Prof. Lennox is so patient and polite. Sets a good example of grace (both spiritually, and in etiquette) Sorry, Mr mcKaiser - just not convinced. Nearly, but Lennox got you with Hume's criteria for evidence.
Not being convinced does not make Lennox right. There are too many things McKaiser let slide. 1) How do we know the Bible is correct? 2) Because John argues that there is an "intelligent creator", McKaiser shows him that it can be any god with a holy book that says s/he created the book. Mithra or Ra or Lord Shiva or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. McKaiser shows that the burden of proof is on those who assert that it is their god that created the world to prove it. John slides away real quick
Yes! I enjoyed listening to arguments from both sides, but John Lennox summed up the issue in his last remarks - the claim is that God can be known and experienced; therefore, if we are going to come into knowledge of God, our approach should be in the way we come to know and build relationships with the people around us. So simple, yet so missed by skeptics.
Ode Ode below says "sacrifice, try to understand it first sir, then you might understand what love and hope. with love and hope then you might know who christian God is. hints to understand sacrifice... do it." almost all Christians say something to this effect. Equivocations surrounding the word "feeling" or "comfort" won't get you out of the argument. Let me simplify how the argument went. Eusebius: I don't know if there is a god or gods or not.John: I know, there is a god.Eusebuis: Prove it.John: It's simple, the bible says he created the world, the world exists therefore the Christian god exists.Eusebuis: Other holy books say other gods created the world, so what makes the bible special? John: ...Jesus?Some guy in the comments section. John won! Yeah right.
EM didn't understand the argument of morality, the significance of all the fine tuning dials and couldn't argue against the existence of Jesus. John Won!
That's where you're wrong. Agnostics have no burden of proof. Only theists do. Consider this, two people are talking, one says he saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the other says he(himself) doesn't have sufficient evidence to conclude either way. Hume points out that supernatural claims have to have to have supernatural evidence. Perhaps if the oceans turned into Spaghetti, the second man might believe the claim, but as of now, he cannot. But the first man asserts that the a)Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world, his holy book says so b) the world exists c) therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.McKaiser points out two things 1) internally consistent logic isn't always truth. The argument put forth above shows this. Something can be both logical and false, as you'd see. 2) in light of this, McKaiser asks John to prove that a) it wasn't any of the other gods in the other religious texts b) that it was neccesarily the Christian God who created the world. John instead says something a Pastafarian would put as follows: you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god. Look as pasta, it texture. Its taste. The people who eat pasta feel so nourished after they eat it. That is essentially the argument from intelligent design(look at the features of the natural world that are beautiful, surely they were created by a God).
Love McKaiser's point at 21:16 - everyone (Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Hindu etc.) should not be satisfied with not being able to speak about your beliefs without conviction. None of us should feel entitled to "blind faith". To believe in anything is to claim truth, and to claim truth we need reason
+Justeen Chan True, we have to question, but not in the same way as say an Atheist. Because the Christian has already found the truth, because we dont want to talk our way in doubt. Do you speak Chinese or Cantonese ?
The Berean haha that is a very random question, and Cantonese but poorly haha. And yes I agree but we still need to be able to explain how and why Jesus is the truth. We can only do that through questioning, reasoning and knowing. But certainly this is different from the questions an atheist faces
I live in China so ;;that's the reason for the question, Herein lies a problem because even though i agree with you, people who don't believe, will find it impossible to understand the things that pertain to Jesus. On top of this i find that most of the people in forums such as this, generally are quite aggressive without the presence of the abillity to carry on a discussion without the mention of fairies, gobline etc. Where this method is helpful is the fact that believers do not just take it for granted, that people are a certain way, without connecting with them in their world.
The Berean Haha OK - I live in Australia and I'm an Australian, hence the poor Cantonese speaking. I think we're both saying the same thing so I don't think I need to address any inconsistencies and just give you a thumbs up
Thanks very much !! I'm actually watching the third part of this debate again, and find it really enlightening. If you get chance to watch the two Hitchens debate ''very good'' Peter and Christopher Hitchens..
