Did Science Kill God? | John Lennox at UCLA

[@mtken0321]

There's just something about Prof. John Lennox. I like Ian Hutchinson, Tim Keller, William Craig, anyone who has come to Veritas Forum to talk about this issue, but somehow Professor Lennox has the most interesting way of presenting the problem of scientism. And he can make people laugh. Thanks, Veritas Forum. For 5 years, I've been listening/watching the lectures for multiple times. What you're doing in KZbin is very valuable.

[@hendricksam]

I've listened to John make these arguments time and time again, and the more I listen, the more they sink in and make sense.

[@danminer5343]

Everything that John said is garbage. He needs to be educated with the truth. There is zero evidence for evolution. The story of evolution is fiction, not science.

[@hendricksam]

@@danminer5343 He hasn't said that he's pro evolution. And saying that "everything" that he said is garbage is a mighty claim you're making, Dan.

[@danminer5343]

@@hendricksam - I apologize. I thought I was talking about someone else. What I said was false, I was wrong. Forgive me for my mistake.

[@hendricksam]

@@danminer5343 All's well! 😄

[@danminer5343]

@@hendricksam - Thanks

[@paulwest8583]

Love John Lennox. Awesome interview.

[@kennethgee2004]

I believe this is an older discussion though. Just a new posting of it. Still great to be reminded of the very good arguments for God.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

All from ancient unsigned narratives chosen by Catholic theologians over the centuries. No personal appearance by Jesus - just religious art, literature, songs, prayers and longing for Jesus popularized by billions of frightened believers. I wish it was all true. I really do.

[@kennethgee2004]

@@JamesRichardWiley The narratives are signed. It was not Catholics who chose, but Christians. And yes the Bible is written by some 40 authors across 1200 years with a common thread throughout. The entire Bible is about Jesus coming into this world to save humans. We find that Jesus is geared directly in history so we can be assured that His coming is true, and His second coming will therefore be true in the future, which is not specified. I doubt very much you wish God were true as the Bible is clear the none seek after God. All humans love our sins. If you truly wanted to see the truth of God you would not spout off so terrible of lies about the historicity of the Bible.

[@catherine8326]

Thank you Professor John Lennox. ‘World view’ 11:45 minutes in: ‘atheism or theism’ 13:02 ‘men became scientific..Faith in God DROVE science’

[@donnastaub6856]

WwQ11Q11waswwawwwasww

[@tiaan7032]

Brilliant man, i think his children & grandchildren are blessed to have such a figure in their lives. Imagine this was your grandpa & the great talks youd have

[@jamesbnkc1990]

It's amazing how "Science" hides these guys with a passion. When he said 40 percent of Scientists believe in a God I would have to completly agree. I remember a good documentary on the un written rule and war on academics that dare to admit in a creator. Many people have lost their jobs and the ones that didn't stay pretty quiet about it. I have two very rare disorders of both my eyes and ears, so you can imagine how many doctors I've seen especially specialist. One question I always ask them is "do you believe in God"? Around 80 percent willing to answer always reply with a an astounding yes. This notion that no one in science believes in stuff like that is simply not true. Science demands a creator. Especially when you start getting into genetic code. It's almost like we are mimicking our designer when we create programs for computers. DNA is way more complex. Personally Im fond of Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross. He's amazing at explaining science and the Bible. His books are worth every dime. It's Amazing!

[@Joshua-ev9uw]

Z

[@Joshua-ev9uw]

.

[@Joshua-ev9uw]

Kay. Great to I I p

[@richardwendling4030]

Downloading for posterity! Very well thought out simple straight forward talk on God.

[@dannyeguia]

John Lennox explains brilliantly and logically without disrespect to others --- an amazing human being! His evidence based arguments further strengthen my belief in God.

[@jeanwallace9791]

I to find God is real in my life as real as electricity. I might not see the power source of the electricity I know putting my faith in the switch, I will see the results of the light and my faith in the switch, My God my light, Jesus saves the rest enslave. Blessing from Northern Ireland

[@michaelbush1374]

Blessings to you Jean from Kentucky. I hope you're doing well during such uncertain times. God has a plan and His will is good.

[@jeanwallace9791]

@Michael Bush Thank you Micheal,me and mine are hale and healthy, here’s hoping you and yours are the same.

[@michaelbush1374]

@@jeanwallace9791 We're all doing quite well thank you.

[@melindalemmon2149]

His professor, Polkinghorne, is still living and is an open theist. So encouraging.

[@smessaddeq]

Brilliant talk.... Good help us to open our minds 😊

[@frosted1030]

You leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Try thinking.

[@danminer5343]

....to open you minds and let common sense spill out.....John's garbage is destructive.

[@frosted1030]

@G Will "Thinking is what made me see that the arguments made by the adherents/followers/practitioners of the Religious Cult of Anti-Theism/New-Atheism are just somewhat-high-SOUNDING horsesiht." Shall we review your horsheshit? Let's start with your definitions: 1. Cult does not mean something you don't like. Look up the accepted definitions for cult. Atheism doesn't fall into that category. 2. Religion. Atheism doesn't have anything in common with religion, you need to understand yet another definition. 3. Atheism does not mean "bad". Again, look up the definition before you open your mouth again.

[@calvin6879]

@@frosted1030 There is not a single example of an explosion creating ANYTHING other than utter CHAOS. Yet you believe the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was created from a big "bang". Lol yes, please do tell how us Christians are the fools......

[@frosted1030]

@@calvin6879 "There is not a single example of an explosion creating ANYTHING other than utter CHAOS." That's your assertion, remember, not ours. This type of projection is why we have theists totally confused by cosmology. It's funny, really, given all the resources you have to learn what's actually been observed. "Yet you believe the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was created from a big "bang"." You say that.. fighting the popular nickname given to slander the science, with no idea what the science says. You look really slow when you do these things. "Lol yes, please do tell how us Christians are the fools." Sure. Your myth-man (known for kindness, in the fables) handed you her purse and said "wait here" and you are still standing outside the bathroom over two-thousand years later, where you expect her to come out and murder the world (except you of course, because you are still waiting). Face it, you are sad, lonely, and she left you a long time ago. Also your silly idology.. do you think this kind man coming back to murder the world is going to be happy to see followers that venerate (even carry around) depictions of the horrible method of death that he supposedly suffered in the fable? Sure, keep telling yourself that it makes sense. Hide behind this nonsense.

[@dillybug605]

I'm not sure the people asking the questions at the end, actually listened to his lecture.

