Hawking's argument DESTROYED: God or Science - Why the Choice?
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 05. 2023
- Discover the captivating insights of philosopher and mathematician John Lennox as he exposes the category mistake made by Stephen Hawking, proving that the choice between God and science is a false dichotomy.
📍 Subscribe to Practical Wisdom for more mind-expanding content: / @practical.wi. .
🎧 Listen to the full interview on your favorite podcast platform:
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/5oh0...
Amazon Music: amzn.eu/d/5qdLrnk
Google Podcasts: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
SUMMARY:
0:42: 🤔 Hawking's choice between God and science was a category mistake due to his definition of God.
3:54: 🤔 The concept of an eternal God and the role of evidence in establishing truth.
6:13: 🔬 Science has its limits and cannot answer all questions, such as those related to purpose and meaning.
9:46: 🔬 Faith is essential to science and all scientists bring faith to their work.
#stephenhawking #johnlennox #scienceandfaith #stephenhawking #education #interview #debate #apologetics
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE so we won't forever miss each other in the black hole of the CZcams algorithm!
📍 SUBSCRIBE: www.youtube.com/@Practical.Wisdom?sub_confirmation=1
Werner Heisenberg, the Father of Quantum Physics, said "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist; but at the bottom of the glass, God, is waiting."
Werner Heisenberg was not the father of Quantum Physics, he was one of many quantum mechanics, a better candidate would be Kepler and his three-body problem which predates Werner Heisenberg.
@@michael-vl1mn Your point being?
@@metaljacket8128 "EVERYBODY talks to God" :)
@@metaljacket8128 Werner Heisenberg was not the father of Quantum mechanics. Try reading what was written.
@@michael-vl1mn Heisenberg, Pauli, Bohr, and Einstein were good uncles. But the nephew is such a tease.
I've been saying this same thing for years but I've been using the wrong terms to describe it. Hats off to John Lennox for telling us a more convincing way of explaining what's obvious to Christians and other believers. It's a different category.
But it's really not. Things either exist, or they do not, and the only category that science deals with, is what DOES exist.
Right now, ANY "god" is in the "does not exist" category as there is zero hard evidence for any, and a "god" by common definition simply cannot exist.
Mr. Lennox is terribly wrong on every single one of his claims.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Love John Lennox. Intelligent, eloquent, warm, confident yet humble. May God bless him for his ministry in defense of the Christian faith.
Too bad he doesn't have any evidence for his gods, however good at wordsmithing he is.
@@farvision no amount of evidence is sufficient to the one who doesn't want to believe.
@@hoopmania9912
Why should anyone not want to believe? I want to believe. Can you give any evidence?
@@JD-ro7xe many don't. They use evidence as a way to test God. Even if God Himself came down and revealed Himself many wlll not believe.
@@hoopmania9912
Sorry, you lost me there. They use evidence to test God? You mean if you give them evidence of God, they will use it to test God? How can they test... Mmm.. God?
Even if God came down, many wouldn't believe? Why not? Have you ever heard anyone saying I don't believe in the sun? If God is evident to all , no one will say they don't believe.
And you didn't answer me. What is the evidence for God that you have? I have no intention of testing anyone. Promise.
Prof Lennox’s words are like gifts from God. Oh thank you Prof for sharing your wisdom with us. Every time I listen to Prof L (even over and over to the same lecture) I get more and more! Love this humble wise and brilliant man.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Brilliant man. Using his mind and heart to bring glory to God.
Except that there's no evidence for any gods, so he totally failed.
@@farvision Demanding evidence for God is a bit like a character in your dream last night demanding evidence of his/her dreamer (i.e. you!) How would/could the dreamed character possibly gain any such evidence (of you, the dreamer) when they were ultimately nothing but an image in your own dreaming mind?
Evidence:
1. Jesus's fulfilment of prophecy
2. Jesus's resurrection
3. Existence of the universe
4. Existence of life
5. Structure & design of DNA
6. Over 10,000 archaeological discoveries confirming the accuracy of the Bible
7. Hundreds of references to a cataclysmic flood in every culture around the world
8. Physics of radiation (deadly, and life-giving = energy)
9. Orbit of Earth
10. Properties of water
11. Rationality of universe
12. Design in universe
13. Blood types
14. Archaeological discoveries
15. Paleontological discoveries
16. History
17. Human moral conscience
18. Human ability to perceive purpose in the way things are
19. Miracles
20. The fossil record
Billions of other pieces of evidence you'll find, if you would only seek them (or Him).
@@farvision there is no evidence to disprove God either.
@@farvision well look to nature and you'll see God
This scholar is very accessible but also very stimulating. Brilliant.
And wrong.
Superb. A master that reduced Dawkins to silence. I remember reading that Socrates always recommended that we always keep asking 'why' to any argument until we either get to the core or eventually see it as nonsense.
Lennox is a liar and a charlatan. Just type the following into your CZcams search box and all will be revealed
Richard Dawkins: John Lennox is a scientist who believes Jesus turned water into wine!
*Superb. A master that reduced Dawkins to silence*
Dawkins? Lennox is a mathematician so is not qualified to address anything to do with evolutionary biology
He is barely comprehending issues revolving religion and his own faith. He cant silence any compotent non-religious person as all his arguments are frankly for retards. For example his god of gap crap. Problem for him is that there are no gaps that demand god as explanation, for example. He cant claim even that and yet tries his best. One can believe guided evolution etc etc but being religious nutter is not scientific merit. There is no scientific arguments he can share. He could be painter and nothing would improve in his artistic ways he articulates his own biases.
Did you have a link to the video that "reduced Dawkins to silence"?....or are you making stuff up?
@@HughJaxident67 Pardon the interruption, but do you think as Dawkins does that panspermia may be the cause?
The more I watch Mr. Lennox the more I like him. He is like Jordan B. Peterson and Thomas Sowell in that they explain very complex ideas, that are ingrained in us, very simply without being insulting or condescending.
He's talking nonsense though. Instead of offering evidence for the resurrection he says you need to accept a different kind of evidence! He says he doesn't use "god of the gaps" but then says his questions and answers "stop at god". He speaks nicely but it's word salad.
And unlike Peterson who talks gobbledegook half the time, he's far clearer.
@jrgenstorm6536funny because I think atheism is nonsense. Guess people have to agree to disagree.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
I believe, an honest study of how science works will lead you to faith in a creator.
