Atheist Michael Ruse tells John Lennox “You can’t prove Christianity is true”
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 09. 2018
- FULL DEBATE • Michael Ruse vs John L...
For the full debate and exclusive access to the audience Q&A video sign up at www.thebigconversation.show/
John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University & Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University, go head to head in the 4th episode of The Big Conversation.
Filmed in front in front of a live audience in London, they debate science, faith and the evidence for God.
In this excerpt John and Michael debate whether Christianity should primarily be about revelation or evidence.
The Big Conversation is a unique video series from Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the Christian and atheist community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human.
Listen to more sparkling conversations every week via the Unbelievable? podcast www.premierchristianradio.com/...
The Big Conversation series:
Jordan Peterson & Susan Blackmore • Jordan Peterson vs Sus...
Steven Pinker & Nick Spencer • Steven Pinker vs Nick ...
Derren Brown & Rev Richard Coles • Derren Brown & Rev Ric...
John Lennox & Michael Ruse • Michael Ruse vs John L...
Daniel Dennett & Keith Ward • Daniel Dennett vs Keit...
Peter Singer & Andy Bannister - • Andy Bannister vs Pete...
The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with the Templeton Religion Trust
Videos, updates, exclusive content www.thebigconversation.show/
Get the link for the bonus audience Q&A video that followed this debate by signing up www.thebigconversation.show
God is true
That's is true
Over
I'm not sure what Michael was talking about using the Apostle Paul thinking of the ontological argument is moot because Paul already believed in the existance of God, he just hadn't believed in Jesus as the Messiah yet
So he was a Jew then, and not yet a Christian...?
@@kevinadams9468 yup
John Lennox is the most underrated Christian apologist of our time.
I agree 200 percent
Do you come to that conclusion with this video? It is a proof of
quite the opposite. Lenox is saying that he has seen evidence of how Christianity has improved people's lives, that has nothing to do with metaphysics of it, whether the assumptions of that religion are true or not. That religion makes people happier is not news, it has been widely studied, but it says nothing about whether it is true or not.
No sa
He convinced Dawkins of the possibility of a god.
@@GeroG3N, wow, I guess you need to go to all his lectures and maybe open your skeptical eyes a little wider. He has a doctorate in apologetics. He actually has three doctorates. How many do you have?
I wish Peterson would interview Lennox and finally go all in and accept Christ
Right!?
Weeeeelll, No one can believe in God in the saving sense until God gives that person the gift of faith. Here prayer is the most powerful and good work any Christian can do, knowing that we have a merciful Father to whom we now are cabinet members and who listens to our petitions through Christ our intercessor. Want JP to receive saving faith: pray for him to God. We have the sure promises of God to bank on.
Yeah, I’ve always found it weird how nearly everyone, besides a few of the modern atheist debaters, have noticed that *Jordan Peterson is an atheist, he has simply redefined a load of terms to avoid saying this outright.*
He doesn’t believe the Christian god is a real, existent, acting agent in the universe, he thinks the Christian god is a metaphor for essentially, an individuals highest value. Then he goes in to redefine nearly everything else, so that he can pretend he is proclaiming theistic faith: while never having to hold the bag of defending any of the actual claims of Christianity.
This is, roughly, Peterson’s concept of “metaphorical truth”, where theists think god is literally true, Peterson the atheist think god is a metaphor.
@@mellowtron214 Peterson is not an atheist...but you're partly right, he goes out of his way to avoid the responsibility of having to defend the realities of scripture. He said it himself once that he understands the motive to be people trying to put him in a box if he says 'yes' to the question of God's existence. Of late he's been more and more bold in the matter, check his interview with Stephen Frye and the other one on Unbelievable. But yes, he isn't born again but is a nominal Christian, that's the team he "plays" for.
Yeah...I mean, golly gee wizz..
like how calm he is
Truly gift of the MOST HIGH
Who's that; the Great Pumpkin!??!
Your faith is a fantasy precisely because there is ZERO evidence.
@@shawnmalloy4339 And that's why it's called faith.
@@cnault3244 Yeah but, what a terrible waste of time and effort and life. Well whatever!
At least their faith gives the "flock" something to distract themselves with, while they're being fleeced!!!
@@shawnmalloy4339 Sorry, but our lives are not wasted. Let me ask you a question: what is the purpose of YOUR life? As a Christian, I wouldn’t trade the whole world for the true joy and peace that Christ gives. You can keep all of your possessions, fun, and godlessness, and burn in hell for eternity. You don’t have to choose that, because Jesus Christ died for you, too. I’ll stick with God’s eternal Word rather than man’s ever-changing opinions, ideas, and expectations.
@@baraksinz2937 I agree that the lives of the faithless need not be wasted. Many True Believers are wonderful, generous human beings. That comes from them, not from a god or gods. Because other True Believers stone apostates to death and let their children die of easily treated diseases, while the TB futilely prays and pray and prays.
As an atheist -- who gets to burn in hell forever! thanks for the lovely Christian well wishes! -- I create my own purpose. My life is my own. My successes and my mistakes. I am granted this one short life, this brief glow in the eternal dark, to express what I think is important. Love, kindness, hard work, discipline, generosity, decency, creativity, in whatever portions I find meaningful.
"True joy and peace?" I know those feelings well. I also know the pleasures of righteous indignation and energetic skepticism. I'm not about possessions. I'm about what I do and with whom and where. "Godlessness?" Carl Sagan was godless. So were Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Isaac Asimov, Kurt Vonnegut, Einstein, Voltaire and, according to you, every human being who has not embraced your version of the Christian god. In that massive group of people are many of the finest hearts and minds that ever walked Earth.
I need no divine scapegoat. I didn't want and didn't ask anybody to die for me. I ask that people live for themselves. As for God's eternal word, you had better make sure your slaves are obedient. If you beat those slaves, make sure they don't die too soon! When that child of yours curses you, as almost all kids eventually do? Kill him, and it's okay; the blood is on his hands. Like the blood from the homosexuals you'll be stoning to death. And on and on and on. You are already burning in a kind of hell. You just don't realize it. I do not envy you. I pity you. I'm off to hug my son and laugh with my wife. And as for purpose? To paraphrase James Watson (of Watson and Crick fame), our purpose right now is to enjoy a good lunch.
John lennox sitting down there as cool as a cucumber
Con artists and religious charlatans cultivate a cool, calm demeanor, like poker players with an ace up their sleeve.
@@wdcurry111 That's a weird reply, what's bugging you?
I wanted a cucumber that cool but there were none in the market this morning. I went down twice.
Looking as cool as a cucumber is the same as arrogance. Lennox believes he knows all the answers, that is arrogance and to think a god is looking after us personally and saying that all other religions are going to hell is the height of narcissism.
Cool as cucumber , yes a religious vegetable unable to think in a rational manner. This is a fine example of how religion makes clever people talk like idiots .
Love John Lennox. Always so clear
I like him. But I don't personally always find him clear. Sometimes he takes a long time to make a simple point. When I finally get to the heart of what he is saying, I'm like, "Is THAT all you were trying to say? You could have just said THAT."
He accepts The Adam & Eve Bible Story Story as being factual which is akin to still believing in The Santa Clause.
@@Greinton940 - "Claus".
@@jonroth9656 I hear The Santa Clause 2 is pretty good haha I'm pretty sure it can be either or especially in today's age (i.e. is it doughnut or donut??)
@@Greinton940 Yea that's all you hopeless atheists can do is mock and insult. Did you know the Bible says that you will do exactly what you're doing? While you're on the subject of Santa Claus 🧑🎄 prove this total fiction: Atheists believe that everything came from nothing. Prove me wrong. I'll wait.
As Paul said, many saw the risen Christ--including him--which changed him from a Christian hater to the Christian leader. His closest followers were cowering in basements wondering how to get out of Jerusalem alive. Then, suddenly, they brazenly started proclaiming the words of Jesus. How did that happen? They saw the risen Jesus. Not sure how much more you need.
"As Paul said, many saw the risen Christ"
That's what the Bible claims. And it's those claims that Christians are being asked to prove. The claims are not the evidence.
@@cnault3244 The last time I checked though testimonies are still evidence in life today to which can and have cost another their freedom.
@@anar3602 "The last time I checked though testimonies are still evidence in life today to which can and have cost another their freedom."
Testimonies are a small part of a court trial, they are not the entire trial. And none of the court testimony is of supernatural events such as miracles. The testimony is accompanied by forensic evidence, photos, video, etc.
To compare courtroom testimony with religious testimony is ludicrous.
Presenting courtroom testimony in a murder trial the way testimony about Christ and the Bible would go like this:
Prosecutor (P): Mr. Jefferies has been charged with first degree murder.
Defense attorney ( DA): Can you present the coroner's report on the cause of death?
P: There is no coroner's report because there is no body?
DA: If there is no body, how do we know the deceased was murdered?
P: Several people saw the man's body, and they said the man had been murdered.
DA: Where are these witnesses?
P: They aren't available, but they told some other people what they had seen, and those people wrote it down several years later.
DA: Show the court the documents they wrote.
P: Well, we don't have the actual documents. We do have translated copies of copies that were translated after being copied a few times.
DA: How many people saw the dead body?
P: Some witnesses say over 500 people saw the body.
DA: Who are these 500 people.
P: We don't know.
@@cnault3244 And testimonies aren't ALL the evidence that is needed to become a follower of Jesus, it's only a piece of beginning for each person.
