helicopter randomly. That's more believable than everything in the universe popping into existence from nothing out of nowhere randomly.
The ridiculous complexity in the cell is evidence of bottom up evolution and not top down designing. The more simple the design the better design. No competent designer would ever create such a mess. Entropy and disorder predicts complexity as there are more complex possible states than simple ordered possible states.
@@markb3786 Entropy and disorder helps build a cell from the ground up? Where did the necessary building blocks and materials even come from to be affected by entropy and disorder?
Exactly, it baffles me that they actually would believe that absolutely nothing created everything vs. an intelligent mind that transcends our tiny brains....Like Frank Turkek states, it's takes more faith to believe in their miracle😄
I was actually quite sad when Hawking explained his disbelieve in God in terms of entanglement. In his mind he said if entanglement is completely random then he must believe that the universe is also random and does not need God as an explanation for it. What made me sad was he really turned his back on both science and God because he could not find an explanation for either. Because he couldn’t understand it There was no reason to believe in it.
I really need to incorporate many of these ideas into my ordinary thinking. They sound wonderful here but when I turn and have a conversation with someone, these ideas about categories do not quickly come to mind and when I hear someone make a "category error," it does not immediately come to mind that that's what they've done. I've revisited this discussion three times already.
True believers will perform greater wonders than Jesus. Says religion. Show me. X-ray photography can show up broken bones without surgery. Says science. Show me. I have seen. Nobody said I had to choose. But I have chosen.
@@benvanrensburg4261 No, I won't! My healed clavical (collar bone) is unoperated, and is privately mine. I saw the Xray of the healing, already just beginning ,four hours after the break. Individual evidence, and you have chosen already to believe or not believe it! You can have belief in science and in God.
@@benvanrensburg4261Are you talking about Wilhelm Röntgen, who was awarded the nobel prize for producing x-rays? He was a prominent member of the Dutch Reformed Church. You do know that science just means to study, yes? Studying a field and believing in a God are not mutually exclusive.
There's no doubt that these kinds of conversations have value. Highly educated people, scientists, philosophers, theologians may enjoy going round and round with unbelieving colleagues. The problem is that these lines of argumentation ultimately lack any power whatsoever to convince or convert. The power to convert an unbeliever doesn't lie in scientific, philosophical or logical arguments. It can only be found in God's revealed Word; the Bible. Isaiah 55 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it." A simple undeniable fact (according to I Corinthians) is that unbelievers (those without the Spirit) will find all this "God talk" a bunch of nonsense and foolishness. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. So while philosophical conversations do have value, the real power to convert unbelievers lies in The Bible, which should be part of every conversation.
Nobody is saying that he defines God as the God of the gaps, we're saying that theists try to fill every unknown with the God of the gaps. He does this himself, he brings up abiogenesis as evidence for God. It's shocking how intelligent this guy is and yet allows himself to undulge in this drivel.
More accurately he brings up abiogenesis in order to point out that evolution is not about the origin of life but rather about speciation of life, and as such insufficient as an explantion for the origion of life. Theology on the other hand does address the origin of life, though obviously not in a scientific manner nor adhering to the scientific restrictions of using language.
@@BlacksmithTWD No scientist claims evolution addresses the origin of life, it’s not yet understood, just because scriptures mention it doesn’t mean they’ve shed any light on it whatsoever. It’s not yet known how life starts but given the spectacular success of naturalistic explanations so far i would put my money on it having a natural origin
@@grahamblack1961 "No scientist claims evolution addresses the origin of life, it’s not yet understood" Nice to rephrase what Lennox and I said, though not needed since we were in agreement on that already as the point was that evolution is insufficient to explain the origin of life. " just because scriptures mention it doesn’t mean they’ve shed any light on it whatsoever." On the contrary, various religious scriptures worldwide to provide a model, however none are scientific models, that doesn't mean they are not true it just means they are not true in a scientific sense, they can still be quite true in other senses. But obviously if you already dismiss them because they are not scientific, you deprive yourself of the oppertunity of finding that out for yourself. There is way more to reality than merely what has been demonstrated to be most likely true by scientific models. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Plato's cave, or watch the movie 'the matrix' for a more modern depiction of the same idea.
An important thing to note, imo is that Hawkins statement assumes that religious folk are somewhat intellectually honest. .. and they clearly aren't. I mean imagine trying to claim day and night existed "days" before creation of sun is in any way logic or scientific... Like this clown.
*Could listen to John for hours .It's nice to hear someone sane* Anyone trying to rationalise the irrational by attempting to justify a belief in an entity that is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist has lost the plot.
I think that the phrase "you must choose between God and science" might have been right, though not in the way Hawking thought. It's correct in that you won't ever be able to empirically prove the existence of God without a shadow of a doubt, especially not with the direct physical evidence that many atheists often insist is necessary. Science and reason can and often does lead people to God and Christ, but the jump from scientific understanding to actually believing in God will always require a leap of faith. You need to be able to accept that you do not and cannot know if God is real with 100% certainty, and choosing to have faith in God despite that. It is the ultimate test of humility, one that you cannot complete if you refuse to let go of your pride.
If the species of apes called "homosapiens" would not have come into existence by evolution, some two hundred thousand years ago, the concept of a god or gods and all the stupid and often cruel doctrines would not have come into existence neither!
The science does not change, our understanding of the science increases with time. And certainly the way god is understood today bears little comparison with the god of old.
Hawkins now knows the truth,sad very sad but he more than most saw the wonder of creation from the smallest bug with life in it to the unknown universe
@@arfermo853 An intelligent designer thought it would be a good idea to design humans to shit dirty stinking turds?! Have you ever had a wet fart in public? went to fart and followed through i.e. shit your pants? And you believe this is the work of an intelligent designer? Care home workers and care workers have to clean up incontinent people everyday, clean up dirty stinking turds and piss, and you think this is an intelligent design? If lennox becomes senile and incontinent would you like to clean up his dirty stinking turds? You lot are weird. Now I want you to think of a way that humans could be designed to stop them having to shit dirty stinking turds. You are the designer.
Absolutely SPOT ON!!! I'm so very glad people are seeing through the fog and confusion, thanks to people like John Lennox! The statement "I don't believe in God, because I instead believe in science" is so confused on a profoundly deep level!
You can't believe in the two? There are far too many errors & no real credible or useful scientific information in any of the competing & conflicting, geographically & culturally, manmade texts?
Sir Isaac Newton, the creator of calculus, one of the most prominent, ground breaking scientists in history, wrote more in favour of Christianity than he did on math or science. Mengel, the father of genetics, was a monk. Copernicus was a Catholic canon. Roger Bacon, math and optics, forerunner of the scienttific method, a Franciscan friar. “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur, Catholic.
_MrBiggles,_ if I say 2+2=4, but I write more in favor of leprechauns creating and running the universe, does that mean leprechauns _did_ create the universe? Is it possible for a person to be right on one topic but wrong on another, or is everything I say 100% true after I say 2+2=4? I feel like on any other topic, theists are smart enough to know the arguments they're making are _absolutely friggin terrible._ So why do they make arguments this bad for god(s)?
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur, Catholic. A simple claim, it evinces nothing more than unimaginative bromide.
Perhaps there is no gravity. It’s just a word for an experience, a sort of ”fact” that we take for granted. Newton asked the question but could only state something we all experience every single moment in our lives.
Yes that's right, in fact he mentions in the full interview his book 'Can Science Explain Everything?' that science doesn't even explain the things we think it explains. While science can answer the 'what' questions, it doesn't answer the 'why' questions (the why of purpose). I have an upcoming interview with John on Artificial Intelligence - hoping to publish this in October.
Newton was born the same year Galileo died under house arrest for heretical science beliefs: perhaps Newton’s Principia dedication was simply an attempt to fend off a book ban and/or a prison term.
Cosmologists for years have been struggling with the Big Bang theory, and now the James Webb telescope has shown that this needs to be revised. I see no reason to suppose that the universe needed to be created. The first law of thermodynamics suggests to me that the universe is eternal and therefore did not need to be created.
From the book Albert Einstein … THE WORLD AS I SEE IT An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise: such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. It was the experience of mystery-even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion.
@@thomaswayneward Science versus religion To those heavily invested in religion ... pseudo-science is forced to fit all the religious stories ... which is not science at all. THIS is religion ... which is mythology ... God exists and God IS energy ... and when God created the universe HIS energy ... is ... to this day ... what runs the universe. THIS is science ... which is natural ... The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. And that is why the theory that the universe always existed ... no plan ... no creator ... made and makes sense to more than a few scientists ... including Stephen Hawking. It also makes sense that suffering of all forms of life ... including human life ... is natural. As the two theories are at total odds with each other ... there isn't any room in the theories of science ... FOR religious theology.