That's a forlorn belief. 97% of scientists believe in evolution. So no.
And you'd be absolutely incorrect as science exclusively values and relies on evidence, 'faith' is never a component in science.
Sometimes. It is fascinating but a lot of it is theory and then that changes. And then your stuck.
But here is a quick run down.
This is a temporary world. It changes. Man changes.
But God does not change. When it is said, for God so loved the world. He still does 2000 years later.
Men put value on human life by their credit score or what they own. God does not. He values every life the same for it is he who breathed his very life into man. And no he does not consider men and women differently even though we may have different rolls in this world.
@@dw3403 You are describing lots of people not just God. So the question is so what? That's not special in any way.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Thank you all for your engaging comments and interest in our video! John has also authored a book, 'God and Stephen Hawking', which is a response to Hawking’s 'The Grand Design'.
SUBSCRIBE to our channel for more thought-provoking discussions like this one: czcams.com/video/n7XBNaPu-Ds/video.html
Next interview - Noam Chomsky.
#JohnLennox #StephenHawking #TheGrandDesign #Christianity
The truly frustrating part about this Myth that Science irreconcilably conflicts with Christianity specifically, and God in general...
Is that when the Scientific Method was developed?
It was done in Christian Europe.
By Scholar's Educated in Christian founded/run Universities and Colleges.
All but one of those over 50+ Scholar's, were practicing Christians.
And that it was Done in order to reliably make verifiable Observations, about the *Natural Order God Instilled into His Creation.*
Additionally, Science that holds itself to the Scientific Method, is only capable of Directly making statements about the observable Natural World.
It's only capable of dismissing the Supernatural existence of deities(like Thor & Zeus), through observations made on the supposed effects said deities existence would have on the Natural World.
And for Christianity... Approximately Two out of every Three Miracles that are Listed in the Bible, are considered Scientifically Observed phenomena. _(Storms calm down all the Time, Bears are known to attack people._ _Older Women past Menopause, have been occasionally known to conceive._ _Trees Whither._ _Quails move where they will, & water springs up from the Ground._ _Recently Dead person's can be revived if the proper actions are taken Etc...)_
They're considered Miraculous, because they happened in accordance with God's Stated Will & Purpose.
The other Third, are obviously miraculous because they happened in defiance of the Natural Order God instilled into his Creation. _(Virgin Birth, Global Flood & Revival, Creation, the _*_RESURRECTION,_*_ Etc...)_
Yes, as indicated in this video, the discussion is meaningless without a definition of GOD. GOD is the Mind that is ALL. You should be interested to know that I have published the answers to the WHAT and WHY questions in great detail, with access just a click away.
Religion is art,for entertainment only and there thousands of them Its science that is the truth, that gave us a better life,that gave us electricity,medicine,computers,transportation, satellites,and all kinds of things .It's between truth and art only.
When Covid came it was up to science to give what was the virus,what did it do in the body and what vaccine to make.Religion has words only,art.
@@mcmanustony Because the Scientific Method was developed by Christian Scholar's.
That's literally what I'm pointing out here.
Not saying that individual Scholar's failed to make discoveries, or advance the available knowledge of the time.
Just that they weren't deliberately using science to make observations, or test hypotheses. They were mucking about, and occasionally finding something that worked out.
It wasn't what we today call science.
Some just use the term, because science is what we know.
Without Christianity, science as we know it today, would probably not exist as something that people knew.
There probably wouldn't even have been a colonization of the New World.
I could go through the contemporary worldwide situation regarding likelyhood of scientific thought development...
If you're interested.
If that wasn't clear...
I'm not talking about individual discoveries, but the development of the Scientific Method by which multiple individuals can test & observe the Natural Order God Instilled into his Creation. (Aka: Natural Order)
The *development of actual Science itself.*
@@mcmanustony I think I'm in love ;)
God bless prof Lennox, he is a beacon of light and reason in this infantile world!
Did you know snakes talk?
@@mortyharenza9854 Excuse me?
Reason? Old coots lost his goddamn mind
He's still wrong though.
@@atheistangel007 Wrong about what?
Very helpful points especially how faith of itself is not a religious concept. The key is what do you put your faith in
And, to know what to put your faith in you need evidence, which is non-existent.
@@brud1729 not really, faith is belief despite lack of evidence. The more concrete the evidence, the less faith required. In short, it's a "trust me bro" thing 😂😂😂
@@capslock956 More correctly, faith is pretending to know things for which there is no good evidence.
@@brud1729 No. Faith consists of evidence.
Thank u all for doing these high-end and high-quality questions. timely in need also.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague God designed us to enjoy everything in fine balance. BUT stinking(pollution) comes from the overdoing of any given thing (by not following the right principles, rules, and laws -This is called Sin in the bigger picture )we consume (physically mentally, and chemically, etc.) And The same stinking turds are not shit to other designed creations of God which are in a way doing the cleansing work of the stinking we become (plants and animals). So the intelligence is beyond measure to make us see what its grand depth scale and beauty and exuberance and whatnot?!! The Intelligent Designer Designed things absolutely marvelous and to be perfect in any observable measure. Thank you for being and the question sir. God bless you.
Wow! Glad I listened. You have helped me to understand that items need to be placed in their right category. If no proper definition or understanding is established, it is easy to respond to questions from a different category and nothing really gets answered
May God bless brother Lennox! A true man of God
Thank you very much for your interest!
I really need to incorporate many of these ideas into my ordinary thinking. They sound wonderful here but when I turn and have a conversation with someone, these ideas about categories do not quickly come to mind and when I hear someone make a "category error," it does not immediately come to mind that that's what they've done.
I've revisited this discussion three times already.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
May God give him health and many years to live.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
If god can give him health and many years to live, why can’t he do that for everyone?
Perhaps there is no gravity. It’s just a word for an experience, a sort of ”fact” that we take for granted. Newton asked the question but could only state something we all experience every single moment in our lives.
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
I just recently started listening to some videos of Lennox Im not certian about the existence of God. However, he is a brilliant man who knows how to convey information. Thanks for the video!
Nick, have you weighed the possibility that God exists and created everything?, or that absolutely nothing created everything?, which is a scientific impossibility. I love thinking about the truly miraculous nature of the cosmos, it fascinates me. I love reading about the fine tuning that you see in the universe and to me that points to an intelligent mind outside of time and space. There is a lot of evidence for Christ, His existence, His crucifixion and His resurrection
God is reaching out to you.