@@anar3602 "And testimonies aren't ALL the evidence that is needed to become a follower of Jesus"
Those testimonies aren't evidence at all, those testimonies are the thing need to be proven with evidence.
Regardless, you said "And testimonies aren't ALL the evidence"... what other evidence do you have?
I am a Christian, but I find modern apologetics lacking.
When an atheist says "you cannot prove Christianity is true" they mean something very different than what the Christian apologist means when he says that he can prove it.
This conversation will go nowhere until folks go back to first principles.
The atheist means that the Christian must prove, by the atheist's naturalistic standard, that Christianity is true. This is impossible since the atheist's naturalistic standard is contrary to Christianity from the ground up.
You can never found faith upon doubt. You cannot doubt everything and reason your way to the knowledge that Jesus is Lord.
Christianity cannot be scientifically proven (or disproven.) Naturalism cannot be proven either (for that matter.)
For someone to believe, they must actually encounter God.
@Joseph Martin Lowsky Technically some parts of Christianity can be proven through scientific explanation. Science proves that the universe had a beginning from nothing. From Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, to the fixed expansion rate when space, time, and matter came into existence, to Microwave Background Radiation, precise ripples in space detected by COBE, etc. Because all things that have a beginning are created, and we know the universe had a beginning due to the over powering evidence provided by the Big Bang Theory and the Cosmological Argument (S.U.R.G.E), then logic follows that the Universe is created. Of course you must invoke logic to come to that conclusion but you couldn’t even arrive to that conclusion without the empirical and scientific evidence we use to support that conclusion.
@@KingSuoh
"All things that have a beginning are created".
I agree with this statement but it isn't something you've proven, scientifically or otherwise. To someone who does not believe it, your argument is a nonstarter.
The fact is that self-evident truth must be agreed upon. Axioms must be agreed upon. Otherwise, you're only proving what you believe to people who already agree with you.
"You couldn't even arrive to that conclusion without the empirical and scientific evidence we use to support that conclusion."
At what conclusion? That the universe is created? Nonsense. I don't need Einstein or any other men in lab coats with degrees to tell me what I already know. I've met God and He has shown me that the universe was created by Him. I don't need the scientific method to know that.
@Dmr Brc Go back and read what I wrote. Your reply to me doesn't make any sense.
If it becomes essential that to become a believer one must meet God, then it puts the burden on God.
God is like the sun. Step out from the shadows and you will know he is there, or sit in the shadows and deny all those people "over there" are enjoying the warm light.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
Ok then ask your God to reveal himself to everyone surely it would be selfish not to
I guess Lennox means brilliant.
Damn straight 😂
Yup 👍👍. How can anyone hate him.
John Lennox is indeed correct in that the evidence of lives tremendously changed due to encountering the risen Christ is massive.
Doesn’t mean Christianity is true, just means it’s a helpful tool
People's lives are changed for many of reasons. You don't then get to jump and say see God is real.
It truly is especially when you see drastic changes where someone is an addict one minute and not another with no withdrawals. That's not normal.
@@anar3602 I know people like that who didn't believe in God.
@@anar3602 my father did it without belief in gods
John Lennox is a wonderful man. He is a great man of Jesus our Lord.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Albert Einstein
"Atheism is so senseless".
Sir Isaac Newton
Just because their names are Newton and Einstein mean that they know it all in all categories of knowledge. Newton is a genius in physics but he is an idiot when it comes to religion. Did you know that Knewton didn't believe in the concept of trinity? That he thought Jesus was an angel and not the son of god?? I guess you should believe that too because these are the beliefs of a wise man.
@@joharyranaivosoa6284 hey when are you going to evolve in banana tree😂😂😂
Einstein thought religions like christianity were ridiculous. Not that it matters what Einstein thought.
Newton was an alchemist. Which he was wrong about. Not that it matters with relation to his physics and mathematics.
Appeal to false authority. Einstein and Newton were not authorities on religion.
Also, you're making a strawman of evolution.
So what? Such statements dont prove anything, and thinking it does, is just an appeal to authority.
I think it’s funny how John Lennox points out to Michael Ruse that you can’t test the origin of life but instead must make an inference to the best explanation, and Ruse nods as if to concede that. There’s another popular video where William Lane Craig lists for Peter Atkins all the questions science cannot answer, and Atkins has no response. It’s funny because atheist scholars like Ruse and Atkins recognize that as a valid objection to scientism, but make the same point in a comments section and atheists will still try to defend their position that science is the source for all knowledge. Show them videos like this and they’ll accuse you of making an argument from authority.
Just because there are unanswered questions in science doesn't mean that science cannot answer any questions at all. It is better at investigating and predicting how the world works than religion is, and it is more humble, too, it admits to what it doesn't know rather than relying on cocksure declarations, 'divinely' revealed knowledge and claims motivated by ideological warfare.
Jerome Horwitz I’ve read comments just like yours a thousand times. You’re not understanding what Ruse understands which is why I made the comment. Rather than consider it, you being compelled by your ideology, claim to be non ideological, pridefully you claim to be humble. You admit science hasn’t answered all questions but have faith that it one day will. You mock revealed knowledge, but if someone said “science shows us” then you’d probably believe it without hesitation.
Slippery Storm this is what I meant when I said you don’t understand what Ruse understands. You say I must have empirical evidence for God. I think there is some, but there’s a problem with your demands for empirical evidence which is that you assume things that have no empirical evidence. You have no empirical evidence for logic and math that doesn’t assume logic and math a priori. So while I’m happy to discuss empirical evidence for God, I first need to point out that you believe things that don’t hold up to the standard you set for knowledge.
Regarding faith, it typically has two common uses- “fideism” and “trust”. The Bible uses the word in the sense of trust. Atheists and enlightenment types like to pretend that no one’s ever used faith in the sense of trust and try to impute the fideistic sense to Christians and other theists, which is what you’ve done. That’s just plain linguistic foolishness. Look up the video of John Lennox making a fool of Richard Dawkins for the same claim.
A lot of science is based on logical inference based on observations-- that doesn't make it less credible than Holy Writ or Divine Revelation.
@@tchristian04 If gods were real they could be tested experimentally the way electricity and gravity can. Only charlatans claim their spirits are too shy to show themselves to skeptics.
Wisdom begins with the fear of the LORD. Seek God. Fear God. Repent. Put your faith and trust in Jesus the Christ.
How certain are you that your god exists?
@@pappy9473 bro it's over. We know he is there interrupting many life's. Arranging the disfigured Life into a finest form and converting a man with mentality of animal like many murderers like Paul himself. We know he is right there waiting for you to return.
@@anashwarmonrajan3110 who is 'we' and how do you know 'he' is there?
You are seeing two different person in their golden age. That alone tells if your "belief" lead you to the right path.
One which is close to be glorified in Jesus (I truly pray so), while the other getting close to eternal damnation (I truly pray not)
@Scott Scotty Yes.
@Scott Scotty who dictates that the second person lived a good and kind life? Let me ask this, was that person 100% perfect and flawless just because they led a good and kind life?
That's right. That's the beauty of it. Most Atheists are reduced to the 5 senses but there's a lot more to life than that
Your understanding of the concept of god is also reduced to those 5 senses , you are human too .
@@amanchoudhary12a25 I'm a spiritual being. So are you. We are infinite
@@renecasas7484 hmmmm nope
Receiving the most precious gift of the Holy Spirit is my assurance. And that took humbling myself, believing in Jesus and falling in love with the Lord. The peace and joy I received is awesome, but he also convicts me when I sin. All glory to God!
Beautiful! ❤
@@AnnabellaRedwood May Jesus bless you.
Truly humble: Believing you are the favorite creature of an infinitely powerful being who created the universe for you. Christianity is anything but a humble religion.
@@drschwandi3687 False. Christians don't believe He created the universe for them. Where'd you get that? "You are worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power, for You created everything, and it is for YOUR pleasure that they exist and were created."
@@drschwandi3687
Great observation. I'm a Christian, but credit where it's due and all that :)
John lennox arguably the greatest theist of this generation
The reputation of theists is in decline throughout the Western world because of their smug dogmatism and stubborn hostility. As their numbers dwindle their extremism intensifies.
@@officialmoderator1 totally untrue. Apologists represent a different breed of Christians that reject dogmatism and instead opt for real evidence.
@@grosty2353 Christian apologists create arguments the way lawyers do, not the way scientists do. A scientist follows the evidence whever it leads, a lawyer first chooses the conclusion he wants to sell to the jury then he looks only for evidence that supports it, even if he has to stretch the truth. That's why science has earned a reputation for credibility and lawyers and religious proselytizers have earned a reputation for mendacity.
@@officialmoderator1 that would be true, except for the fact that many atheists looking to disprove Christianity have turned Christian. Is that an example of the lawyers dilemma? On top of that, your statement is true only for observational science, which outlines scientific theories that have been made by repeating experiments, ex. The theory of gravity. When it comes to something like evolution (an easy example), you would have to put the atheists at fault for the lawyer dilemma as well! They start with a conclusion that God does not exist and something must have come from nothing. So who’s at fault here?
@@grosty2353 Far more Christians become atheists than the other way around. People "turn Christian" for emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, in response to trauma or inability to cope with reality or just because they've been programmed by those around them. That's why there is no such thing as an atheist conversion experience where a person goes through a cartharsis at an atheist tent revival meeting and comes down toward the stage with hands raised as the organ plays and the choir sings and the other atheists lay hands on him and he shouts with tears in his eyes, "Hallelujah, I see the light!" Atheism is a long, slow process of thinking carefully about religion and gradually understanding what it really is.
