Video

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

It’s a fascinating debate, and I admire both men have held their ground firmly. Yet, for me, Dr. Lennox’s argument was more convincing and carried out in a better (for lack of better words:) manner. Mr mcKaiser, on the other hand, seems to be highly intelligent and knowledgeable. However, speaking loudly and quickly doesn’t always make for a convincing argument.

Gone too soon, gonna miss this beautiful mind.

Eusebius found out if he was right or wrong

John Lennox is a very intelligent and patient man. Ironic that Eusebius now knows more about God than John....

Eusebius is quite full of himself. Race-baiter-in-chief. "Don't be a selfish git - get vaccinated!" - famous last words.

Mckaiser is doing an honest & magnificent job

John Lennox is a master

And to be crust, cowards can't believe in God.

Thank you Eusebius for proving the bible right that you and people like you can't believe in Him. That's a good enough evidence for me. Not for you. Also, Peter Hitchens said it well. It's convenient for athiest to not believe in God because you'd have to go through the kind BURDEN that John has to go through, and that it's easier to have a sinful life than to face the burden. Science is your god.

The moderator tends to favor McKaiser and is not allowing a valid debate, point to point responses. Not good.

I'm Christian and a great fan of John Lennox but I must say that I admire Eusebius. He is a good debater.

Just watched the first part and realised that it's all one sided debate. Dr. Lennox explains his views and believe in a very articulated manner with views of other scientist and history. McKaiser just talks about his own views with no supporting views of other well known people to support his beliefs. His arguements are shallow and no historical basis. The so called master debater just cannot measure up to Dr Lennox.

Lennox talks to McKasier, and McKasier talks to the crowd. Seems a bit self-exaltatious

Christianity- The belief that God sacrificed God to God to save God's creation from God.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And those who claim, have the burden of proof.

All these profesers and philosophers talk about no hard evidence but could mankind recognise it.

John you'v e done it again.May the God of The Universe Bless Your mind ABUNDANTLY.

Atheism is nothing, atheists are unreal . Conclusion, atheists do not exist, ‘cause out of nothing, nothing comes

I just loved this exchange. I feel Professor Lennox gave much more explanation and Mr McKaiser just made irritated at Christianity statements and at 1 or 2 points he debated against claims in which he himself stated Professor Lennox did not believe....which I feel is a waste of words when the one in whom you are opposing is the one in which you should aim your statements at and not towards strawmen

Need a part 3 when they realise the earth is flat and not a spinning ball flying through a vacuum.

What would qualify as evidence for the existence of God to Eusibius?

That atheist is absolutely incoherent!

McKaiser's superior logic clearly prevailed here. He makes logical points, if you listen carefully. Faith and miracles are indeed subjective truths, you can't realistically and physically prove that they're true. Give me the hard truth rather than a reassuring fable, at anytime!

Thank God for John Lennox and men like him

So Eusebius is an Agnostic alà Neil deGrasse Tyson ...Dawkins is an Atheist ..very evidentiary based convictions rather than philosophical arguments ..so please get Dawkins here ..pronto.

I am terribly sad that I missed this profound event but yet awe struck by the protagonists!

I can’t believe God and a bottle of water are being used in the same sentence and in comparison with eachother.

Said a philosopher to a road sweeper, I pity you, yours is a hard and dirty task, thank you kind sir said the road sweeper, may I ask what’s your task. The philosopher smile and said I study men’s mind and their desires. The road sweeper turn away and smile I pity you too.

In Jesus presence his love and compassion will be so overwhelming you will surrender.

The hard thing about this debate is that the Christian is arguing from the assumption that God is real and that all the subsequent consequences of there being a God. While the atheist is arguing from the point of there being no God. It's like transport experts arguing about transport methods in society while one believes and understands how cars work and the consequences of having a world with cars and the other talks from a point of a world without cars. The argument therefore forces the rational of the atheist to fall into a argument where God rational is a norm. It doesn't work then

The argument Eusiebius makes about turning water into wine. I would understand the notion, if we pretend there is a God, that the being who created everything into this order known basically to man as science. That being would be able to manipulate it and make it behave outside the norm of that order, aka water wine. But if that the stance a scientist take believing that God is every where at all times can they stay true to the scientific order because then technically since God is everywhere always then can't strange things happening just be explained as Devine intervention. then can we trust the scientific norm if we know that it can be broken and strange phenomenon outside the scientific explanation can happen at any time.