Ps. Also Jason Lisle videos
@brian mendenhall I think it's likely that a Supreme Being created the universe. But I'm not sure how one can go from the Supreme Being making the universe to God of the Bible.
@@nickh.44 Yes, the idea of an all creating God doesn't need the addition of any particular religious beliefs - including those of the Christian faith. In fact, it renders this whole theist vs atheist argument redundant and unnecessary. God = simply what is. And so the whole thing becomes very intimate and personal. No religious beliefs, dogmas, rituals, books, sermons or arguments required!
Amen to that! He has 3 Phds, js the preeminent professor of of mathematics at Oxford University. And yet, his knowledge of Christ, and his humility, is itself humbling. His prsentations in his field, guided by his commitment to Christ as Lord, and his Christian apologetics, draw you in.
he is just a mathematician. being a professor isnt a big deal.
@@matswessling6600 Let me help you out there.
Billy bob the red neck with a 3rd grade education states he saw a UFO.
Nobody is going to believe him because Billy Bob is an idiot.
Conversely, a highly skilled fighter piolet observes a UFO, has it on video, and can clearly describe said craft.
He also offers some objective arguments in relation to his observation.
Who are you going to believe saw a UFO?
This is called credibility and speaking from authority. The more you know about a given subject, the more likely you are to be correct when commenting on your area of expertise and how it relates to the subject of discussion.
@@matswessling6600 when you look at the level of mathematics he teaches and where he teaches, it is a big deal. Not many people have that teaching ability.
@@fredbecker607 no, it is not a big deal. Not if you are discussing evolution, cosmology etc
@@matswessling6600you do hopefully realize that your claim also means that Dawkins or other biologists have no authority to talk about anything philosophical or religious, right? Considering how little knowledge Dawkins showed in "God delusion" about actual history of religion, it was a rather pathetic endeavor even writing this book. The typical arrogance of the atheist scientist. Never really looking into anything they so easily set aside as irrelevant. And I'm not even just talking about theology. Hawking for instance was just as quick to dismiss any science outside physics. Not realizing that economy, society, philosophy, etc cannot be explained by physics. It's strange really. Like they never noticed the difference between looking at small (atoms) or large (stars) objects is something completely different than any scientific subject that involves people.
He personifies the granpa I wish I had.
Right!!!!.....don't you just adore granda Lennox?🤔🤣
@@brianmendenhall8387 Has anyone got Lennox and Brailsford together? czcams.com/video/Bffm1Ie66gM/video.html
Great man full of God's wisdom
No evidence there is any god
Well then, God is wrong.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
One must really misunderstand theology AND science to honestly believe that one must choose between God and science.
Just misunderstanding one of the two suffices I think.
True believers will perform greater wonders than Jesus. Says religion. Show me. X-ray photography can show up broken bones without surgery. Says science. Show me. I have seen. Nobody said I had to choose. But I have chosen.
When someone understands everything and has all the answer (we don't even know all the questions - in fact every answer throws up more questions) then they will be God
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Thank god for mr Lennox
Absolutely SPOT ON!!! I'm so very glad people are seeing through the fog and confusion, thanks to people like John Lennox! The statement "I don't believe in God, because I instead believe in science" is so confused on a profoundly deep level!
You can't believe in the two? There are far too many errors & no real credible or useful scientific information in any of the competing & conflicting, geographically & culturally, manmade texts?
No it isn't. Science and faith are literally opposites
I honestly don't understand how scientists find it so hard to accept science and God.
He is so cool 😎 and passionate about defending the true power that is god 😊
The true power is what a man has under between his legs.
I absolutely love learning about our universe and how things in it interact. I have absorbed everything a layman can about science and have never had a problem loving God more. For me exploring the workings of the universe is just a peek into God's tool box.
Maybe you should look into reality a little bit then. becsause you don't get it at all.
@John Doe In your opinion! My opinion is different and what you think of that does not concern me...
@John Doe "No one has been able to prove God or any gods exist or are even necessary"
What exactly is the proof of a conscious mind? Can you even prove your own conscious mind exists?
@@JohnDoe-zo8wj I think therefore I am. --René Descartes
What I was asking you is that you prove to the others that your conscious mind exists. Since you are the one making this bold claim "No one has been able to prove God or any gods exist or are even necessary".
Whoever makes this claim, 100% sure don't even have a single clue themselves what proof they are speaking.
@@JohnDoe-zo8wj I'd bet you have never attended high education. You are the one who claimed "No one has been able to prove God or any gods exist or are even necessary". And I am asking you to prove to the others that your mind exists. The question is not asking you whether you think your mind exists or not.
You don't even know how proving works and therefore you think "No one has been able to prove God or any gods exist or are even necessary".
This guy is awesome
Science; the study of God’s universe!
Yeh, the universe is perfect for humans and life to live in! Asteroids, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, radiation, cosmic rays!!!!!! Wake up will you!??
You can choose both God and science. Science confirms and explains what God has created.
John Lennox & Dr. Peter Jones are an amazing gift to the Church
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
9:41 I been thinking about this for a long time but I just didn't know how to articulate it.
Faith and science are not on opposite sides and faith is not a "religion" thing.
That's why the poeple who launch rockets jubilate when they successfully launch it.
You have to have faith in the science to convert it to a technology
I like it when he says Science is limited.
Yes that's right, in fact he mentions in the full interview his book 'Can Science Explain Everything?' that science doesn't even explain the things we think it explains. While science can answer the 'what' questions, it doesn't answer the 'why' questions (the why of purpose). I have an upcoming interview with John on Artificial Intelligence - hoping to publish this in October.
Hawkins now knows the truth,sad very sad but he more than most saw the wonder of creation from the smallest bug with life in it to the unknown universe
I used to pray for Hawking. I hope I will find someday, to my surprise, that it did him some good. Meanwhile, we can still pray for Dawkins.
@@bettyrouch1833 hahaha, yeah you pray.......................
