Is There Evidence of Something Beyond Nature? | John Lennox

John Lennox (Oxford) argues that there is evidence of transcendence beyond nature. Semiotics - signs like letters and numbers - cannot be explained in a purely reductionist fashion but require an appeal to the mind. | Harvard University | Explore more at www.veritas.org
Do you agree with Lennox's argument or do you think reductionism can still be defended? Let us know in the comments!
Want Veritas updates in your inbox? Subscribe to our twice-monthly newsletter here:
www.veritas.org/newsletter-yt
INSTAGRAM: / veritasforum
FACEBOOK: / veritasforum
PODCAST: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
SUBSCRIBE: kzbin.info_...
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!

[@enerd1999HD]

John Lennox has turned my life around. I was agnostic, but now I am a full on believer. THANK YOU JOHN LENNOX! I encourage everyone else to become a Christian, best decision I've ever made. It gives so much peace & joy.

[@yojoeo9067]

You've basically made me day man! I'm planning to make KZbin videos too.

[@TheLady2luv]

+ZeYoungWhiteBoy Really? How has it been so far being a Christian. I'm making decisions on things, it would be great to have your opinion.

[@edwardwoods2991]

+ZeYoungWhiteBoy That's awesome brother!

[@damillionmalania]

But Lennox arguments are deistic (for a belief in a general higher intelligence behind the world). Going from deism to theism (a personal God) and then from theism to christianity are huge leaps. You can't deduce christianity to be true from the existence of information in nature.

[@deanbrunson259]

ZeYoung... So, you were on the fence and Lennox helped you over? So, now you believe that you have two lives, this one and the afterlife? And two worlds, this one and heaven? Magical thinking is hypnotic ... it feels so good.

[@mkmason2002]

I love John, he's such a sweet, humble and gentle man. His personality alone is a great asset to leading someone to Christ.

[@derek9153]

I love him too. A sweet and good man.

[@vejeke]

Humble? He thinks that the universe was created with him in mind... How humble is that?

[@laaban]

@@vejeke but you mind, obviously

[@vejeke]

@@laaban obviously.

[@samsonmutambo1849]

@@vejeke If you can't see his humility then that's your problem. We love him.............

[@georgedoyle2487]

Ireland has produced some great thinkers and teachers. "Land of saints and scholars". The contrast between John Lennox and Dawkins is vast . What ever you believe you can't deny that John Lennox is a great personality full of conviction and integrity and shares his ideas and beliefs in a way ordinary people can understand and relate to. His non condescending style is both humorous and entertaining and equally educational. Even Christopher Hitchens liked and respected him after admitting to being beaten by him in one particular debate lol. You can imagine yourself sitting up all night with a drink listening to John Lennox skilled storytelling. He reminds me a lot of my own father, also an Irish man, full of comedy, awe and wonder and joy for the mystery of life.

[@ashtongardnermusic]

the answer is simple enough: nature is the evidence of something beyond it.

[@rotorblade9508]

If you say so...

[@Bulhakas]

@@rotorblade9508 You must be simple.

[@K1NG_D0ME]

Well said

[@davidbrighina2118]

I find it hysterical how many people think they have figured out this dilemma. I bet none of the people leaving comments here are published or even known in the scientific or intellectual community. I would love for just once, people to sit back, listen humbly and not act like a know it all.

[@davidbrighina2118]

***** Hi Jeff, here is one link i found, I can't find the original paper Lennox wrote though. standard-deviations.com/2013/10/07/the-semiotic-argument-against-naturalism/

[@davidbrighina2118]

***** Your welcome, let me ask you, what do you think of Jesus of Nazareth? Do you know him?

[@davidbrighina2118]

***** Hey Jeff, just wanted to see how you were doing?

[@swordsoffire2212]

David Brighina Ha Ha Ha the scientific or intellectual community. So do you have to be one to think critically or have an opinion.

[@jtownsend13]

Swordsoffire No, nobody is above reproof, even a member of the scientific or intellectual community

[@1717beaker]

Thank you so much John for your defence of the Christian faith and especially for your incredible sense of humour. I have learned so much listening to you speak.

[@jackcoleman5955]

Brilliant. I am a believer delving deeper into my faith. This notion of information transfer is astounding to me. Not a complete proof of God per se, but a fatal cut at randomness as an explanation. To my mind, at least.

[@ReddenDoom]

I think if someone were to provide an indisputable proof of God, it would actually prove there was no God, or else how could God be a god. In other words, if God is really God, then he ought to be able to create a world such that no matter how far we dive into science, a step of faith at some level will always be present and belief will remain. In a sense, I think the fact that belief is still required, despite our advances, is actually evidence for God. I don't mean to suggest you're arguing otherwise, but your post brought this to mind and I think its a fun idea!

[@ArcanePhalanx]

ReddenDoom I know this is old but I could not leave this unresponded(word?). If you believe in a God who performs miracles, you believe in a God that alters nature. This means science’s predictive power is destroyed. You could observe the collapse in predictive power during a miracle. So either miracles don’t happen or science hasn’t got round to finding this indirect evidence. I’m short, for a god who performs miracles there will be evidence.