@@thomaswayneward From the book, “Ideas and Opinions” … author … Albert Einstein.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just and omnibeneficient personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every thought, and every human aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
@@thomaswayneward There are now hundreds of ex members of clergy that have stepped down from their pulpits and have joined The Clergy Project. From the book … From Apostle to Apostate: The Story of the Clergy Project … authors … Catherine Dunphy, Richard Dawkins Welcome to the Clergy Project. It is hard to think of any other profession, which is so near to impossible to leave. If a farmer tires of the outdoor life and wants to become an accountant or a teacher or a shopkeeper, he faces difficulties, to be sure. He must learn new skills, raise money, and move to another area perhaps. But he does not risk losing all his friends, being cast out by his family, being ostracized by his whole community. Clergy who lose their faith suffer double jeopardy. It is as though they lose their job and their marriage and their children on the same day. It is an aspect of the vicious intolerance of religion that a mere change of mind can redound so cruelly on those honest enough to acknowledge it. The Clergy Project exists to provide a safe haven, a forum where clergy who have lost their faith can meet each other, exchange views, swap problems, counsel each other-for, whatever they may have lost, clergy know how to counsel and comfort. Here you will find confidentiality, sympathy, and a friendly place where you can take your time before deciding how to extricate yourself and when you will feel yourself to stand up and face the cool, refreshing wind of truth. Richard Dawkins
God has confounded the wisdom of the world . Spiritual matters are not discerned by the natural. Our prayer for the lost to come to faith in Jesus is daily!!!!
Agreement with all of this. He opens the eyes to what has been there before, and we walked right past and only just noticed. And moment by moment other new mercies.
But if he was born in a Muslim country or belonged to another religion other than Christianity, he would not be saying any of the things you hear in this video would he ? He also has a tendancy to undermine people he's had discussions with in the past. That is hitting below the belt.
Created from a dispicable fluid, given bones and made rigid. Given hearing, sight and intellect. After all that, man (some men) denies God to his face.
How close do you get to regularly asking what your God wants? Try some humble attempts at listening prayer. Or just try "mindfulness" with quiet fullsome breathing.
@@jerryoconnor-ps8bb With the pantheon of all history you have statistics siding with your current view. (Many little gods and idols: One God who spoke by the Prophets) Working on the otherview point: Circumstancial, individual evidence only. We are a wicked generation seeking for signs and wonders and closing our eyes and ears to anything not testable in laboratories. GOD IS NOT HIDING, He is just providing spaces for a thought-through relationship with each of His human creatures if they can survive outside their comfort zones for one hour at a time. Best wishes
What I find interesting is that the very thesis that won Hawkins his professorship, he later denied as flawed and rejected it! Oh how little humans really know about the universe! ( We even know more about whats in space than in own own oceans! As Socrates said "All I know is that I do NOT know".
When I am trying to do work and study by the principles of science, I must try to find out new things. They may be against my worldview. They may be against traditions and expectances. The meaning of real science is not to prove something but find something.
I once saw an obituary on Hawkins that quoted his response (which I will paraphrase) to the God question, which indicated the answer to the title question: For me to believe in God, I'd have to accept that there are things that are beyond my ability to comprehend, and I am not prepared to do that. In other words, like many great scientists they have the arrogance to think that now we can figure out and prove the answer to everything, whereas belief in God means there is someone greater than me who knew and knows infinitely more than I will ever now. But in truth, scientists still know so little, and true belief in God should be based far more on evidence than on faith. To me the existence of an Omnipotent God is so obvious in the simple facts of life. For example, Hawking would have us believe that a human being -- who must have thousands of body parts work perfectly in order to function in full health, and can have wisdom to plan ahead for the long term, and have feelings to give his life for the sake of another human being -- was created just by itself out of nature, which by sheer luck also created a male and female with matching features (as well as for every living species), gave them each a natural desire to mate with the other and the ability to jointly create a tiny cell that encapsulates a miniature of themselves, and created in the female a complete sophisticated system to feed and develop this tiny thing into a magnificent being, which upon exiting into the world suddenly gets the ability to cry, think, hear, see and feel, and its mother "naturally" starts producing milk for it to feed. And we believers are supposed to be the ones who live in a fantasy world! And, of course, Hawking could explain every one of these questions about the creation of man, right? And why out of an infinitely greater universe, humans only developed on one small planet. And why of all living creatures, only humans have a mind and a heart of their own. And how these brilliant humans don't know about the birds and the bees unless they are told by other humans, while every dumb pigeon knows on its own how to mate, and knows immediately after mating that the female will lay eggs in 8-12 days and thus sets out to build a nest for them, and both male and female know immediately after said eggs are laid in the nest that each must sit on them for 12 hours per day until their child will be produced?
*What Stephen Hawking thought was that the goods that we are talking about are actually like Greek gods but that gods of the gaps not but we are talking about god of everything*
I don't understand any of theoretical physics, but I can recognize a religious fundamentalist when I see one. if prof. Lennox's counter-argument is: - "God is eternal (...) "- sic! yeah? says who? a man- made book) ( "(...) he is the ultimate reality (...)" - yeah? that nobody can see, hear, touch or smell? " (...) the ultimate fact (...) - any fact is supposed to be based on observations, isn't it, professor? "(...) to ask who created him is to show that one does not understand the nature of his being " - it is not matter of one's understanding, it is a matter of one's atheism or theism... So, if all these are professor's argument, then our professor is a genuine fundamentalist. luckily this is 21st century, so he doesn't have power to burn alive. yet...
We cannot see the wind....we can only see the effects on the grass and trees when they sway and wave, we can hear the wind howl, still the wind is invisible, we can feel it on our skin....the same with God. We see him in his works, his creation, And under very special conditions we can see heat waves on a very hot day, when you look at the mountains and you notice a seethrough wavy movement vibrating against the background of those mountains. I once saw an angelic being in a fairly darkened hall, bending in front of a praying chaplain in the front row, waiting for his small flock of police officials to arrive.....a self-contained large sized golden light, no specific shape like angels are portrayed in picture books, no light source from anywhere......it was amazing, until I switched the lights on in the foyer....and poof....just a room with the praying chaplain!
The amount of science that started out with the phrase “what is your evidence“ is in itself eternal. What is your evidence for dark matter or dark energy? They have a question about gravitational impact on the universe but they have no evidence of either dark matter or dark energy, yet the science continues.
Generally scientists are fallible human beings, not gods. Besides someone who is all knowing already doesn't need to search for answers. So I don't know how your statement should be interpret to make sense.
@@rsstnnr76 As I see it it's human beings who experiment and progress in their understanding of God. I'm not at a point where I feel confident to assume either way about God. I just wonder how your statement should be interpret, still not sure.
My own feeling is that the likes of Dawkins, the late Arthur C Clarke, Hitchens et al are not atheists at all : they know that God is (exists), and they hate Him for it. To quote from a book titled Theology and Sanity, by Frank Sheed: "...the soul has come to love self exclusively. Even in this life, that state may have its natural consequence of realized hatred of God, for THE MAJESTY OF GOD IS AN INTOLERABLE AFFRONT TO SELF-LOVE GROWN SO MONSTROUS (emphasis added)." PS You got a thumbs-up!
Lennox’s mistake is to think that there is a purpose that requires the question why. Once again the idea that there must be a purpose is a human construct. Some humans, not all, think there has to be; science does not.
May I: In mathematics, there are infinite sums, that give finite answer. Maybe, the first mover may not be needed. Maybe, God is at the other end of the infite row. Infinite number of creation steps gives a finite creation, a finite world that we experience.
Gobbledegook. Where to start with your errors? May I: "infinite number" is contradiction. If it's a number then it's not infinite. If it's infinite then it cannot be asigned a number. I suspect you won't agree. Infinity in mathematics is a concept only. 1 divided by zero is infinite. That's disputed of course. Can you not just as well say that 1 divided by zero is meaningless? In any case the question of God's existence would not be hanging on our understanding or misunderstanding of mathematics or any other field of enquiry for that matter. At best we can show that faith in God is reasonable just as Lennox in this video quoted Einstein as saying that scientists have faith that the universe is intelligable or they wouldn't bother.
@@gerardk51 You probably noticed that I have used a phrase "infinite number of creation steps". Since English is not my language, I have done some googling and I believe that I have used the phrase correctly. OK, not quite, I forgot an article "An". LOL
It’s not just that the definition is wrong, but the definition of science is wrong, thinking of science as necessarily godless, so that the choice offered becomes “You must choose between God and a godless science.” But defining science independently of God, but instead of using the scientific method (falsifiability, evidence, repeatability of experiments, etc.) then the choice between God and science is not mutually exclusive.
Problem with people like Hawking is when God created mankind, God also created all the necessary learning resources for His children to learn and grow as well....
You just can't place a lot of unearned specificity into your beliefs surrounding what a "god" is or could be. There's room for something that we could define as god, but to attach the hyperspecificity of any one of the thousands of religions currently employed by humanity is bereft of scientific weight. Which is perfectly fine if you choose to harbor such beliefs, but it's only reasonable to talk about god in a scientific setting because god is so conceptually diverse. I suppose that god can fit scientifically, but religion is nearly always anchored in dogma, immediately recusing itself from scientific debate.
You make a good point. There is a difference between faith -- a.k.a. beliefs -- and religions -- hyperspecificity of faith found among the thousands of religions of the world. In terms of epistemology, no one knows everything, therefore everyone believes something. Everyone -- scientists included.
@@liquidpza ... and the extent to which the criteria for establishing the truth or validity of both the review process and the evidence itself is deemed to be valid both in substance and application ...
Hawking, Dawkins, Green, De Grasse, Tesla, and probably Einstein, but not Newton, John Lennox could clip them all with his versality. May God guide him very well to ambitious youth of Physics and Math
Tesla was a believer, although of a New Age kind. Whan you go to Tesla Museum in his native village in Croatia, you will see that Tesla's family was full of highly-ranked Serb Orthodox priests, starting from his father.