[@jamesjaudon8247]

Really! They're everywhere. Hear but they don't listen. The idea just goes over their head or, in one ear and out the other. What's just as shocking as those listening are very intelligent. Much more so than I. How can I hear him clearly and understand exactly what he's saying. I took college courses on psychology, and never graduated. Just a construction worker. I'm floored sometimes.

[@AndrewGulickTrueVitalityPlus]

People that convince others to abandon God to their belief of atheism, will be held responsible for those lost lives. Their punishment will be greater than if they had not deceived others.

[@danminer5343]

That is true

[@danminer5343]

@seasch71 - you have not read through the Bible

[@AndrewGulickTrueVitalityPlus]

seasch71 ; You are wrong. There are places in the Bible that indicate that, although punishment in Hell will be severe for everyone there that, it will be greater for those according to the amount of sin in ones life, the extent of influencing others to follow in their ways, as well as the amount of times that gospel of Christ has been rejected. So, punishment ranges from severe to much more than severe. Don’t kid yourself, contemplate it and consider the cost. Accept Jesus today and follow in His ways. You won’t be perfect at it but, ask forgiveness along the way and He will be just.

[@AndrewGulickTrueVitalityPlus]

seasch71 ; Also, you can’t speak for God telling Him what Hell would be like, especially seeing that you haven’t even read His Word, or you wouldn’t be able to say what you have.

[@danminer5343]

@seasch71 - What are you talking about? :I read only science and accurate historical records. The existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a proven scientific fact, like it or not. Fools can only deny it but they can never refute it. The further you go back in time the higher skills people had. You are ignorant of the wonders of the world accomplished by our earliest ancestors before mankind had a mutational load in their DNA which today is still increasing causing everybody to need medical help more each generation. Every generation today is gaining over 100 new mutations to our detriment. People living 5,000 to 6,000 years ago had no mutations enabling them to live to be 900 years or more. All random mutations lead to extinction, a proven scientific fact which proves that God created Adam and Eve perfect with millions of heterozygous genes and modules to enable great variety of traits. Mutations are the result of our sin.

[@leroybroun4106]

what has become the most mind boggling absurdity is that the greatest minds in science have concluded that there is no mind. can we trust science when it begins to discount what is self-evident? is science even possible when it discounts what is self-evident?

[@mpcc2022]

The assumption of science is that there aren't self evident propositions.

[@leroybroun4106]

@@mpcc2022 science is actually observing the natural world; you basically watch and try to figure out what it tellls you. so all science is about the self-evident; science creates nothing, it just tries to explain what it sees, what is self-evident.

[@mpcc2022]

@@leroybroun4106 What is it that you call and think of what is and why is it appropriate? What makes the rational of the grammar and the understanding of frames and modes of interpretation applied across the complex unfolding state of affairs that is reality? Science at best is an approximation of what is intelligble from a material vantage on 'reality'. It is rigorous, but not exhaustive, because science excludes the subjective, but is practiced by an observer that is by no means infallible. Thus science only deals with hypothesis that are falsifiable. There can be no self evident proposition that is falsifiable, so science doesn't deal with the self evident, but interprets the most effective material frame work to apply to a causal relationship that it determines under the constraints of an experimental setting. Further, Natural Science as a discipline is older than Christianity and is a branch of natural philosophy that emerged in Athens the birth place of the roots of the philosophy of materialism that is in opposition to Christian Metaphysics which is not a materialism.

[@leroybroun4106]

@@mpcc2022 grammar is immaterial and a man-made concept, outside the scope of science. the reason scientists do all kinds of experiments is so that true reality becomes evident. for example water being wet is self-evident, the composition of air is self-evident once thoroughly observed. i don't think you understand the objective and discipline of science.

[@mpcc2022]

@@leroybroun4106 Grammar is where you come up with wetness and assign it a meaning that you have attached to an aspect of your experience of water that you learned from your peers and care takers inherited through culture that's far older than you. I'm afraid you don't realize what it means to be human, nor the role the observer plays in empirical science and thus misunderstand the role and relationship between philosophy, methodology, and practice. I at least have a BS in physics and an AS in mathematics, so I have an understanding of science that at least permits me to be one, tutor, and educate people on it's subject subject matter. Have you conducted an experiment?

[@krustysurfer]

The first step/rule of enlightenment is: *There is a God and I am not him.*

[@mermer58]

If anything, for me, science proves the existence of God every day. DNA is too perfect across thousands of species to have come from billions of random anomalies.

[@schmetterling4477]

That only proves that you weren't paying attention in science class. ;-)

[@MrAmmofreak]

When one anthropomorphizes his or her existence...then religion reigns...when one realizes the utter unbelievability of the Universe...one stands in awe...I cannot say more...

[@txjellybean3772]

Best advertisement I've ever had on Utube

[@bonnievandake4410]

That's why after my meager research into the material sciences; I dropped everything and ran to the study of literary theory and the need for punctuation and grabbed a huge dictionary and spent hours pulling one word from it and then looking up every word of that words definition until the last word used every word found in my first words definition. And realized that unless I knew every definition of every word someone else spoke to me I had no clue what they were really talking about. So I walk now thru sciences of life without leaving a footprint 👣 of "I know" and I walk in faith listening to the great masters of music and hymn only knowing that I know El (G-d) exists with the faith that I can be saved. Bonl

[@samuelgarciajr.9195]

Jesús Christ himself teach seated.

[@billstephens5472]

Only a fool has said in his heart (i.e., mind), there is no GOD.

[@frosted1030]

What makes you think that bullshit written before most people could read is somehow truth when we know better today?

[@danminer5343]

That is true, thanks for posting the truth.

[@danminer5343]

@@frosted1030 - God created Adam and Eve with the ability to talk, read and write. They had a higher intelligence that anybody today has. Mankind has always been going downhill ever since because of accumulating mutations which are always destructive.

[@frosted1030]

@G Will "DEMONSTRATE that it's "bullshit"" Why? Shifting the burden of evidence fallacy won't help you.

[@frosted1030]

@@danminer5343 "God created Adam and Eve" False. We have direct record of humans dating way back, every single one of them had parents. "They had a higher intelligence that anybody today has." Maybe in your circles. " Mankind has always been going downhill ever since because of accumulating mutations which are always destructive." Who lied that to you? Explain how OCA2 mutation causes damage, or stop asserting such nonsense.