[@ReddenDoom]

Hey Patrick, (unchallenged? alone? lol) I get what you mean but I wasn't trying to go there. However, I think the point that 'faith at some level will always be present and belief will remain' is still valid even when evidence is present. Denial and doubt are pretty easy in the face of a miracle and people will question endlessly despite what evidence remains, even when Jesus walked with people and performed miracles right in front of their face they doubted him. C.S. Lewis wrote a book called "Miracles" which deals with the topic you suggest, how miracles and the natural world interact and which trumps which. Its pretty fascinating regardless of what you believe (he started as an atheist after all so he is pretty palatable to both sides I think). The collapse in predictive power (a phrase I'm afraid I haven't heard much) would be pretty rapid during most miracles and the miracle would have to be predictable too, which sort of undermines the idea. Measuring the collapse of something that only happens during an unpredictable event would be pretty difficult. Historically, miracles often have not followed the requests of skeptics and those wishing to 'measure' what was happening so the idea of predictable miracles that would lend themselves to scientific analysis is probably not realistic. I agree that there will be evidence, however, and that nature will bend to the manifestation of it. In other words, if God does a miracle that alters nature in some way, the alteration will then become nature. Its as though there is a higher and stronger level where physics can be used in such a way that we simply perceive things as the way they always were, even if they are changing (I'm not sure how much this actually happens but perceiving it would be pretty hard). Many miracles also involve natural processes and forces (Biblical examples of weather events/sudden changes/crop issues/droughts, etc.) so the evidence may simply appear natural depending on who is looking and what they have heard. If miracles can re-write physical reality then how could we measure them unless we had an account before and after of what was altered and, more importantly, unless we had some knowledge that things had been altered at all. On another level, whatever evidence we are able to capture is often used in determining the 'sainthood' of certain people in certain church denominations. This tangent can lead 'off the cliff' pretty quick but its there.

[@RR-mp7hw]

Fantastic! No one accepts randomness as an explanation, so we can put the final nail in the coffin of that straw man and talk about evidence instead.

[@FabledNarrative]

That's a fair assessment.

[@jdvoecht]

John Lennox is so incredibly intelligent! I appreciate his ability to break down such complex and deep questions with his unique insight and the clarity of his explanation.

[@jdvoecht]

@The Truth Wow that has to be the most uneloquent non sequitur I've ever heard. With no evidence just insult. Great job 👏

[@garysmith6781]

Whether you agree with John Lennox or strongly disagree, at least represent what he said accurately. I do not intend condescension, because i'm pretty certain that many of you have an IQ that is well beyond mine. However, i do know enough to understand John's point and to see that many of the comments below have either misunderstood what John said or have misrepresented what he said. Since there are many on this post who said they have no idea what Mr. Lennox is talking about, please bear with this summary. Key points to understand are, he's talking with a biochemist who claims to be a reductionist. A reductionist is one who holds "the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon." Furthermore, this biochemist also claims that everything (literally every phenomenon with no exceptions) can be explained in terms of (or reduced to) physics and chemistry. At this point, John asks if they can try his theory out in terms of semiotics. Semiotics is "the study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative behavior." To try his theory out they pick up a menu and see "Roast Chicken." The biochemist basically asked what the problem was. Sure, it says Roast Chicken. So what? John makes the point that the biochemist claims that everything can be explained by physics and chemistry. Physics and chemistry will explain things like how the ink and paper react with one another, how they hold the image that is made, and how they hold the color of the ink, etc. However, the question he asked the biochemist was, can mere physics and chemistry explain "the meaning" that is being communicated by the letters r-o-a-s-t (he just stopped at r-o rather than spelling out the entire word). Of course the answer is, "No, they cannot." Even the biochemist's wife caught the point. Physics and chemistry are beautiful within their limited area. A video that has no audio can capture 2 people sitting at a table talking, but without the verbal communication, it will lack the ability to capture the meaning of their discussion. Physics and chemistry have this same limitation when it comes to capturing any meaning that is being communicated. There's far more to life as human's know it and experience it than pure physics and chemistry. Physics and chemistry do not explain intangibles like love, patience, gentleness, sacrifice, forgiveness, vision, creativity, etc and yet each of these communicates something beyond the mere form or action they may take. Even the biochemist said you cannot explain the semiotics (of anything that has a meaning beyond its own physical properties) from the bottom up, but you have to introduce an intelligence, something that would provide the intended meaning. Mere physics and chemistry will never give you that. And yes, there's the case of the human genome. Regardless of a person's beliefs, I don't see how anyone can consider the meticulous genetic coding that literally carries the instructions for how each human is to be built, and there are billions of these code instructions, in precisely the right order, and then still turn from that and say, "It still looks random to me. Mere chance at work." No, there's nothing random about them. They are instructions, very precise instructions that carry "communicated meaning," something physics and chemistry simply cannot do.

[@ClosetoHumanMusic]

Gary Smith "Meaning" is abstract. It doesn't exist. It's merely the result of electrochemical reactions inside a brain. His argument is unconvincing. RE: The human genome. No, it's not "random". It's evolved. From amino acids to single celled organisms, and on and on and on. It didn't just appear, it's the result of billions of years of evolution. Starting out simple, and becoming the marvelous complex thing it is today.

[@francisxaviersinghraj4506]

I guess the evolution also doesn't knw what it is called by human being and even it doesn't knw if u people giving important to it. but I guess if evolution had its own mouth. evolution would have said don't judge me and consider that I'm everlasting. even I was caused to be appeared in this universe by a creator. now the point is this u belive that there was a think which was pre existed and christians belive there was a God this is what the main difference. so u believe u need to obey to evolution and I believe I need to obey God. meaning itself has its limitation Untill it is not corresponded to in christian faith.