@@scotoftheanarchic.7903 Of course Maxwell, and so should you mention Lorentz, so should you mention Schrodinger, etc etc, alas, the above that included Einstein are the most stalwart to me.
Evidence. Whenever I have read a Materialist talk about, or ask about The Evidence for God, i have found that person has never actually looked at What Theists (Christians) really say, and what we believe. Its not that they are stupid, its that they are ignorant.
"God, by definition, is eternal." says Lennox. By whose definition? By human definition, of course. Because we don't have a definitions of God from any other source. Lennox can say what he wants, but the argument still stands. That is, if the evidence of the creation demands a creator, then that creator also needs a creator. Invoking Isaac Newton doesn't help his case. Isaac Newton is dead, and we can't go and ask him to look at the science of today, and give his opinion as to whether it demands a god or not.
I agree he's just parroting a definition someone else made up. But I think their rationale is that either something came from nothing or something has always existed. I can't see any other option, can you? They've convinced themselves that it must be the latter (something has always existed) and that this something (they'll call it the creator) has to be greater than its creation (they work that out logically and call it the ontological argument) so they apply many attributes they think just have to apply/exist/be part of this 'creator.' So they have to define the creator as eternal or it doesn't work as a creator in their minds. It does seem circular reasoning because you'll see where they'll claim a fall back of, 'if it isn't [insert an attribute/quality the believe God must have] it can't be God' which isn't really saying anything other than what the atheist already (thinks he) knows.
@@rizdekd3912 I think the point is that they use the requirement for a creator argument to explain the universe, then abandon that argument when required to explain where the creator came from. If they can say the creator has "always existed", why can't they say the universe has always existed. You can't have your philosophical cake and eat it too.
@@peskyfervid6515 I know...they attach significance to the problem of infinite regress with eternal natural world not realizing the same problem would also apply to a god. Saying something doesn't exist 'in time' like we think of the universe as doing, doesn't really solve anything. If there are sequential events...happenings...even thoughts such as the thoughts involved in deciding, planning and then carrying out creation then that either implies a form of time because time is essentially what separates events from happening in the same eternal instant or owns to the idea that in some cases, multiple things can happen in sequence without time to separate them. In any case, an eternal natural world would seem to fit t
It depends on the form of the creator don't you think? If it was a human then you'd say well a human created it, but the bible clearly states that God is a flame of fire, it also states that God is Light itself, If God is Light itself then He would have Power over All things, I truly believe that gravity is only controlled and programmed energy to do what it's supposed to do
Lennox is wrong to say that the atheist will define the beginning as mass energy or as Nothing. Actually, the atheist is free to say "I don't know". Just because I find it impossible to believe in God, doesn't mean I have an alternative explanation. It's just that God as an explanation for anything seems as unlikely and unsatisfactory as Magic.
I've always said that the only thing science has ever done is to show us how God did these wonderful things we have just now discovered. Science has never disproved God.
@@twosheds1749 that is not the purpose of science. Some scientists have concluded that the universe does not exist. Scientific evidence can interpreted in different ways. Once a theory of everything is discovered, the scienrific method must continue. Such will always be a theory, not absolute fact. Scientists are supposed to have open minds rather than making hasty conclusions. Negatives are nothing more than biases. Theoretical science does not determine absolutes.
@@twosheds1749 of course you can its the easiest thing in the world a negative disproves itself theres no one in the world that believes in a negative. your problem is god isnt a negative and never has been
@@andrewwashburn6080 What are you talking about!? If God is not a negative than prove it exists? You just saying something is true does not make it reality!!! LMAO
The idea was created that a good scientist is an atheist scientist and a scientist who believes in the supernatural is not a good scientist. This idea has been propagate for a long time . The problem is that atheist scientists do not follow the data that science itself shows that all roads definitely lead to an intelligent mind that created everything .
All roads definitely do NOT lead to an intelligent mind that created everything. If we hold that it is true than an intelligent mind created everything then it would have to hold true that an intelligent mind created god as God by definition is something. But if not true that an intelligent mind created God, then it is true that an intelligent mind did not create everything. If somethings were not created by an intelligent mind why not let it be energy, time the universe. After all science can demonstrate that complexity can come from combining simple things, naturally or otherwise.
Couldn‘t have said it better. It was Hugo Grotius who historically stated that science must deal without God. It‘s a mere kind of definition and a very wrong one.
@@NSOcarth What do you mean by "created by" or "Less than" I believe I cam form my parents, they are different from me but i would not consider them less than or greater than me. I do not have the same skills and interest as me. Like my parents I am a product of my skills and experience. In the same way that a house is many from a pile of bricks and other material but a house is more than just a bile of material. Water is more than just Hydrogen and Oxygen So yes I think complexity can come from simple thinks. Why do you have evidence to the contrary because I like to learn about new things, convince me.
The fact that Lennox misrepresented, you know lied about Professor Dawkins statements in a previous discussion makes him a liar. If this deity he believes in needs liars to justify its existence, then, if it actually existed it would be a pathetic being, or maybe, just maybe imaginary.
@@jackthebassman1 Ten months… No reply. Pls read my post. The Principia was dedicated to Charles II. Newton did briefly address God, but not as John Lennox has presented. Newton was very likely a Deist conceiving the possibility of a spiritual god that was not the temporal god of the religions.
That letter I mention in this post I'm pasting was written way back in the early 1960's. I doubt if any of them even read it. . I think Fred Hoyle was right We do live in a steady state Universe. The expanding Universe theory won that argument because they misinterpreted the data. The Doppler shift is cause by the fact that no two galaxies were created at the same time. What is WEIRD IS that I think I sent this theory, In a different form to Fred Hoyle and Isaac Asimov in a letter sent through the publisher of a pocket Astronomy book way back in the Mid-1960's. It was called The Theory Of the Accelerating Universe. Reason: 1) There was no Big Bang. 2) The Universe isn't expanding. It is Accelerating. 3) Galaxies are two discs of stars that are magnetically attracted to one another but can never touch because they consist of opposite kinds of matter, (Our type of matter and its opposite, Antimatter. 4) the result is a Gravity Reaction which moves the Galaxy through space. 5) Because E=MC squared, " Einstein," once a Galaxy started moving, no matter the direction, it would continue to accelerate forever. 6) Because Galaxies are each created separately and at different times and places in space, a galaxy Would eventually pass Younger Galaxies that had been born in front of it, but it could never catch up to older Galaxies That might be out in front of it. They would always be accelerating at a faster rate of speed. So that if you ASSUMED The Universe was created all at once, which I don't believe it was, It would appear that the Universe was expanding, when it isn't. The Doppler effect is the observable result of each galaxy finding its proper place in the Universe: The time when IT ALONE was came into being; THAT and Einstein's E=MC squared. 7) Because we exist within the boundaries of ONE LIGHT-SPEED we can not see all the other Universes stacked one on top of the other; Nor do we know how fat or thin that book is or what page it is that we inhabit
"A little while longer and the world (Governments, educational institutions, businesses, religious organizations, etc) will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also." "thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes(those who are pure in heart)." "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." So-called scientists are working very hard to deny the existence of something that was purposefully kept a secret from them. They will never understand or find God, no matter how hard they search and debate, but just because something hasn't been made clear to you doesn't mean it is not real or doesn't exist. But "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt. 5:8), God reveals himself to such.
Fewer scientists than you think are 'working very hard to deny the existence of something.' Even if they're atheists, that's not the point of what they're doing. They're merely trying to figure out how the natural world works. IF something hasn't been made clear to you, how to you think you know anything about it? Are you pure in heart?
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
Wow. He presents as an intellectual but his arguments are empty. Why of purpose? It's simple THERE IS NO PURPOSE. Deal with it! Make up your own purposes! He's just unable to handle this.
So living in lie is your answer? Making your own purposes for no reason but hedonistic needs is the last thing you want. If life is meaningless just go full stoic then. Why pretend life have some meaning to you when there is no real value in anything. Because then you are acting like religious, but deny it because of pride.
To me logically there should be no existence of anything whatsoever,since nothing cannot create anything. Since there is beyond incredible complexity and order there has to be an uncaused first super intelligent first cause. 1948 proves there is a God and He is the God of Israel.
@@majeedmamah7457 If God created everything, then who created God? How many times have I heard that question or variations of it? But inherent within that question there is an assumption, and this assumption that is wrong. That is because when someone asks the question, “Who created God?”, they make the assumption that there was a time when God did not exist. If God created everything, then He created absolutely everything: space, stars, planets, mountains, rivers, oceans, life etc. This means that He would also have to create all matter (the atoms that things are made from). All this God would have made from nothing or else where did it all come from? He would also have laid out all the rules that hold it all together: the laws of gravity, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics and the rest; all the laws that hold the very fabric of the universe together. This means He also created the dimensions; you know: up - down, left - right and forward - backwards. Without these dimensions there would be no ‘place’ to put the stars and planets etc. If God created everything, *He also created time.* If He created time then there wasn’t a time when God did not exist. This would make God outside of the dimensions of time and space that we are bound by. We are bound by these things; He is not. For God, all of time would be, sort of like an open book. God is bigger than any box we can make for Him. So, the question “Who created God?” is the wrong question because to ask this is to assume that there was a time when God did not exist. Because of this the question is nonsensical and a bit like asking, “What is the smell of the colour 9”. So what is the right question? Well a much better question is: “What is God like?” And the answer to that can be found in the Bible.
