Dr Joanna Collicutt McGrath | God DOES Exist

Dr Joanna Collicutt McGrath gives her argument for the existence of God.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Facebook @ theoxfordunion
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-union.org/
She starts by addressing the question, what do we mean by God? She goes on to talk about her personal experiences with religion and atheism, and how Christianity is a type of humanism as well as theism.
Filmed on Thursday 8th November 2012
ABOUT DR JOANNA COLLICUTT MCGRATH:
Psychologist of religion & Anglican priest at Oxford; co-author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Rights managed by Oxford Media Associates www.oxfordmediaassociates.com/
Filmed by Oxford Media Solutions www.oxfordmediasolutions.co.uk

[@TheLordHighNoob]

There is a huge effing difference in debate between "Does God exist" and "I believe in God."

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oV63pYN8qtFlfK8

[@italiaroxannesosa]

Exactly

[@derrekdevon2366]

All she was saying is "Re-evaluate your definition of God" most people think God is an old man somewhere in the cosmos with white beards and a shining face on a golden throne complete with a golden staff. Re-evaluate your definition of God.

[@iniohos2]

@Brigid Balsamo too slow

[@jamesbyrne9312]

Not really, as there is no proof so you cant use science language

[@ian.ion.]

To save 12 minutes 54 seconds of your life, in summary: "I have no rational arguments, here's my personal story on my personal faith."

[@masomamakes2004]

Damn I wish I saw this comment before I watched that whole video lol

[@sherlockholmes882]

Reading such comments makes me feel like watching it more!

[@sefcakjames8254]

In essence, you want to watch more in order to strengthen your delusional world of 'make believe'.

[@philldwyer5221]

Sefcak James Totally agree, religion is the biggest money making con in the world and oh dear how many millions Of poor muppets actually believe in it?

[@gdobie1west988]

Ian Jones, thanks for the info.

[@rywilk]

"I was going to begin my talk with quoting my Cambridge-educated daughter" Wow ok.

[@dawnrock2391]

🥲

[@jacksonrelaxin3425]

So there’s a problem with honoring your family. Would you rather her get a huge hard-on for some TV Jew like Carl Sagan or Einstein? Dumbass.

[@tulliusagrippa5752]

Dr McGrath does not address the subject of the debate. She multiplies words with zero factual content.

[@lavanya-wo5gj]

Lmao

[@davidgafo]

John Lennox tryes to make an argument just saying nice words FACTUAL, REASONABLE, "SOME PRESTIGIOUS SCIENTIST"..... So sad they didn't bringed someone smart to defend the God side.

[@dothedeed]

So basically she felt lost and just grabbed on to something, anything, to feel purposeful.

[@a.t.6322]

dothedeed No that's not at all what she said.

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5zLiWBpedGLns0

[@naomistremtan1321]

Everyone does that, whether you're an atheist, agnostic, believer etc. The question is 'what are you grabbing onto to feel purposeful?' and 'What is the evidence that what you're grabbing on to is the truth?' My faith is in Jesus Christ. What is your faith in? Yourself, money, today, your family, satisfying your wants? That is a question only you can answer for yourself. God bless you❤

[@FactStorm]

Typical religious "argument"

[@FactStorm]

@@naomistremtan1321 You're pitiful

[@Gumikrukon]

I appreciate the fact that she thought that she didn't need arguments.

[@jamesbyrne9312]

You dont, whats ur argument against then

[@hannoralphmartens7444]

@@jamesbyrne9312 what is he supposed to argue against if she didn't make any valid points 😂

[@jamesbyrne9312]

@@hannoralphmartens7444 she did do

[@johnferreira2231]

@@jamesbyrne9312 if she had made any points that made any sense and weren’t just thoughts in her head, then no one would be an atheist.

[@jamesbyrne9312]

@@johnferreira2231 no one would be an atheist if they left there own ego aside for ten seconds

[@j.d.turvey4496]

I like this lady and I admire her courage in delivering a fine speech, unfortunately the content is WANK.

[@tracer740]

Understandably, a lot of misled people are yet, likable.

[@donaldkeith139]

You haven't thought enough.

[@tracer740]

@@donaldkeith139 - Who are you replying to?

[@oluwolechaviro9937]

@@donaldkeith139 Lol. So what’s your argument? Here’s one for you: now I really want u to try to tune in your critical thinking for this one - it might be difficult if you’re too indoctrinated. Here it goes: so let’s consider the 10 commandments. The first one enjoins the tribe of Israel not to make or worship any God except the one giving these commandments. So what springs to your mind when you read this passage? Do you just take it hook line and sinker or do u say “wait a minute now😁”, “why would God tell those people not to make or worship another God if he is just the one and only existing god who created these people?” So does he imply that there are other gods competing for these people’s attention? If yes, then does that not weaken the claim that God created man? This commandment would only logically make sense if it was man who created god. And the elders of that community didn’t want the people to go fashioning out other gods. They wanted unity. So, think about this and lemme hear your genuine reply. Thanks!

[@betsyduane3461]

@@donaldkeith139 Belief takes no thought.