[@josevalverde7431]

Sience is a miracle from Good.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

One small criticism...not about the talk which is wonderful. No, it would be Helpful if the date of this talk was put in the description.I say this because Dr. Lennox speaks as if Dr. Hawking was alive. He died in 2018. So I'm wondering when this was given.

[@Amos9.11]

I found another posting of this talk which says it was given in 2015. The video was posted Feb 26, 2015, so it must have happened sometime in January or February of that year. I'm a former atheist who was amazed to discover there is a God when I was 26 and I became a follower of Jesus a while later. You liked the talk-are you also a Christian? Here's the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4bFpWWMiciNhqs

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@Amos9.11 26,(I was 25) is about the time I (literally) woke up...that would be (as near as I can place it) May of 73. There was a time when I did more drugs by accident than most people did on purpose (mainly Grass/Hash & Acid). Some friends were letting me sleep in their garage. Woke up one morning...looked around and said 'Well This ain't working out the way I thought it should." "Ok God if you're there, take over, because you can't screw this up worse than I have." And God Did...took Him the better part of 2 years, but he pulled me out of the miry clay and set my feet on solid ground. Already had that Bookmarked..But Thanks.

[@Amos9.11]

@@stevenwiederholt7000 _He also brought me up out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my steps._ I well remember reading that verse in Psalm 40 for the first time and how I identified with David's gratitude at being rescued from that pit. I had never read the Bible when I was an atheist. Why look for answers in a book of fables?-or so I thought. I discovered there is a God in the spring of 74 and a few weeks later someone went through the 4 Spiritual Laws with me, and I invited Jesus to take control of my life. The best decision I have ever made. Life was an unsolvable quagmire for me. Social anxiety and depression were problems I thought I'd never overcome, at least until death finally put an end to my meaningless life. If human life had come about as a result of unguided material processes, how could it possibly have any ultimate meaning? Imagine my relief when I discovered there is a God who made us for a purpose. I'm very glad you met the Lord. Obviously you have an interest in apologetics and philosophy. Lennox is one of my favorite Christian apologists. Have you run across David Wood, not so well-known but with a compelling testimony? kzbin.info/www/bejne/epLOdpaPbL9ofbc (34 minutes) At the very end of David's video is another testimony with another ex-atheist. Guillaume Bignon. It's also very good. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4vadGWkmciVa5I (20 minutes) Thanks for sharing a little of your story. We're living in interesting times although I suppose that's always been the case for the human race.

[@SnowyElephant]

Very interesting

[@zainulabideen6812]

with blessing of God

[@smeatonlighthouse4384]

Of course it didn't kill God. God is Spirit and eternal and cannot be killed. That is why God the Son, Jesus Christ took on human form for the purpose of dying to redeem fallen mankind. There is now a man in Heaven and because He is there, we can be there also, by faith in His work of redemption to the full satisfaction of the wrath and to the glory of God.

[@krustysurfer]

Nicely said

[@moniquesullivan2724]

People don't want to believe they sin

[@schmetterling4477]

And there is another pseudo-Christina who can't even tell us where the bible defines sin. ;-)

[@josevalverde7431]

Science, miracle of God.

[@delano209]

By the way the girl's question at around 1 hour into this isn't answered , he divides it in 3 questions then decides it's about the age of the earth then says the 6 days of creation and the 1 day of rest or not from this time . So he ignores here question (from Adam to modern men Bible vs Evolution timeline) and then gives his own opion about the "First Week"

[@krustysurfer]

He left it for you to deduct with and by the logic of your own mind. Like a algebraic equation he gave you parts of the equation for you to solve and answer.

[@immanuel829]

Even evolutionary biologists admit: Natural selection can only select something that is already there, it does not create anything. How NEW organs + body plans came to be is still hotly debated. "The modern synthesis is remarkably good at modelling the SURVIVAL of the fittest, but not good at modelling the ARRIVAL of the fittest." (Nature, 2008) „the genetic origin of new and complex traits is probably still one of the most pertinent and fundamental unanswered questions in evolution today." (PloS Biol 2009) "the abrupt appearance of Cambrian fossils is a reality, and we are still wondering about the forces and mechanisms that drove it." (Nelson Cabej, 2019) "After 150 years of continuous discoveries, essential information about human origins remains elusive." (Science, 2021) Btw, evolutionary theory does not explain life, it presupposes it. How (let alone why) water + dust became alive "remains one of the biggest mysteries in contemporary science" (Nature Reviews Chemistry 2020) DNA is a digital code, like software. Geneticist + former atheist Francis Collins calls it the "language of God". Günter Bechly is a former atheist, too. In 2009 he organized a huge Darwin exhibition in Germany and is now a Christian.

[@patentes8463]

A rhetoric genius.

[@delano209]

@round 1 hour into it it's about the age of the earth and universe and he doesn't know what the say because he says it' not mentioned. Before Jewish Christen and Muslim you have in the Veda's of the Hindu that of Brahma (also 1 of the Trinity with Visnhu and Shiva) 1 day of light for him is 4.320.000.000.000 years and a day of night is 4.320.000.000.000 years so 1 total day is 8.640.000.000.000 years his year has 360 days (60 weeks of 6 days as Brahma does not tire and needs no rest for a 7th day) and he once slept 100 years of Brahma that's 311.040.000.000.000 years (311Trillion40Billion years) And Brahma himself is created by what is incomprenciple to us . Also Vishnu slept with each breath bubbles emerged from his skin each of which is a universe Also the Brahma years in half a day and half a night are also the seconds of 1 day of 24 hours 24hours=86400 12hours=43200 Day of Brahma=4.320.000.000.000 years Night of Brahma=4.320.000.000.000 years Together that is the seconds of 1 day × 100.000 Without a clock or stopwatch So Torah Bible and Koran timeline with science mixed comes to 13.8Billion years Which is about a little more than a 1½ for Brahma Hinduïsme explains it without Torah Bible Koran or Science yet these 4 regard hinduïsme as false idols. The world was bloody but with WORLDPEACE in the days of all the Gods Since the religion of 1 God came to be we are still an bloody world but not with 1 day of WORLDPEACE in it since MONOTHEÏSME Everything East of Mecca Everything West of Rome Can live without the people living in between there

[@TheDaddyNick]

Quick answer: No, "Scientism" did.

[@frosted1030]

Scientism isn't a thing.

[@TheDaddyNick]

@@frosted1030 Not if you dont know about it. When people say, "I believe in Science" I am pretty sure that makes it a "thing". Great try though making a claim and not backing it up. Sounds a lot like......Scientism?