As a Muslim and lover of TRUE science, i fully agree with this gentleman. No contradiction between science an faith: only between narrow minded science and narrow minded faith.
@@musamusashi "my dear, if you would know instead of assuming, you would not make a fool of yourself. Have a great day." Translation: "I got busted and have nothing to say, so I opted out to flee instead of address the point". Typical cognitive dissonance of religious people, this is as classic and quintessential as it gets. 👌
Werner Heisenberg, the Father of Quantum Physics, said "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist; but at the bottom of the glass, God, is waiting."
Werner Heisenberg was not the father of Quantum Physics, he was one of many quantum mechanics, a better candidate would be Kepler and his three-body problem which predates Werner Heisenberg.
@@michael-vl1mn Your point being?
@@metaljacket8128 "EVERYBODY talks to God" :)
@@metaljacket8128 Werner Heisenberg was not the father of Quantum mechanics. Try reading what was written.
@@michael-vl1mn Heisenberg, Pauli, Bohr, and Einstein were good uncles. But the nephew is such a tease.
Love John Lennox. Intelligent, eloquent, warm, confident yet humble. May God bless him for his ministry in defense of the Christian faith.
Too bad he doesn't have any evidence for his gods, however good at wordsmithing he is.
@@farvision no amount of evidence is sufficient to the one who doesn't want to believe.
@@hoopmania9912
Why should anyone not want to believe? I want to believe. Can you give any evidence?
@@JD-ro7xe many don't. They use evidence as a way to test God. Even if God Himself came down and revealed Himself many wlll not believe.
@@hoopmania9912
Sorry, you lost me there. They use evidence to test God? You mean if you give them evidence of God, they will use it to test God? How can they test... Mmm.. God?
Even if God came down, many wouldn't believe? Why not? Have you ever heard anyone saying I don't believe in the sun? If God is evident to all , no one will say they don't believe.
And you didn't answer me. What is the evidence for God that you have? I have no intention of testing anyone. Promise.
Brilliant man. Using his mind and heart to bring glory to God.
Except that there's no evidence for any gods, so he totally failed.
@@farvision Demanding evidence for God is a bit like a character in your dream last night demanding evidence of his/her dreamer (i.e. you!) How would/could the dreamed character possibly gain any such evidence (of you, the dreamer) when they were ultimately nothing but an image in your own dreaming mind?
Evidence:
1. Jesus's fulfilment of prophecy
2. Jesus's resurrection
3. Existence of the universe
4. Existence of life
5. Structure & design of DNA
6. Over 10,000 archaeological discoveries confirming the accuracy of the Bible
7. Hundreds of references to a cataclysmic flood in every culture around the world
8. Physics of radiation (deadly, and life-giving = energy)
9. Orbit of Earth
10. Properties of water
11. Rationality of universe
12. Design in universe
13. Blood types
14. Archaeological discoveries
15. Paleontological discoveries
16. History
17. Human moral conscience
18. Human ability to perceive purpose in the way things are
19. Miracles
20. The fossil record
Billions of other pieces of evidence you'll find, if you would only seek them (or Him).
@@farvision there is no evidence to disprove God either.
@@farvision well look to nature and you'll see God
This scholar is very accessible but also very stimulating. Brilliant.
And wrong.
@@atheistangel007 Some people consider him wrong. We have choices in listening and paying attention. I make different choices and consider he is right. Good luck to you. Good luck to atheist angels, may they broaden their minds.
@kateknowles8055 He's wrong because he can be proven wrong, what you believe is irrelevant.
I've been saying this same thing for years but I've been using the wrong terms to describe it. Hats off to John Lennox for telling us a more convincing way of explaining what's obvious to Christians and other believers. It's a different category.
But it's really not. Things either exist, or they do not, and the only category that science deals with, is what DOES exist.
Right now, ANY "god" is in the "does not exist" category as there is zero hard evidence for any, and a "god" by common definition simply cannot exist.
Mr. Lennox is terribly wrong on every single one of his claims.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague I am sorry that you have "ongoing" difficulty in htis respect.
@@kateknowles8055 Why can't he answer a simple question? i.e. Why would an intelligent designer the designer of the universe- design us to crap out stinky filthy dirty turds, to be able to have wet farts in public, and to crap our ourselves by accident. Are we to conclude this intelligent designer couldn't think of a better design? such as making human turds taste and smell like Cadbury's chocolate.
@@DrMontague I suppose God included turds in the human design and made them smelly deliberately so that we wouldn’t play with them … they are a good way of getting rid of used foodstuff, they are also an essential part of the composting cycle … and are symbolic of the death and resurrection scheme. Your objection to that part of design theory seems aesthetic rather than scientific.
Prof Lennox’s words are like gifts from God. Oh thank you Prof for sharing your wisdom with us. Every time I listen to Prof L (even over and over to the same lecture) I get more and more! Love this humble wise and brilliant man.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague Would it help if you cut some rich foods and increase your portions of parsley and celery, scientifically experimentally? My designer gives me interesting choices day by day (and I am not a robot).
@@kateknowles8055 You don't know my diet, But surely your intelligent designer could have designed you in such a way that you don't get skid marks on your knickers, that you can't accidentally crap yourself in public, spare care workers the joy of having to clean up other peoples excrement,
The intelligent designer designed him to crap out stinking filthy turds, that is a fantastic design, wonder if he has ever had a wet fart!
There is no god.
I believe, an honest study of how science works will lead you to faith in a creator.
That's a forlorn belief. 97% of scientists believe in evolution. So no.
And you'd be absolutely incorrect as science exclusively values and relies on evidence, 'faith' is never a component in science.
Sometimes. It is fascinating but a lot of it is theory and then that changes. And then your stuck.
But here is a quick run down.
This is a temporary world. It changes. Man changes.
But God does not change. When it is said, for God so loved the world. He still does 2000 years later.
Men put value on human life by their credit score or what they own. God does not. He values every life the same for it is he who breathed his very life into man. And no he does not consider men and women differently even though we may have different rolls in this world.
@@dw3403 You are describing lots of people not just God. So the question is so what? That's not special in any way.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
God bless prof Lennox, he is a beacon of light and reason in this infantile world!
Did you know snakes talk?
@@mortyharenza9854 Excuse me?
He's still wrong though.
@@atheistangel007 Wrong about what?
@@alinucalinuc4124 Let's start with his first claim, about putting God into the "wrong category", Stephen did not.
When it comes to reality and science, there is only 1 category, something either exists and is true, or it does not and is not, there is no in between.
If a god existed, then it would be a matter of science and everything that deals with reality, there are no other "categories" for this.
Science; the study of God’s universe!
Yeh, the universe is perfect for humans and life to live in! Asteroids, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, radiation, cosmic rays!!!!!! Wake up will you!??
And the religion rebuts ....
The more I watch Mr. Lennox the more I like him. He is like Jordan B. Peterson and Thomas Sowell in that they explain very complex ideas, that are ingrained in us, very simply without being insulting or condescending.
He's talking nonsense though. Instead of offering evidence for the resurrection he says you need to accept a different kind of evidence! He says he doesn't use "god of the gaps" but then says his questions and answers "stop at god". He speaks nicely but it's word salad.
And unlike Peterson who talks gobbledegook half the time, he's far clearer.
@jrgenstorm6536funny because I think atheism is nonsense. Guess people have to agree to disagree.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
The ultimate clown!!
You can choose both God and science. Science confirms and explains what God has created.
Throughout history religion has fought against science only the give way and claim they agreed all along. Hypocrisy on stilts.
@@anthonyeaton5153 You are correct at different stages those in power who also enforced religion ignored scientific facts and also punished those who went against them. This goes against the core of Christianity.
These days the RELIGION is not part of politics but still science confirms the bible and God and vice versa.
@@mattpowell6291 with respect Science does not prove god and science. Listen to Brian Cox.
@@anthonyeaton5153 Science does not prove God and science?
"Science confirms and explains what God has created."
TRUE science does. There is a lot these days that flies the flag of science the way pirate ships used to fly merchant flags, and for the same reason.
May God give him health and many years to live.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
If god can give him health and many years to live, why can’t he do that for everyone?
@@DrMontague Some other topic than turds? I know that medics find the topic of great interest. I enjoy lifting up my heart above my bum mostly.
@@anicecupoftea8303 Suffering is a moot topic. Have you checked out the stories of healing that are in the New Testament. Psalms also address many human conditions. Book of Job is a challenge if you are off work ill for a few days more than you wished. Prayer lists help some of us.
May God bless brother Lennox! A true man of God
Thank you very much for your interest!
Thank god for mr Lennox
The christian claim is not "We don't know, therefore God did it.". The christian claim is far grander - God created everything, including that, which we know, that, which we don't know, that, which we could some day learn and understand and that, which we could never learn and understand.
Rubbish!
Thank you for sharing your gift of wisdom and debunking the separation of God and science that has been pushed by acadamia and industry for decades now. King Jesus lives
There are no gods!
Jesus never existed!
.
Great man full of God's wisdom
No evidence there is any god
Well then, God is wrong.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Wow! Glad I listened. You have helped me to understand that items need to be placed in their right category. If no proper definition or understanding is established, it is easy to respond to questions from a different category and nothing really gets answered
I honestly don't understand how scientists find it so hard to accept science and God.