[@francisxaviersinghraj4506]

I would have believed evolution if it had an answer to following words:- love,pain,emotions,anger,anger,sad,etc it has answers in terms of scientific method but not theologically. scientifc method has its limit but theology has no limit cause the scientific method is the part of theology.

[@spiritofintercessoryprayer3618]

Close to Human Music ‘it doesn’t exist’ and yet you expected to be understood.

[@wobblyeyez]

Close to Human Music but these words you're looking at have meaning, a thing you claim doesn't exist!? You crazy bro! But i still love ya!

[@natearmendariz2851]

The point that Lennox is trying to make can be illustrated like so, suppose several thousand years ago a group of primitive individuals came across a leather bound book filled with letters and symbols the likes of which they had never seen before. If the individuals were reductionist they would only try and explain the nature of the book and its symbols in its pure material nature. Though the specific semantics of the symbols might not be deducible, we certainly do as rational and logical creatures have the capacity to recognize the product of other minds. Of course the symbols are abstract but we still have the capacity to infer intelligent causation. This can also be referred to as logical syntax, where we recognize the ordered structure of things as meaningful, again this is part of being a rational and logical human being. In fact the scriptures tell us that all of creation - the sun, moon and stars - are symbols with a semiotic dimension, they are a universal language that denote the existence of a creator. Psalms 19 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. 2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line[a] has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. I understand most of you don't believe in the Bible, I'm just saying that as Christians we hold that there is a semiotic dimension to the world around us where we can reasonably infer intelligent design, in the same that primitive individuals finding a leather bound book with mysterious and foreign symbols inside of it

[@marcleysens7716]

+Nate Armendariz a further argument of course is that materialistic reductionism undermines reason and logic, the very thing atheists pride themselves on.

[@marcleysens7716]

+Nate Armendariz and then there's the mathematical impossibility of random mutation and necessity 'creating' human life - firstly earth, and secondly the universe, just are not old enough.

[@damillionmalania]

That is known as Paleys watchmaker analogy and it's certainly been around for the last few hundered years. Since it is Darwin day, it's good to remind people that Darwin actually went to Galapagos in the hopes of proving Paley right. Instead he found a natural explanation for the origin of species. I can imagine what must have felt like to him as a christian with a family devoted to the faith.

[@natearmendariz2851]

Extrapolating the observation of minor variations within finches beak sizes doesn't adequately explain the origin of species. Natural selection is a perfectly fine respectable observation, but the idea that it adequately explains the history of life is by no small measure a stretch of the imagination. And unless I'm mistaken I'm pretty sure Darwin had already denounced his faith and left seminary school by the time he went on his expedition to the Galapagoas

[@damillionmalania]

Well, if you can walk twenty feet you can walk a mile given more time to do so. It's the same mechanism driving micro- and macroevolution. I think you are mistaken about Darwins religious belief by the time he went to Galapagos, not that I can claim to know for sure.

[@45Nasman]

Thank you John for making us approach these subjects with our God given logic. Glory to Jesus our Saviour.

[@zorot3876]

To my mind Lennox is saying that information i.e. words, programs, the DNA sequence etc. is always the result of an intelligent mind and cannot result from chance chemical interactions. It does not take a genius to figure that out. It takes a belligerent atheist to say it is nonsense.

[@170221dn]

zoro t Thank goodness for the intelligent mind of the flying spaghetti monster!

[@gerardjones7881]

zoro t the belligerence of the atheist is just their anguish at finding no proof for God, yet they refuse to accept evidence to the point of madness.

[@Gericho49]

And so the smug belligerent atheist retorts *Prove to me your god exists!!* Perhaps the real question u should ask yourself is "why does atheism exist?" Using perfect circular reasoning, Jean Paul Sartre explains it best, "if God exists I am not free, since I am free therefore God does not exist." So folks, I can only disprove the god u have created in your own mind, the one no one believes in, that u apparently waste endless hours in cyberspace trying to prove to YOURSELF doesn’t exist. Perhaps as some, like Sam Harris concedes, for hedonistic pursuits. The real questions are 1) how does anything exist now if all time, space and matter began in the finitude of the past, 2) is there necessarily an atemporal immaterial, all powerful explanation 3) does it logically follow that this 'uncaused' cause, is rationally-intelligent and personal? 4) is Jesus Christ who he claimed to be? For the sake of repeating myself, every possible question atheists ever ask have been repeated on campuses throughout America. For the few here who are genuinely seeking answers to these questions, I recommend the YT series of videos' called *Give me an Answer.* Those referring to the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the Gospels watch #1016 -Jesus The Only Way, #0213 Why Jesus, #2414 - Who is Jesus, #0315 Accuracy of the Bible. If you claim to be an atheist , you also have a burden of proof to give a defence of scientific materialism as a worldview, to account for the origin and existence of all the immutable abstract laws of science that make our FINITE, awe-inspiring, universe: rationally intelligible. My question for you then is "who should you trust, a biological machine made of blind chemicals bent on survival and oblivious to higher truths, or a Mind created by an infinite Intelligence endowed with objective moral values, reasoning skills and the capacity for absolute truth? Which is the more rational?’