[@TheDaddyNick]

@G Will I really appreciate you taking the time to make those references. I will be sure to check them out. Have a great night

[@frosted1030]

@G Will "Sure it is; it's numb-nuts like you putting science in the place of god" Let's review: Science allows us to learn, explore and understand the universe through methodology that specifically requires *disbeLIEf* as it's modality. Your fables about your imaginary friend demand subservience, ignorance, beLIEf, and fallacy. Do you see how these things are not alike? We are not replacing your deity. We just found it lacking.

[@frosted1030]

@@TheDaddyNick "When people say, "I believe in Science" I am pretty sure that makes it a "thing"." Science doesn't require beLIEf. It's the opposite. In this context it's a friendly jab. Try to keep up.

[@zainulabideen6812]

hope you got my points

[@dagwould]

A couple of good references: Peter Harrison's book The Bible and the Rise of Modern Science ( I think that's the title) , and the work by Stanley Jaki, amongst others. The main point is that the biblical creation account (taken as factual) tells us that the cosmos is not animated, not 'spiritual' but from mind and therefore amenable to analysis by mind, rightly subject to such analysis as it is created, not self-existent; a 'creature' not 'god'. We don't live in an animist world of irrational causality in a closed system; but a theistic world of rational causality in an open system. But, why would this be controversial? Well, because mind implies, quite directly, personhood. Personhood implies relationship. Relationship with the creator sounds, oh, what? Coercive? Controlling? That's too much Calvinism and not enough understanding. Want to know what God is like: check Deuteronomy 14:26!

[@JinKee]

First off, let me see if I understand what is being said: The central question in this talk is Stephen Hawking's assertion that you have to choose between science and God (8:00). We are reframing the question to ask if science tends towards the theistic or atheistic explanation of the cosmos (12:16), and admonished to not get trapped into false alternatives (30:56) by accepting that that there are two complementary **levels** of explanations - water boils because of the thermodynamics of phase change, but also because I as an intelligent agent want a cuppa coffee (25:57) and both are said to be valid explanations just at two different levels. Stephen Hawking says that religion is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark - the so called freudian argument (16:21). Stephen Hawking goes on to say that so long as there is gravity then the universe can and will come into existence from nothing (31:22). Why is there something instead of nothing? (56:37) Stephen Hawking says that the scientific materialist worldview is bottom up (45:54): first you have a primordial vacuum energy (56:37) filled with virtual particles which Lamoreaux observed when measuring the Casimir effect between two metal plates in vacuum, and just as a virtual particle can become a permanent particle by having one half of the matter/antimatter pairs falling into the event horizon of some kind to make hawking radiation, the whole universe pops into existence like some kind of giant quantum fluctuation (15:02) which by the way could help explain where all the antimatter went. So you have something from "nothing" where nothing is defined as what you get when you remove everything you can from a volume of spacetime (56:37) which is a very practical experiment that physicists do all the time with vacuum pumps and soft iron magnetic shielding and occasional expensive forays into microgravity.

[@JinKee]

So that's the end of the summary of the question that I think is being discussed. So one of the ideas that Dr John Lennox offers to decide if indeed the science points towards the theism or atheism is the following: Newton was a Christian and Hawking is not (15:12), instead Newton and Kepler were inspired by his belief that he was made in the image of God to examine the universe and follow God's thoughts in the language of mathematics (13:42). Newton ended up coming up with his Law of Gravitation which is good enough to calculate the passage of the Comet Lovejoy and other near miss astral bodies **without even needing Einstein's correction** (4:48). The elegance of the 8 symbol Newtonian formulation of gravitation is taken as evidence that there is intentionality in the design of the fine tuned universe (5:54) as starkly as seeing your name written on the beach (44:08). This is taken as the evidence for theism, indeed Newton wrote his thesis Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica to encourage people to read it and maybe come to believe in God (15:12). Dr Lennox attempts to dismiss Hawking's formulation of the origins of the universe tending towards atheism and a simple mechanical process with the following arguments: The laws of gravity, or any natural law, are just descriptions with predictive power, not the phenomena themselves (27:16) and if there is nothing in the ordinary sense as opposed to a quantum vacuum energy that you get when you take everything else away, then philosophically you cannot get something from nothing (56:37) no matter what the laws say (33:43). And how do scientists know this? Not via a million dollar instrument but by using your brain (35:38). The Neo-Darwininian view is that the brain is made by random chance (38:17) and so it would be a flawed instrument according to Darwin's own doubts (37:44) as the human mind is set up for evolutionary reproductive success, not truth (38:44). This is seen as a slam dunk citing thomas nagel saying that the flawed brain cannot be a solid instrument to depend on, and if the mental is not merely physical then it cannot be explained by physical science (39:56) and there is a cute line after giving what is due to CS Lewis (41:39) that the reductionist view has shot itself in the brain by discrediting the brain as a truth finding instrument (43:00).

[@JinKee]

And that is the crux of the issue as I've seen it presented here today. We are told that we should render unto science what belongs to science (48:22) and that if the question of god is not relevant to the mechanics of the study of natural phenomena (1:22:35) saying "I don't need that hypothesis" (48:22). This is usually thought of as Occam's Razor - the best explanation is as simple as possible (said Einstein) but no simpler. Have you ever asked why we should remove as many moving parts as possible from our model of the world? I think it is because if we introduce God and gods and angels and demons and criminally unethical colleagues who sabotage their lab mates' work into our picture of the world we quickly become unable to make mechanical predictions of the world, we veer away from the mathematics of unfeeling machinery and into the psychology of intelligent actors who you may not be able to interview. This becomes complicated quickly. If you have one person who needs you to chant to appease the machine spirits and another person who just tells you the forces acting on the part, you make best use of time and resources going with the simple option.

[@JinKee]

Also if you are going to compare Newton and Hawking, are you going to say that when they talk about "Gravity" they are using the same model of the world? That elegant 8 symbol formula in Newtonian Mechanics (as noted at back at 4:48 doesn't have "Einstein's Correction") doesn't use the Lagrangian formulation of Einstein's General Relativity. Newton could not have come to the same conclusions that Hawking did about God from studying the Law of Gravity because over two centuries one description of the world with predictive power was replaced by a better description of the world with more predictive power. Dr Lennox says that physicists enamored with Aristotle's steady state universe would have been better served by entertaining a biblical big bang (52:46), well Newton spent a lot of his time writing about the End Times predicting that there would no longer be a Pope in Rome due to volcanoes in 2016 which could have been time better spent on other things. Dr Lennox points out that Richard Feynman says we don't understand gravity (25:38) which is a fair assessment of our knowledge of the quantum scale, and that if Gravity can't be the beginning of something from nothing, then God must have done it (58:56) since God is not physical. At the same time, Dr Lennox says that we can't have a God of the Gaps (22:07) since the God of Lightning disappears when you do your first atmospheric physics class (22:58). Is it really different if the gap is before time began, rather than inside the universe? All Dr Lennox has effectively done here is declare he worships the God of Gravity, which we do not understand.