Proper bo is awl John Lennox!!!! Respect….Maranatha….
I am not a Christian because of the preponderance of evidence (although the evidence proving Christianity is substantial). I am a Christian because God sovereignty came into my life and changed my heart of stone into a heart of flesh allowing me to see the truth.
Graham Morgan And the truth has got nothing to do with religion.
@Jim Scott an atheist demanding consistency..... interesting.
I am an atheist because I have seen no compelling evidence, or need, of this magical sky wizard.
@@nativeatheist6422 as previously noted. Conversion to Christianity is not based on a scale of evidence but a condition of the heart.
Colin Dowson Where is the proof of the big bang, evolution, quantum physics or any other THEORETICAL science? There is none, they are theories. Essentially you are believing a bunch of stuff men wrote in a book, same accusations you have toward Bible believing Christians. You have faith, only, it is in theoretical science a massively false religion. much love brothers and sisters Jesus Christ is King
I appreciate apologetics but it has its limitations. Miracles, signs and wonders are there for a reason. If people don't believe in God and call themselves atheists let them see a man being healed or witness a miraculous event and they wouldn't be atheists for long after that. I've witnessed supernatural things and I have no Doubt God is real.
Miracles, signs and wonders are there for a reason all right-- to fool gullible people with stage magic and theatrics.
if they saw it, theyd try to explain it away
@@imoexpress5899 If scientists observed valid evidence of the supernatural they would incorporate it into their view of the world. Scientific thinking is very flexible. It's very telling that you automatically assume scientists are as hide-bound and doctrinaire as you are.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 you must be talking about yourself,no scientist today would incorporate the supernatural because in doing so it would eliminate everything he or she ever believed
@@imoexpress5899 Scientists go where the evidence leads, they change their beliefs freely if warranted and actually love to discover that they are wrong so that they can learn the right answer. A fundamentalist like you can't fathom the meaning of intellectual integrity, you think everyone is as childish and egotistical as you are.
John Lenox is unbeatable. Love him ❤️
His arguments are completely flawed and lack any credibility along with ANY faith and god. He doesn’t understand the simple definition of the word evidence.
@@Knightley79 Wrong. He most certainly proves it to anyone who has a soul. I'd like YOU to prove that everything came from nothing. I'll wait.
@@oreally8605 oh I see. So what you’re saying is the evidence is only there if you want to believe it? If that’s the case, that’s pretty pathetic.
And on the argument of proving something came from nothing, well, that is something that we will know in the coming decade with the help of scientists and physicians. Yes, we don’t know as you also do not know how it started YET, but is being worked on. Even once it has been proven though, believers in god will STILL deny it and continue to believe that the madness and depravity of their religion much like the fact science has proven evolution to be factual with the help of DNA but still religious groups ignore it and in some cases believe the world they live in is less than 10,000 years old! Crazy eh.
@@oreally8605 You don't have to because there is no such thing as "nothing". Nowhere in our universe is there "nothing". The word "nothing" simply means "not of relevance". So you don't need to prove that everything came from nothing because it didn't and no-one has ever claimed that it did. 🤷♂
Lennox has no reasonable arguments at all and he often relies on appeals to authority or simply "faith" as his main arguments.
@@oreally8605 It's theists who believe God created the world out of nothing, not non-theists.
One thing I always appreciate about hearing Michael talk is that he doesn't have that searing, nasty tone a lot of his colleagues have; he can smile and have a sense of humor in these talks.
I like the studio !
Saul already believed in God but he didn't believe in Christ.
Mohamad also already believed in christ but... , Joseph smith already believed in christ but.... , etc.. 😁
Weird opening by Ruse considering Saul had no need to hear about an Ontological argument on the road to Damascus as he was quite convinced God was real on intellectual grounds. Rather the vision he had confirmed for him that Jesus was the Son of God, not that God existed. As he expressed near the start of his letter to the Romans he considered those not convinced by Cosmological and Ontological proofs of God to be without excuse, such that they only deny God's existence and eternal and divine nature due to self delusion.
Saul had an epilectic fit and developed a religious obsession. That has more to do with brain damage than evidence for the supernatural
@@jeromehorwitz2460 - And your "proof" that Saul had an epileptic fit is based on what evidence other than your own belief that he had an epileptic fit/seizure?
@@jonroth9656 According to the bible St. Paul had a chronic "affliction. His religious experiences match the symptoms of temporal lobe epilepsy-- sublime auditory and visual perceptual experiences (2 Corinthians 12:2-9) that resemble grandiose hallucinations with delusional thought content. We know this disease exists but there is no evidence for heavenly visions or divine revelations. I don't mean to dismiss Paul's experiences. Sometimes you have to go out of your mind in order to come to your senses.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 - Paul had a "thorn in the flesh" according to Corinthians 12:7. Nowhere is it stated what exactly that meant, but Paul did say it was sent to him to keep him humble. Paul had many "afflictions": he was subjected to beatings, persecutions, cold weather, hunger, thirst, rejection, being shipwrecked, etc, etc., none of which suggest mental defect of any kind - disease or otherwise. Of course these types of claims have been made for many years, and trying to link Paul's vision on the road to Damascus to something like epilepsy with subsequent visual and auditory disturbances is stock in trade in the attempt to discredit that revelation and, subsequently, anything else Paul ever said or wrote. I can hardly wait to hear of what brain disease John suffered with on the island of Patmos where he received the Revelation.
@@jonroth9656 Having hallucinations is a sign of a brain disorder. I don't know what was wrong with the guy but the symptoms he reported do match those of epilepsy. I don't even know if he really had those experiences or if he was just exaggerating or using literary metaphor for effect or what, but delusions of religious grandiosity are common in people with schizoid affective disorder. Since we have clinical evidence that brain diseases exist that cause the subject to hear voices and see "visions" it is a much more likely explanation than Divine Visitation.
It sounds more like an argument against doctrine or religion rather than an argument against the existence of a God.
The only person you can prove it to is yourself; and that is the only person that matters. God knows what is true and it is up to each of us to find the truth for ourselves.
"The bitter pill of truth is that nobody has been saved nor redeemed for nearly two thousand years. The "church today” has been in massive error; a complete HIJACKING of ancient Israel's biblical redemptive story AKA the Bible." ~Michael Bradley
Nope
Joseph: No, the Gospel still works. Romans 10:9,10 changed me from busted, disgusted and couldn't be trusted to now proclaiming Christ the power of God unto salvation to all who believe. Hope this helps.
@@cliffbailey6474 If you changed your life for the better, congratulations. It was you and you alone who did that. Jesus had nothing to do with that. The Bible’s story of salvation pertained only to ancient Israelites. See Romans 9:4.
@@josephrohland5604 Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? I'm a gentile. Praise be to God! Just keep reading all of Romans, don't stop at v4. 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. I didn't change myself, My heart was changed by faith Acts 15:9. Glory to God!
@@cliffbailey6474 The gentiles Paul and the disciples were preaching to were either Greek converts to Judaism, or the elect diaspora, grafted-in descendants of the tribes of Israel who had been dispersed among the nations. Through the ministry of the disciple's great commission, they were called out from the nations to again be a holy nation of kings and priests, to be sealed for the day of redemption, which only they lived to see. Nobody today is a gentile of that sort. ~Michael Bradley
Stop hijacking & inserting yourself into ancient Israel's redemption tale AKA the Bible.
The Bible: It's Not About You!
Very cool..
Romans 5:13- "Where there is no (Old Covenant) Law, sin is not taken into account." ~Apostle Paul first century
Every idea has four reactions based on understanding and acceptance:
Don't understand and don't accept
Don't understand and accept
Understand but don't accept
Understand and accept.
Christian vs Atheist debates are first two, one don't understand yet accept, the other don't understand but don't accept.
The final level has the power to change the world: destroy everything we know and rebuild it.
And we've seen it many times, with each revolution, when new world was completely different than the old world and the transition was bloody.
@@cthulhucrews6602 nah, Christians don't understand their own religion either, but they accept it nevertheless
Rejecting the Holy Spirit is the one unforgivable sin. If Christ "knocks on the door" and one refuses to open it then that person will never believe in God. Nothing wrong with seeking proof in anything, but a man cannot reach God by himself.
LOL..open the door to save yourself from what the guy knocking on the door is gonna do to you. Very funny.
@@cthulhucrews6602 The holy spirit doesn't even have damned physical hands. LOL
@@cthulhucrews6602 The last thing the holy spirit knocked was Mary, when it raped her and knocked her up.
There is no God. Now what?
Interesting
Knowledge is of the mind...Wisdom is of the heart
Bullshit. Wisdom is experience. Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing that it doesn't go in a fruit salad.
@@alphaomega5721 Bullshit.
Wisdom is culled from experience. What about the elephant in the room? The ability to cull.
@@eltonron1558 that makes no sense.
@@alphaomega5721 That's because, as a materialist, secular humanist, godless carbon based lifeform, you can't distinguish the supernatural differences between the natural, (animal), world, and that which is NOT natural, in humanity.
@@eltonron1558 There is no evidence of a world other than the natural world we inhabit, personal anecdotes notwithstanding. And you don't know what I do or don't know so it is presumptuous of you to assume you do.