[@wobblyeyez]

Gerard Jones true

[@RR-mp7hw]

Yes, because "if you make a truth claim, provide objective evidence that can distinguish its validity relative to other truth claims" is such a belligerent, irrational position.

[@dannymathis7275]

Amazing man! Brilliant! i Love Professor Lennox!!

[@andrewheffel928]

God bless you Dr. Lennox!

[@williamunderhill846]

There is no god.

[@krttkuaravete9448]

satan cannot deny Jesus, HE a living God. Those beliefs in Him have eternal life.

[@ghxfit]

Nature is the evidence of the brilliant mind of the creator

[@AbrarManzoor]

John lennox never cease to amaze..Love from muslim for love of god

[@viaini748]

you will know & should already know that ALL MYSTERIES & THE X FACTOR IS GODLOGOS JESUSCHRIST! Bible said, He created Adam in His Image, & gave him Breath as power & ability to Live Learn & Love God! that's where consciousness came from, as your SPIRIT & being/existance. then God said: Love YHWH your God with all your heart mind & strength! 😊🙏 JESUS IS GOD/LOGOS/WORD=YHWH

[@shawnambrisco4598]

“Denial ain’t just a ‘river’ in Egypt.” ~ Mark Twain ~~~ :)

[@imaginaryphiend]

I think you raise a very salient point here. Hope is vitally important to people. You will notice that i'm an epistemological nihilist, holding the only defensible, non paradoxical position extenuating from sound existential, non-presuppositional foundations. Genuine hope, i posit, must be derived in a phenomenological, subjective, personal values based reality and be therefore limited and not absolute. So, yes, i say hope is important. But, need it be absolute to be relevant personally?

[@ligidaykurin9106]

Really love Dr Lennox

[@josephdennison4890]

JOHN I think you're marvelous

[@mjl7810]

3:20 Which Nobel Prize Winner???

[@toshtao1]

God gives hope.

[@andrewthomas2353]

Great insight! (I had to Google semiotics, though)

[@pcm7315]

Not the only one.

[@isisheggs8065]

That's true, people don't understand how powerful we are, we aren't even using the full capacity of our mind and brain

[@pbaklamov]

The real question is, is there anything past the spiritual.

[@advertisers2887]

se·mi·ot·ics /ˌsemēˈädiks/ noun the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation.

[@eccehomo1904]

As much as I appreciate the persuasive power of the arguments of Lennox, Behe, Meyer et al, accepting intelligent design does not necessarily entail a committment to theism.

[@antoniofiammelli1792]

Good old John ,,, very wise ,the man to represent Jesus ,,,

[@spiritofintercessoryprayer3618]

That’s brilliant

[@garysmith6781]

Wow!

[@toshtao1]

It's still a possibility that cannot be ignored.

[@TheWhoMe123]

Lennox says he got this argument from a Nobel Prize winner. Who was it?

[@tonytafoya6217]

Richard Fineman.

[@1toniah]

we all see and hear what we want to see and hear.

[@ylyl7118]

Tonia Housnick Are you describing a fool?

[@georgeadeh8859]

God bless you, John Lennox!

[@wagsbass]

Genious

[@algow5988]

Why is John Lennox not on the TV world wide?

[@Mcphan9946]

Because they aren't ready for the truth they want to keep the public thinking that God=faith and science=intellect

[@slicker67]

Because the only people who fall for these stories are fundamentalist Christians. Thankfully that’s a too small demographic to be on worldwide TV

[@hardcorgamer007]

pure logic

[@MattyJohn146]

brilliant

[@Homo_sAPEien]

Define “nature.”

[@ermasale4618]

Who engineered the very basic process for thinking?

[@benjaminbutler9076]

Absolute brilliance. I am proud to be a Bible believing Christian :)

[@vejeke]

Leviticus 25:44-46

[@TR_kannel.]

The unchanging Consciousness is beyond nature

[@eniszita7353]

3:11 "you cannot explain the semiotics bottom up" - yes, you certainly can.

[@habitualstudios]

I agree, every debate I get into with an atheist, they always say "DNA is NOT a code". When you do your research on this, it is interesting they use famous WW2 code breakers to help "decipher" the code within DNA. Why would they use code breakers if it is NOT a code? Scientist call it "genetic code". It is extremely intelligent formation in code form that needs to be deciphered. There is deciphering machines within the cell that their only job is to decipher and put the code together.

[@eniszita7353]

"they use famous WW2 code breakers to help "decipher" the code within DNA" , no "they" (whoever this is supposed be) do not use cryptography to "decipher" DNA code. Biologists use experiments, gene knock-outs and other methods to find out what DNA is doing. it is not a "code".

[@shreddedhominid1629]

A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'. A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state. DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end state from an initial state. To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.

[@food4lifecycle4life]

Evidence based on sensory facilities is not the only evidence which all of us rely on . Intellectual and conciousness based evidence should be applied.

[@plowhand5591]

❤️

[@user-gw9kq7qm2k]

Genius

[@SeiryuNanago]

The semiotic we use is arbitrary, unlike the physics of the universe. Nothing about physics is arbitrary, it exist because it can, whereas texts can exist even when it doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem like a big problem, or I might be way off.