[@guitarslim56]

Wow! It's amazing that she can talk for 12+ minutes and say nothing of substance!

[@geirerlinggulbrandsen851]

Celibacy must be really hard for such a stunner as her.

[@MichalZ78]

Geir Erling Gulbrandsen your comment is just plain stupid, why do you have to bring 'looks' into here ? you are without substance as well... moron !

[@lavanya-wo5gj]

yeah lmao

[@mypublicchannel3884]

You are correct, sir. Just as I have no idea what she said or was even attempting to say, I am certain that neither does she. There was no premise. No hypothesis. And no argument.

[@davidhollyfield5148]

Sexist moron

[@dwolfcoach]

That does it, I'm getting my Doctorate in logical fallacy from Thor University's theological academy. Then I'll be able to use fuzzy, falsely consoling, non-sequiturs to make a completely vacuous point-and collect a hefty check to sound smart.

[@tracer740]

Of course. That's concisely what it's all about.

[@thetruthslenderman1928]

As God this offends me too

[@tracer740]

Just imagine what this audience is actually thinking while they politely applaud her 'finish'.

[@alanthomson1227]

Nope she’s not getting paid for this drivel .

[@matimus100]

All Saint's are virgins?

[@ta13s93]

Her teammates are probably like....w...t...f?

[@tracer740]

@@matimus100 -- Yup. Never been 'diddled' (so they say).

[@matimus100]

@@tracer740 Ragnar Lothbrok 🦉

[@turbopro10]

@6:00 "i started to get an inkling, that the meaningful question to ask might not be, do i believe in god, but does god believe in me..." seriously!?!

[@jakeborders5055]

Has your views changed 8 years later?..

[@turbopro10]

@@jakeborders5055 Which views of mine do you refer? I suppose since the topic of this video was about "Does God exist," I suppose my view remains unchanged: I don't know. If your question refers to my rhetorical question in response to the speaker's submission about god believing in her, well here too I remain somewhat baffled.

[@iam604]

How to checkmate believers...1. If their particular god did not create evil, then it is not the creator of everything and thus not a god.

[@blossomx1804]

I discovered this as a child...not a difficult game of chess. Look up at my mom during a sermon and said, why create the devil in the first place...never got an answer.

[@bloopboop9320]

Eh, that doesn't hold water. The concept of evil is that it is something that lacks "good". The bible even puts it blatantly that evil is essentially what shadows are to light. They aren't created, they are an absence of something else.

[@bronislawbuturla9466]

if god existed he would ask her to stop dressing like that when she talks about him ..

[@billsmith7673]

Good point.

[@222amonra]

The worst errors to make in any type of presentation: Hold ground, waggle while standing, read from a paper, don't make eye contact and use a still sleepy voice. How can she really be a psychologist, without knowing these?

[@MrAFORCEONE]

One person says ''There is nothing in that room '', the other says '' There is something in the room ''. Now it is the onus of the person who says there is something in that room to go in there and point at the object in the room instead of asking the other person to just imagine that there is something in the room.

[@palewine]

In that example both sides would have equal burden of proof (actually, the "nothing in the room" guy would perhaps have MORE of a burden, since most rooms have SOMETHING in them, and thus he would be positing a highly unusual state for the room). The only person with no burden of proof would be the person who says, "I'm not sure what might or might not be in that room. I'm not convinced of anything in particular and am withholding judgment currently."

[@rchuso]

Failure.

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6mTfZ1_p7t4rpI

[@emreunal2044]

For the first time in my life I slept while staring at my monitor for 12 minute, that was very refreshing :)

[@maindirectorate1400]

She was speaking 12 minutes without saying literally anything. What a sleazy scammer

[@kenloukinen1890]

did she ever make a positive argument for the existence of a god?

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6mTfZ1_p7t4rpI

[@wladwlad]

"I am not a theist who happens because of cultural inheritance to be a Christian" - oh what a load of bollocks.

[@dynamitecrip]

she was saying that she needed something more rather than just the religious beliefs of her culture, she needed something more personal.

[@wladwlad]

and therefore she chose the dominant religion of her culture instead of, say, Hinduism.

[@dynamitecrip]

Ok, yes you have a point she did choose the same religion that her culture believed in, but she actually chose to go that route. she tried other avenues as she pointed out, they did not work for her, then she had a series of experiences that led her to that belief. She did not come out of the gate and say, "Well, everyone else believes this so I will too." Let me give you a for instance. I personally, was raised as someone who took both sides of the argument, now I am only 33, but as I get older I am finding myself more drawn to wanting to read the bible. You know, just cause it is the religion of your "four fathers" , I use the term loosely in this case, does not mean you did not choose it. she obviously had her moments of doubt, and via her experiences it brought her to that conclusion.

[@wladwlad]

Why did the other ways not work for her? Could it be they were not in line with her internalised values, due to cultural influences?