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
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!
The limitation for me was discussing a christian God and not a God for all.Besides, there are so many christian Gods and the one Eusebius discussed is so far removed from mankind to the extent that he does not exist.To pose the question whether God exist or not is a misnomer and a wrong-worded question.I believe that God has not placed it in the mind or heart of man to understand the question"Does God exist or not"cause there are so many angles to it.The reason being that i reasoned like EM many moons ago and today i just live out the existence of God and the character of Jesus as a way of life and it's amazing.I cannot say it all here but Prof Lennox makes a lot of sense, a very listenable person.I like EM too, ha.
Again, assertion: "God has not placed it in the mind or heart of man to understand the question "Does God exist or not" ". 1) that means we should all be agnostics(like Eusebius) because we don't have the capacity to understand the question or use the available data to reach a conclusion either way. 2) you pre-suppose a God. One that doesn't put that capacity in the heart or mind of a person to understand whether he exists or not. Why do I say this? To the question; does a god or gods exist? Your answer is, well yes and then backtrack by saying we wouldn't know because he made it impossible for us to know. a)How could you know there is one if s/he made it impossible to know? b) You do realise you are playing into the classical Pastafarian position; that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and that we just don't know it and asking whether it exists is a "misnomer".
If you don't want to have a philosophical discussion around it, that's okay, but then you shouldn't both 1) try to dismiss McKaiser's position by asserting that his construct is "so far removed from mankind to the extent that he does not exist" and 2) talk about it being simply a matter of faith where you just "live out the existence of God and the character of Jesus as a way of life and it's amazing".
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.
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.
Oh dear! Just did a bit of googling on who Eusebius McKaiser was, and discovered that Mr. McKaiser had tragically passed away recently! My condolences to his family, friends and fans!
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?
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?
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
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🙏🏻
The Bible is just words, and paper never refused print Also an all knowing god would never trust (unknown) humans to pass his words on by word of mouth and even worse, long after the events, , a terrible way for a god to to pass on an 'important' message,(knowing how even a few words can change the meaning of something,)how could it be trusted?the evidence is that millions, (in increasing numbers) find these tales impossible to believe.
How then if not by words would all the history be safe? There are hundreds of archaeolical findings coming up that are evidence for destroyed cities etc. only found in the Old Testament. Up to this point in time the historien did‘nt believe they exist. Now the bible is an autorized historical recource because it has been ascertained by God that the content would not be changed over the centuries. And i mean word by word. There are transcripts from 250 BC to 50 AD that are identical in content with the parts in the todays bible. There are no other historic recources that have just half of the amount of manuscrips. Still the world believes in an Alexander the Great of whom we have the earliest biography written 400 years after his death.
sacrifice, try to understand it first sir, then you might understand what love and hope. with love and hope then you might know who christian God is. hints to understand sacrifice... do it.
Ode Ode Uh, last time we checked, you don't say things without evidence. a) Prove that my god Ra doesn't exist. b) Prove that his son Horus wasn't the one that died for us. c) Prove that your god exists. b) That he created the world(and no, disproving the existence of Horus doesn't prove that your god exists, it could still be Zeus who created it)
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.
Prof. Lennox is so patient and polite. Sets a good example of grace (both spiritually, and in etiquette) Sorry, Mr mcKaiser - just not convinced. Nearly, but Lennox got you with Hume's criteria for evidence.
Not being convinced does not make Lennox right. There are too many things McKaiser let slide. 1) How do we know the Bible is correct? 2) Because John argues that there is an "intelligent creator", McKaiser shows him that it can be any god with a holy book that says s/he created the book. Mithra or Ra or Lord Shiva or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. McKaiser shows that the burden of proof is on those who assert that it is their god that created the world to prove it. John slides away real quick
Yes! I enjoyed listening to arguments from both sides, but John Lennox summed up the issue in his last remarks - the claim is that God can be known and experienced; therefore, if we are going to come into knowledge of God, our approach should be in the way we come to know and build relationships with the people around us. So simple, yet so missed by skeptics.