[@ReddenDoom]

I think the point he was making was exactly that the meaning we assign to these semiotics is not arbitrary. Meaning itself, as an entity, is inherently non-arbitrary and it can't be otherwise. In this sense, no study of the paper or ink used to form a symbol could ever illustrate the meaning assigned by a community of people who perceived it. You might argue that differences in systems of meanings between communities surrounding a text could be arbitrary; for example a symbol like a letter that can mean different things in different languages without changing its appearance. However, the meaning is assigned to the symbol by intelligence, not inherently or by the physical objects which construct it, in this case pen and paper. I hope I didn't mess this up haha!

[@SeiryuNanago]

The meaning is assigned by intelligence in the case of symbols, but that is what I meant when I say that this is arbitrary (maybe this is not the right word). I can't understand something that is said or written unless I know how to read and how to speak. This is really different from the way the universe seems to work. When it comes to physics and chemistry, we invented symbols to talk about phenomenons but when it comes to language, we came up with patterns of sounds and words to which we assigned meaning to communicate. There is no inherent meaning in a word, it is the person who receive the symbol who create meaning out of it from what this person has learned about the language. In space however, it is not the particle who create "meaning" when it receive energy from another particle, it quite literaly receive something from outside itself and it is transformed by this exchange. There is a real transfer of energy here, and it is, in this case, not arbitrary. I don't think the way physics work indicate the need for an intelligence who would "programmed it" because physics works very differently from the things we do with our intelligence and from what we observe at our scale. The comparison he does is kind of like Anthropomorphism. You know, when you think your cat winks at you for the same reason your friend would wink at you or that it's messing with you on purpose when it does goofy things.

[@dannylinc6247]

I AM. Therefore, You think

[@jeffreyerwin3665]

When science runs into a miracle. . . . . .the images on the Holy Shroud .. . . . . .

[@msmd3295]

Semiotics is the study of "signs" and their intended meaning. Contrary to Lennox's proposal that semiotics can't be explained materialistically it can. Take as one example the color black. It has a spectrum of various shades of a particular part of 'light' which consists of electromagnetic wave lengths. So 'black' and its various shades can be compared to measurable real-world phenomenon. Take Lennox's menu example with written symbols. Use the symbol E as just one example. That symbol has been assigned to a variety of vocal utterances and those utterances can are assigned to certain sound frequencies. Put those utterances together with other utterances, vocal tones, and they can be directly connected to real-world phenomena that is common to entire civilizations. I suspect Lennox counts on the inability of others to draw connections between causal relationships. And as a result are incapable of or unaware of the fact they could make those causal relationships if they merely understood how to go about that process. Lennox's humor aside, which is really a distraction from the thought process at hand, doesn't add any knowledge to the subject being discussed.

[@1SpudderR]

Professor? Brian Cox And Professor JOHN Lennox should “entangle” because one of these professors is profoundly connected to veritas. I know who it is..Do You? Very well put into perspective, John, Thank you for the clarifying concepts on my Awareness journeys. RDR

[@JayFish85]

In the video 'DAWKINS PUBLICLY SPANKED!!! (1 of 3) Who Designed the Designer?' Lennox mentions Roger Sperry @4:53 using a similar argument.

[@ashraf2661]

Subhan'Allah !!

[@chanchoi5076]

which nobel prize winner is he referring to?

[@emiliog8548]

The WORD became flesh

[@elkhuntr2816]

Absolutely brilliant. Information is the key evidence for a mind beyond matter. Not only Gods, but our own. We can't be reduced to our brains. Our brains contain information which can not be explained through physics and chemistry. You can explain how that information is stored and acted upon, but you can't explain the information itself, at least when it comes to preexisting information such as instinct, conscience, etc...

[@richardgregory3684]

Instincts are simply prevuilt neural networks.

[@oscargr_]

The "information" you claim is a post hoc rationalisation of the observations you made. There is information in a pile of sand. It's size, the number of grains, the distribution, the consistency... The ocean must be a mind.

[@elkhuntr2816]

@@oscargr_ "There is information in a pile of sand" Actually not. You are attaching information to it by measuring the size, counting the grains, etc... It is not specified information. It is not code that form instructions that are read by another mechanism and then acted upon. It only contains meaning because your mind attached meaning to it. DNA on the other had contains very specific code that is read by other biological mechanisms (also very specific and designed) and interpreted to do specific tasks. All scientific evidence we have at this point supports the fact that information always originates with a mind. Information can be stored using matter, but the matter itself is not the information.

[@oscargr_]

@@elkhuntr2816 nope. The information is there, you just quantify it by attaching numbers. Just like you do by sampling DNA.

[@oscargr_]

@@elkhuntr2816 "All scientific evidence we have so far supports the fact that information always originated with a mind" We call that begging the question.

[@canonman223]

Who is the one he referred to that is a Nobel prize winner at 3:27?

[@jackarmstrong5645]

First a mind evolves. Then information can exist within that mind. And nowhere else. A book is not information without a mind and it is only information to the right kind of mind.

[@bubbaluvv]

I just like the way this fella talks. I may not understand him him but it sounds great...hahaha

[@kurman4749]

Religion has to do with faith, the unseen and the unproven. Science focuses on empirical evidence and testable knowledge.

[@kennethfreeman581]

The issue is how can a spiritual force orchestrate the physical one.....it can't.

[@peterbarker8249]

..I would have asked, '. what's an impure mathematician '? ...🤔

[@Shytot-1]

It breaks my heart to see so many people taken in by such nonsense, they obviously need to believe because they are so afraid of dying, I don't know why, because dying is the easiest thing we will ever do, there's no darkness, there is nothing to fear because there is nothing there to fear, there are no memories because where we store our memories will be gone, we will be gone just like every other living thing on the planet, we will be no more and we won't know it, it will be exactly as it was before we were born, remember? you don't because you didn't exist. But it's OK, we understand you're afraid.