"It is difficult getting a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ~Upton Sinclair
He is the CS Lewis of our time.
Faith is a gift from God & not something we mechanical make up ourselves. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Faith comes from ignorance which some people mistake for bliss. Children can believe fairy tales easily because they don't know any better, but as a person matures, the doubts begin to eat away at his subconscious mind and he must invent ever more elaborate excuses for believing, until it becomes a desperate psychological game to cling to religious myths. This produces anxiety and results in hostility, what fanatics call "spiritual warfare."
Jesus christ is the hide and seek champion of the world and always will be!!!
Assumptions, no arguments. Belief ≠ evidence. Belief is biased. Belief is not a scientific evidence. It only can be if you'd exclude every single variable that could cause faith except God's existence. I'll wait...
Faith comes by brainwashing. Understanding comes by observation, rational analysis and testing. Fools have absolute certainty, the wise are full of doubts.
There does seem to be a neurological predisposition toward religious fanaticism which can be detected in brain scans.
"The evidence for my faith" is a contradiction in terms, because faith is defined as believing in something for which there is no evidence.
Did you see the look on John's face when the atheist was talking the first time.....like an aircraft getting his target locked on. John is incredibly honest and he has that mercy it seems also. Great man
I remember one night. It was when I had a "spiritual" war in me. U know, if believe or not, if god is true or not etc. It was really painfull experience btw. It lasted for few months.
I was lying on a bed, watching a movie and waiting to fall asleep. Regular day, nothing special.
Then, out of nowhere, without any reason, a Jesus (not literally him, but a person/vision) came into my mind, I saw jesus-like face, I saw him in pain and I got a "realization" that he died for us, for me. I started crying and falled asleep. It all happened like in one moment.
U can call me crazy or it was a dream. But I tell u, I was fully consciouss when it happened. It felt REAL. I can't fully explain this. U would have to experience it yourself...
If you got a phone call from your wife, you don't say a wife said to you but your wife said to you, even if she wasn't physically present. Just saying.
Hear hear - he really is one of the greatest
He is
That was 3 minutes of awesome
*_Ouch!_*
This guys last name is Ruse. That's actually hilarious on many levels...
Why? He’s not wrong
@@MoNtYbOy101 do you know the meaning of the word, ruse?
@@28102650 of course, are you implying Lennox can prove Christianity is true?
The world is so ordained by God that this atheist is named ruse as God’s witness to the truth about what atheism truly is!
@@josephwallace352 I hope that’s sarcasm
WELL THOGHT I KNOW SOME ENGLISH BUT I REALLY WOULD LIKE SUBTITLES
IN ORDER TO FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU RE SAYING THANK S
As Ravi Zacharias has said, in order to test these matters we must use two things: Imperial adequacy and cultural relevancy.
I'd say study biblical prophecy for a year to any atheist and they would have to believe it was true because it is evident. Start with Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. They are both written hundreds of years before Christ yet describe Him and His mission accurately.
Yes and also Old Testament typology such as the way that the life of Joseph foretells the Gospel through symbolism and parallels.
"I'd say study biblical prophecy for a year to any atheist and they would have to believe it was true because it is evident"
What about old testament prophecies that the messiah MUST fulfill to be declared the messiah? Jesus didn't fulfill any of them, so according to Bible prophecies, Jesus was not the messiah.
@@cnault3244 don't know whether you've noticed, it's not over yet and Christ is coming back, again as foretold in scripture. God bless.
@@dodibenabba1378 "don't know whether you've noticed, it's not over yet"
That statement is too vague to presnt any useful information, just like most of the prophecies in the Bible.
" and Christ is coming back, again as foretold in scripture."
People have been saying this since people started believing in Christianity. It doesn't change the fact that so far Jesus hasn't fulfilled the required prophecies to be named messiah.
@@cnault3244 The Old Testament speaks of two comings. One is coming meek and lowly riding on a donkey. The other is coming in the clouds of heaven. Since there are two comings, there are two periods of fulfilment. Jesus fulfilled the first half: entering Jerusalem riding on a donkey, visiting the 2nd Temple, being born in Bethlehem, suffering and dying for the sins of the people, and rising again. Since the first fulfilment of the prophecies have been carried out, the rest are sure to follow.
"You can't prove Christianity is true." says the one who can't prove atheism is true. Just sayin'
So both are valid by that logic
Atheism is a non-position.
@@TheEternalOuroboros no it is not!
@@danlovepeaceunity You are an Atoothfairyist, but do not call yourself one, I imagine?
Nobody can prove atheism isn’t true because that makes no sense.
A public demonstration of sheer gullibility. Paul was the first charlatan who could see there was gold in them that hills.
For a moment I thought Michael Ruse's blood pressure was shooting up. John Lennox helped him calm down.
Without God, there will be no Science. Period.
Define "God".
Could you please explain what you mean by that?
His explanation probably has circular reasoning in it. It sounds like he's presuming God made man, and according to this presumption man would not make science if God had not first made man.
@@blue6305 It was a question for the other guy, just to make things clear, and see his view on it.
But that's usually what I've heard from Lennox. That God is a necessary assumption to make, for science to exist. Problem is that science is dependant upon existence itself, wich is we have established to be true, as we exist, but we have not established that God even exists, and that he is necessary for our existence.
God is so brilliant that his creation has can be explained through science. Science most definitely points to God. Even Einstein understood that there is a God that keeps this world in order. The universe can be measured by the amount of disorder there is. God uses that for his glory to be revealed in showing us that he orchestrates all things and keeps it in harmony
To me, the historical evidence for the resurrection is extremely compelling. I have no doubt whatsoever that the resurrection best explains the origin and rise of Christianity.
David VR seriously?
Bart Ehrman, the lead skeptic of the resurrection of Jesus, even admits Jesus was crucified. Did Jesus exist? He had to to be crucified. You would find maybe 2 or 3 Historical Scholars with PHds who would even suggest Jesus never existed. That does not fit the historical records.
“There are alternative theories that attempt to explain away the resurrection. The conspiracy. The simultaneous hallucinations. The apparent, but not actual death. Most historical scholars reject these alternatives. Here’s why. The reason Historians hold it is not a conspiracy, can be summed up with a comparison. To quote Charles Colson, “I know the resurrection is a fact, and Watergate proved it to me. How? Because 12 men testified they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, then they proclaimed that truth for 40 years, never once denying it. Every one was beaten, jailed, tortured, and put to death as a consequence. They would not have endured that if it were not true. Watergate embroiled 12 of the most powerful men in the world, and they couldn’t keep a lie for three weeks. You’re telling me 12 apostles could keep a lie for 40 years? Absolutely impossible.” The hallucinations is even more ridiculous. Jesus appeared to over 500 people when he rose, as this is recorded in ancient history as well as the Bible. The odds of 500 people being in the same location to experience the same, non-physical, hallucination is virtually impossible if there is no God. The apparent, but not actual death is not supported by historical data. The Romans were experts in their executions and were trained in doing so. Also, every single one of these theories presupposes the tomb is not empty. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, and these people hallucinated causing a never-ending conspiracy theory, then his body would still be in the tomb. It is not. Therefore, God raised Jesus from the dead.
search for the youtube channel JesusNeverExisted unless you're closeminded.
I will, but I doubt it will surpass extensive SECULAR scholarship. I am afraid this is confirmation bias. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence Jesus was crucified, not just that he existed.
I am always amazed both by the dishonesty of apologists and how well received that dishonesty is by Christians. Lennox talks about having to prove the existence of god and immediately pivots to the efficacy of Jesus' words. Of course the efficacy of words are testable, the existence of god, on the other hand, is not. That's why he dodged the question and yet you all stand there in awe as though he weren't a lying charlatan.
Why would an atheist use Paul to argue against Christianity? Paul, previously Saul, was a Jew who already believed in the existence of God as well as in a resurrection on the day of judgment. That he met the risen Jesus, who claimed to be God, is the only explanation as to why he did a 180 about turn and stopped persecuting Christians. Otherwise, what reason could explain why the best and most successful persecutor of Christians of his time would change his mind? It would be one thing if he felt bad about killing Christians and just decided to stop doing it, go home and live out the rest of his life quietly, but he then became the greatest evangelist of Christianity of his time. He even tells people "I met the Lord on the road".
1:45: I knew John Lennox was going to use personal experience, and simultaneously ignore the millions of (devout, loving, etc) people who suffer, the children dying of starvation in Africa, etc...he always does that...
As you probably know, you can't answer all questions when answering one.
But let's take your point : how should suffering prove the non-existence of god ?
When did you hear me say that?...*He* claimed his personal experience was proof for God's existence, I was just showing how absurd a proposition that was, since he would have to ignore most people's experienced and single himself out in order to claim something like that (he's a group theorist, haha, I'm sure he would never claim all groups are commutative, that the commutativity of groups of order 3 proves that all groups are commutative (meaning xy=yx for all members x y of the group) but the part of his brain he uses for math might not function when talking about religion, haha...I'm trying to be funny)...
If Donald Trump claims to be the best president who ever lived and I say he's wrong (and find fault in his reasons), does that mean I'm claiming he is the worst president who ever lived and that his reasons show that?...Haha...
If someone claims Mr. X committed a crime and provides some proof, and he is shown that said proof is faulty (say, he is saying he is guilty because the killer's name starts with an X too) , can he retort: "OK, show me how all of this proves Mr. X innocent, then", haha...