[@dynamitecrip]

that's a tricky question. I still think that if she had given in to things right away then the cultural point would make sense, however, she at least, as you and I am sure many others will in put, had an open mind and tried a different way before she went to this religion. Let me give you myself as a point, I have read the gnostic bible, and something's have rang like they were good, but I don't know if they rang true for me. I am now going to read the bible for the first time. Now, one side of my family, and the ones I live with are catholic by nature, yet, what has given me more hope is the things I have read on the Christian faith.

[@supersonic1439]

Same here. There was a good television programme concerning this on a few years ago (I think its on youtube). C.S Lewis battled with himself about whether there was a God every night for a long time, until one night he realised there must be a God, fell to his knees and prayed.He summed up why he chose Christianity well, stating that every religion is a myth, except Christianity, which is a true myth.

[@petermetcalfe6722]

What a load of nonsense.

[@thenasascientist6022]

Why is she talking only her feelings

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5zLiWBpedGLns0

[@mumadadd]

I'm an atheist desperate to believe in God, and I've trawled the internet and spoken with many people in the hopes of finding a sound argument. From the believers' side, this woman has more integrity than anyone I've seen or encountered; she acknowledges the ineffable nature of the God concept, and does not make any spurious "scientific" or "logical" arguments. If I were a believer, I'd be an Anglican.

[@jayd4ever]

become thiest

[@naciremasti]

​@@MarisaHoare-px8or what's it like to speak to someone who will NEVER respond? You sound like you're delusional.

[@jackrathbun2248]

This was like listening to my grandmother tell me about her uninteresting childhood stories, and all the tangents that go along with it.

[@sweedlepipe]

Don’t show your grandmother your post. Poor lady.

[@maindirectorate1400]

She was speaking 12 minutes without saying literally anything. What a sleazy scammer

[@Stupidityindex]

God does exist but can be ignored & expected to never do anything, so the ultimate title is fudged. Fantasyland verbiage gets you into his club. C'mon, Jesus is a parody of the Jewish Messiah. You are simply making suggestions the fantasyland vocabulary has value in both cults. Such vanity is found in fantasyland, one knows salvation through a pastor: Authorized by himself to weigh-in on whatnot, as if Earth had gravity-free zones & magic. The religious don't have ears to hear, the books of God are filled with faith & prayers: Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital, the religious are only into convincing themselves. Rabbi Podium Jockey should not take himself so seriously, nobody should. The religious have no quality-controls. God knows, god helps those helping themselves is a saying because gods have a perfect record of nothing doing outside of fiction. A deity unable to be acknowledged by everyone is a forgery based on literature. One might expect a deity to make itself known to everyone without work performed in interpretations of old literature by guys like our verbose podium jockey. Who in their right mind promotes travel as if best done with one foot in fantasyland vocabulary? What is moral or ethical about suggestions of travel with one foot in some religious fantasyland? Freud wrote the antidote to Christianity is literacy. and these wolves in sheep's clothing advocate prayer & faith verbiage. Even Jesus Christ said faith was worthless if you can't move mountains by issuing voice commands. Let us ignore a wicked generation seeks signs. Theologians grant the titles to each other without a deity certification. A house divided cannot stand. We vote because Christians have no quality-controls, & we desire those governing not making suggestions travel is best done with one foot in someone's fantasyland. 'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.'' Come, let us worship Jesus The Nailed by the Roman State, The Empire. Let us all forget it was secular law & order ending the inquisitions & witch-killings. Oppression builds character among the dominated. Who do you think nailed the king of the Jews, when Imperial Rome controlled temples & publications? Just for the fun of it, have their Messiah say render to Caesar? My sheep hear my voice. Think not I come with peace, but sword. The literate of the age; built religions & made propaganda, devalued the currency, too. Marvel not I say you are all gods, and so on & so on. Faith is a fantasyland term, & the Christians hate to hear it. If faith had any value, then you could move mountains by voice-command. We know there is no god outside of fiction. Freud wrote the antidote to Christianity is literacy. The Christians slapped their books on the Old Testament, & the Mormons glued theirs on to them both, thus proving Christians lack quality-control. Think not I come with peace, but sword. I come to divide this that and the other thing, & I give you tax exempt status.

[@bryanttillman]

that was humiliating

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZe0gWqrp86LjJo

[@jamesbyrne9312]

For you maybe, I pray for you sir

[@alexweirdyoung]

You can not claim to be "highly ambivalent about institutional religion" while wearing a clerical collar and expect to be taken seriously.

[@1249lineman]

She seemed very sweet and sincere. Her journey to faith was one of many personal experiences I'm sure most of us have heard other similar type stories;perhaps with less questions thrown in though. She didn't contribute anything in this debate forum,but even being an atheist,I don't have anything negative to say about her,she appears to be a good person.

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5zLiWBpedGLns0

[@Berny27]

she's a boring grandma that's what she is. And I don't care if you're atheist, but tbh, religion promises an afterlife, meanwhile not believing on anything doesn't. What would cost you to just believe?

[@enlilannunaki9064]

@@Berny27 You ask “What would it cost me...” My integrity.

[@philipmcclure6273]

Appearing to be a good person is no substitute for presenting an argument or evidence. Her presentation is void of any content.

[@Llowdar]

She is making a good and specific point: "are we debating the existence of God or his definition?". Do you really need that definition?