[@somethingrandomyt8367]

Not afraid to die never was stop assuming people go to Jesus because of the fear of death

[@Shytot-1]

@@somethingrandomyt8367 Then please tell me (if it's not too much trouble) why any sane person would want/need to believe in a magic man in the sky?

[@somethingrandomyt8367]

@@Shytot-1 fact is it kinda give meaning to my life like I said before I'm not afraid of dying but I'd liked to live knowing life is worth living edit:you seem like a very kind person thank you for not attacking me for my explanation

[@Shytot-1]

@@somethingrandomyt8367 You do whatever you think is necessary to have a good life. We only get the one so you live it any way you want. All I ask is that you don't try and interfere with someone else living their life. We must not run away with the idea that because we believe something it automatically becomes true, because it doesn't.

[@somethingrandomyt8367]

@@Shytot-1 yea I hear you

[@jamuscarson2868]

If one guy can't come up with an answer, there -must- be no answer.

[@wobblyeyez]

Jamus Carson the answer is Christ. Much love to you brother

[@shawnstatzer95]

Some of it I agree with, but some I do not. His demeanor makes me have hope, that there are some decent Christians. I am not a Christian, but I do enjoy jumping into these videos occasionally. Thanks.

[@67and68]

Pilate asked the same question to Jesus. Jesus said, " I am the way, the truth and the life" In that regard truth can be known, because He is knowable. Many trip over the simplicity of the gospel.

[@neuhausfm]

"I believe in the God of Spinoza," Albert Einstein said in his famous phrase. He said this because he realized - like many of us - that the part of our world that we can explain scientifically is extremely small compared to the reality of our entire universe. Nevertheless, Einstein would never claim that there is evidence that there are things beyond nature. This is about believing not knowing. God is all of nature.

[@damillionmalania]

As an atheist and a humanist I actually think Lennox is one of the most likable and sophisticated christian debaters. I certainly don't claim to be able to solve the hard problem of consciousness, but it seems to me that trying to solve it with a supernatural (i.e. magical) explanation is a God of the gaps fallacy from the viewpoint of the reductionist. To my mind, because the supernatural can solve anything and everything it is unfalsifiable and therefore unverifiable, making it unbelievable to the rational person. You can argue and say that I'm wrong, but even if we admit to the premise that Lennox presents, it's certainly not unthinkable or less likely to be the result of an undiscovered force of nature. So let's not assume that we know the unknown, or that mysteries can be uncovered by resorting to magical explanations and traditional religious beliefs. It seems to be the honest thing to do regardless of where we stand on the topic of naturalism or deism.

[@freshbakedclips4659]

Supernatural is real. It's a feature of the universe. You need more experience and open your heart more, not just your eyes.

[@walterdaems57]

Possibly but that doesn’t mean there is even a shred of evidence of a celestial wizard who shook the universe out of his sleeve

[@jyrkisalminen2928]

No. And thats that.

[@anthonyjames5474]

What's the first letter of the English alphabet? A pyramid and Capstone

[@Call_Me_Mom]

Well, phooey. Now I am wondering why there are only 4 fundamental components of DNA.

[@imaginaryphiend]

Again, Lennox presents pleasantly and entertains so well. Even so, this simple god of the gaps style rationalization, seasoned with the argument from ignorance, and presented on the table in the form of a friendly social narrative, is still a failure in that it does not present the god ingredient as ether necessary or even possible or falsifiable. It's a digestible argument, and pleasing to the predisposed to believe, but it offers nothing of nutritional value in support of his implied thesis.

[@juansamudio1171]

So are many things in science your point?

[@imaginaryphiend]

Lennox delivers in delightful style. He stimulates the minds he touches. That said, I find he makes great and wonderous leaps, desperately wedging the god hypothesis in where there isn't a need for it. Our receptiveness to semiotics interpretations is easily explained as an affect of our long, gradual evolution. Randomizing influences, selection pressures within complex environments over long time periods... Simply put, change, aka evolution, is enough to explain everything - sans deism.

[@joshuaw2652]

💜♾️👑🙏👑♾️💜

[@kg5521]

I didn't understand a word he said -

[@mjl7810]

Can someone help me understand this?

[@HW.37]

Minju Lee the marks making up the letters of “roast chicken” represent something larger than themselves literally and intellectually. If you break down the meaning of those marks you end up with the chemical properties of pen and ink (and your hunger left unsatisfied). That’s the top down approach, the belief that everything can be broken down into science and therefore, no need for God. But here you see that cannot be done unless your goal by ordering the roast chicken is to simply discover the chemical makeup of pen and ink. However, if by ordering the roast chicken you are expecting to eat a very real roast chicken to satisfy your very real hunger, there you have used a button up approach which proves a larger meaning to those letters. That is all to say, science is the starting point because the very existence of science points to something outside of itself, a designer. You cannot break God down into science (top down approach) but you can begin with science to prove intelligent design, and therefore, God (bottom up approach).