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
@@DrMontague yes
@@arfermo853 An intelligent designer thought it would be a good idea to design humans to shit dirty stinking turds?! Have you ever had a wet fart in public? went to fart and followed through i.e. shit your pants? And you believe this is the work of an intelligent designer? Care home workers and care workers have to clean up incontinent people everyday, clean up dirty stinking turds and piss, and you think this is an intelligent design? If lennox becomes senile and incontinent would you like to clean up his dirty stinking turds? You lot are weird. Now I want you to think of a way that humans could be designed to stop them having to shit dirty stinking turds. You are the designer.
From the book Albert Einstein … THE WORLD AS I SEE IT
An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise: such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
It was the experience of mystery-even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion.
The key is "beyond my comprehension". He should have listened to his own advice.
@@thomaswayneward Science versus religion
To those heavily invested in religion ... pseudo-science is forced to fit all the religious stories ... which is not science at all.
THIS is religion ... which is mythology ... God exists and God IS energy ... and when God created the universe HIS energy ... is ... to this day ... what runs the universe.
THIS is science ... which is natural ... The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another.
And that is why the theory that the universe always existed ... no plan ... no creator ... made and makes sense to more than a few scientists ... including Stephen Hawking. It also makes sense that suffering of all forms of life ... including human life ... is natural.
As the two theories are at total odds with each other ... there isn't any room in the theories of science ... FOR religious theology.
@@thomaswayneward From the book, “Ideas and Opinions” … author … Albert Einstein.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just and omnibeneficient personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind.
But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every thought, and every human aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
@@thomaswayneward There are now hundreds of ex members of clergy that have stepped down from their pulpits and have joined The Clergy Project.
From the book … From Apostle to Apostate: The Story of the Clergy Project … authors … Catherine Dunphy, Richard Dawkins
Welcome to the Clergy Project. It is hard to think of any other profession, which is so near to impossible to leave. If a farmer tires of the outdoor life and wants to become an accountant or a teacher or a shopkeeper, he faces difficulties, to be sure. He must learn new skills, raise money, and move to another area perhaps. But he does not risk losing all his friends, being cast out by his family, being ostracized by his whole community. Clergy who lose their faith suffer double jeopardy. It is as though they lose their job and their marriage and their children on the same day. It is an aspect of the vicious intolerance of religion that a mere change of mind can redound so cruelly on those honest enough to acknowledge it.
The Clergy Project exists to provide a safe haven, a forum where clergy who have lost their faith can meet each other, exchange views, swap problems, counsel each other-for, whatever they may have lost, clergy know how to counsel and comfort. Here you will find confidentiality, sympathy, and a friendly place where you can take your time before deciding how to extricate yourself and when you will feel yourself to stand up and face the cool, refreshing wind of truth. Richard Dawkins
Brilliant. Thank you John.
This guy is cracked. Absoloutely love him!
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Science keeps changing all the time. Creator, Omniscient, Omnipotent God NEVER CHANGES!!!
I'm so happy to find this brilliant apologetist on CZcams few yrs ago.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
Brilliant explanation and presentation.
But if he was born in a Muslim country or belonged to another religion other than Christianity, he would not be saying any of the things you hear in this video would he ? He also has a tendancy to undermine people he's had discussions with in the past. That is hitting below the belt.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
The more we look at the structure of the cell, and the complexity of the moving parts even within the cell, and keep going deeper past the combinations and sequences of the amino acids and carbohydrates, and even past the molecules and into the atoms, it evident that there has to a be a being with an intelligence and power far capable beyond our imagination.
Darwin didn't know just how intricate and complex even the simplest of cells were, never mind the cells within a human body to come up with a joke of a theory of the origin of life. Well he didn't come up with it as it was thousands of years old, but now with the technology and the intellect that God has endowed us, we can see that what we've been taught at school about the origin of life and the pseudo-science of macroevolution were straight up lies.
Unless you believe all this came from absolutely nothing. Then you should at least expect that a hurricane would go the the junk metal scrap yard and build a fully functioning helicopter randomly. That's more believable than everything in the universe popping into existence from nothing out of nowhere randomly.
The ridiculous complexity in the cell is evidence of bottom up evolution and not top down designing. The more simple the design the better design. No competent designer would ever create such a mess. Entropy and disorder predicts complexity as there are more complex possible states than simple ordered possible states.
@@markb3786 Entropy and disorder helps build a cell from the ground up? Where did the necessary building blocks and materials even come from to be affected by entropy and disorder?
Just accept the mystery and magical properties of life that’s all that’s It
@@francescoallevato6507Those things don’t explain the words of Jesus or His resurrection
👍🍻👍🍻👍🍻😎
My own feeling is that the likes of Dawkins, the late Arthur C Clarke, Hitchens et al are not atheists at all : they know that God is (exists), and they hate Him for it.
To quote from a book titled Theology and Sanity, by Frank Sheed:
"...the soul has come to love self exclusively. Even in this life, that state may have its natural consequence of realized hatred of God, for THE MAJESTY OF GOD IS AN INTOLERABLE AFFRONT TO SELF-LOVE GROWN SO MONSTROUS (emphasis added)."
PS You got a thumbs-up!
Simple thing is the earth 🌎 we live in,it shows great designer with no tiny mistake
Thank you for sharing your gift of wisdom and debunking the separation of God and science that has been pushed by acadamia and industry for decades now. King Jesus lives
There are no gods!
Jesus never existed!
.
I believe in the God of the Bible who created the laws of science, and He Himself is able to make override said laws in the making of miracles.
I think that the phrase "you must choose between God and science" might have been right, though not in the way Hawking thought. It's correct in that you won't ever be able to empirically prove the existence of God without a shadow of a doubt, especially not with the direct physical evidence that many atheists often insist is necessary.
Science and reason can and often does lead people to God and Christ, but the jump from scientific understanding to actually believing in God will always require a leap of faith. You need to be able to accept that you do not and cannot know if God is real with 100% certainty, and choosing to have faith in God despite that. It is the ultimate test of humility, one that you cannot complete if you refuse to let go of your pride.
Query whether Newton would have believed in God had he lived later after the Origin of Species.
A brilliant man of God.
What god? The murderer?
@@theamalgamut8871no, the one that is love.
@@MrSeedi76 Hum, where is he/she/it? Hidden in the bushes?
How does he know what any "god" wants? Has he got access to information denied to me and billions of others?
Wonderful! What beautiful common sense! Yet so lacking in the acclaimed writers he critiques! How have Dawkins and Hawking become so idolised?