The world is full of simple. minds like you
Just want the same standard of proof for God's existence.
And, Romans 1:20 about natural revelation _does not_ prove the existence of God.
How about science and tooth fairies? Science and astrology? Science and Santa Clause? Should I keep going? Do any of these examples help you understand? How about science and Poseidon? Science and Zeus?
God is the supreme being the creator not just a fairy tales that is the fact and our human brain mind can't comprehend @@cvanunen
Thank u all for doing these high-end and high-quality questions. timely in need also.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague God designed us to enjoy everything in fine balance. BUT stinking(pollution) comes from the overdoing of any given thing (by not following the right principles, rules, and laws -This is called Sin in the bigger picture )we consume (physically mentally, and chemically, etc.) And The same stinking turds are not shit to other designed creations of God which are in a way doing the cleansing work of the stinking we become (plants and animals). So the intelligence is beyond measure to make us see what its grand depth scale and beauty and exuberance and whatnot?!! The Intelligent Designer Designed things absolutely marvelous and to be perfect in any observable measure. Thank you for being and the question sir. God bless you.
He personifies the granpa I wish I had.
Right!!!!.....don't you just adore granda Lennox?🤔🤣
@@brianmendenhall8387 Has anyone got Lennox and Brailsford together? ua-cam.com/video/Bffm1Ie66gM/v-deo.html
I just recently started listening to some videos of Lennox Im not certian about the existence of God. However, he is a brilliant man who knows how to convey information. Thanks for the video!
Nick, have you weighed the possibility that God exists and created everything?, or that absolutely nothing created everything?, which is a scientific impossibility. I love thinking about the truly miraculous nature of the cosmos, it fascinates me. I love reading about the fine tuning that you see in the universe and to me that points to an intelligent mind outside of time and space. There is a lot of evidence for Christ, His existence, His crucifixion and His resurrection
God is reaching out to you.
Ps. Also Jason Lisle videos
@brian mendenhall I think it's likely that a Supreme Being created the universe. But I'm not sure how one can go from the Supreme Being making the universe to God of the Bible.
@@nickh.44 Yes, the idea of an all creating God doesn't need the addition of any particular religious beliefs - including those of the Christian faith. In fact, it renders this whole theist vs atheist argument redundant and unnecessary. God = simply what is. And so the whole thing becomes very intimate and personal. No religious beliefs, dogmas, rituals, books, sermons or arguments required!
The more we look at the structure of the cell, and the complexity of the moving parts even within the cell, and keep going deeper past the combinations and sequences of the amino acids and carbohydrates, and even past the molecules and into the atoms, it evident that there has to a be a being with an intelligence and power far capable beyond our imagination.
Darwin didn't know just how intricate and complex even the simplest of cells were, never mind the cells within a human body to come up with a joke of a theory of the origin of life. Well he didn't come up with it as it was thousands of years old, but now with the technology and the intellect that God has endowed us, we can see that what we've been taught at school about the origin of life and the pseudo-science of macroevolution were straight up lies.
Unless you believe all this came from absolutely nothing. Then you should at least expect that a hurricane would go the the junk metal scrap yard and build a fully functioning helicopter randomly. That's more believable than everything in the universe popping into existence from nothing out of nowhere randomly.
The ridiculous complexity in the cell is evidence of bottom up evolution and not top down designing. The more simple the design the better design. No competent designer would ever create such a mess. Entropy and disorder predicts complexity as there are more complex possible states than simple ordered possible states.
@@markb3786 Entropy and disorder helps build a cell from the ground up? Where did the necessary building blocks and materials even come from to be affected by entropy and disorder?
Just accept the mystery and magical properties of life that’s all that’s It
@@francescoallevato6507Those things don’t explain the words of Jesus or His resurrection
👍🍻👍🍻👍🍻😎
God gave man science. The simple fact that nothing will not produce anything is *proof* not evidence, that God must exist.
Exactly, it baffles me that they actually would believe that absolutely nothing created everything vs. an intelligent mind that transcends our tiny brains....Like Frank Turkek states, it's takes more faith to believe in their miracle😄
I was actually quite sad when Hawking explained his disbelieve in God in terms of entanglement. In his mind he said if entanglement is completely random then he must believe that the universe is also random and does not need God as an explanation for it. What made me sad was he really turned his back on both science and God because he could not find an explanation for either. Because he couldn’t understand it There was no reason to believe in it.
Einstein did no better
I really need to incorporate many of these ideas into my ordinary thinking. They sound wonderful here but when I turn and have a conversation with someone, these ideas about categories do not quickly come to mind and when I hear someone make a "category error," it does not immediately come to mind that that's what they've done.
I've revisited this discussion three times already.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
One must really misunderstand theology AND science to honestly believe that one must choose between God and science.
Just misunderstanding one of the two suffices I think.
True believers will perform greater wonders than Jesus. Says religion. Show me. X-ray photography can show up broken bones without surgery. Says science. Show me. I have seen. Nobody said I had to choose. But I have chosen.
@@benvanrensburg4261 No, I won't! My healed clavical (collar bone) is unoperated, and is privately mine. I saw the Xray of the healing, already just beginning ,four hours after the break. Individual evidence, and you have chosen already to believe or not believe it! You can have belief in science and in God.
@@benvanrensburg4261Are you talking about Wilhelm Röntgen, who was awarded the nobel prize for producing x-rays? He was a prominent member of the Dutch Reformed Church. You do know that science just means to study, yes? Studying a field and believing in a God are not mutually exclusive.
There's no doubt that these kinds of conversations have value. Highly educated people, scientists, philosophers, theologians may enjoy going round and round with unbelieving colleagues. The problem is that these lines of argumentation ultimately lack any power whatsoever to convince or convert.
The power to convert an unbeliever doesn't lie in scientific, philosophical or logical arguments. It can only be found in God's revealed Word; the Bible.
Isaiah 55
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."
A simple undeniable fact (according to I Corinthians) is that unbelievers (those without the Spirit) will find all this "God talk" a bunch of nonsense and foolishness.
12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
So while philosophical conversations do have value, the real power to convert unbelievers lies in The Bible, which should be part of every conversation.
Nobody is saying that he defines God as the God of the gaps, we're saying that theists try to fill every unknown with the God of the gaps. He does this himself, he brings up abiogenesis as evidence for God. It's shocking how intelligent this guy is and yet allows himself to undulge in this drivel.
More accurately he brings up abiogenesis in order to point out that evolution is not about the origin of life but rather about speciation of life, and as such insufficient as an explantion for the origion of life. Theology on the other hand does address the origin of life, though obviously not in a scientific manner nor adhering to the scientific restrictions of using language.
@@BlacksmithTWD No scientist claims evolution addresses the origin of life, it’s not yet understood, just because scriptures mention it doesn’t mean they’ve shed any light on it whatsoever. It’s not yet known how life starts but given the spectacular success of naturalistic explanations so far i would put my money on it having a natural origin
@@grahamblack1961 "No scientist claims evolution addresses the origin of life, it’s not yet understood"
Nice to rephrase what Lennox and I said, though not needed since we were in agreement on that already as the point was that evolution is insufficient to explain the origin of life.
" just because scriptures mention it doesn’t mean they’ve shed any light on it whatsoever."
On the contrary, various religious scriptures worldwide to provide a model, however none are scientific models, that doesn't mean they are not true it just means they are not true in a scientific sense, they can still be quite true in other senses. But obviously if you already dismiss them because they are not scientific, you deprive yourself of the oppertunity of finding that out for yourself.
There is way more to reality than merely what has been demonstrated to be most likely true by scientific models. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Plato's cave, or watch the movie 'the matrix' for a more modern depiction of the same idea.
An important thing to note, imo is that Hawkins statement assumes that religious folk are somewhat intellectually honest. .. and they clearly aren't.
I mean imagine trying to claim day and night existed "days" before creation of sun is in any way logic or scientific... Like this clown.
Wonderful! What beautiful common sense! Yet so lacking in the acclaimed writers he critiques! How have Dawkins and Hawking become so idolised?
He is so cool 😎 and passionate about defending the true power that is god 😊
Could listen to John for hours .It's nice to hear someone sane
Listening to him is akin to going to Sunday school. I can barley take one hour of it. Iget very sick.
@@jerrylong6238so sorry
Apologists are the furthest thing from sane
@@jerrylong6238sorry for you you need God in your life I hope you realize it before it is too late.
*Could listen to John for hours .It's nice to hear someone sane*
Anyone trying to rationalise the irrational by attempting to justify a belief in an entity that is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist has lost the plot.
Dr Lenox is indeed one of the most brilliant minds. I'm impressed by his clarity and reasoning
About Hawkins, the great danger when people say you're the smartest person on the planet is that you believe it.
Another blessing. I am getting less smart since my fiftieth birthday.
I think that the phrase "you must choose between God and science" might have been right, though not in the way Hawking thought. It's correct in that you won't ever be able to empirically prove the existence of God without a shadow of a doubt, especially not with the direct physical evidence that many atheists often insist is necessary.
Science and reason can and often does lead people to God and Christ, but the jump from scientific understanding to actually believing in God will always require a leap of faith. You need to be able to accept that you do not and cannot know if God is real with 100% certainty, and choosing to have faith in God despite that. It is the ultimate test of humility, one that you cannot complete if you refuse to let go of your pride.