Thank God for John Lennox and men like him
John destroyed him!
+guitariscool17 What???? Seems you have been sleeping while watching ....
Ode Ode below says "sacrifice, try to understand it first sir, then you might understand what love and hope. with love and hope then you might know who christian God is.
hints to understand sacrifice... do it." almost all Christians say something to this effect. Equivocations surrounding the word "feeling" or "comfort" won't get you out of the argument. Let me simplify how the argument went.
Eusebius: I don't know if there is a god or gods or not.John: I know, there is a god.Eusebuis: Prove it.John: It's simple, the bible says he created the world, the world exists therefore the Christian god exists.Eusebuis: Other holy books say other gods created the world, so what makes the bible special?
John: ...Jesus?Some guy in the comments section. John won! Yeah right.
EM didn't understand the argument of morality, the significance of all the fine tuning dials and couldn't argue against the existence of Jesus.
John Won!
John you'v e done it again.May the God of The Universe Bless Your mind ABUNDANTLY.
Gone too soon, gonna miss this beautiful mind.
Professor John rocks, pops, souls! :-)
Mr.. McKaiser. doesn't convince me.
That's where you're wrong. Agnostics have no burden of proof. Only theists do. Consider this, two people are talking, one says he saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the other says he(himself) doesn't have sufficient evidence to conclude either way. Hume points out that supernatural claims have to have to have supernatural evidence. Perhaps if the oceans turned into Spaghetti, the second man might believe the claim, but as of now, he cannot. But the first man asserts that the a)Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world, his holy book says so b) the world exists c) therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.McKaiser points out two things 1) internally consistent logic isn't always truth. The argument put forth above shows this. Something can be both logical and false, as you'd see. 2) in light of this, McKaiser asks John to prove that a) it wasn't any of the other gods in the other religious texts b) that it was neccesarily the Christian God who created the world. John instead says something a Pastafarian would put as follows: you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god. Look as pasta, it texture. Its taste. The people who eat pasta feel so nourished after they eat it. That is essentially the argument from intelligent design(look at the features of the natural world that are beautiful, surely they were created by a God).
He does not convinced me either.
In Jesus presence his love and compassion will be so overwhelming you will surrender.
McKaiser obviously has his anger brewing ...
Just like 🔥obama
Skillful and prideful
PROVERBS 16:17,18 🇺🇸
Love McKaiser's point at 21:16 - everyone (Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Hindu etc.) should not be satisfied with not being able to speak about your beliefs without conviction. None of us should feel entitled to "blind faith". To believe in anything is to claim truth, and to claim truth we need reason
+Justeen Chan True, we have to question, but not in the same way as say an Atheist. Because the Christian has already found the truth, because we dont want to talk our way in doubt. Do you speak Chinese or Cantonese ?
The Berean haha that is a very random question, and Cantonese but poorly haha. And yes I agree but we still need to be able to explain how and why Jesus is the truth. We can only do that through questioning, reasoning and knowing. But certainly this is different from the questions an atheist faces
I live in China so ;;that's the reason for the question, Herein lies a problem because even though i agree with you, people who don't believe, will find it impossible to understand the things that pertain to Jesus.
On top of this i find that most of the people in forums such as this, generally are quite aggressive without the presence of the abillity to carry on a discussion without the mention of fairies, gobline etc.
Where this method is helpful is the fact that believers do not just take it for granted, that people are a certain way, without connecting with them in their world.
The Berean Haha OK - I live in Australia and I'm an Australian, hence the poor Cantonese speaking. I think we're both saying the same thing so I don't think I need to address any inconsistencies and just give you a thumbs up
Thanks very much !! I'm actually watching the third part of this debate again, and find it really enlightening. If you get chance to watch the two Hitchens debate ''very good'' Peter and Christopher Hitchens..
I'm Christian and a great fan of John Lennox but I must say that I admire Eusebius. He is a good debater.