Hans Peter Duhrer (Max Planc etc.), toward the end of his life, wrote a book entitled: "Auch Spricht Die Wissenschafft Allein in Gleichnisse." That is "Even Science Can Speak only in Parables."
Created from a dispicable fluid, given bones and made rigid. Given hearing, sight and intellect. After all that, man (some men) denies God to his face.
Nobody is saying that he defines God as the God of the gaps, we're saying that theists try to fill every unknown with the God of the gaps. He does this himself, he brings up abiogenesis as evidence for God. It's shocking how intelligent this guy is and yet allows himself to undulge in this drivel.
More accurately he brings up abiogenesis in order to point out that evolution is not about the origin of life but rather about speciation of life, and as such insufficient as an explantion for the origion of life. Theology on the other hand does address the origin of life, though obviously not in a scientific manner nor adhering to the scientific restrictions of using language.
@@BlacksmithTWD No scientist claims evolution addresses the origin of life, it’s not yet understood, just because scriptures mention it doesn’t mean they’ve shed any light on it whatsoever. It’s not yet known how life starts but given the spectacular success of naturalistic explanations so far i would put my money on it having a natural origin
@@grahamblack1961 "No scientist claims evolution addresses the origin of life, it’s not yet understood"
Nice to rephrase what Lennox and I said, though not needed since we were in agreement on that already as the point was that evolution is insufficient to explain the origin of life.
" just because scriptures mention it doesn’t mean they’ve shed any light on it whatsoever."
On the contrary, various religious scriptures worldwide to provide a model, however none are scientific models, that doesn't mean they are not true it just means they are not true in a scientific sense, they can still be quite true in other senses. But obviously if you already dismiss them because they are not scientific, you deprive yourself of the oppertunity of finding that out for yourself.
There is way more to reality than merely what has been demonstrated to be most likely true by scientific models. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Plato's cave, or watch the movie 'the matrix' for a more modern depiction of the same idea.
An important thing to note, imo is that Hawkins statement assumes that religious folk are somewhat intellectually honest. .. and they clearly aren't.
I mean imagine trying to claim day and night existed "days" before creation of sun is in any way logic or scientific... Like this clown.
absolutely spot on. except the land-on-the-moon bit.
Amazing. Completely agree.
did the intelligent designer design us to shit out stinking turds?
He knows now.
Sir Isaac Newton, the creator of calculus, one of the most prominent, ground breaking scientists in history, wrote more in favour of Christianity than he did on math or science. Mengel, the father of genetics, was a monk. Copernicus was a Catholic canon. Roger Bacon, math and optics, forerunner of the scienttific method, a Franciscan friar. “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur, Catholic.
So?
_MrBiggles,_ if I say 2+2=4, but I write more in favor of leprechauns creating and running the universe, does that mean leprechauns _did_ create the universe? Is it possible for a person to be right on one topic but wrong on another, or is everything I say 100% true after I say 2+2=4?
I feel like on any other topic, theists are smart enough to know the arguments they're making are _absolutely friggin terrible._ So why do they make arguments this bad for god(s)?
“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” - Louis Pasteur, Catholic.
A simple claim, it evinces nothing more than unimaginative bromide.
What I find interesting is that the very thesis that won Hawkins his professorship, he later denied as flawed and rejected it! Oh how little humans really know about the universe! ( We even know more about whats in space than in own own oceans! As Socrates said "All I know is that I do NOT know".
About Hawkins, the great danger when people say you're the smartest person on the planet is that you believe it.
Could listen to John for hours .It's nice to hear someone sane
Listening to him is akin to going to Sunday school. I can barley take one hour of it. Iget very sick.
@@jerrylong6238so sorry
Apologists are the furthest thing from sane
@@jerrylong6238sorry for you you need God in your life I hope you realize it before it is too late.
*Could listen to John for hours .It's nice to hear someone sane*
Anyone trying to rationalise the irrational by attempting to justify a belief in an entity that is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist has lost the plot.
That letter I mention in this post I'm pasting was written way back in the early 1960's. I doubt if any of them even read it.
. I think Fred Hoyle was right We do live in a steady state Universe. The expanding Universe theory won that argument because they misinterpreted the data. The Doppler shift is cause by the fact that no two galaxies were created at the same time. What is WEIRD IS that I think I sent this theory, In a different form to Fred Hoyle and Isaac Asimov in a letter sent through the publisher of a pocket Astronomy book way back in the Mid-1960's. It was called The Theory Of the Accelerating Universe.
Reason: 1) There was no Big Bang. 2) The Universe isn't expanding. It is Accelerating. 3) Galaxies are two discs of stars that are magnetically attracted to one another but can never touch because they consist of opposite kinds of matter, (Our type of matter and its opposite, Antimatter. 4) the result is a Gravity Reaction which moves the Galaxy through space. 5) Because E=MC squared, " Einstein," once a Galaxy started moving, no matter the direction, it would continue to accelerate forever. 6) Because Galaxies are each created separately and at different times and places in space, a galaxy Would eventually pass Younger Galaxies that had been born in front of it, but it could never catch up to older Galaxies That might be out in front of it. They would always be accelerating at a faster rate of speed. So that if you ASSUMED The Universe was created all at once, which I don't believe it was, It would appear that the Universe was expanding, when it isn't. The Doppler effect is the observable result of each galaxy finding its proper place in the Universe: The time when IT ALONE was came into being; THAT and Einstein's E=MC squared. 7) Because we exist within the boundaries of ONE LIGHT-SPEED we can not see all the other Universes stacked one on top of the other; Nor do we know how fat or thin that book is or what page it is that we inhabit
They failed to understand the most important part of life and that is spiritual knowledge.
May I: In mathematics, there are infinite sums, that give finite answer. Maybe, the first mover may not be needed. Maybe, God is at the other end of the infite row. Infinite number of creation steps gives a finite creation, a finite world that we experience.
Gobbledegook.
Where to start with your errors?
May I: "infinite number" is contradiction. If it's a number then it's not infinite. If it's infinite then it cannot be asigned a number. I suspect you won't agree.
Infinity in mathematics is a concept only. 1 divided by zero is infinite. That's disputed of course. Can you not just as well say that 1 divided by zero is meaningless?
In any case the question of God's existence would not be hanging on our understanding or misunderstanding of mathematics or any other field of enquiry for that matter. At best we can show that faith in God is reasonable just as Lennox in this video quoted Einstein as saying that scientists have faith that the universe is intelligable or they wouldn't bother.