That said, the non-existence of an all-powerful, all-good=infinitely good God *is* reasonably demonstrated by the problem of evil...but in no way does that show a deist God doesn't exist...
Proof only exists in mathematics and logic, oh and in alcohol.
If it's philosophical proofs that are required then they do actually exist.
The real question that should be asked of both sides in the atheist vs theist debates should be what evidence do you have to support and justify your position.
As yet, im still waiting for my atheist friends to provide anything and as the Hitch used to say "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Like your entire faith system? Please put down the Hitchens razor before you hurt your arguments any further.
Lol but it's you who is asserting the existence of God who must bear the burden of proof. Your aethist friends are waiting....
Lmao so where's the evidence for God?
Occam's Razor is a reliable problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity." In other words the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. So why assume gods, why assume your particular god above all others, and why assume your god has human characteristics like consciousness, ego, will and goal oriented behavior?
@@astronomyastrology7186 I never asked for proof, I asked for evidence so I have no burden here but nice attempt at a strawman though.
If you cant support or justify your position with evidence, your position is therefore one of emotion only and must rightly be dismissed as we're not interested in your feelings on the matter
Presuppositional arguments generally don’t use any empirical evidence. They don’t need to because they are on a higher level or reasoning.
Nah, more obvious level , they are like axioms , we always presuppose to apply our logic on it and to flourish new things from it , every system does ,until it explains well
Is it faith or fear of being wrong ? I’ve asked myself this many times.
I think it is the fear of being weak, we know we makes mistakes ,we know our own weaknesses and imperfections , that's why people tend to something which is perfect ,known as god
Something way better , something we can rely on
Give an old man something to trust he will climb the mountain , but only on his own his consciousness of his own weaknesses will say ,"well you are too old ,and you are too miserable"
Even if God showed himself atheists would still not believe like they did 2000 years ago when Jesus was on the Earth.
Question is, How do you know? And you already start of with a questionable assumption, wich is that Jesus was everything that they claimed he was.
"Even if God showed himself atheists would still not believe"
Correct, as this would be honest position. Assuming he doesn't also do something to convince us that he is god.
If god cares about honesty, he would respect that over people who believe without good reason.
"Even if God showed himself atheists would still not believe"
That's the definition of an atheist, so yes. By definition, if someone who used to be an atheist saw God and started to believe in God, they would no longer be an atheist. Your statement is self-evident. A lot of atheists would convert, though, which I assume you're trying to say would never happen. If you'd just show them the irrefutable evidence that has been promised, I'm sure they'd reconsider their worldview.
Who said that I wouldn't belive in a god if she showed himself in front of me? I absolutely would! So, bring it on, call him down.
Would you give up your imaginary friend if you found evidence that he ISN'T real? Atheists go by evidence, there is no evidence for such a being. That's why believers take it on "faith".
Proof it to me that NOTHINGness can create anything 💰🎂🍸🎺📷🏠🏰⛵🚗💡📠🕖🌷🌲 etc
What you said assumes there was a creation event, which there obviously wasn't, since everything obviously has been around forever, because nothing cannot give rise to something. So what you say has nothing to do with anything. Also, it's actually the other way around, and you self refute without realizing it, because a cornerstone of the Abrahamic religions is creation ex-nihilo, i.e. the creation of everything literally out of nothing, which is impossible. So ironically you debunked Christianity with your inept challenge.
You just had to go strait for the ad hominem, did you? Seriously, what happened to your Christian morals?
And why did you have to bring politics into this? There _are_ atheist republicans, you know.
There is no "argument"; there is only the self-evident statement that something cannot come from nothing, which was the whole point of your inept challenge. Well, obviously, if something cannot come from nothing, that means that (1) the universe in total has always existed, and (2) creation ex nihilo is impossible (refuting Christian teaching of ex nihilo). If you can't comprehend English at this level there is no point talking to someone like you.
@@superdog797 so you believe in an eternal universe or universes?
@@brightwellkunene8995 Like I said before, everybody agrees that something cannot come from nothing. This means that creation ex nihilo cannot occur. Does that imply an "eternal" universe?
If you insist that "eternal" means strictly an infinite set of finite slices of time, all equal in character and nature, linearly ordered in an infinite line, through which there is a single moment we call "the present" that moves through this space at a finite velocity, and that's all there is to it, then no. That's obviously absurd, because you would never reach any given moment of the line as there would have had to have been an infinite number of finite moments before it.
However, if you conceptualize "eternal" in different ways, there is no logical contradiction. A static object that exists with an uncaused "first moment in time" is not logically contradictory. The keyboard we type on has three spatial dimensions that exist simultaneously - there isn't a "first point" of the keyboard - there's just the keyboard, and all of it exists at once. If the keyboard had "conscious awareness" but could only perceive a single molecule of its own body at once it too might develop a sense of "time", as it cycled through awareness of each molecule one after the other. The bottom line is that time may be an object or dimension that is fundamentally no different from any other spatial dimension, except that our biology limits us in perceiving it as a special dimension. This would imply that the universe is "eternal" (i.e. uncaused, possibly finite or infinite, but not created ex nihilo). It could just be sitting there.
So I don't know if that answers your question or what you were getting at but there it is. I tend to think that reality is just all possibilities existing simultaneously in eternity but that's a separate discussion.
"Redemption was only for those who sinned under the first covenant." ~Apostle Paul in Hebrews 9:15 first century
Don't know how you get to that conclusion...
@@andrevisser7542 just read the verse.
@@josephrohland5604, I did???
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Romans 9:15 KJV
The first covenant, is the current covenant. You are citing a scripture in error. According to Jesus, the ten commandments, is all the law. Matthew 22:36-40
@@eltonron1558 WRONG-O! The first covenant was the Old Covenant of sin and death given exclusively to the twelve tribes of Israel according to Psalm 147:19-20, Amos 3:2 and Jeremiah 31:31&33. That ended in the first century at the destruction of the Old Covenant system, temple and people associated with it (what Jews called "heaven and earth"). See Matthew 5:18.
The New Covenant was not a physical earthly covenant per Luke 20:35-36 and was only given to those who were under the Old Covenant, i.e. ancient Israelites only. See Hebrews 8:8, Hebrews 9:15, Romans 9:4 and Luke 20:35-36.
1Cor.10-11 teaches that the end of both Mosaic and Christian ages was in the first century.
According to the Bible, there is no Biblical covenant extant today.
Amen praise the Lord our God and the holy spirit amen thank you God the almighty father🙏💖🙏💖🙏💖
How certain are you that your god exists?
Seriously?! Lennox considers that testable given his appreciation of science? What is the condition on which the hypothesis fails? Because I've at least one example of someone putting their "trust" in God and it not leading to any new life/revelation … conditions of your "test" not met properly perhaps? This person didn't have enough trust/faith? Discounting this data because it doesn't fit with your desired conclusion?
It isn't a test worth doing if you've set it up so that it can't fail.
Trolltician
"Modeling explanations for categorically similar experience to derive a best explanation is a good model"
And you really think that's what he has done? In any serious or thorough fashion?
Okay, maybe I'm assuming a bit here, but I'm willing to bet he's not establishing the criteria for the "similar experiences" and then counting any of the failures or those successes that don't suit his conclusion. Who is the group against which he is measuring his successes? Converts to Buddhism? Islam? Mormonism? Jehovah's Witnesses? Even atheists? Because there are those amongst all of them (and many, many others) that have reported positive life changing experiences as a result of "converting". You really think he has counted any of those against his model or as positive evidence for the alternate, and in some cases contradictory, beliefs?
And, as I mentioned, there are the examples of people who don't report any such experiences despite taking his "test". Do you think he is counting those either? Or is he perhaps writing them off because, post hoc, he decides they didn't perform the test properly?
"Personal experience has more veracity logically then your apparent materialist worldview ... "
I'd likely accept personal experience where there wasn't conflicting evidence - but cherry picked personal experience much less so.
Trolltician
Do you feel you are making the same point that Lennox is making? Lennox seemed, superficially at least, to be making a claim about his ability to test his belief and to do so by referencing other people's related experiences. I don't know how he would have gone about that except by taking them at their word, wherein comes the problems I described. If he had an alternative approach then I'm curious as to what it might be but I couldn't guess at it. He did specifically compare his test to the sort of current work that is being conducted on abiogenesis. An active area of research where serious progress is being reported. Lab tests, independent studies, repeated experiments, failed and revised hypotheses, etc. This doesn't bring metaphysics immediately to mind … not my mind at least!
If Lennox was making a "deeper" metaphysical point or two then you are quite right, I missed it. Perhaps I can be forgiven as his phrasing of it doesn't sound much like yours. I took him to be talking about some vaguely scientific/statistical analysis, since that's what he likened it to. Is the point he/you are making anything to do with testing at all? The ultimate futility of it?
"Essentially, explaining 'how' is an infinite regress in metaphysical terms. You will never deductively contend with the issue … "
I can perhaps appreciate the problem. I don't see a solution deductively or otherwise. There is the prospect of one? You have an answer that satisfies you?
How have you made the jump from 'a god' to 'the Christian god'? If in fact that is what you have done.
Start studying God's word and then applying His words to your life, you'll see a change in your life's circumstances.
funny, when I started studying the bible, after 20 years of practicing christianity, I also developed a serious mental illness.
this is exactly the point being made - faith produces drastically different and inconsistent results. it doesn't pass any test, no matter how vague
Not really a scientific test, just asking a bunch of people how they feel.