[@Slarti]

What do we mean..? What do we mean..? What do we mean..? Dear Dr Joanna Collicutt - what do you think I mean when I say "bloody well get on with it!"

[@somesweetdreamm]

If no argument was made in the video (which I agree, there wasn’t) then perhaps everyone in this comment section should find a video where actual arguments are being made if that’s what they are looking for. But that isn’t what they’re really looking for, is it? Lol. It begs the question why someone would even click on a video with this title in the first place if they are not open to having their mind changed or, at the very least, to learn about why religion would matter to some people. This video wasn’t titled, “Science that proves the existence of God”… just simply “God exists”. It seems to me that this was intended to be an academics testimony, not an actual argument formulated to prove the existence of God in the domain of science. No matter the intention, people should really stop with the ad-hominem attacks in the comments. That doesn’t help disprove the existence of God-but it does show that some atheists are no less pretentious than the religious.

[@johnferreira2231]

There’s no science that proves the existence of god. Before you tell me there’s no science to disprove God, I’ll just say that science was never started to disprove anything. You can’t disprove the existence of Spider-Man. She’s at a prestigious school speaking against doctors, the least you’d expect is something more than her feelings being a basis for what book we should all be worshiping lmao

[@billsmith7673]

I am extremely open and am seeking truth. I lost three decades of my life to a religion I now know to be wrong. I came to this video open-mindedly wanting to find evidence for a god. She provided zero.

[@somesweetdreamm]

@@billsmith7673 Yeah. I stated in the comment that she didn't make any good arguments. There are others who make far better arguments.

[@berquintim]

I first decided not to watch this video after reading your comment, but actually she's pretty good, you just need to get what she's saying.

[@chrismarysinger6375]

So she didn't make her point clear and you don't enumerate it either. I'll make it clear for anyone reading this. She saying: "I'm smart and so is my daughter. I can't think of any reason to believe in a god so I'll just ask lots of questions, quote people about unrelated things for no reason and hope you forget what we're talking about. Did you know that I'm smart? So's my daughter."

[@brucellowayne4853]

7:45 That eyebrow twitch from Peter Millican after she says "regli i o u s" priceless

[@robsaxepga]

Believing in religion is a human condition not a fact in reality. This is what I'm getting from this debate.

[@blossomx1804]

Exactly...like an effect of a stroke. And if it doesn't happen to everyone, why should we all believe,

[@dasGagaTier]

If her task was to present evidence or at least an argument for the existence of God, then she has spoken entirely off-topic.

[@raouldemer2300]

An honnest speech. She believes because... she believes.

[@lutkedog1]

Circular Retardation.

[@mohitkatyal9520]

Am I the only one who thinks that she's speaking out of the topic?

[@charleslotara]

Did anyone understand anything from this?

[@lutkedog1]

The Delusional nature of Belief

[@10hartland]

Wow this was pathetic, there were no persuasive arguments she just talked about herself. Absolutely humiliating.

[@billsmith7673]

Yep, I was thinking the same thing.

[@PhoenixMarco5]

Boy, which comment do I reply to? Harris, Krauss both got their butt handed by Craig. Dawkins, Shermer both got their behinds kicked by Lennox. Now I don't know who PZ is, and I don't think I have ever watched Baker in a debate, but If you think these guys are great thinkers, you seriously need to take one or two philosophy classes.

[@masomamakes2004]

In the beginning of this video she said she despised the the god of the gaps but why the end she just ends up describing exactly what she said she despised

[@TheBullemore]

The results: “143 for the proposition, and 168 for the opposition.” The atheists won! That 54% - 46%

[@jayd4ever]

yes because there were already a lot of atheists in the audience we live in society where it tries to undermine religion just because some people in the media are liberals or non religious

[@MegaErnieMAN]

Yes if the kid with the crazy hair sat on the left side instead that might of been 53%- 57% or better

[@palewine]

Did they take a vote beforehand, too, to see how much change occurred?

[@Berny27]

No one cares dumbass. Ok, Christians are over 2 billion, and atheists are not. CHRISTIANS WIN WOW.

[@p.bamygdala2139]

@@Berny27 by that reasoning, then when Islam surpasses Christianity in popularity then Islam will become true and Christianity will become false. And 2500 years ago, Zoroastrianism was true because it was most popular. See the flaw? Popularity changes. Truth doesn't. Popularity doesn't determine truth.

[@Vijin321]

And in your view, your intelligent designer itself requires an intelligent designer and so on. By your logic, every designer itself needs its own designer. And don't bother saying "he's eternal, he always existed." That is a fallacy called special pleading. Silly theists.

[@jayd4ever]

why is that fallacy

[@archangecamilien1879]

8:30 I think I heard Bart Ehrman or someone explains that the word "atheist" wasn't used in the same way by the Romans...just those who rejected their gods or something for some scandalous views...

[@williammorales3492]

As a christian i must say, this is not the right way to give atheists good reasons to believe that God does exists and why christianity above all religions in the world. This is the best example of believing in the right thing, but on the wrong reasons..