@@gerardk51 You probably noticed that I have used a phrase "infinite number of creation steps". Since English is not my language, I have done some googling and I believe that I have used the phrase correctly. OK, not quite, I forgot an article "An". LOL
@@mitjarihtarsic3360 I wasn't commenting on your english.
I just don't agree with the common use in mathematics of infinite and number together.
I put God over science. Thats my opinion though
God created science. And man has abused and perverted it, just like he's abused and perverted everything else in God's creation.
Science proves God - always has and always will
That's pretty dumb.
@@smithr74 not even close. Where is the scientific study showing they found god?
God has ONLY EVER hid in the gaps of scientific knowledge.
If the species of apes called "homosapiens" would not have come into existence by evolution, some two hundred thousand years ago, the concept of a god or gods and all the stupid and often cruel doctrines would not have come into existence neither!
I'd like to get his thoughts on the theory of evolution as the origin of the creative world. The link please any one
1. What do you even mean by "origin of the creative world"?
2. Evolution changes life over time. We know it's true, and a small portion of the evidence are the hundreds of scientific papers in the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia.
3. So it didn't originate a creative world, it's just the reason we have the variety of life that exists on Earth, and that we have instincts like empathy, or complex organs like eyeballs.
Lennox laughs at the theory of evolution. Evolution is completely delusional
The amount of science that started out with the phrase “what is your evidence“ is in itself eternal. What is your evidence for dark matter or dark energy? They have a question about gravitational impact on the universe but they have no evidence of either dark matter or dark energy, yet the science continues.
God gave man science. The simple fact that nothing will not produce anything is *proof* not evidence, that God must exist.
Exactly, it baffles me that they actually would believe that absolutely nothing created everything vs. an intelligent mind that transcends our tiny brains....Like Frank Turkek states, it's takes more faith to believe in their miracle😄
God is the ultimate scientist.
Generally scientists are fallible human beings, not gods. Besides someone who is all knowing already doesn't need to search for answers. So I don't know how your statement should be interpret to make sense.
@@BlacksmithTWD You're assuming that God doesn't experiment or progress in any way. He might be all knowing relative to our understanding.
@@rsstnnr76 As I see it it's human beings who experiment and progress in their understanding of God. I'm not at a point where I feel confident to assume either way about God. I just wonder how your statement should be interpret, still not sure.
His book Gods Undertaker is indeed a good read.
There's no doubt that these kinds of conversations have value. Highly educated people, scientists, philosophers, theologians may enjoy going round and round with unbelieving colleagues. The problem is that these lines of argumentation ultimately lack any power whatsoever to convince or convert.
The power to convert an unbeliever doesn't lie in scientific, philosophical or logical arguments. It can only be found in God's revealed Word; the Bible.
Isaiah 55
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."
A simple undeniable fact (according to I Corinthians) is that unbelievers (those without the Spirit) will find all this "God talk" a bunch of nonsense and foolishness.
12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
So while philosophical conversations do have value, the real power to convert unbelievers lies in The Bible, which should be part of every conversation.
Dr Lenox is indeed one of the most brilliant minds. I'm impressed by his clarity and reasoning
Non sensical reasoning.
@Baker Banking Science explains why the water boils. It boils because the molecules start moving faster. To say that the water boils because he wants a cup of tea is not sensible reasoning. I can have the water in the kettle and wish hot water to have my cup of tea and no matter how much I wish this, I will not get hot water. I will only get hot water when those molecules start moving. Also only through science will I get those molecules to start moving.
I was actually quite sad when Hawking explained his disbelieve in God in terms of entanglement. In his mind he said if entanglement is completely random then he must believe that the universe is also random and does not need God as an explanation for it. What made me sad was he really turned his back on both science and God because he could not find an explanation for either. Because he couldn’t understand it There was no reason to believe in it.
Einstein did no better
*What Stephen Hawking thought was that the goods that we are talking about are actually like Greek gods but that gods of the gaps not but we are talking about god of everything*
love this man. wisdom, what a concept.
Thank you!
You just can't place a lot of unearned specificity into your beliefs surrounding what a "god" is or could be. There's room for something that we could define as god, but to attach the hyperspecificity of any one of the thousands of religions currently employed by humanity is bereft of scientific weight. Which is perfectly fine if you choose to harbor such beliefs, but it's only reasonable to talk about god in a scientific setting because god is so conceptually diverse. I suppose that god can fit scientifically, but religion is nearly always anchored in dogma, immediately recusing itself from scientific debate.
You make a good point. There is a difference between faith -- a.k.a. beliefs -- and religions -- hyperspecificity of faith found among the thousands of religions of the world. In terms of epistemology, no one knows everything, therefore everyone believes something. Everyone -- scientists included.
@@sagesaith6354 Indeed, the question is whether those beliefs are based in dogma or well reviewed evidence.
@@liquidpza ... and the extent to which the criteria for establishing the truth or validity of both the review process and the evidence itself is deemed to be valid both in substance and application ...
As a Muslim and lover of TRUE science, i fully agree with this gentleman. No contradiction between science an faith: only between narrow minded science and narrow minded faith.
Oh the irony.
You believe Muhammad split the moon and rode a flying steed, yet have the audacity to say this?
@@FactStorm my dear, if you would know instead of assuming, you would not make a fool of yourself.
Have a great day.
@@musamusashi "my dear, if you would know instead of assuming, you would not make a fool of yourself.
Have a great day."
Translation: "I got busted and have nothing to say, so I opted out to flee instead of address the point".
Typical cognitive dissonance of religious people, this is as classic and quintessential as it gets. 👌
@@FactStorm yes i got busted by you, you got it: i can see all my life crumbling in front of my eyes, and it's you who made this happen 🤣
@@musamusashi You are still avoiding, how sad
In a way it is like saying choose between plumbing and God. He made a category error .
Very well said
I once saw an obituary on Hawkins that quoted his response (which I will paraphrase) to the God question, which indicated the answer to the title question: For me to believe in God, I'd have to accept that there are things that are beyond my ability to comprehend, and I am not prepared to do that. In other words, like many great scientists they have the arrogance to think that now we can figure out and prove the answer to everything, whereas belief in God means there is someone greater than me who knew and knows infinitely more than I will ever now.