McKaiser's claim is that you do NOT need God to explain what is "independently" wrong. However, McKaiser argues with his moral conscience, benefiting from the moral conscience that God has given him. You don't need to acknowledge a singer for their song, but you still get to "independently" enjoy their music.

I find it interesting that McKaiser mentioned his Mom in regard that she was a Believer in God and therefore expressed hope, even more then that, a confident assertion that she IS in Heaven. Well, if he believes in eternity as is assumed by the fact of this comment; why wouldn’t he want to be, forever, with his mother? As an agnostic, he seems to have confidence on knowing, through this comment, that there is a WAY in which one can go to heaven. Is his belief that his Mom is in heaven enough to convince him that his comment is closer to Lennox’s position? I don’t mean to belabor my observation, but if he truly admired, loves and is grateful to his Mom for not aborting him and then consequently discovers he has the gift of a brilliant mind, why wouldn’t he want to eternally be close to her in Heaven - to have access to her in order to express his love and thankfulness toward her? Doesn’t he think that she would want this for both their sakes?

Without God there is no right or wrong and no ultimate justice. In nature there is nothing wrong with rape. Dolphins gang rape. In a naturalistic view, rape is just particles acting on other particles and from a Darwinian perspective it would be a matter of ensuring the continuation of your genes.

It is easy to make an atheistic case. Much easier than a theistic case. But the atheistic argument cannot argue that the theist finds himself in a world consistent with one he would expect to be in according to biblical accounts. How did such an ancient account get it so right? The atheist can only say where is God, I don't see Him. That lacks philosophical intelligence.

I wish Gareth would have a session with Uncle John. Another smug South African atheist.

Kudos to Eusebius for accepting the challenge to debate with a giant like Prof John Lennox, however, if Prof Lennox is a gold standard than there is still a massive journey for Eusebius to travel to even effectively debate Lennox. Looking and responding in a angry fashion does not assist to make your argument more superior.

Hi Frank..people won't believe what they don't want to believe..and, human by nature would choose what's convenient for them..it could be said to both sides but, the burden of proof in Christianity cannot so easily be dismissed...scientists create words too, why would you believe them?

It needs a lot of prayer for this man, McKaiser to open his mind and heart ❤️..

McKaiser obviously has his anger brewing ...

What science can explain, the Bible can..

The answers are all in the Bible..but, how can you believe what's there when in the first place , you rejected already the sovereignty of the Bible as the word of God🙏🏻

Can you look directly at the sun's light E? Yes you can, when it reflects of the moon. The sun's light actually gives light during night time. It brings light to darkness, understanding to ignorance. You are in darkness until you see the light, hence the light bulb in cartoons! But looking at the sun is impossible without hurting your eyes, too much knowledge there. Rather look at the soft light of the moon, it explains the bright light. It was night, and it was day the first day, in other words, from no knowledge to a little bit of knowledge, the first day. Learning always starts from darkness{not a clue} to light{ understanding} But the way into the truth about spirituality is very narrow, as wide as my mouth. And a child can understand it. No big practiced words and rhetoric. Throw away all books and degrees and look at nature and learn a new language. Die appel val nie ver van die boom af nie. Stille waters diepe grond. The whole truth about worship{not the exact right word I want to use!!??} is written in nature. Luckily intellectuals battle with this simple language. But children understand it quickly. The language of love, peace, hope, trust. And these characteristics are our God, Maker, Savior, whatever you want to call the Power of these characteristics. Something bigger than just one person, a collective of positive characteristics. Not a single being somewhere far away, but already present inside the heavens{minds} of the human race. Live out these characteristics and then we call that the deed begotten son of love hope trust etc...And this "son" doesn't discriminate, point fingers, debate, but just brings hope, and the nice thing about this "son" is.....anyone is capable of practicing it. And it's something you CAN believe in?!

I prefer no "justice "or perhaps just obvilion,to Johns Christian justice ,everlasting torture,for ANY crime,how can these christians be happy in heaven knowing people are being tourtued for eternity .

Very nice and lively discussion between the two.

watched all three parts and mckaisers constant and I mean constant spitting out the phrase "the Christian god" in most of his sentences as if it was a derogatory term grrrrrr.........rude and arrogant ........john lennox is always a gentleman and polite

With no great surprise another atheist offering noooooo prove of their own belief system but sits there trying to pull apart Mr Lennoxs beliefs instead .........Mr Lennox is a brilliant speaker

What a gorgeous moment in recent history, this supremely significant conversation articulated with such insight, charm and urgency by these fascinating people.