[@JinKee]

We see our name written on the beach (44:08). We see a language in DNA (44:43). We see three sticks on the ground that look like the letter "A", or we see a cloud and methinks it looks like a weasel or very like a whale. We see faces in leaves and by the power of pareidolia we are compelled to see Jesus burned into our toast. Our brains are pattern matching machines because if we notice patterns we can make accurate-ish predictions and maybe have enough kids that one of our descendants will own a Telsa Roadster. This comes back to the Wittgenstein argument at 27:16 that we never deal with the phenomena themselves just our perceptions and predictive descriptions of them. We are not wrong to see God in the world regardless of whether God exists or not, it is just how we see the world. So we have to use the scientific method to lock those predictions down by taking measurements from all kinds of independent lines of inquiry and then removing as many unnecessary parts of the hypothesis as we can. You could just as easily see DNA as a part of an automata like a glider in conway's game of life, or those natural nuclear reactors that form spontaneously when enough fissile minerals collect in one place. And let's return to the brain for a second. Dr Lennox says that objective realities exist outside descriptions (34:15). Random variation means that you can expect some brains to get closer to the truth and other brains to stray further from the truth, and if the objective environment is hostile enough then only those who are capable of making predictions that are good enough get to pass on their genes, which is the selective part of natural selection. We can think of it this way - no piece of equipment is 100% reliable, but it just needs to get you from A to B, from Newtonian physics to some kind of relativistic physics if you want GPS devices, and on to Quantum Gravity if you want some other unknown technology that you will undoubtedly learn to live with. If you get from A to B often enough you get to have your species live on every continent on earth while the monkeys and great apes face extinction.

[@JinKee]

At 46:47 Dr Lennox says that information is not material, and it is true that information theorists have ways to estimate its size and compressibility and see quantum information never get destroyed, however anyone who has ever lost a thumb drive with their term paper on it knows that information does have a relationship to the world of physics and chemistry. Is there any information that you can think of that isn't encoded the arrangement of properties of particles of some sort at a specific place in spacetime? Maybe materialism is not quite dead yet. Finally the discussion of the brain gets to the Freudian argument about religions of the world and the golden rule (1:12:04). Science cannot provide a moral landscape (1:06:25) because all morality must be by definition transcendent (44:43). Science, Dr Lennox would lead us to believe, can tell you in morbid detail what would happen if you did poison granny for her money (1:06:25) but not if you should. This is backed up by running falsifiable experiments about God in your personal life (in defiance of Jesus saying you must not tempt god and jump off any temples) and of course the plural of anecdotes is ethnographic data (1:12:04). We destroy Sam Harris by saying that his neurological path from is to ought is constructed by a rhetorical trick where you front load the ought and case closed (1:06:25), right?

[@shayaandanish5831]

When was this speech given???

[@zainulabideen6812]

Dr Johan Lennox

[@eddiericks6554]

Jesus is the architect of space time and manner i know it’s hard to get your head around it but make the time to figure it all out 😬

[@schmetterling4477]

I figured it all out when I was eight years old: it's the world's longest running Nigerian Prince scam. ;-)

[@kymdickman8910]

Clearing the fog... such a great way to do it.

[@fredshortname6331]

You pick the best verses like all preachers to start discussion. But what if you start with this verse: "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

[@fredshortname6331]

Newton rejected the trinity. Also, if he knew about Darwin, he might reach a different conclusion. Many scientific discoveries after his including Noah's arc events in bible was proven inaccurate

[@hendricksam]

And this is relevant how...exactly?

[@kennethgee2004]

Anyone that starts with that does not know the verses well nor the meaning of the passage. The punishment they get if the slave dies is death. the punishment spared to the owner is not dying. They also lose their rights over the person as a slave if the slave survives. Otherwise, the owner loses either way.

[@fredshortname6331]

@@kennethgee2004 Exodus 21:20-21 clearly says the owner who beats his slave is not to be punished if slave survives. I am waiting for Prof. Lennox to massage this verse to make it ethical to match modern day.

[@kennethgee2004]

@@fredshortname6331 you might want to look at kzbin.info/www/bejne/omPUZJmnoZJ1ors

[@zainulabideen6812]

stay hapoy

[@lakevacm]

If it did we want evidence. Did someone see God die?

[@richardwendling4030]

lol, God can't die, it is figurative hyperbole.

[@lakevacm]

@@richardwendling4030 lol

[@zainulabideen6812]

happy

[@massiheem3637]

Great

[@jamesjaudon8247]

Professor,Dr, Theologian and priest. David Lennox. I wonder if thes ever get to you? As the Lord waits till they are well done to inact judgement. Judging by the template of history, do you believe the iniquities of the Gentiles is full? Or do you think things will get much,much more twisted up? The west is deteriorating, but how far and for how long will they go? Will they last like the Romans,The Egyptians ? Or like Asyria? Just your thought on the time ?

[@bonnievandake4410]

They needed to make a wheel; a boat; a spaceship and they needed to know it could get them home from wherever it took them. So they became aware of laws and as Adam named all creatures; they, too, named that part of life - science. It's a part of our Adamic nature to name things. Bonl

[@zainulabideen6812]

sense

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Answer...no. There will always be people who do not require evidence for their beliefs

[@TheNthMouse]

Yes. Atheists will be around until the end of time.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@TheNthMouse I don't require evidence for atheism. Atheism isn't a belief system...theism is. Evidence is required for a claim, in this case that a god exists. Without sufficient evidence belief isn't logical

[@krustysurfer]

*LOVE IS THE UNIFIED FIELD* Or The unified field is love... Love~It is a force like gravity that defies description....... Jesus said "God is Love" Okay scientists get to work on that one 😎

[@MrCraigBlake]

Think about what evangelists are telling you - Believe and do as I say here today, or burn in hell in the afterlife (after you die) for eternity, as punishments for your sins on earth. Follow me and God and join God as a reward in heaven, in the afterlife, and eternal bliss for believing what I believe. If they are going to heaven in the afterlife because they are good, then it’s reasonable to assume that they came from heaven in the before life, because they are good. Why did they leave heaven in the beforelife (and not remember any of it) only to come to earth to be born, to tell us that we are going to hell?