[@douglasrasmussen480]

The people attempting to assert that a god exists: Were they intelligent? Were they assertive in their beliefs? Were they likely genuinely nice people? - To all of these I would say yes. However, to the question, did anyone of them provide more that claims, assertions and god-of-the-gaps arguments. From my observation this was a resounding, NO!

[@schmetterling4477]

I never call a person who lies "nice". A liar is a liar.

[@matbroomfield]

She added nothing of substance that might convince a non believer, or even cause a non believer to go through some rational steps that might consider her experience to be indicative of truth, but at least she was honest about the fact that all she brought was personal experience.

[@EmilyRose1]

Mat Broomfield I think that's just your preconceptions because she believes in God, you already judged her and decided she had nothing important to say.

[@matbroomfield]

Emily Rose No, it's because all of the religious rhetoric is so tired and thoroughly debunked that it's almost impossible to come up with an argument that is fresh. So when someone simply tries to repackage the same, tired old dogma in new ways, with appeals to emotion, or worse still, personal anecdotes, it fails to impress. Imagine having an endless series of arguments with a seven year old about their bedtime. After a few months, you've heard every possible effort that they can offer, and even at their best they are not particularly convincing. That's how Christian apologetics sounds to me -an endless cycle child-like rhetoric and justifications.

[@TimCTrewyn]

Mat Broomfield Something happened to her in her atheistic adolescence that she chose not to share in detail, but it was a turning point for her. The first century is remote to us, the eyewitnesses unavailable for the kind of interrogation that might satisfy a twenty-first century mind. The opportunity to "thoroughly debunk" Christianity by modern standards was only available while those eyewitnesses were alive. Whatever happened, the story of Jesus and the church survives to this day. The first century book that debunks it has yet to be found and broadly cited in these arguments. If God exists, God can possibly intervene in human affairs. Something happened to her, and her inclination was to return to that first century story. If nothing spiritual has happened to you, then your skepticism is understandable, especially if your opinion of the New Testament is deeply entrenched. You will live your life as you see fit, if and until, something happens to lead you otherwise. I am concerned that you consider a perceived significant change in the course of another human being's development to have no substance. If you have children, their growth has substance for you, because you love them, and because that somehow comes "naturally" to you as their parent. And as a parent, do you not expect your fellow human beings to respect your love for your child? Will you be rigidly dismissive when your child makes subjective choices that may not conform to your views? I suppose I am offering parenthood as a rational step in understanding what you took the time to watch.

[@matbroomfield]

Tim Trewyn That was a beautiful monologue Tim, and I don't dismiss experience the importance of her experience TO HER. However, eye witness experience is notoriously subjective and unreliable, which is why it counts for almost nothing in a court of law. and that's when people are even willing to relate the details of that experience to others, which she is not! I'm sure that you can appreciate somebody saying to you, "I've had an experience that I found completely transformative but I'm not going to tell you what it is" would not meet your scepticism in a casual conversation with a friend, but in a debate where you are functioning as an apologist it's utterly lacking in merit. As for what I would accept from my children, I would no more accept my children's word as true, than I would this woman. Children cannot distinguish imagination from fact very often, are notorious liars and fantasists, and their brains are as fallible in interpreting reality as mine is. That said, it would depend upon the stakes. If my son told me he saw a pixie, I would ask questions, maybe engage in the fantasy, and share some fun with him. If on the other hand, he told me that monsters were following him to hurt him, I would immediately discuss and get to the bottom of the real cause of his concerns, disassembling his belief to take its power away from him. I feel exactly the same about "Road to Damscus" type experiences and the beliefs of Christianity. In my experience, Christianity is a compensatory belief system used to take the edge off the pain of our mortality and the lack of justice and fairness in existence.

[@TimCTrewyn]

Mat Broomfield As an engineer and jury participant, I must take a somewhat different stance on eyewitness reliability. Prominent, well run insurance companies spend considerable sums of money on depositions and expert witnesses, and judges are inclined to defer to the testimony of law enforcement officers. Untrained observers do get taken with a grain of salt, but nevertheless, the time and expense to listen to them is borne in the quest for substance. Nothing short of a personal experience was going to change the course of Paul of Tarsus. Note that none of the party of inquisitors with him at the time obtained any subsequent notoriety as Christian witnesses. Perhaps they did not buy into Paul's interpretation of the event either. Perhaps Dr. Collicutt is interested to see who will approach her after the debate and inquire. It would not surprise me if she simply said to them that no other person was going to persuade her, it's her life, that nothing short of a personal experience was going to change her course in life, no one else could have any power over her, and she expects nothing less will change the seeker in such an apologetic context. Your right, apologetics rarely converts, and she knew it, and Hitchens knew it, but John Lennox still had hope that it might, and that the listeners deserved the best he could offer. For me, accepting death as oblivion would be so easy. Every day springs evidence that human affairs are not fair or just, but I never thought to base my faith on that, or in response to that. If anything, the idea of perfect justice instills dread that would incline we the culpable to devise self assurances that it will never happen. Hopefully our better instincts lead us to make amends. The dissection of the New Testament over centuries has confirmed its human authorship and attendant flaws. Nevertheless, therein are both simple, core principles such as love of neighbor, accessible to any human being, as well as matrices of ideas for the gifted to explore, sometimes with tragic results, which have proved repellent to many. Maybe Dan Barker discovered he was putting words in the Spirit's mouth, and did the honest thing and stopped doing that, and then in his reportedly exaggerated tendencies, dropped the faith altogether. But the Spirit is the other component, not for us to make up, but present in some around us, and prodding us to seek. Thus the periodic gatherings of students and professors, KZbin videos, and comments. Yes, I propose you are here because the Spirit is at work in your life. There is my basis, my substance for faith, historical with respect to the New Testament and mystically contemporary with respect to the Holy Spirit, conscious of the allegation of compensatory behavior, always willing to explore that to avoid falsehood, but mindful of a personal history of events that someone else could easily disbelieve, but which I, the first hand witness, cannot deny. You won't believe Dr Collicutt, or me. We believe something can happen in your life, quite apart from us.