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
It needs a lot of prayer for this man, McKaiser to open his mind and heart ❤️..
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!
The limitation for me was discussing a christian God and not a God for all.Besides, there are so many christian Gods and the one Eusebius discussed is so far removed from mankind to the extent that he does not exist.To pose the question whether God exist or not is a misnomer and a wrong-worded question.I believe that God has not placed it in the mind or heart of man to understand the question"Does God exist or not"cause there are so many angles to it.The reason being that i reasoned like EM many moons ago and today i just live out the existence of God and the character of Jesus as a way of life and it's amazing.I cannot say it all here but Prof Lennox makes a lot of sense, a very listenable person.I like EM too, ha.
Again, assertion: "God has not placed it in the mind or heart of man to understand the question "Does God exist or not" ". 1) that means we should all be agnostics(like Eusebius) because we don't have the capacity to understand the question or use the available data to reach a conclusion either way. 2) you pre-suppose a God. One that doesn't put that capacity in the heart or mind of a person to understand whether he exists or not. Why do I say this? To the question; does a god or gods exist? Your answer is, well yes and then backtrack by saying we wouldn't know because he made it impossible for us to know. a)How could you know there is one if s/he made it impossible to know? b) You do realise you are playing into the classical Pastafarian position; that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and that we just don't know it and asking whether it exists is a "misnomer".
If you don't want to have a philosophical discussion around it, that's okay, but then you shouldn't both 1) try to dismiss McKaiser's position by asserting that his construct is "so far removed from mankind to the extent that he does not exist" and 2) talk about it being simply a matter of faith where you just "live out the existence of God and the character of Jesus as a way of life and it's amazing".
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.
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.
Oh dear! Just did a bit of googling on who Eusebius McKaiser was, and discovered that Mr. McKaiser had tragically passed away recently! My condolences to his family, friends and fans!
Very nice and lively discussion between the two.
And to be crust, cowards can't believe in God.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Great presenter also.....
+The Berean Lol the end was perfect hahaha
John Lennox is a master
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?
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?
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
we examine the content of the argument. not the way the argument is presented. Lennox lost. done.
In part 1, John rejects the argument for fine-tuning. In part 3, he accepts it as being "how science has developed".
Prince T'Challa honestly Eusebius won this debate... before we even got any far
I've followed John Lennox and his arguments for as long as i can remember, and not once have i heard him dismiss the fine tuning evidence.
What science can explain, the Bible can..
you don't need much to be convinced that Eusebius far debated him. that old man needs to calmn down
That's not even an argument.
Commissar Gamza I know right... what a waste of time
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🙏🏻
The Bible is just words, and paper never refused print
Also an all knowing god would never trust (unknown) humans to pass his words on by word of mouth and even worse, long after the events, ,
a terrible way for a god to to pass on an 'important' message,(knowing how even a few words can change the meaning of something,)how could it be trusted?the evidence is that millions, (in increasing numbers) find these tales impossible to believe.
How then if not by words would all the history be safe? There are hundreds of archaeolical findings coming up that are evidence for destroyed cities etc. only found in the Old Testament.
Up to this point in time the historien did‘nt believe they exist.
Now the bible is an autorized historical recource because it has been ascertained by God that the content would not be changed over the centuries. And i mean word by word.
There are transcripts from 250 BC to 50 AD that are identical in content with the parts in the todays bible. There are no other historic recources that have just half of the amount of manuscrips.
Still the world believes in an Alexander the Great
of whom we have the earliest biography written 400 years after his death.
sacrifice, try to understand it first sir, then you might understand what love and hope. with love and hope then you might know who christian God is.
hints to understand sacrifice... do it.
Ode Ode Uh, last time we checked, you don't say things without evidence. a) Prove that my god Ra doesn't exist. b) Prove that his son Horus wasn't the one that died for us. c) Prove that your god exists. b) That he created the world(and no, disproving the existence of Horus doesn't prove that your god exists, it could still be Zeus who created it)
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.