[@digginestdog5824]

Craig Blake That isn’t what Christianity teaches.

[@MrCraigBlake]

@@digginestdog5824 don't get too specific, now.

[@jmaniak1]

You can’t kill something that never existed

[@jillcolvin4196]

Lol - can you prove that?

[@dagwould]

@1:01:25: I have to disagree with John on 'the Bible says zero about the age of the earth'. The questioner is quite right: in other words, she has identified a clash of worldviews, of conceptions of reality. We have so deeply imbibed materialist naturalism as a culture that we seem to need to platonize the biblical text relating to chronometrics and place it in another frame, other than the frame of reference the Bible itself sets up in Genesis 1 and thereafter. The description of creation in Genesis 1 quite definitely and unambiguously places the creation in history, as events that occur in history and in a cadence that sets out the frame of reference for the rest of the Bible, and indeed for life as a whole. Now, how would the Bible tell us the age of the earth? It would not be possible to give a date...how would this be done? The only way that is independent of culture is to use a genealogy that connects the creation events (with Adam the zero point) with the history that is initiated in God's interaction with his creation in those events. The important thing about the genealogies is that they allow all history to be connected to real events in creation, and link us both ontologically and existentially with the word of the creator. Of course this is shocking to the naturalist materialism of the air we breathe, and the thought it frames; outrageous, in fact; but this is the point, surely! It shows our genealogy of spirit; or meaning and sets us in relation to the living God; this creator God is no longer the distant anonymous 'god' of deism, the impersonal 'everythingism' of much Eastern religion, or the 'god is everything' of animism, but the God who speaks and communicates. The univesrse is suddenly driven by word and mind; not mere material. And so we are represented to be qualitatively different from the material, while we still participate it. The Creation in time, in history, binds us both ways, and meaningfully.

[@jillcolvin4196]

The chronologies if which you reference are incomplete. Further, an understanding of ancient Hebrew is helpful here. "Son of" has been used for a grandson or ancestor in ancient Hebrew so the chronologies are not literal accounting of the living.

[@peterlittlewood9810]

He says that science does not provide explanations. That is true in the sense that, for example, science enables us to calculate how gravity behaves but does not tell us what it is. On the other hand, let's consider what religion offers. The religious answer always comes down to one thing: "God did it". That offers nothing of any value, except to religious people that take it as a matter of faith (belief without proof). And we are supposed to believe that this religious view, devoid of any detail or evidence, can somehow complement the process of scientific exploration. No, it can't. Religion and science are fundamentally incompatible in every respect. It seems to me that Dr. Lennox's arguments reflect a personal need to be both religious and scientific at the same time, rather than a rational approach to the facts.

[@kennethgee2004]

You wrote, "The religious answer always comes down to one thing: 'God did it'. That offers nothing of any value, except to religious people that take it as a matter of faith (belief without proof)." So you think that we are using the god of the gaps argument? You think that faith is without reason? You think that there is little value in the statement that God did something? If you are asserting that God is true and is of little value, then you are inconsistent. God is the creator, and he has the power to destroy you. If asserting God is real and God did something, then it is an explanation of how we have something rather than nothing, because a mind made a choice. if you are asserting that God is real, then having trust in God based on evidence, which is faith, would be a rational choice. Do you really think that the universe created itself out of nothing? Do you know of the historical facts that surround Jesus? You assert that there is no evidence for God, and even if there was that God is incompatible with science. Why do you think an agent is incompatible with science?

[@TheNthMouse]

@Peter Littlewood - He said nothing of the kind, and you would be well advised to pay attention when you actually listen to what he says.

[@peterlittlewood9810]

TheNthMouse I’ve listened to a lot of what John Lennox has said. Debates, speeches, conversations and presentations. I’m completely clear on what he means. He’s a mathematician and appreciates the beauty and fascination of science. He also has his religious faith. No problem with either of those. My disagreement is his idea that he can combine science and religion into one consistent explanation of the universe. He can’t. They live in different worlds. Science evolves. It challenges itself. New theories replace old ones. We test our theories with experiments and observations. Religion does the opposite. It relies on belief without proof and rejects any challenge by saying that God can do anything, even if you can’t explain why. John has, at least, been prepared to take on some difficult issues such as why does God allow suffering. He speaks powerfully about the horrors of the Holocaust. Where was God then? But still there are no answers.

[@peterlittlewood9810]

Kenneth Gee There are certainly gaps in science. That’s what makes it so interesting. But we don’t need a God to fill them. What we do is to look for more science, and we often find it. In answer to one of your points, yes it is possible that the universe came spontaneously from nothing. It’s possible that the positive energy we see in matter and radiation is balanced exactly by the negative energy of gravitation. In that case the total energy of the universe is still zero. We’re not sure about that but it’s a theory that’s worth considering. What we don’t do is to say oh, it’s all too difficult so let’s just imagine that God did it. That’s not an explanation. And, by the way, if you think that the universe needs a creator, then who created God?

[@TheNthMouse]

Peter Littlewood - 1) Your understanding of religion is fundamentally flawed. Faith =\= Blind Faith. 2) Your understanding of science is also flawed: Truth is eternal. 3) Your understanding of God is fundamentally flawed: You are not the Arbiter of Morality - certainly no more qualified to such a position than myself.

[@zainulabideen6812]

John Lennox the topic is alarming since ignorance now you are saying did Science killed God at end time people challange God Allah but soon you will see yourself how much you are helpless and how powerful God is and God watching you with your team

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Science is examining the atomic structure of the world and searching the vast reaches of space, looking for a god. In the meantime John has found his answers in his boyhood religion.

[@immanuel829]

Your free will alone shows: The self that is looking through your marvellous eyes cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry. "This conclusion... strongly reinforces our belief in the human soul and in its miraculous origin in a divine creation." John Eccles, neuroscientist and Nobel laureate

[@adriangonzalez7850]

@18:29

[@marchyman5061]

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” This is what early onset dementia looks like at the genius level. A brilliant sounding assertion that is obviously self-contradictory.