[@aureliansmask3502]

I'm so confused by this. Everyone in the comments is basing their critique of the speech on the title of the video. However, the title incorrectly states the resolution. As she stated, it is possible for God to not exist yet we ought to still believe in him

[@Nknz007]

I once had a spiritual awakening were GOD! Revealed to me as science. The science that we know and the science that we are about to discover and probably the science that we will never discover. But not just science as "The study of the physical world" but the science that exists as the nature and the absolute truth of everything that is. The force that's making me think and have a beating heart, The force that's making me breath and running my nervous system, But it didn't revealed to me as an actual loving person that wants me to be happy even tho there was a loving quality to it, but a neutral force that's ahead of me responsible for creating that is possible including things that can weakend us and designed to make me the best version of ourselves.

[@gruffalo911]

Everyone criticizes her for lack of rational argument; I think that is precisely why her presentation is compelling. Christian faith is not arrived at through reason, but rather through epiphany. Christians make a mistake in trying to defend their faith on rational grounds; It's like trying to defend the feeling of love or empathy to a psychopath. God is a realization, an awakening, not an intellectual position.

[@rag.animations]

Great! This sure made me a believer!

[@maindirectorate1400]

lol

[@Zabrack782]

Ahhh sarcasm 😂

[@mrfish4572]

This debate needs an effective moderator to ensure speakers start and remain on topic. Dr McGrath's personal adolescent experience of belief or her proposal that the god one believes in, are unlikely to be related to a true god, are in no way related to the subject of the debate. This speech must therefore either be intended to be subterfuge or as an alternative to any credible discussion to assert that god does exist as there is none.

[@klaire7205]

This comment section is so negative

[@pburnzzz9260]

And?

[@TimCTrewyn]

Starting at 1:33, "the inferred, intentional agent behind the physical universe", alludes to entropy, which, given infinite time in a godless multiverse, means the current level of entropy should not exist, and never should have existed. Yet here we are. But Collicutt quickly moves past this, preferring to illustrate that belief in god is often a product of our personal development over time, with life events occasionally questioning the current concept, and opening new perspectives. The experience of Thomas she cites is not available to our first hand observation, but John's gospel presents the standing offer, "how much more then, will God give His Spirit to those who ask him."

[@peterzaiser]

Relationship with god requires an openness to him and not just rational arguments

[@evolutionofconsciousness8059]

Requires Surrender to GOD❤ By Obeying His Laws

[@starlight4130]

I have a personal relationship with a tea cup orbiting in space.

[@starlight4130]

OK but seriously… So if rational arguments don’t get you to a God then just introduce irrational arguments?

[@1marceltony]

wheels spinning....lots of empty words !

[@guyfawkes9951]

I'm constantly amazed how many Christian Apologists preface their arguments with "I was an Atheist, but now I'm not". As if that is an argument from reason. So she goes on at length and, after some minutes comes down to this: You should believe in God because God isn't what you think he is. That isn't an argument. And as with all the other speakers on the "God" side, there is no evidence and no rational argument.

[@FactStorm]

They aren't very bright..

[@mick947]

I can understand, listening to Joanna speak and hearing the way her mind works, why she has to believe in a god.

[@johnferreira2231]

Small brain bitches be like

[@GIobeCentral]

Does she think the audience was expecting to hear some conclusive argument for the existence of non existence by continually rabbiting on quoting what other people think and say, as thought what other people have said is some sort of evidence of anything. If this is what university education produces then give me a street thinker any day.

[@Bombadilspipe]

That fact is, why wouldn't they care about you? It is only your own self being reflected in such "gods" that determines their action... It's the mirror of your way of life. You're journeying along a road in the pitch and fever of every thrill and pleasure without wincing a glance at what can be outside, and what can and need your help... Most importantly, your humility. The man on the cross died because love was him bottom line. He wants you to at least try to love like he did.

[@HubertCumberdale43]

...and this person gets to talk at Oxford with this tripe? Shit, give me a speech.

[@subjectt.change6599]

@Joel Rivera And upon what evidence do base your assertion that the concept of god is not absurd?