I put God over science. Thats my opinion though
God created science. And man has abused and perverted it, just like he's abused and perverted everything else in God's creation.
Science proves God - always has and always will
That's pretty dumb.
@@smithr74 not even close. Where is the scientific study showing they found god?
God has ONLY EVER hid in the gaps of scientific knowledge.
If the species of apes called "homosapiens" would not have come into existence by evolution, some two hundred thousand years ago, the concept of a god or gods and all the stupid and often cruel doctrines would not have come into existence neither!
They failed to understand the most important part of life and that is spiritual knowledge.
John Lennox & Dr. Peter Jones are an amazing gift to the Church
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Science keeps changing all the time. Creator, Omniscient, Omnipotent God NEVER CHANGES!!!
The science does not change, our understanding of the science increases with time. And certainly the way god is understood today bears little comparison with the god of old.
Hawkins now knows the truth,sad very sad but he more than most saw the wonder of creation from the smallest bug with life in it to the unknown universe
I used to pray for Hawking. I hope I will find someday, to my surprise, that it did him some good. Meanwhile, we can still pray for Dawkins.
@@bettyrouch1833 hahaha, yeah you pray.......................
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague yes
@@arfermo853 An intelligent designer thought it would be a good idea to design humans to shit dirty stinking turds?! Have you ever had a wet fart in public? went to fart and followed through i.e. shit your pants? And you believe this is the work of an intelligent designer? Care home workers and care workers have to clean up incontinent people everyday, clean up dirty stinking turds and piss, and you think this is an intelligent design? If lennox becomes senile and incontinent would you like to clean up his dirty stinking turds? You lot are weird. Now I want you to think of a way that humans could be designed to stop them having to shit dirty stinking turds. You are the designer.
Absolutely SPOT ON!!! I'm so very glad people are seeing through the fog and confusion, thanks to people like John Lennox! The statement "I don't believe in God, because I instead believe in science" is so confused on a profoundly deep level!
You can't believe in the two? There are far too many errors & no real credible or useful scientific information in any of the competing & conflicting, geographically & culturally, manmade texts?
No it isn't. Science and faith are literally opposites
Brilliant. Thank you John.
Sir Isaac Newton, the creator of calculus, one of the most prominent, ground breaking scientists in history, wrote more in favour of Christianity than he did on math or science. Mengel, the father of genetics, was a monk. Copernicus was a Catholic canon. Roger Bacon, math and optics, forerunner of the scienttific method, a Franciscan friar. “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur, Catholic.
So?
_MrBiggles,_ if I say 2+2=4, but I write more in favor of leprechauns creating and running the universe, does that mean leprechauns _did_ create the universe? Is it possible for a person to be right on one topic but wrong on another, or is everything I say 100% true after I say 2+2=4?
I feel like on any other topic, theists are smart enough to know the arguments they're making are _absolutely friggin terrible._ So why do they make arguments this bad for god(s)?
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur, Catholic.
A simple claim, it evinces nothing more than unimaginative bromide.
I believe in the God of the Bible who created the laws of science, and He Himself is able to make override said laws in the making of miracles.
John 3:36 & Ephesians 2:8-9.
Perhaps there is no gravity. It’s just a word for an experience, a sort of ”fact” that we take for granted. Newton asked the question but could only state something we all experience every single moment in our lives.
I'm so happy to find this brilliant apologetist on UA-cam few yrs ago.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
This guy is awesome
I like it when he says Science is limited.
Yes that's right, in fact he mentions in the full interview his book 'Can Science Explain Everything?' that science doesn't even explain the things we think it explains. While science can answer the 'what' questions, it doesn't answer the 'why' questions (the why of purpose). I have an upcoming interview with John on Artificial Intelligence - hoping to publish this in October.
Newton was born the same year Galileo died under house arrest for heretical science beliefs: perhaps Newton’s Principia dedication was simply an attempt to fend off a book ban and/or a prison term.
Pls read my post. The Principia was dedicated to Charles II. Newton did briefly address God, but not as John Lennox has presented.
This guy is cracked. Absoloutely love him!
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Cosmologists for years have been struggling with the Big Bang theory, and now the James Webb telescope has shown that this needs to be revised. I see no reason to suppose that the universe needed to be created. The first law of thermodynamics suggests to me that the universe is eternal and therefore did not need to be created.
From the book Albert Einstein … THE WORLD AS I SEE IT
An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise: such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
It was the experience of mystery-even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion.
The key is "beyond my comprehension". He should have listened to his own advice.
@@thomaswayneward Science versus religion
To those heavily invested in religion ... pseudo-science is forced to fit all the religious stories ... which is not science at all.
THIS is religion ... which is mythology ... God exists and God IS energy ... and when God created the universe HIS energy ... is ... to this day ... what runs the universe.
THIS is science ... which is natural ... The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.
And that is why the theory that the universe always existed ... no plan ... no creator ... made and makes sense to more than a few scientists ... including Stephen Hawking. It also makes sense that suffering of all forms of life ... including human life ... is natural.
As the two theories are at total odds with each other ... there isn't any room in the theories of science ... FOR religious theology.
@@thomaswayneward From the book, “Ideas and Opinions” … author … Albert Einstein.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just and omnibeneficient personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind.
But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every thought, and every human aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
@@thomaswayneward There are now hundreds of ex members of clergy that have stepped down from their pulpits and have joined The Clergy Project.
From the book … From Apostle to Apostate: The Story of the Clergy Project … authors … Catherine Dunphy, Richard Dawkins
Welcome to the Clergy Project. It is hard to think of any other profession, which is so near to impossible to leave. If a farmer tires of the outdoor life and wants to become an accountant or a teacher or a shopkeeper, he faces difficulties, to be sure. He must learn new skills, raise money, and move to another area perhaps. But he does not risk losing all his friends, being cast out by his family, being ostracized by his whole community. Clergy who lose their faith suffer double jeopardy. It is as though they lose their job and their marriage and their children on the same day. It is an aspect of the vicious intolerance of religion that a mere change of mind can redound so cruelly on those honest enough to acknowledge it.
The Clergy Project exists to provide a safe haven, a forum where clergy who have lost their faith can meet each other, exchange views, swap problems, counsel each other-for, whatever they may have lost, clergy know how to counsel and comfort. Here you will find confidentiality, sympathy, and a friendly place where you can take your time before deciding how to extricate yourself and when you will feel yourself to stand up and face the cool, refreshing wind of truth. Richard Dawkins
God has confounded the wisdom of the world . Spiritual matters are not discerned by the natural. Our prayer for the lost to come to faith in Jesus is daily!!!!
Agreement with all of this. He opens the eyes to what has been there before, and we walked right past and only just noticed. And moment by moment other new mercies.
Brilliant explanation and presentation.
But if he was born in a Muslim country or belonged to another religion other than Christianity, he would not be saying any of the things you hear in this video would he ? He also has a tendancy to undermine people he's had discussions with in the past. That is hitting below the belt.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Created from a dispicable fluid, given bones and made rigid. Given hearing, sight and intellect. After all that, man (some men) denies God to his face.
Science is nothing more than the choices God made to create our realm.
A brilliant man of God.
What god? The murderer?
@@theamalgamut8871no, the one that is love.
@@MrSeedi76 Hum, where is he/she/it? Hidden in the bushes?
Genesis tells us what God did. Science tells us how God did it.
How does he know what any "god" wants? Has he got access to information denied to me and billions of others?
How close do you get to regularly asking what your God wants? Try some humble attempts at listening prayer. Or just try "mindfulness" with quiet fullsome breathing.
@@kateknowles8055 . I don't believe the assertion that any of the multitude of proposed "gods " exist.
@@jerryoconnor-ps8bb
With the pantheon of all history you have statistics siding with your current view.
(Many little gods and idols: One God who spoke by the Prophets)
Working on the otherview point:
Circumstancial, individual evidence only.
We are a wicked generation seeking for signs and wonders and closing our eyes and ears to anything not testable in laboratories.
GOD IS NOT HIDING, He is just providing spaces for a thought-through relationship with each of His human creatures if they can survive outside their comfort zones for one hour at a time.
Best wishes
What I find interesting is that the very thesis that won Hawkins his professorship, he later denied as flawed and rejected it! Oh how little humans really know about the universe! ( We even know more about whats in space than in own own oceans! As Socrates said "All I know is that I do NOT know".
Science doesn’t say god is fake.. science proves god is real. Scientists say god is fake…
When I am trying to do work and study by the principles of science, I must try to find out new things. They may be against my worldview. They may be against traditions and expectances. The meaning of real science is not to prove something but find something.
I once saw an obituary on Hawkins that quoted his response (which I will paraphrase) to the God question, which indicated the answer to the title question: For me to believe in God, I'd have to accept that there are things that are beyond my ability to comprehend, and I am not prepared to do that. In other words, like many great scientists they have the arrogance to think that now we can figure out and prove the answer to everything, whereas belief in God means there is someone greater than me who knew and knows infinitely more than I will ever now.