But in truth, scientists still know so little, and true belief in God should be based far more on evidence than on faith. To me the existence of an Omnipotent God is so obvious in the simple facts of life. For example, Hawking would have us believe that a human being -- who must have thousands of body parts work perfectly in order to function in full health, and can have wisdom to plan ahead for the long term, and have feelings to give his life for the sake of another human being -- was created just by itself out of nature, which by sheer luck also created a male and female with matching features (as well as for every living species), gave them each a natural desire to mate with the other and the ability to jointly create a tiny cell that encapsulates a miniature of themselves, and created in the female a complete sophisticated system to feed and develop this tiny thing into a magnificent being, which upon exiting into the world suddenly gets the ability to cry, think, hear, see and feel, and its mother "naturally" starts producing milk for it to feed. And we believers are supposed to be the ones who live in a fantasy world!
And, of course, Hawking could explain every one of these questions about the creation of man, right? And why out of an infinitely greater universe, humans only developed on one small planet. And why of all living creatures, only humans have a mind and a heart of their own. And how these brilliant humans don't know about the birds and the bees unless they are told by other humans, while every dumb pigeon knows on its own how to mate, and knows immediately after mating that the female will lay eggs in 8-12 days and thus sets out to build a nest for them, and both male and female know immediately after said eggs are laid in the nest that each must sit on them for 12 hours per day until their child will be produced?
It feels as though we are moving into a dark age, in which ever the best and brightest are utterly ignorant of these fundamental truths.
Ideology rules.
Splendid
We cannot see the wind....we can only see the effects on the grass and trees when they sway and wave, we can hear the wind howl, still the wind is invisible, we can feel it on our skin....the same with God. We see him in his works, his creation,
And under very special conditions we can see heat waves on a very hot day, when you look at the mountains and you notice a seethrough wavy movement vibrating against the background of those mountains.
I once saw an angelic being in a fairly darkened hall, bending in front of a praying chaplain in the front row, waiting for his small flock of police officials to arrive.....a self-contained large sized golden light, no specific shape like angels are portrayed in picture books, no light source from anywhere......it was amazing, until I switched the lights on in the foyer....and poof....just a room with the praying chaplain!
Science doesn’t say god is fake.. science proves god is real. Scientists say god is fake…
@4:50 Truth is not established, it is discovered. The truth simply is.
Science is nothing more than the choices God made to create our realm.
Brilliant as usual.
This guy is full of nonsense.
This actually isn’t brilliance, it is healthy thinking. It appears as brilliance in comparison with Hawking and Dawkins 😂
@@dragonmartijn true, and I agree....But John is brilliantly articulate and knows his math, science,and philosophy......he's one of my favorites
@@brianmendenhall8387 He is indeed very capable. Real intellectual, using his brain for the general good 😊
I've always said that the only thing science has ever done is to show us how God did these wonderful things we have just now discovered.
Science has never disproved God.
No and it never will. You cant disprove a negative can you?! Science is the best tool we have for determining truth from fiction!
@twosheds1749 That shows you're a fool!
@@twosheds1749 that is not the purpose of science. Some scientists have concluded that the universe does not exist. Scientific evidence can interpreted in different ways. Once a theory of everything is discovered, the scienrific method must continue. Such will always be a theory, not absolute fact.
Scientists are supposed to have open minds rather than making hasty conclusions.
Negatives are nothing more than biases.
Theoretical science does not determine absolutes.
@@twosheds1749 of course you can its the easiest thing in the world a negative disproves itself theres no one in the world that believes in a negative. your problem is god isnt a negative and never has been
@@andrewwashburn6080 What are you talking about!? If God is not a negative than prove it exists? You just saying something is true does not make it reality!!! LMAO
Once Hawking was all about God and then said nope I was wrong, makes his other speculations very questionable 🤠
John 3:36 & Ephesians 2:8-9.
The idea was created that a good scientist is an atheist scientist and a scientist who believes in the supernatural is not a good scientist. This idea has been propagate for a long time . The problem is that atheist scientists do not follow the data that science itself shows that all roads definitely lead to an intelligent mind that created everything .
All roads definitely do NOT lead to an intelligent mind that created everything.
If we hold that it is true than an intelligent mind created everything then it would have to hold true that an intelligent mind created god as God by definition is something. But if not true that an intelligent mind created God, then it is true that an intelligent mind did not create everything. If somethings were not created by an intelligent mind why not let it be energy, time the universe. After all science can demonstrate that complexity can come from combining simple things, naturally or otherwise.
@@NSOcarth exactly
Couldn‘t have said it better. It was Hugo Grotius who historically stated that science must deal without God. It‘s a mere kind of definition and a very wrong one.
@@NSOcarth What do you mean by "created by" or "Less than"
I believe I cam form my parents, they are different from me but i would not consider them less than or greater than me. I do not have the same skills and interest as me. Like my parents I am a product of my skills and experience.
In the same way that a house is many from a pile of bricks and other material but a house is more than just a bile of material.
Water is more than just Hydrogen and Oxygen
So yes I think complexity can come from simple thinks. Why do you have evidence to the contrary because I like to learn about new things, convince me.
@@NSOcarth I do not think there is a God but am prepared to be convinced otherwise
Hawking, Dawkins, Green, De Grasse, Tesla, and probably Einstein, but not Newton, John Lennox could clip them all with his versality. May God guide him very well to ambitious youth of Physics and Math
Tesla is above them all.
Tesla was a believer, although of a New Age kind. Whan you go to Tesla Museum in his native village in Croatia, you will see that Tesla's family was full of highly-ranked Serb Orthodox priests, starting from his father.
And yet you missed out Maxwell, a true believer...
@@scotoftheanarchic.7903 Of course Maxwell, and so should you mention Lorentz, so should you mention Schrodinger, etc etc, alas, the above that included Einstein are the most stalwart to me.
I love it when John discounts arguments that allege god as a "god of the gaps," then moments later presupposes a that god (of the gaps) exists before the beginning of space-time. A fascinatingly incoherent discussion from start to finish.
I'm not quite sure whether this is relevant to your thoughts and comment, but isn't John Lenox sort of asking everyone to ask themselves to differentiate between the god; that fits either their need of a god, or kind of description of their worst fear of a god who might exist if others annoying tales have any truth and the god; specifically referred to in the Bible - a book which might be complete fiction, but John Lenox believes is not - this god differentiated himself from gods revered by tribes back when the Bible was being written, is described and believed by his followers as being completely outside of our world of time and space?