@G Will
Translation: I don't know, and science doesn't know, therefore God.
@G Will
So you're _not_ saying people need to take God on faith? So you _do_ have verifiable evidence that leads _only_ to your specific god? Okay, let's see it.
the very definiton of the supernatural is it is above natural law. The scientific method can't apply to the uncontrollable
@@braggsean1026 Yes, the existence of the supernatural is taken on faith. In otherwords even if evidence arose that proves such rubbish isn't true, believers would still go BUT MUH FAITH
@@braggsean1026 I'm no expert, but why shouldn't science apply to the uncontrollable? Ask far as I know, science grows to whatever they evidence, research or new findings of any kind are.
A miracle happened somewhere.
Piers were built for more than just boats,they were built to marvel light walking on the water ...
You can either believe what Jesus said or not. Just like any other belief. You could look up the evidence or lack thereof, tbh there are some on both sides room to doubt room to believe. In the end you simply decide to believe in Jesus or not.
We don't know what Jesus said, all we know is what some anonymous people wrote about what he said, and the interpretations of religious professionals about those writings.
Beliefs are not just a matter of choosing what appeals to you, some beliefs are supported by evidence and logic others are not.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 we have no reason to doubt the historical narrative about Jesus found in the 4 gospels. On the contrary, there is much archaeological evidence to support what is recorded in the gospels. Why would these early Jewish people tell people that they saw Jesus if they actually didn't? They had nothing to gain and lost everything.
@@will95515 Here's three reasons to doubt the gospels-- virgin birth, walking on water and rising from the dead. No one knows who wrote the gospels, when they were written or what their sources were. That's not history, its legend just like stories of Hercules and King Arthur. They may or may not have been inspired by real incidents but they obviously contain their share of BS despite what you want to believe.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 so you're one of those conspiracy people. Almost every mainstream historian will disagree with everything you just said.
I believe Michael is so jealous of John. He wishes he could have what John has, pride making it difficult. 😜😜
Self delusion, cognitive dissonance and elevating feelings over facts is nothing to be proud or envious of.
How do you know that? Are you in his head?
What's the point of these types of debates? It's something that will likely never be proven one way or the other and both sides make basically the same arguments but inverted.
If Lennox had been prosecutor in the Scopes trial, I think Darrow would have lost.
Heard a rumor(no proof it is true) that Houdini said he would rise from the dead. Of course he never did. That is why we do not have Houdinism. If Jesus never rose from the dead we wouldn't have Christianity. He did so we do. No one would ever care about Jesus or know who He is. God bless.
@@WildPhotoShooter Please don't tell me you are one of those "I believe all of history except...." people. There are papers that report of Jesus resurrection within just a few years of it. Jesus resurrection is the most debated thing in all of history. It happened and that is it. PERIOD! If it didn't happen then all is for naught. I'm not a scholar I just go to the truth. Jesus rising from the dead is the truth. Please watch "A Case For Christ" the movie. They explain it a lot better than I can. Plus look into these three "atheist" to Christ men (I put atheist in quotes because I don't believe in atheism. I believe EVERYONE believes in God. They just TRY to deny it).
Lee Stobel: Was an atheist. Was a journalist for the Chicago Tribune. He uncovered the Ford Pinto rear end impact explosions in the late 1970's. Wrote "A Case For Christ". Lee and his wife were "atheist". His wife started questioning things and became a Christian. Lee wanted to prove her wrong so he started to investigate it from a journalist point of view and found the proof for Jesus's claims and resurrection overwhelming and he proved himself wrong and became a Christian.
Simon Greenleaf: Was an atheist. Was a lawyer. Was the "grandfather" of the Harvard Law School. Decided to put the proof for and against Jesus on trail. After going over all the evidence he found the proof overwhelming in favor of Jesus's claims and resurrection and he became a Christian.
"A person who rejects Christ may choose to say I don't accept it, he may not choose to say there is not enough evidence."
-Simon Greenleaf
J. Warner Wallace: Was an atheist. He is a cold case detective for the L.A. Police Department. He wrote the book "Cold Case Christianity". He went at it as if the facts about Jesus were a cold case. He looked at all the evidence and was overwhelmed at what he found. He too became a Christian.
Do research and you too will see the light and give your life to Jesus. He is the risen King. Thank you and God bless.
@@mili10161993 And according to the evangelicals and other "over the top christians" , Jesus seems to look after and care more about overweight well off Americans these days instead of the truly poor starving people of the world. A little miracle like the loaves and fishes would be a simple thing for Jesus to do to help, but we don't see miracles like that in modern times do we ? Sorry mate but until I see the poor being looked after I can't believe in resurrection nonsense, and lets face facts , these people who you said became Christians through research probably already decided to believe , no real atheist would waste their time researching something they believed was BS.
@@WildPhotoShooter Every time there is a child born it is a miracle. There are millions of miracles every single year. So what I get is that you are a "armchair atheist" (you believe you just don't want to do the work to see the truth so you deny the truth). God sent US (you and me) to help the poor and sickly. We do the best we can but not everyone can be saved. You don't like your freewill? You want God and Jesus to do EVERYTHING for you? You see there are two of the greatest gift God gave us...our freewill and His grace. Our freewill lets us decide. That is why you get to pretend to not believe (you can deny with your mouth but God knows your heart). Gods grace is free for the taking but you have to take it. It' like I say about respect: "It's not given freely it is earned. It is free but you have to show me respect then I'll give it right back to you...for free." Gods grace is there you just have to admit God is who He says He is and follow Jesus and you have all the grace you need. You don't know it's "BS" until you can disprove it. Good luck lying to yourself. God bless.
G ods
R iches
A t
C hrist
E xpense!
@@mili10161993 You said " every time there is a child born it is a miracle". Nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five, some as soon as they are born , don't try to tell me God works in mysterious ways because those kids don't have a chance to have free will. Birth isn't a "miracle" it is just nature, look at all the animals born from ants to elephants.
You are living in a fantasy world , one minute telling us God is almighty and he can do anything, because he is "God" he answers prayers, and cares for us, and the next minute you say he can't do everything. Stop looking on the "nice " side of life and look at the what is really going on in reality on the 'ground".
I would like to see the Miracles we read about in the Bible, all the healing Jesus used to do without doctors and surgery. Manna from heaven, loaves and fishes , healing the blind , everybody not just one person . Making the cripple walk again .....every cripple , not just one .
You need to get a grip on reality mate , your religion is false and every deity is invented by men pure fantasy.
@@WildPhotoShooter Please go out today and pick up the book "Is God A Moral Monster". It can explain it a lot better than I can. The way God made it so a females egg can be fertilized by a males semen and produce a life and then the birth. That is 100% a miracle. Well unless you have your head stuck in the sand. Man has tried and tried to reproduce what God has done is laboratories and can not even come close. What God does is a miracle. Can you please show me where I said God "can do nothing". God intervenes in our lives all the time. If God did everything you want Him to do we would not give the glory to Him. We would think we did it all ourselves. God gives us glimpses of His glory. He may allow one person to be healed and not let another. That does not mean He's not there for us. So how much research have you done looking into God and Jesus? None. I thought so. You sit there and deny (false denial) but are too lazy to look at the evidence. Now let me tell you what you believe. and you tell me thats not a fantasy.
There was NOTHING but yet there was a "BIG BANG" of nothing. Then all these particle flew away from the big bang yet a lot where perfectly round...HMMMM....You ever drop a glass cup or glass bowl or glass plate on concrete? there is NEVER any of the pieces that come out perfectly round. Ok back to the fantasy. Then one day a bunch of these round rocks decided to start circling this big, hot, bright ball of gas. Where did the gravity come from for this? No one knows. Then just one (why just one. Because our God decided it) decided "hey why don't I make life out of absolutely NOTHING". Then the first single cell amoeba was born (isn't he/she sooo cute). Then it decided to become EVERY living thing you see today. So we are all related according to your fantasy, to Oak Trees, Flower Bushes, Grass, Bee's , Fish.......The end. NOW THAT sounds far fetched. And you believe it. WOW are you gullible. Go out and get the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". The information of the DNA in your body could fill the Grand Canyon 40,000 times. To me that proves a creator. That CANNOT come from EVILution. Please go out and get the documentary "Incredible Creatures That Defy EVILution" You will see just how stupid EVILution is. I implore you please, please, please get off your back side and do some research. Your eternity depends on it. Earlier I mentioned I don't believe in atheism. I believe every person believes in God. In the 1980's a company called Brown Trucking would give every potential employee a lie detector test (until 1988 when the federal government deemed it unconstitutional) and one question was "do you believe in God?" Every person that said "no" showed they were lying. That is 100% showed deception. I know, I know "lie detectors are not reliable". Well let me tell you this. Kirk Cameron took a lie detector test and there was one question asked after they ask the basic questions like "is your first name Kirk. Are you a male. is your age 32...." The the man administering the test asked Kirk a list of womens names and would ask if his wife was one of these names and Kirk had to say "no" after each name. "Is your wifes name Jennifer". "No". "Is your wifes name Cindy?" . "No". You get it. After the test was done the man administering the test said "tell your wife Chelsea I said hi". The only name he (Kirk) showed deception on was the name Chelsea. And by the way that is his wifes name. The man giving the test and Kirk had never met before this. It was not staged. You really need to rethink what you believe. The evidence is there you just have to want to see it. Remove your dark atheist glasses and see the light (Jesus). Good luck in your conversion to Christianity. Please keep me informed when you become a Christian and are baptized. I truly want to know. God bless.