But in truth, scientists still know so little, and true belief in God should be based far more on evidence than on faith. To me the existence of an Omnipotent God is so obvious in the simple facts of life. For example, Hawking would have us believe that a human being -- who must have thousands of body parts work perfectly in order to function in full health, and can have wisdom to plan ahead for the long term, and have feelings to give his life for the sake of another human being -- was created just by itself out of nature, which by sheer luck also created a male and female with matching features (as well as for every living species), gave them each a natural desire to mate with the other and the ability to jointly create a tiny cell that encapsulates a miniature of themselves, and created in the female a complete sophisticated system to feed and develop this tiny thing into a magnificent being, which upon exiting into the world suddenly gets the ability to cry, think, hear, see and feel, and its mother "naturally" starts producing milk for it to feed. And we believers are supposed to be the ones who live in a fantasy world!
And, of course, Hawking could explain every one of these questions about the creation of man, right? And why out of an infinitely greater universe, humans only developed on one small planet. And why of all living creatures, only humans have a mind and a heart of their own. And how these brilliant humans don't know about the birds and the bees unless they are told by other humans, while every dumb pigeon knows on its own how to mate, and knows immediately after mating that the female will lay eggs in 8-12 days and thus sets out to build a nest for them, and both male and female know immediately after said eggs are laid in the nest that each must sit on them for 12 hours per day until their child will be produced?
*What Stephen Hawking thought was that the goods that we are talking about are actually like Greek gods but that gods of the gaps not but we are talking about god of everything*
I don't understand any of theoretical physics, but I can recognize a religious fundamentalist when I see one.
if prof. Lennox's counter-argument is:
- "God is eternal (...) "- sic! yeah? says who? a man- made book) (
"(...) he is the ultimate reality (...)" - yeah? that nobody can see, hear, touch or smell?
" (...) the ultimate fact (...) - any fact is supposed to be based on observations, isn't it, professor?
"(...) to ask who created him is to show that one does not understand the nature of his being " - it is not matter of one's understanding, it is a matter of one's atheism or theism...
So, if all these are professor's argument, then our professor is a genuine fundamentalist.
luckily this is 21st century, so he doesn't have power to burn alive.
yet...
We cannot see the wind....we can only see the effects on the grass and trees when they sway and wave, we can hear the wind howl, still the wind is invisible, we can feel it on our skin....the same with God. We see him in his works, his creation,
And under very special conditions we can see heat waves on a very hot day, when you look at the mountains and you notice a seethrough wavy movement vibrating against the background of those mountains.
I once saw an angelic being in a fairly darkened hall, bending in front of a praying chaplain in the front row, waiting for his small flock of police officials to arrive.....a self-contained large sized golden light, no specific shape like angels are portrayed in picture books, no light source from anywhere......it was amazing, until I switched the lights on in the foyer....and poof....just a room with the praying chaplain!
The amount of science that started out with the phrase “what is your evidence“ is in itself eternal. What is your evidence for dark matter or dark energy? They have a question about gravitational impact on the universe but they have no evidence of either dark matter or dark energy, yet the science continues.
Simple thing is the earth 🌎 we live in,it shows great designer with no tiny mistake
God is the ultimate scientist.
Generally scientists are fallible human beings, not gods. Besides someone who is all knowing already doesn't need to search for answers. So I don't know how your statement should be interpret to make sense.
@@BlacksmithTWD You're assuming that God doesn't experiment or progress in any way. He might be all knowing relative to our understanding.
@@rsstnnr76 As I see it it's human beings who experiment and progress in their understanding of God. I'm not at a point where I feel confident to assume either way about God. I just wonder how your statement should be interpret, still not sure.
My own feeling is that the likes of Dawkins, the late Arthur C Clarke, Hitchens et al are not atheists at all : they know that God is (exists), and they hate Him for it.
To quote from a book titled Theology and Sanity, by Frank Sheed:
"...the soul has come to love self exclusively. Even in this life, that state may have its natural consequence of realized hatred of God, for THE MAJESTY OF GOD IS AN INTOLERABLE AFFRONT TO SELF-LOVE GROWN SO MONSTROUS (emphasis added)."
PS You got a thumbs-up!
Utter nonsense!.
Lennox’s mistake is to think that there is a purpose that requires the question why. Once again the idea that there must be a purpose is a human construct. Some humans, not all, think there has to be; science does not.
just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it is not there. air!
Amazing. Completely agree.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
The smartest people are often the most rigid
Query whether Newton would have believed in God had he lived later after the Origin of Species.
May I: In mathematics, there are infinite sums, that give finite answer. Maybe, the first mover may not be needed. Maybe, God is at the other end of the infite row. Infinite number of creation steps gives a finite creation, a finite world that we experience.
Gobbledegook.
Where to start with your errors?
May I: "infinite number" is contradiction. If it's a number then it's not infinite. If it's infinite then it cannot be asigned a number. I suspect you won't agree.
Infinity in mathematics is a concept only. 1 divided by zero is infinite. That's disputed of course. Can you not just as well say that 1 divided by zero is meaningless?
In any case the question of God's existence would not be hanging on our understanding or misunderstanding of mathematics or any other field of enquiry for that matter. At best we can show that faith in God is reasonable just as Lennox in this video quoted Einstein as saying that scientists have faith that the universe is intelligable or they wouldn't bother.
@@gerardk51 You probably noticed that I have used a phrase "infinite number of creation steps". Since English is not my language, I have done some googling and I believe that I have used the phrase correctly. OK, not quite, I forgot an article "An". LOL
@@mitjarihtarsic3360 I wasn't commenting on your english.
I just don't agree with the common use in mathematics of infinite and number together.
It’s not just that the definition is wrong, but the definition of science is wrong, thinking of science as necessarily godless, so that the choice offered becomes “You must choose between God and a godless science.” But defining science independently of God, but instead of using the scientific method (falsifiability, evidence, repeatability of experiments, etc.) then the choice between God and science is not mutually exclusive.
He knows now.
Problem with people like Hawking is when God created mankind, God also created all the necessary learning resources for His children to learn and grow as well....
You just can't place a lot of unearned specificity into your beliefs surrounding what a "god" is or could be. There's room for something that we could define as god, but to attach the hyperspecificity of any one of the thousands of religions currently employed by humanity is bereft of scientific weight. Which is perfectly fine if you choose to harbor such beliefs, but it's only reasonable to talk about god in a scientific setting because god is so conceptually diverse. I suppose that god can fit scientifically, but religion is nearly always anchored in dogma, immediately recusing itself from scientific debate.
You make a good point. There is a difference between faith -- a.k.a. beliefs -- and religions -- hyperspecificity of faith found among the thousands of religions of the world. In terms of epistemology, no one knows everything, therefore everyone believes something. Everyone -- scientists included.
@@sagesaith6354 Indeed, the question is whether those beliefs are based in dogma or well reviewed evidence.
@@liquidpza ... and the extent to which the criteria for establishing the truth or validity of both the review process and the evidence itself is deemed to be valid both in substance and application ...
absolutely spot on. except the land-on-the-moon bit.
Hawking, Dawkins, Green, De Grasse, Tesla, and probably Einstein, but not Newton, John Lennox could clip them all with his versality. May God guide him very well to ambitious youth of Physics and Math
Tesla is above them all.
Tesla was a believer, although of a New Age kind. Whan you go to Tesla Museum in his native village in Croatia, you will see that Tesla's family was full of highly-ranked Serb Orthodox priests, starting from his father.
And yet you missed out Maxwell, a true believer...
@@scotoftheanarchic.7903 Of course Maxwell, and so should you mention Lorentz, so should you mention Schrodinger, etc etc, alas, the above that included Einstein are the most stalwart to me.
Evidence. Whenever I have read a Materialist talk about, or ask about The Evidence for God, i have found that person has never actually looked at What Theists (Christians) really say, and what we believe. Its not that they are stupid, its that they are ignorant.
"God, by definition, is eternal." says Lennox. By whose definition? By human definition, of course. Because we don't have a definitions of God from any other source. Lennox can say what he wants, but the argument still stands. That is, if the evidence of the creation demands a creator, then that creator also needs a creator. Invoking Isaac Newton doesn't help his case. Isaac Newton is dead, and we can't go and ask him to look at the science of today, and give his opinion as to whether it demands a god or not.
I agree he's just parroting a definition someone else made up. But I think their rationale is that either something came from nothing or something has always existed. I can't see any other option, can you? They've convinced themselves that it must be the latter (something has always existed) and that this something (they'll call it the creator) has to be greater than its creation (they work that out logically and call it the ontological argument) so they apply many attributes they think just have to apply/exist/be part of this 'creator.' So they have to define the creator as eternal or it doesn't work as a creator in their minds. It does seem circular reasoning because you'll see where they'll claim a fall back of, 'if it isn't [insert an attribute/quality the believe God must have] it can't be God' which isn't really saying anything other than what the atheist already (thinks he) knows.
@@rizdekd3912 I think the point is that they use the requirement for a creator argument to explain the universe, then abandon that argument when required to explain where the creator came from. If they can say the creator has "always existed", why can't they say the universe has always existed. You can't have your philosophical cake and eat it too.
@@peskyfervid6515 I know...they attach significance to the problem of infinite regress with eternal natural world not realizing the same problem would also apply to a god. Saying something doesn't exist 'in time' like we think of the universe as doing, doesn't really solve anything. If there are sequential events...happenings...even thoughts such as the thoughts involved in deciding, planning and then carrying out creation then that either implies a form of time because time is essentially what separates events from happening in the same eternal instant or owns to the idea that in some cases, multiple things can happen in sequence without time to separate them. In any case, an eternal natural world would seem to fit t
It depends on the form of the creator don't you think? If it was a human then you'd say well a human created it, but the bible clearly states that God is a flame of fire, it also states that God is Light itself, If God is Light itself then He would have Power over All things, I truly believe that gravity is only controlled and programmed energy to do what it's supposed to do
@@jamierivera7259 And the bible was created by humans, so any definition therein contained is, perforce, a "human" definition.