[@Kimkong2]

Whenever you find even simple information you always postulate a mind or intelligence as the cause. The genome is packed full of complex information and intsructions, yet people say there is no mind or intelligence behind it. That it came about from nothing. This is what it means to be an atheist or a reductionist who says 'everything boils down to physics and chemistry'. Johns' point is Physics and chemistry can only describe the process, it cannot interprate or cause meaning and purpose. You need a mind for that. Therefore it is more plausible that "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word WAS God " the word can be inteprated as genome or code of instruction . This is why everything that exists has a code that it follows , a set of intructions that govern how it interacts in the world , the study of these codes and workings is what science is at its core .

[@drzaius844]

It’s a non sequitur argument - science does not understand human imagination, ergo Abrahamic diety must exist. It’s a ridiculous argument.

[@AtamMardes]

What is the truth that you know?

[@hosoiarchives4858]

What Nobel Prize winner is he talking about?

[@JohnPesebre]

Who's the Nobel winner?

[@lepidoptera9337]

John Lennox is good evidence that one can make a lot of money with woo. :-)

[@lawrencewilliams1477]

NATURE IS SIN JESUS IS LOVE ❤

[@AtamMardes]

If religious fairy tales can fool an educated Prof Lennox, imagine what it could do to ordinary folks.

[@williampratt3357]

The word "nature" refers to everything that happens, so by definition if something is really happening it is part of nature. All kinds of fantsy characters have emerged from human cultures and the myths they create, and this too is part of nature, but that doesn't mean gods and devils are real in the same sense that electricity and gravity is.

[@imaginaryphiend]

In what way can "it' be any kind of plausible possibility? Neither imagining something nor imagining a role for a postulated something can make that imagined something a real something. The arguments here do not demonstrate even possibility. Not within the context of reality, or correspondent to anything observed in our shared reality, or in so far as any of us can rationally entertain, can the Abrahamic god (God) that Lennox argues for be actually real. i

[@davidwelch5186]

It's intellectually lazy to claim there is a personal god because science can't explain something. A bad answer is worse than no answer.

[@georgejacob6378]

Supernatural is just nature we haven't understood yet......over a mere 10k years so much of supernatural is understood as just nature. ..in the course of millenniums to come(if mankind hasn't erased itself )more will become nature....a god is not necessary to explain the gap ....searching for that ever increasing understanding is all the spirituality we need....and not some biblical fables

[@FrancisMetal]

Neuroscience study how to explain semiotics scientifically

[@rebecahonney6393]

So... THIS is Harvard:?....

[@mygunsbiggerg.6562]

Roger Sperry

[@bennusmagnus5277]

Atheists will ask you to to describe who created God, and then the atheist will claim that nature was always here. By saying this, the atheist is attempting to replace the creator with something that he has already admitted that he can't ever really know. In other words, when they attempt to figure out what was before everything and you reply with God, they will reply with the same question they just asked. They are, in a sense, refusing to acknowledge what you say.

[@Homo_sAPEien]

I don’t know if I’m understanding the question correctly. Explain the chemistry and physics of paper and ink? Paper and ink are made of chemicals aren’t they?

[@ThefrenchFranz]

The question is "Can the chemistry of paper and ink explain the meaning of the signs?" And the answer brought by Mr. Lennox is "No, as the signs are carrying a meaning that goes far beyond chemistry".

[@Homo_sAPEien]

@@ThefrenchFranz But, it’s made of chemicals so, how does it prove something supernatural exists?

[@ThefrenchFranz]

@@Homo_sAPEien It is not a proof indeed, just a question that science leaves unanswered: solid evidence that there probably is another level of reality beyond matter and energy. And you can extend it to every domain: there is (huge) intelligence and organisation everywhere, can it really be due to non-thinking processes, without a previous design and will?

[@Homo_sAPEien]

@@ThefrenchFranz What about it is unanswered by science?

[@ThefrenchFranz]

@@Homo_sAPEien Why and how apes evolved, developed an intelligent speech, and got able to draw signs that could be understandable to all. And how an unorganized marble of matter could produce an organized universe, in which such ability could appear.

[@jalRVA]

Basically, just the same old arguments from incredulity

[@Mostlyharmless1985]

You want me to explain "ro" in the terms of ink and paper? We can explain it in the terms of the chemicals that both are made of. However in of itself they do not mean anything, as stated properly, the marks do not have any special properties beyond that. They require a mind to assign meaning to the symbols. However, a mind is a word that describes a very complicated program. We know the mind exists in the brain, because affecting the brain of a person will affect the mind. So, it follows that a mindis a thing that has not simply been reduced to its basic parts yet. That doesn't require any sort of supernatural transcendence. To put it in terms of another complicated machine: We can't infer much of anything about how an i7 computer processor works by looking at a byte of hex picked randomly from this KZbin video. The roast chicken argument is one from ignorance. In order to explain the meaning of the markings, we have to understand the brain. I think reductionalism is quite safe as a result.

[@shaddrak26]

So your saying that the mind is in the brain and the brain is a mechanism arisen from a mindless unguided natural process? So I am to have faith in that instead of having faith in a more complex higher power like God? Reductionism makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, what does molecules and chemicals do in explanation for me? Nothing! I have to infer to an upward transcendent form of mind that is able to create something like an i7 chip or a universe.

[@Mostlyharmless1985]

That's where the evidence points. If there is a God, and he did make us, then he made damn sure to make it look like an "Unguided" (NATURAL SELECTION) Natural Process that took billions of years to develop. Perhaps he's having a laugh at us. Just because you can't see the parts in the black box doesn't mean the box has to be magic to work.