[@psalms4us]

Dr. McGrath, my apologies for some of these more neandrathal posts. Right around 6:20 you describe yourself as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth. You also mention organized religion, pilgrimages, and other assorted influxes into the realm of Christianity, and you give a rather brilliant treatise on following Christ, in opposition to current trends. I was listening to Lennox's presentation, and found yours an echo of my current state of faith. Does God believe in me? I look to my current Christo-centric discipleship to help me understand that question, and look forward its Answer.

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWWXnnpmppWooZo

[@synesthete23]

I was also looking at the hate comments and remembered Prof. Lennox’s comment that atheism is a fairytale for people afraid of (and perhaps hate) the light.

[@movieklump]

Can you name one thing that exists that has been debated whether it exists or not over and over again.

[@mategradac199]

This brave woman destroy Dan Barker and atheist...

[@shifterbbr1986]

This women obviously makes a living from religion so like a typical grifter she’s gonna defend it to the max.

[@thecathedralofartificialli841]

its all about making the most of existence, you have to believe the thing your most comfortable with...

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZe0gWqrp86LjJo

[@ianm8383]

It's always difficult to work out what the religobabblists are going on about - but maybe that's the intention.

[@jaxwhyland]

A debate format like this isn't conducive to achieving any sort of genuine discussion. There's an implicit assumption that everyone already knows what God is and what it means to beleive in it. We're ignoring Nietzsche's proclamation that we killed the idea of God over 100 years ago. To have this debate we need to rediscover what god is and seriously STOP PRETENDING that athiests know enough to deny it

[@bryanoldenburg9870]

Part of me likes "the God Talk" approach and the final reference to Thomas' seeing and believing, but the other side of me wanted to see an intellectual heavy-weight like William Lane Craig take on the atheists' arguments. It may be noted that Richard Dawkins (seated in the audience) has never agreed to a debate with Mr. Craig. With good reason.

[@ramptonarsecandle]

Why would he waste his time? As he said once - "it may look good on your CV but mot on mine". Why would he discuss something he knows is just nonsense?

[@DonMikimax]

Oh, your daughter is soooo awesome. Great to know.

[@janswart2705]

She knows her ice cream, at least

[@danielshevlin4159]

I find it hard to comprehend how a Doctor can believe.It's such a contradiction.

[@derrekdevon2366]

Why? Many doctors believe, and it's expected because so much happens in the hospital

[@subjectt.change6599]

Is it your assertion that all religions besides Christianity are "wacky"? Do you apply this assertion to other sects of Christianity besides your own? And if so, how did you come to choose your particular sect?

[@tawakaltoseni6095]

This is a speech about her religious experience not a debate.

[@CoDRagna]

which one of the speakers as you claimed? " Also the only speaker for the motion who wasn't rude to the atheists, by implying that ALL atheists were evil without god. "

[@AfrikanAdventures]

Where is the full debate?

[@Aimeekate559]

She lost me at Jesus of Nazareth....I was really interested up until then

[@jayd4ever]

why

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZe0gWqrp86LjJo

[@derrekdevon2366]

It's a pity

[@doctoroftheuniverse]

man, if I was in that room she would've made me want to vote "no" lol

[@johnfreund4456]

Full disclosure, I hate labels, but for context, I'll say that I'm a "statistical atheist" - I check off the boxes, but the term "atheism" says nothing about what my cosmic view actually, is so I don't call myself that. I'm not a theist and my faith community is Unitarian Universalism. My religion and source of faith is the struggle to understand the human condition in the context of everything. Frankly, the two statements I enjoyed the most were Peter Hitchens and McGrath's. Mostly because they both acknowledged in their own way the inanity of arguing about whether God exists. Of course, I think Hitchens went off the rails with his, "why do atheists not want there to be a God?", and his basing that on the idea that there is no morality without a Christian God is also inane. And of course, that's why share loathing for taking part in this sort of argument.

[@johnny2303]

Arrogance is the only value in this thread of comments. “ they were wise but became fools”

[@stephenpinder9567]

we don't have to serve somebody, and anyone channeling a superior being shouldn't need notes

[@Mimi-sd7gi]

grandma didnt make a single point

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZe0gWqrp86LjJo

[@joel230182]

NO, my assertion is that this well educated woman is aware of the fact that the concept of god isn't absurd.

[@psalmtwentyfiveeight]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWWXnnpmppWooZo

[@AG-io5wr]

When someone says I have an imaginary friend would you like to meet him? Know, there's no actual friend. "It is easier to fool someone than convince them they've been fooled."

[@thetruthslenderman1928]

There is

[@willbesoon6601]

Oh dear. This is why the Church of England is slipping down the spiritual drain.