I swear I always hear from atheists “how can you believe this??”
Because my dear friend I actually took the time out of my life to disregard all bias and read and study the Bible for what it is. I know I know, it’s unheard of….
Doing actual honest research on a religion instead of immediately assuming everything possible??? How dare i
What about the part in the bible that says you can have slaves and beat them as long as they do not die within a day or two?
@@LeroySinclair69 it does not. That’s a common argument, but it’s a verse historically, culturally, and purposefully taken out of context. I would encourage you to do research on the topic. It would be best for you to, because I’ve come to find atheists deny any answer they don’t like. So forgive me if I don’t feel the worth of explaining my response.
@@clementine7655 no thats okay, I will literally copy and paste the verse out of the bible for your easy of reading:
Exodus 20-21
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Leviticus 42-46
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. "`Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Now you can pretend and spin what the Bible literally says if you like, if you are going to believe it I kind of feel better if you do, but don't come to other people and act like God's commandments in the bible are not mostly abhorrent because that's just dishonest
@@LeroySinclair69 this is what my mean by atheists never caring to do research but also never caring to listen to the other side. You can paste it all you want, but the context is still wrong. You’re forcing it to mean what you want.
Again, please do your research on the topic. Read the entire chapter besides just the verse. Google it’s meaning, understand the cultural and historical ideologies of the time. There’s a reason most high intelligent atheists don’t use that flawed argument.
Lennox says he tested the claims of Christianity but notice that he never says how he tested it.
"Jesus came only to redeem those under the (Old Covenant) Law." ~Apostle Paul in Galatians 4:4-5 first century
The word "only" is not in the text. Come on man, context lol.
@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr That's correct. However, only Israelites were/are mentioned in these verses as the reason Jesus came into his ministry.
The context of the Bible relates only to Yahweh's "chosen ones", which was the twelve tribes of Israel.
You are not part of their story.
The Bible: It's not About You!
There is a God and some day all of the unbelievers will believe. Only His grace and mercy will keep it from being too late for them.
@Vidya The Bible says God is Spirit... But He did create penises! 🤗
Vidya well if you had solid theological understanding you would know that being made in the image of God doesn't mean we all look like God, since (as it's been explained to you) God is spirit. Which also follows logically as if he were to be eternal he would also be immaterial and therefore wouldn't have a physical body.
@Vidya let us make man did not mean Adam.
@@joharyranaivosoa6284 You sound angry though. Seems rejecting religion did not help either
I would argue all atheists are perfectly at peace with God. Why would you war with something that you don't believe exists?
I would argue against that. Very few are actually at peace with God. Most make arguments to convince themselves and others to show he doesn't exist. The ones who don't believe he exists but make no attempt to prove or disprove Him are the ones at peace. Because they recognize at the end of the day if there isn't a God then nothing matters.
@@nativeking698 why does no God = nothing matters? Christians love untestable statements, because then they don't need evidence.
"...if there isn't a God then nothing matters."
That's a depressing thought. Have you ever asked an atheist what matters to them?
@@georgecolby7488 Why? If there isn't a God. Because in a few years when you die that's it. Your thoughts what you done with your life. All gone. People may remember you but what does that matter? You won't know it. Then in a few billion years all life perishes. And nobody will realize because no one will be around. I don't need evidence for this untestable statement because it's evident. You say we make untestable statements. Like what dude?
@@nativeking698 you are exactly the type of Christian that turns people away from Christianity and towards atheism. My life has meaning because I find it so, I make it so. Just because you don't like the thought of life ending at death doesn't make it less true. The very fact that life is short, that our lives are limited, makes it so important to make the most of it now rather than hope for some unprovable afterlife.
The fact remains: there is no evidence for god. No amount of faith or feeling changes that. No. Evidence. Period. The god of the bible is myth, just like thor, zeus, and every other dead religion.
Reasonable, rational, and logical:
Massive abundant creation is massive abundant proof of God.
No proof of everything created from nothing or a magical dot.
No proof of nonliving elements formed modules that moved toward first life.
Destructive evil is produced by people who move away from God with nonbelief or blatantly hypocritical teachings about God.
This brings to mind the old saying about two fleas arguing about who owns the dog they live on.
All religion is a matter of faith. Faith is, by definition, belief without evidence. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for the existence of God, or any evidence that does not rely upon pre-existing belief. An individual may be convinced of God by a number of means but ultimately all that individual has is faith, not fact.
That's not an accurate definition of faith.
@@Gruuvin1 Really? Telling me I'm wrong without providing an alternative is not helpful.
What is your definition of faith?
@@Outspoken.Humanist "Now faith (pi'stis) is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Notice the word assurance.
@@Outspoken.Humanist We develop faith in our parents, friends, spouse, doctors, etc. Does that faith mean I believe something with no evedince? Trust is a good word that is a component of faith. But my faith in those people IS founded on evidence that I can trust them. If you want to actually know what faith means, you can do some research. You don't need to require someone to tell you, as a pre-condition of an argument. What are you after? Better knowing Truth? Or are you after something else?
@@wlonsdale1 But that is circular and offers no answer.
You speak of assurance and conviction but from where does that come?
So no Vishnu or Krishna the other gods get no love?
And how have they been debunked?
厳選 What if Jesus existed several but the supernatural aspects were not true?
How have the other gods been debunked?
+厳選 What if the god(s) of the storms transcends the physical and time and the storms that occur are part of their predestined plan? Can you disprove that?
Joking aside, and in all seriousness, how is your belief in a god any different than these past storm god believers? In the past people believed in gods of storms etc as the were limited by their ignorance of the natural world, just as we still are. It appears that as we've discovered more about our physical reality God/gods have been pushed back from the cause of storms to the cause of the universe or insert any mystery here. Gods will most likely continue to be asserted as the cause for an unexplained phenomenon. Let's not make the same error as those past believers of god's and instead say we don't know when confronted with mysteries (until we do know).
God existed outside of time and space where as the other gods were created within it
Lennox is correct.
Ab-so-lute-ly not!
So how is it testable?
"I only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel." ~Jesus Christ in Matthew 15:24 first century
15:24 only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Later, through the apostles, the message of the gospel is to go to the Gentiles (Acts 1:8; 22:21; 26:17-18, 23; cf. Luke 24:47; John 10:16), but at this point in the unfolding of God's purpose, the focus is on the Jews and their spiritual need. See Matt 10:6 and note on 22:9.
-ESV STUDY BIBLE Notes.
@@skirtonbear1 The Gentiles Paul and the disciples were preaching to were either Greek converts to Judaism or the elect diaspora, grafted-in descendants of the tribes of Israel who had been dispersed among the nations . Through the ministry of the disciple's great commission, they were called out from the nations to again be a holy nation of kings and priests, to be sealed for the day of redemption, which only they lived to see. Nobody today is gentile of that sort.
Pagan, non-Israelites were never subjected to the Old Covenant Law, and as Romans 5:13 states,
"Where there is no (Old Covenant) Law, sin is not taken into account."
BTW- According to the Bible, nobody could come to the kingdom of Christ after the judgement took place and as Matthew 19:28 states, the judgement took place in the lifetimes of Jesus and his first century disciples where they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel only.
The Bible's story of salvation only pertained to ancient Israelites cursed with the Old Covenant Law of sin and death and that is no one alive today.
Today's so-called, self-appointed "christians" have been hoodwinked into believing they're sinners under a law that passed away and need a savior who said he came for someone else, who will save them from a sin that's already been removed and a judgement that already happened and allow them into a covenant that was made with someone else. The fact is, we today were never and are not part of ancient Israel's redemptive tale.~Michael Bradley
@@josephrohland5604, you don't have a clue what you are talking about...
@@andrevisser7542 You've been hoodwinked into believing you're a sinner under a law that passed away...and need a savior who said he came for someone else...who will save you from a sin that's already been removed...and a judgement that already happened...and allow you into a covenant that was made with someone else. The fact is we today have never been and are not part of ancient Israel's redemption tale. ~Michael Bradley
@@andrevisser7542 "I only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel."~Jesus Christ in Matthew 15:24
"Jesus came only to redeem those under the (Old Covenant) Law." ~Apostle Paul in Galatians 4:4-5
"Redemption was only for those who sinned under the first covenant." ~Apostle Paul in Hebrews 9:15
"The ADOPTION into Sonship, the GLORY, the COVENANTS (both Old & New), the giving of the LAW, the WORSHIP and the PROMISES only BELONGED to ISRAELITES." ~Apostle Paul in Romans 9:4
Jesus is coming soon turn from sin and trust in him
Jesus is the hide and seek champion of the world and always will be!!!
@@wdcurry111 So where were you hiding?
@@wdcurry111 So why can he not find me?
When is "soon" ? you said 10 months ago Jesus was coming.......still waiting.
@@wdcurry111 Yes I know the Sunday school lesson about scoffers. To me it proves that Jesus didn't have any confidence in what he was saying......he knew people would find fault with it so he tried to make himself sound like he could see the future by saying people will scoff. Anybody could say that about anything,
I saw a UFO last week, it landed in the field 50 yards from my house and little green people got out.... there will be people that will scoff at my story. See? even I can do it .