Lennox is wrong to say that the atheist will define the beginning as mass energy or as Nothing. Actually, the atheist is free to say "I don't know". Just because I find it impossible to believe in God, doesn't mean I have an alternative explanation. It's just that God as an explanation for anything seems as unlikely and unsatisfactory as Magic.
I've always said that the only thing science has ever done is to show us how God did these wonderful things we have just now discovered.
Science has never disproved God.
No and it never will. You cant disprove a negative can you?! Science is the best tool we have for determining truth from fiction!
@twosheds1749 That shows you're a fool!
@@twosheds1749 that is not the purpose of science. Some scientists have concluded that the universe does not exist. Scientific evidence can interpreted in different ways. Once a theory of everything is discovered, the scienrific method must continue. Such will always be a theory, not absolute fact.
Scientists are supposed to have open minds rather than making hasty conclusions.
Negatives are nothing more than biases.
Theoretical science does not determine absolutes.
@@twosheds1749 of course you can its the easiest thing in the world a negative disproves itself theres no one in the world that believes in a negative. your problem is god isnt a negative and never has been
@@andrewwashburn6080 What are you talking about!? If God is not a negative than prove it exists? You just saying something is true does not make it reality!!! LMAO
Such wisdom & understanding ❤❤
The idea was created that a good scientist is an atheist scientist and a scientist who believes in the supernatural is not a good scientist. This idea has been propagate for a long time . The problem is that atheist scientists do not follow the data that science itself shows that all roads definitely lead to an intelligent mind that created everything .
All roads definitely do NOT lead to an intelligent mind that created everything.
If we hold that it is true than an intelligent mind created everything then it would have to hold true that an intelligent mind created god as God by definition is something. But if not true that an intelligent mind created God, then it is true that an intelligent mind did not create everything. If somethings were not created by an intelligent mind why not let it be energy, time the universe. After all science can demonstrate that complexity can come from combining simple things, naturally or otherwise.
@@NSOcarth exactly
Couldn‘t have said it better. It was Hugo Grotius who historically stated that science must deal without God. It‘s a mere kind of definition and a very wrong one.
@@NSOcarth What do you mean by "created by" or "Less than"
I believe I cam form my parents, they are different from me but i would not consider them less than or greater than me. I do not have the same skills and interest as me. Like my parents I am a product of my skills and experience.
In the same way that a house is many from a pile of bricks and other material but a house is more than just a bile of material.
Water is more than just Hydrogen and Oxygen
So yes I think complexity can come from simple thinks. Why do you have evidence to the contrary because I like to learn about new things, convince me.
@@NSOcarth I do not think there is a God but am prepared to be convinced otherwise
The prophet Joseph Smith said the same thing about faith; that it is the motivating factor in everything that we do, whether religious or secular.
The fact that Lennox misrepresented, you know lied about Professor Dawkins statements in a previous discussion makes him a liar. If this deity he believes in needs liars to justify its existence, then, if it actually existed it would be a pathetic being, or maybe, just maybe imaginary.
Thanks for your comment. I was wondering if you could let me know where you think John misrepresented Dawkins in a previous discussion?
@@Practical.Wisdom ua-cam.com/video/IDWjX7vIAlg/v-deo.htmlsi=4ctDbgC9EsZIWKIh
I don’t “think” I know, the evidence is in the UA-cam clip, above.
@@jackthebassman1 Ten months… No reply.
Pls read my post. The Principia was dedicated to Charles II. Newton did briefly address God, but not as John Lennox has presented. Newton was very likely a Deist conceiving the possibility of a spiritual god that was not the temporal god of the religions.
That letter I mention in this post I'm pasting was written way back in the early 1960's. I doubt if any of them even read it.
. I think Fred Hoyle was right We do live in a steady state Universe. The expanding Universe theory won that argument because they misinterpreted the data. The Doppler shift is cause by the fact that no two galaxies were created at the same time. What is WEIRD IS that I think I sent this theory, In a different form to Fred Hoyle and Isaac Asimov in a letter sent through the publisher of a pocket Astronomy book way back in the Mid-1960's. It was called The Theory Of the Accelerating Universe.
Reason: 1) There was no Big Bang. 2) The Universe isn't expanding. It is Accelerating. 3) Galaxies are two discs of stars that are magnetically attracted to one another but can never touch because they consist of opposite kinds of matter, (Our type of matter and its opposite, Antimatter. 4) the result is a Gravity Reaction which moves the Galaxy through space. 5) Because E=MC squared, " Einstein," once a Galaxy started moving, no matter the direction, it would continue to accelerate forever. 6) Because Galaxies are each created separately and at different times and places in space, a galaxy Would eventually pass Younger Galaxies that had been born in front of it, but it could never catch up to older Galaxies That might be out in front of it. They would always be accelerating at a faster rate of speed. So that if you ASSUMED The Universe was created all at once, which I don't believe it was, It would appear that the Universe was expanding, when it isn't. The Doppler effect is the observable result of each galaxy finding its proper place in the Universe: The time when IT ALONE was came into being; THAT and Einstein's E=MC squared. 7) Because we exist within the boundaries of ONE LIGHT-SPEED we can not see all the other Universes stacked one on top of the other; Nor do we know how fat or thin that book is or what page it is that we inhabit
"A little while longer and the world (Governments, educational institutions, businesses, religious organizations, etc) will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also." "thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes(those who are pure in heart)." "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
So-called scientists are working very hard to deny the existence of something that was purposefully kept a secret from them. They will never understand or find God, no matter how hard they search and debate, but just because something hasn't been made clear to you doesn't mean it is not real or doesn't exist. But "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Mt. 5:8), God reveals himself to such.
Fewer scientists than you think are 'working very hard to deny the existence of something.' Even if they're atheists, that's not the point of what they're doing. They're merely trying to figure out how the natural world works. IF something hasn't been made clear to you, how to you think you know anything about it? Are you pure in heart?
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
Wow. He presents as an intellectual but his arguments are empty. Why of purpose? It's simple THERE IS NO PURPOSE. Deal with it! Make up your own purposes! He's just unable to handle this.
So living in lie is your answer? Making your own purposes for no reason but hedonistic needs is the last thing you want. If life is meaningless just go full stoic then. Why pretend life have some meaning to you when there is no real value in anything. Because then you are acting like religious, but deny it because of pride.
Once Hawking was all about God and then said nope I was wrong, makes his other speculations very questionable 🤠
love this man. wisdom, what a concept.
One of the more prominent people that died momentarily for a period of time and returned mentioned he viewed Hawking in HELL.
To me logically there should be no existence of anything whatsoever,since nothing cannot create anything. Since there is beyond incredible complexity and order there has to be an uncaused first super intelligent first cause. 1948 proves there is a God and He is the God of Israel.
Adding from my previous comment, I noticed the negative comments have no reputations, just anger. Inreresting.
Sorry, refutations.
Not all comments.
So what created this God then?
@@majeedmamah7457 If God created everything, then who created God?
How many times have I heard that question or variations of it? But inherent within that question there is an assumption, and this assumption that is wrong. That is because when someone asks the question, “Who created God?”, they make the assumption that there was a time when God did not exist.
If God created everything, then He created absolutely everything: space, stars, planets, mountains, rivers, oceans, life etc. This means that He would also have to create all matter (the atoms that things are made from). All this God would have made from nothing or else where did it all come from? He would also have laid out all the rules that hold it all together: the laws of gravity, laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics and the rest; all the laws that hold the very fabric of the universe together.
This means He also created the dimensions; you know: up - down, left - right and forward - backwards. Without these dimensions there would be no ‘place’ to put the stars and planets etc.
If God created everything, *He also created time.* If He created time then there wasn’t a time when God did not exist. This would make God outside of the dimensions of time and space that we are bound by. We are bound by these things; He is not. For God, all of time would be, sort of like an open book. God is bigger than any box we can make for Him.
So, the question “Who created God?” is the wrong question because to ask this is to assume that there was a time when God did not exist. Because of this the question is nonsensical and a bit like asking, “What is the smell of the colour 9”.
So what is the right question?
Well a much better question is: “What is God like?” And the answer to that can be found in the Bible.
As a Muslim and lover of TRUE science, i fully agree with this gentleman. No contradiction between science an faith: only between narrow minded science and narrow minded faith.
Oh the irony.
You believe Muhammad split the moon and rode a flying steed, yet have the audacity to say this?
@@FactStorm my dear, if you would know instead of assuming, you would not make a fool of yourself.
Have a great day.
@@musamusashi "my dear, if you would know instead of assuming, you would not make a fool of yourself.
Have a great day."
Translation: "I got busted and have nothing to say, so I opted out to flee instead of address the point".
Typical cognitive dissonance of religious people, this is as classic and quintessential as it gets. 👌
@@FactStorm yes i got busted by you, you got it: i can see all my life crumbling in front of my eyes, and it's you who made this happen 🤣
@@musamusashi You are still avoiding, how sad