[@peterlittlewood9810]

Marc Hyman It’s worthwhile actually looking at the scientific theory behind this simple sounding assertion about gravity, rather than just dismissing it. What it means is that the total energy of the universe can be exactly zero. Gravitational energy is negative and can balance the positive energy of matter and radiation. That is why the universe could arise spontaneously from nothing without the need for an act of creation. It amounts to taking nothing and splitting it into a positive and negative component. There is a meaningful debate to be had between science and religion and John gets a bit closer to it than many people. He stops short of confronting the real implications because it doesn’t fit his religious point of view, which is unfortunate, but these are the things that we need to discuss if we genuinely want to understand each other.

[@TheNthMouse]

Peter Littlewood - 1) by that logic (that a system with 0 energy can spontaneously change): a ball at rest on a table can spontaneously roll, with no external (or internal) impetus - or fly. 2) the total energy of the Universe is > 0, even if you treat gravity as a negative energy component: that's why the Universe expands at an accelerated rate.

[@peterlittlewood9810]

@@TheNthMouse I don’t think you’ve tried to understand what I said. Energy is conserved in my explanation, obviously not in your ridiculous example. Gravitational energy exactly balances matter and energy in a universe with a flat geometry, and that is what astronomers observe it to be.

[@krustysurfer]

Science is the observation of the creation and the laws that seem to govern it.

[@friendo6257]

I didn’t find any of his arguments convincing. If you do, please explain why.

[@chriszablocki2460]

No it didn't. It'd be like your cat killing you by neglecting to feed you.

[@servantofMostHighELELON]

Millions of claps for John. But John we both know when you get a million demons and speak of God you get zero.

[@CaptainPhilosophical]

18:30 Or that statement is Dawkin's projection of his fear.

[@colinlatimer9501]

Humanity does not understand and know everything although we learn through research and analysis. A Christian Bible teaching which promotes Love one another world peace and understanding must be good and beneficial for humanity. Faith - Hope - Charity. Thank you for an excellent presentation.

[@benwood7475]

Have you read the entire bible? With the exception of Jesus almost none of it promotes peace and love. And I am prepared to prove it with quotes from the King James Bible

[@zainulabideen6812]

nor

[@randyschmidt19]

Great job at misquoting authors and altering questions from which that were presented.

[@bashaarsaadeh]

Answer: 29:53

[@zainulabideen6812]

who made

[@zainulabideen6812]

your question is nit meant for God if you believe God is like us part of Universe then question turn in some other direction

[@ИринаКим-ъ5ч]

Anderson Edward White Sandra Clark Michelle

[@loismayette2747]

No, science is the discovery of God....

[@josevalverde7431]

Deus não precisa ser afirmado pelo homem . Deus se impõe.

[@ntsokolomemani3874]

Always very cute listening to Professor Lennox. He is just so loveable you even forget that he is talking of fairytales

[@coyh9522]

You see God's word being fulfilled everyday as we grow closer to Jesus Christ's coming. He said His people (Jews) would return to the land, live a generation in relative peace and then Christ would return for His bride, the church, before a great tribulation of the world and Israel would endure. We see it get closer as the world descends into chaos. Remember this in the coming months and see if the "fairytale" comes true.

[@stabbybear3293]

its cute when a moron talks about a man who is clearly his intellectual superior. you are so loveable

[@TheNthMouse]

Atheists: "In the beginning was absolute void: not even the laws of science existed; then [ nothing ] (magically) exploded and that's why we're all here."

[@mecanopasensa660]

@John Smith, he is a good Joker.

[@johnhendren450]

I’m just iiiuuuuuupiìh guy y y😢😮😅

[@shayaandanish5831]

1:22:02 God forgives in this world as from a Muslim perspective too.

[@peteschenck6413]

Ll

[@XJacktheripperX]

Well 1st of all... Science is evolving with every person working on it! A scientist few decades back had less reasons to deny the existence of god than a scientist has in todays world! With the discovery of gravitational waves, progess in quantum mechanics and understanding singularity... A man in todays world has more reasons to not believe in a supernatural creator! Most people seek easiers ways to justify something.. trying to avoid the hardwork they have to put in.. in order to understand the truth! And the only way to understand the truth behind anything is helping in the evolution of its science to that point! I would request people who r stuck with religious beliefs to consider a more open and wide view of the existing universe and consider the scenario without god! Even if some god did create us... Wouldn't it be nice to actually be able to interact with him/her from closer as his/her best creation? Like a son and dad relationship? And its obvious the 1st step to that is raise questions! Like If we consider a little lost baby being raised by someone... He knows that he was indeed created by someone as he grows up.. but not by whom! And we can relate the person who raised him is the current religious system! But in order to find the truth... He must learn who his real parents were! And thats what we people should do instead of living with the person who is raising us and keep praying to our mysterious father/mother! That's just not fair! And above all... If there is a god, i believe he could have done better with this world he created! Cuz there's too much wrong with it! Starting from people with bad thoughts to disasters to singularity of black holes! This gives us more of a reason why a perfect being cannot exist! Cuz his creation is full of flaws! No offense to anyone but i believe religion will only bring disaster in future times as the biggest partition of believes in humanity! Think about it! Your decents might suffer from ur arrogance and ego! 😅

[@kennethgee2004]

Science cannot be evolving as it is not a living organism. You mean that as scientists study our body of knowledge it getting more extensive and the theories more refined. There is actually more evidence from science today that is point towards God than ever before.

[@XJacktheripperX]

@@kennethgee2004 Lol! Well 1st of all science is evolving with every person/generation working on it! If u think only living organisms evolve... Maybe u need to learn what evolution actually means! (Its not the biology reference) And apart from that... Science always works on evidence and then reaches to conclusions! As long as there r more evidence to explore... Science never gives conclusion! Unlike u religious people who start with a conclusion (like ur God cares about what u have for breakfast and lunch) and start looking for evidence that support ur conclusion... And discard anything that doesn't! That's not how logic and reason works! And about what u said... People used to believe in a lot of things that has been proved wrong like thundering and solar/lunar eclipse etc etc... All as act of God! And this wasn't a day's work! It took many years and generation to work out the science behind it and explain it to the world! And before u know... People who r actually eager to learn and explore will find the cause and reason for our existence while religious people just keep their eyes closed and keep hailing their imaginary god! And not just hail but fight, shed blood and blow each other up (happening already)! So just think before u blindly believe in the teachings u got from ur childhood and ur holy books! As a grown up with ur own perspective of the universe... Everyone should ask questions! And if u get answers that satisfies ur logical brain... Feel free to believe what u want! But as my personal opinion... I can say religion will not do any good to humanity in future days! This is the only difference among humanity that makes humans look down on other humans... That still stands strong (We are overcoming stuff like racism, sexism etc etc)! So its not impossible people might kill each other to extinction ones they evolve to that point (Again... Already happening)! So ur blind faith "MIGHT" indirectly lead to cruel deaths of ur descendants! A friendly advise.. Just think about it! 🙂

[@kennethgee2004]

@@XJacktheripperX Science means a body of knowledge. It is not a living organism. I do not think that evolution is real in any sense. I mean change over time is the strictest of definitions for evolution, but that is hardly a term worth mentioning. I agree that science uses the laws of logic. There is also evidence that science cannot explore like history and philosophy. But then you contradicted your self with "Science never gives conclusion!" Who says we start with God? Science starts with a hypothesis and looks for data to support the hypothesis so how is that any different from philosophy or theology?