[@sethweston8411]

Their side argues for 'does the Christian God exist and did Jesus exist' when the argument was does God exist, a god if any. That's what the athiests argued, does any single god exist? I like how Christian's think they can prove God is real by simply holding up a book that simply states 'god is real.' How can anything from the Bible possibly be used as evidence for the existence of any god? That is not logical or believable evidence, one can't argue X exists because this book says X exists. I also love how they say without religion or god there isn't morality and reason, and the world would be thrown into chaos without any sort of punishment without our sins, like there isn't laws and governments put in place to serve Justice and punishment for sins. Even chimpanzees living together have individual morality and emotions without being able to fathom a god. Morality and reason would do perfectly fine without religion or god, thank you. We as a people like the idea that this life isn't the end- if it is all we have, it's a depressing thought. But simply exclaiming that 'there must be an afterlife because only one finite life without eternal purpose would suck' isn't evidence of a god, hence why Christianity and the bible works as philosophy, but not real empirical evidence that could prove anything whatsoever. How is it fair to the millions of people that lived and died before Jesus to spend eternal afterlife burning in hell because they weren't introduced to religion? How is it fair for a baby dying in agony months after birth to spend eternity in hell because it couldn't yet fathom a god and therefore accept him? How is god a him before he created hims and hers? Who/what created god? Surely he can't exist for all time before and after us without explanation. What would be the reason for any god to create a universe at all? It's absolutely pointless. Just like the universe creating itself is absolutely pointless. How did the compressed ball of matter get there? You get to the end of the road with each side of the argument and it all boils down to the shear existence of the universe does not make sense, hence why it's pointless to spend one's life attempting to find solace and acceptance of why one is here today in this period, instead of being happy, present, and useful. Religion is a backwards method of logical reasoning: it's an answer that cannot be questioned, when the universe is really a question that cannot be answered. How could the first primitive answer to how the universe was created be the correct one? Our first explanation to anything evolved and became debunked: the earth is flat for example or the earth is at the center of the universe. Religion is nothing more than a bedtime story that got out of hand

[@beparticular1240]

Thank you, Dr. McGrath, for sharing your testimony. You have found, as many before you and after will find, what Thomas knew when He came face to face with Jesus. Everyone who meets Him is changed forever.

[@JesusChristSaves2024]

I'm quiet sure that even as an atheist, I would have given a more convincing and a more persuasive argumentation for existence of God. They should of given more time for the other speakers in place of her. At least now we know why women never had any major authority in the church.

[@tracer740]

The attendant audience politely applauded her at her finish but when the camera was turned off they ganged up and beat the living shit out of her!

[@ourphilosophyis9119]

That was not convincing in the slightest.

[@rafayshakeel4812]

Allah (God) is a self-evident truth. We only need to give evidence to those whose Fitrah (innate disposition) has become clouded.

[@megaraph5551]

She just gave the opposition extra points

[@ta13s93]

Why show up to a debate with the express intention of not debating? There is a time and place for simply giving a testimony. A debate isn't said time nor place. Okay, guys, I'm here to play in today's football game, but don't expect me to run, or jump, or throw, or anything like that; instead, lemme tell you why I like football.

[@akibahmed6414]

i believe in god but her speech is absoloutely ridiculous her argument is that there is no argument

[@henrikrolfsen584]

A "God" exists? Then why is he hiding?

[@lutkedog1]

All gods hide, none exist

[@frank16121]

The guys on "god's" side all debate why you _should_ believe in god, and why _there_ _is_ a god. Also, its kind of annoying how she has to read from the paper every 2 seconds.

[@ChrissyMarie45]

I watched that user a few times. I didn't watch that particular series, but I watched a few of his videos where he read the two other apoloetic-styled books that he tried to debunk. I honestly don't think that he offered any sophisticated counterarguments. At one point, all he did was rant about how much he dislikes William Lane Craig. Losing his temper in front of the camera really shows a lack of sophistication.

[@leoaguinaldo65]

If salvation matters to god, he has the moral obligation to show up.

[@chrisc1926]

Any evidence for Thomas' experience outside of the Bible?

[@pegasus6724]

God is a masculine energy , but not a man , god has personality , all humour and laughter comes first from god

[@christophersinger9149]

Your comments caused god to make me laugh and it must have been from her because you said it definitely all comes from her. So it must be true. Laughter is always good so it must come from god kzbin.info/www/bejne/i6G5apWrmqqNeZo Is electricity masculine or feminine energy? What about nuclear fusion or fission? or low grade thermal energy? I am always astounded that people can assert so many things with such ill deserved confidence about which they can know precisely nothing because they are imaginary.

[@MrKiet76]

God or no God. Everyone wants you to do well and be well! God is just a reminder. to help bring back morals before you get lost in those dark paths! But it doesn’t matter if you believe or not, earth will always have a balance of good and evil! as for me. although I’m not perfect, and still learning trial and error. Going thru my phases like everyone else. But, I will and always remain on God’s side! Cuz at the end I have to answer to him! I respect both sides of the party. Everyone does have good point to their theory. But I chose God/Jesus till my last day on earth!

[@blossomx1804]

If God created everything...he created evil, so what on earth/ or in heaven are you saying.

[@seeker3349]

How can any of them say that they are followers of Jesus? He said in the bible that you must sell everything, she must ave either borrow those clothes or maybe she forgot to give them to the poor like he commanded.

[@alexojideagu]

So her argument was, "My feelings"