Origin of life is testable. We have self-replicating RNA in labs. Personal & religious subjective experiences aren’t not reliably testable b/c they do not tell whether the experiences implies something beyond it or whether it’s simply a mental event.
Believing that dead chemicals could arrange themselves to produce the cunning complexity of life is as much of a leap of faith as believing that a dead man came back to life 2000 years ago.
Specious crap. The testing of the origin of life in a lab is done with man created equipment God knows how many years after the fact- it is NOT done using NOTHING, which is what was required at the moment of the 'big bang' as attested to even by the pseudo intellectuals such as Dawkins.
G Will crystals do not carry genetic information. RNA does. It’s not coming evidence against God, but it’s compelling evidence that life arose without God.
David VR they’re not dead. They’re non-living, and it’s not a belief. It’s observed in a lab. Check the work of Jack Szostak.
tony rooke organic compounds form on their own. It’s basic chemistry. The Christian says we have no clue how life arose. Nonsense.
Sincerely, Jesus made a claim that if one had the faith of a mustard seed , they could say to a mountain , move! I realize this may be a style of speech but I simply cannot dismiss it so fast because Jesus makes many statements or claims that in peripheral exam seem to follow the same style but many people read these claims as absolute literal facts.
🙏
Jesus proved it. Paul and the apostles speak of this very fact. If Jesus did not rise from the grave he said our faith is in vain and still on our sins. The transformation is real for anyone that truly seeks
Same white noise muslims make. And Hindus, etc., to be fair.
El Jay orange and apples. We’re speaking about claims and actions. Salvation is found only through Jesus
@@onestepaway3232 again... Exactly what a hindu would say. Or a muslim. You havent read the bhagavad gita or the egyptian books of the dead. So you dont know how many salvation gods there have been long before the bible. Its all white noise. Theres a religion template; miraculous conception, virgin birth, die for sins, scape goating, heaven hell, etc.. Part of story telling. Been around forever.
El Jay that is fine. But what are they claiming and what is the evidence that their claims are true? Mohammed and the Vedas didn’t claim anything.
@@onestepaway3232 you wouldnt know because you didnt read them. It wouldnt matter if there was a savior that claimed precisely what jesus claimed, you wouldn't believe it because you already chose your team. Thats why muslims believe youre wrong and vice versa. Thats the nature of being indoctrinated. They think their unique value proposition proves the truth of the religion and you think the same. The muslims have a good point that christianity is polytheism. You got a father and a son, so thats two. If there was also an uncle and a cousin thatd be 4 but christians would just brush it off. Hindus are correct to point out that jesus was not the first savior who came to die for our sins. Mithras did just that. Osirus, etc. Nothing special. The bible stole the noahs ark story, you dont think they also stole other stories? Cmon now.
Hahaha, poor atheistt
Hahaha your poor deluded religious fanatic.
You’re deceived, there is a God
@@Nameless-pt6oj The word "God" means different things to different people, some of them profound and insightful, some of them childish and misleading.
Regarding Lennox's notion that certain widely-regarded scientific topics are not testable (such as where life or the universe actually came from), he is mistaken in his implication that science can never know these things. Perhaps some day, we will be able to create life, and devise experiments to do so in a controlled environment designed to replicate the pre-life conditions of primordial Earth, and thus, test how life likely would've first occurred. Science is always happy to remove the temporary band-aid conclusions of "we don't know for sure, maybe it happened like this" and replace them with more concrete "oh, now that we know better, our verifiable, well corroborated experiments seem to suggest this" conclusions. Religion, be it Christianity or anything else, simply refuses to be so patient or honest. People want confident answers now, and both apologists and scientists who ought to know better, like Lennox, are unwarrantedly confident that they have such an answer: God did it, case closed, we can all go home now.
Saying its testing is not testing, evidence is
Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Mark Twain
That may be the atheistic defintion. It's not ours.
@@samuelbishop3316 The word "nature" means everything there is, it is all-inclusive. Nothing is outside it. Some people like to create an artificial section of nature and call it "supernatural" but that's still part of nature. Its just the part called "imaginary." There is a place for that in human life-- in religion, the arts, literature, drama, etc-- but it's as natural as anything else.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 Its not imaginary that God prophesied my future to me, and healed me of my addictions and afflictions when I was saved, as well as filling me with overwhelming love and joy, and peace, despite me being the exact opposite of all that even 1 moment prior. He forgave my sins and made me whole.
@@samuelbishop3316 I'm glad you feel euphoric and attribute these feelings to your religious conversion, but it's all in your head, mate.
@@jeromehorwitz2460 You can do time to right it off time and time again,but there are hundreds of prophecies in the bible that have happened or will happen. The prophecy of Tyre is a good example of that. History contains only a small part of the evidence and yet it's highly convincing. Knowing the future about myself because he spoke to me, "isn't in my head" nor is only in my head when he gives the right words to say to someone even though I have no idea what they're going through. Nor was it in my head when my fellow true Christians came to me in similar fashion and gave me advice on situations they knew nothing of, mentioning details I neverntold them, and actually schedule questions because they didn't know what was going on but knew what God told them to say.
As I say, you can continue writting it off, but he's there. Everyone will be held responsible for thier sin without Jesus. Through him we set free and saved, forgiven by his death and justified by his resurrection.
Lennox utterly failed to rebut Ruse's comment.
Lennox is appealing to personal experience, and seemingly ignoring the fact that his argument would also validate the personal experiences of all other theists from all over the globe, which creates a logical contradiction as they cant all be "true", or "valid" evidence, or justification for their personal faith as they contradict one another.
Valid, testable evidence is independently verifiable by anyone with the capability, but in Lennoxs version there is no way to independently test anything as it is a personal experience, which may be real or may also be a hallucination, may be attributed to a deity or may be through life changes. Moreover, how did Lennox validate the claim that that personal experience can only be accounted for through Christ, how did he rule out ALL other possibilities? He didn't and he can't, thus his beliefs are not justified and any conclusions are invalid.
There's more to the world, than the natural world. If it's real, and outside the understanding of science, or the 5 senses, it is, metaphysical, supernatural.
Can you not name something that meets that requirement?
Charisma, meets that requirement. A power, outside the understanding of science and humanity, yet, as real as you. That is the realm in which your God, lives. Unless you care to prove, that charisma, is not supernatural.
@@eltonron1558
Charisma is a descriptive word made up by humans to explain specific interactions between people, so its obviously detectable by humans, sorry, but you've posited a false example.
You claim that there is more than the natural world, and that its "outside the understanding of science, or the 5 senses", but how on earth do you know (knowledge is demonstrable) that to be true?
"That is the realm in which your God, lives. Unless you care to prove, that charisma, is not supernatural"
You've made 2 false assumptions there;
1- I dont have a "god".
2- charisma is not supernatural, its a human construct, a part of our language that is used to help describe and explain human interactions.
Sorry, but those facts very clearly debunk your entire argument.
@@AussieNaturalist So charisma is outside the understanding of science, REAL, and you call it's power, an interaction? The 5 senses can't detect it , yet it can be perceived, which is NOT an interaction, but a perception. A perception of a power, without explanation. If we were talking, it would be an interaction. Charisma, is supernatural. You haven't dodged a bullet, you have falsely thought you dodged a bullet. He is your creator, he is your God. It is your nature, as a human, to reject God. The same God that gave the miracle of mind, so you can reason, he doesn't exist. You are the beneficiary of a supernatural intervention, allowing you to be vain, and self centered. Bravo. Enjoy it.
@@eltonron1558
Can you please define what you mean by "charisma"?
And for your information, words are not "powers", they are human made constructs used to communicate information, express ideas, feelings, etc...
And making baseless assertions like you have in that comment about your supposed "god", is not a valid form of argument FOR anything. Your assertions are no more or less 'valid' than that of a Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, etc... or that of someone claiming that magical dragons exist.
@@AussieNaturalist I already defined charisma, correctly. I have defined the supernatural. I have no argument. I have asserted that charisma is a power, you have responded, by saying it is a word. Bravo. Words are necessary to communicate. Deny it is a power, deny talent is supernatural too, it's just a word, nothing unique, out of the ordinary. We are all Paul McCartney. The miracle of life and mind, nothing to see, all ordinary, all natural. BULLSHIT.
1:41
Can everybody just keep silent for a day? We are mere men.. and we talk like we know the things of God. Just fear God and keep His commandments.
Yet, nobody would give his/her life for a lie...so many Christian martyrs in history...did they die for a lie??? I don't think so!!! "The truth shall set you free" !!! - From a Scientist (biologist) in Australia....
Heaven's Gate.
Jim Jones.
David Coresh.
Also true?
@@ericisawesome5725 They were Anti-christ!
@@ismaelsosa2817 but you said nobody would give their life for a lie and each of those had people die for them .. so your reasoning is flawed
@@ericisawesome5725 They were killed by Anti Christs they were forced to die by killing them, saints volunteer to die, none if them did, similar to what Hitler did to Jews!
@@ismaelsosa2817 no, at least some if not most or all of each group were suicide for the leader... And there are other examples as well... Just because someone is dumb enough to die for a cause does not make it true
Praise Yah
Metaphysics, we have forgotten about it.
Why would Jesus, after ascending to heaven, then appear to Paul and then never appear again for 2,000 years?? Hmm 🤔
because this is probably the best approach for an omnipotent entity to achieve its goal?!
@@promethean7032 If the goal is to think its probably BS, then Kudos
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Many people have seen Mary and Joseph and Casper too