[@XJacktheripperX]

@@kennethgee2004 Well... Im not trying to debate over literature here! And i guess u understand my point already if u read what i said with an open mind! If u did and u still want to debate over it... I give up cuz i know its hard to change someone's mind over religion (trust me tried on a lot of people.. very few understand logic)! But nvm... There's a lot of questions i have that need a "LOGIC BASED" answer! Im myself from a religious family but as i grew up.. i wasn't just willing to appreciate anyone for this world full of flaws! And standing at this point... I know there is none (no offense)! And seeing how people r into it and leading towards a very bad future.. it just sad to watch! I hope humanity will be able to overcome this just like racism, sexism etc etc.. over time... (Things that make humans look down on other humans) Sadly it isn't the era im born in! I believe humans can do way better than this! Peace 🙂

[@kennethgee2004]

@@XJacktheripperX You say you have many questions that need logical answers. I agree that faith is trust based on reason. I do not put my faith in God lightly. Ask away. You say this is not a debate. Good! We can have a conversation then. It is hard to get people to change their worldview, but just because it is hard does not mean we should not try. I mean if you are interested in truth then believing in as many true things as possible would be worth your while.

[@imtrying2969]

I had no reason to believe in god. After watching the video, I now have negative 1 reasons to believe in god.

[@dopeydonaldtrump3744]

Did science kill god ? That is a really dumb question. How can you kill something that doesn't exist ?

[@stabbybear3293]

"How can you kill something that doesn't exist?" You cannot prove he doesn't exist, therefore yours is the dumb question.

[@dopeydonaldtrump3744]

@@stabbybear3293 I cannot prove that he doesn't exist. Yes, you are correct. Does that prove that he does exist ? No, obviously not or we would be overrun with Santa Claus, fairies, goblins, aliens, teapots orbiting planets etc. I believe that you were created from a dog turd this morning and you cannot prove me wrong, therefore you are a dog turd. To say you cannot disprove something only demonstrates one thing....the stupidity of the person who said it.

[@dopeydonaldtrump3744]

@Nautical Miles Your post is too stupid to reply to.

[@digginestdog5824]

DopeyDonald Trump I think you misunderstood the question. It’s far from dumb regardless of one’s beliefs.

[@dopeydonaldtrump3744]

​@@digginestdog5824 Let me rephrase the question for you "Can science kill a fictional character like James Bond ?". Ok, you see how dumb that is now ?

[@MrCraigBlake]

Are the "men of God" that rapes God's innocent children Satan's deception, or God's will himself? It's neither. It's the decisions of those "men of God" in exercising their free will and acting on the heinous crimes. The "men of God" say it's God's will, who is out there, so they don't have to be accountable here.

[@krustysurfer]

Your assertion is illogical, framing the blame on God. Those people acted by free will and there will be justice someday because there is a God.

[@jray1429]

@@krustysurfer As He tells us…GOD is not mocked

[@sgsupreme17]

Why doesn't he speak of all the biblical fallacies

[@stabbybear3293]

probably because there are plenty of retarded atheists out there who can cherry pick that crap for face value, conveniently ignoring the complex moral issues and solutions they represent.

[@danminer5343]

There are no fallacies in the KJ Bible. You can trust every Word of God.

[@sgsupreme17]

Dan Miner By the looks of it, You probably don’t even know what fallacy is

[@danminer5343]

@@sgsupreme17 - Learn grammar, your last word should have been "are". You are unable to refute anything I said. I challenge you to use science to challenge what I teach.

[@sgsupreme17]

Dan Miner ahhh yes the Ad hominem attack is the first thing that come out of ignorance. Grammar patrol. Again, you don’t even know what a fallacy Is

[@bonnievandake4410]

The sun does not rise in the east nor does it set in the west. Pretnear sounding like the weird relationship some people have with flat earth jargon. The earth rotates to the east revealing the sun on our eastern horizon and as earth continues to rotate to the east our western horizon hides the sun from 1/2 the planet causing one side or the other of planet to experience night or day. Bonl The earth r

[@GeoCoppens]

No, God never existed in the first place!

[@TheDaddyNick]

To exist you needed a starting point, so technically God is outside of existence. Uncaused cause

[@GeoCoppens]

@@TheDaddyNick "...technically God is outside of existence. Uncaused cause.... How did you establish this as an objective fact. An uncaused cause is total nonsense!

[@kennethgee2004]

@@GeoCoppens You wrote, "An uncaused cause is total nonsense!" How did you establish this as an objective fact, when Artistotle was one very famous philosopher that believed that statement?

[@kymdickman8910]

GeoCoppens Not as nonsensical as the fact that you’re using the very brain caused by God to argue against His existence.

[@GeoCoppens]

@@kennethgee2004 Aristotle 384 B.C. - 322.B.C. Logic was not yet formalized as a branch of logic in Aristotle's days. Anyway what do you know about causality??? Read Mario Bunge "Causality". You may learn something.

[@dopeydonaldtrump3744]

Wow, there's a lot of comments on this. Can I assume that the conclusion that everyone has reached is that religion and gods are a pretty silly idea ?

[@boringname3657]

So everyone must follow your opinions? Gotcha.

[@TheNthMouse]

No, but thinking of naturalism/materialism/determinism/atheism as a complete explanation certainly is.

[@boringname3657]

@@TheNthMouse All beliefs reduce to absurdism, don't they?

[@TheNthMouse]

Sergej Slijepčević - Is that your belief?

[@boringname3657]

@@TheNthMouse No, it's a fact.