[@shaddrak26]

Natural Selection fails when it comes to the concept of truth and the origin of morality.

[@VegasTigger]

the supernatural doesn't exist, it's just nature we don't understand yet...all the good stories don't change the fact that mysticism doesn't exist.

[@liman888]

super lennox

[@WalterUnglaub]

Not that I would expect Dr. Lennox to comprehend (since he isn't a working physicist) but actually, information in this universe is indeed physical! This fact plays a huge role in quantum thermodynamics. In fact, this feature of reality can be and is currently being explored in order to exploit quantum mechanics to devise topological and possibly universal quantum computers, amongst other technologies. So, sorry John, you'll have to look for material evidence of the immaterial elsewhere (a bit oxymoronic, no?). Furthermore, to apply semiotics to any object or structure that isn't knowingly man-made (and claim any sort of conclusion) is to blatantly put the cart before the horse and commit a Type I error - unless you have an actual method of testing such a hypothesis other than "it looks complicated and beyond the scope of my intuition and/or imagination...hence, intelligence!". Also, really Dr. Lennox? Really? Your sheer awe and amazement at the complexity of DNA seems to betray your inability to comprehend evolutionary timescales, let alone your ignorance of complex systems in general. I'm not saying that one shouldn't necessarily be awed by emergent phenomena (such as protein formation or consciousness - in general, anything in relatively young fields of research), just that one (especially a researcher in STEM) should not default to incredulity and automatically (and in this case, unnecessarily) confer [rather imperfect] design upon perfectly natural phenomena in a teleological sense. Anytime humans have done so, it has *always* been the case that the underlying mechanisms were ultimately mechanistic/naturalistic. The sun and moon aren't sentient, and we aren't the center of the universe. Simply because some constituents of this universe lie farther along the spectrum of complexity than others does not mean they are inherently more 'sacred', 'immaterial', or 'magical'. Learn from history, for Christ's sake. Finally, while reductionism (as opposed to alternative mathematical and graphical approaches utilized in systems biology, for example) is not necessarily useful in studying and quantifying larger, more complex physical systems (when compared to, say, high-energy physics), this does not automatically imply that we should throw our arms up in the air and default to the belief that we are and always will be incapable of understanding such phenomena (not to say Dr. Lennox is doing this - it's just worth mentioning given the context). Otherwise, we'd still be believing that electricity and magnetism, or that space and time for that matter, were unrelated. No computers, internet, or GPS for the world.

[@ReddenDoom]

I mean to engage this post strictly for fun, to test my mettle so to speak. I think Dr. Lennox might say that you have fallen victim to your intelligence, or that you've locked yourself inside of it and have failed to garner the perspective you claim to have. I'm no physicist either so I'll try to keep to exactly what you've presented. If information is physical then, in a philosophical sense, this would be one of the largest blows to arguments against Christianity that has ever been posited by science; which is to say, if you presented me with the option of information existing in a physical sense, I might claim, as a Christian, that it ought to have been expected. I've no clue what you're talking about in regards to your non-man-made semiotic argument. The structure he applied it to was absolutely man-made was it not? What am I missing? What he meant was that meaning isn't inherent in the matter that makes up symbols. If you claim information is physical as a means of answering that it, indeed, could be inherent, then there ought to be far less variety among the use of symbols. In addition, there ought to be a single best or most true meaning associated with anything made of matter; this would yield an almost infinite number of absolutes which throws way back to Plato's Ideas and a plethora of Christian themes of virtue and, well, absolutes. I admit I may be missing all your points for what they were :( Unfortunately, most of this third paragraph went over my head, but the suggestion that complexity isn't evidence for intelligence or, rather, that scientific explanation shuts out supernatural involvement was very neatly handled by Lennox, or so I thought. He isn't saying the sun is magical, he is saying that studying and understanding the sun's physicality doesn't negate its reliance on spirituality or its relation to that which exists beyond it. In other words, scientific discovery doesn't take nature away from God; this assumption on the part of many atheists or scientism followers is completely bizarre to me and seems nothing more than very literal propaganda (there is a definite alternative to this idea which is not being presented and is deliberately hidden). In this last paragraph, I would agree with you...I think. However, I think what Dr. Lennox was getting after was reductionism being used, very specifically, to do exactly what you say it might not be good for. I understand you wouldn't call God a "physical system" but I think it would be safe to say that if reductionism ought not to be used against complex material systems, it definitely ought not to be used (solely or as a measure) on complex philosophical and spiritual ones.

[@williamburts3114]

But who understands that? Answer: consciousness, therefore knowledge is the prerogative of consciousness alone.

[@csgstormer]

Walter, good thoughts. Really your main disagreement is that information, in fact, can be found fundamentally at the quantum level. This is quite a claim. If the Universe is like this then our consciousness can be measured by looking at particles, no?

[@leonherperger4055]

consciousness has yet to be explained. to make leaps of faith about consciousness, which may just be a loose definition of simple functions in the brain, is ignorant, and dare I say, dreamers territory

[@williamburts3114]

consciousness isn't a brain state,consciousness is the eternal now. An analogy is that consciousness is like the movie screen and all thoughts,feelings, emotions, forms, are all things that appear on the screen they come and go on the screen, but they are not the screen itself.

[@larrycarter3765]

Nope !