Hence John Lenox's comment that he too does not believe in, nor do I believe any Christian would want to believe in, the god that Dawkins does not believe in.
So is the god that is rattling around in Dawkines head definable? Is there a god his mind has not investigated? Once we have understood the descriptions of available gods we should obviously discount some, all but one of them... unless we settle for an Indian religious option and chose our set of gods.
If there is no god then I assume none will fit the role, or place in our lives, that a god would have obviously designed to be the fit, a god to created being relationship would have been created to be.
Beware of a possible agenda of erasing god from power structures by intelligent contouring individuals or groups, just as much as being careful not to get pulled into religious environments where some priesthood expects to control ostensibly with a god's instructions for you; where your hearing from such a god HAS to come though their appointed intermediary... a not so subtle means of thought, speech and action control!
Have fun in this world where in what used to be called the free world there used to be independent countries containing sovereign individuals who - as written or unwritten constitutions stated - had God given inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
People control is heading in a VERY dark direction at the moment... for your reference the alternative to God given unailenable rights are those granted by Big Brother - so checking the new system being implemented in China at the moment where each individual is micro-managed by monitoring all of a persons behaviour and allocating a social score; so this is the no-god, no-freedom system. Required because there is and always will be an elite group that KNOWS they know best.
What do you think of past good and bad governance systems and what our futures should develop into?
It’s not just that the definition is wrong, but the definition of science is wrong, thinking of science as necessarily godless, so that the choice offered becomes “You must choose between God and a godless science.” But defining science independently of God, but instead of using the scientific method (falsifiability, evidence, repeatability of experiments, etc.) then the choice between God and science is not mutually exclusive.
Do you have to choose between science and religion?
You’re talking about Faith with someone and they tell you they don’t believe in God because they believe in science. So they tell me I have to choose. What would you say?
There are those who believe that science and religion are in conflict and that someone must choose whether they want to believe in science or believe in religion. If you ever hear this argument, here are four things to remember…
First, modern science was started by Christians. Many of the founders of modern science were Christians. Men like Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday, and Clerk Maxwell were all firm believers in God. They weren’t scientists despite being Christians, it was their faith that moved them to want to discover more about the natural world they lived in. As CS Lewis wrote, “Men became scientists because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a legislature. Far from hindering modern science, faith in God was one of the motors that drove it.
Second, many of the best scientists today are people of faith. Between 1901 and 2000, over 65% of Nobel Laureates were Christians. If our best scientists are people with deep sincere religious faith, there may be a misunderstanding by some about what religious faith is, but there cannot be an essential conflict between being a scientist and faith in God.
Third, science explains “how” but religion explains “why”. One reason science and faith are not in conflict is that they are complimentary. Imagine there is a boiling pot of water. Someone then asks, “why is this water boiling?” You could say, “because heat energy from the gas flame is being conducted through the copper base of the kettle and is agitating the molecules of the water to such an extent that the water is boiling.” This is a true statement! But you could also answer by saying, “because I wanted a cup of tea.” Though very different, this is also a true statement! One answer explains “how” the water boils. While the other answer explains what “caused” the conditions that made it boil. So it is with science and religion. They are not in conflict. They are complimentary. As we seek to understand both how and why.
Fourth, science can’t explain everything. Science describes the laws of nature but it can’t explain where matter came from. It can’t explain how life began. It can’t explain the purpose of our lives. It can’t explain what it means to love. It can’t explain why we desire to do things we know we shouldn’t do. It’s not only possible to be curious about those big questions as well as scientific questions, but it’s strange not to. The fact is science and religion are not a mutually exclusive choice. Instead it’s more like learning to walk and chew gum. So next time someone tells you science and religion are in conflict, remember these four things.
1. Modern science was started by Christians. You don’t start fields of study you don’t believe in.
2. Many of the best scientists today are people of faith. 60% of Nobel Laureates in the 20th century were Christians.
3. Science considers HOW. Religion considers WHY. They aren’t in conflict, they are complimentary.
4. Science doesn’t explain everything. It’s not only OK to think about things beyond the realm of science, it’s healthy.
Science requires faith (although not necessarily faith in God). Epistemologically (i.e. in terms of knowledge and belief) science does not know everything, therefore, about that which is not known, it must be believed.
"Science" has made the mistake of, when having discovered something that was not previously known, grossly projected that everything which is not yet known can be (and will be) discovered (by "science") -- thus creating their own brand of (scientifically-) religious faith, including their own brand of prophets.
Well said.
Leaving a comment for a reminder.
"God, by definition, is eternal." says Lennox. By whose definition? By human definition, of course. Because we don't have a definitions of God from any other source. Lennox can say what he wants, but the argument still stands. That is, if the evidence of the creation demands a creator, then that creator also needs a creator. Invoking Isaac Newton doesn't help his case. Isaac Newton is dead, and we can't go and ask him to look at the science of today, and give his opinion as to whether it demands a god or not.
I agree he's just parroting a definition someone else made up. But I think their rationale is that either something came from nothing or something has always existed. I can't see any other option, can you? They've convinced themselves that it must be the latter (something has always existed) and that this something (they'll call it the creator) has to be greater than its creation (they work that out logically and call it the ontological argument) so they apply many attributes they think just have to apply/exist/be part of this 'creator.' So they have to define the creator as eternal or it doesn't work as a creator in their minds. It does seem circular reasoning because you'll see where they'll claim a fall back of, 'if it isn't [insert an attribute/quality the believe God must have] it can't be God' which isn't really saying anything other than what the atheist already (thinks he) knows.
@@rizdekd3912 I think the point is that they use the requirement for a creator argument to explain the universe, then abandon that argument when required to explain where the creator came from. If they can say the creator has "always existed", why can't they say the universe has always existed. You can't have your philosophical cake and eat it too.
@@peskyfervid6515 I know...they attach significance to the problem of infinite regress with eternal natural world not realizing the same problem would also apply to a god. Saying something doesn't exist 'in time' like we think of the universe as doing, doesn't really solve anything. If there are sequential events...happenings...even thoughts such as the thoughts involved in deciding, planning and then carrying out creation then that either implies a form of time because time is essentially what separates events from happening in the same eternal instant or owns to the idea that in some cases, multiple things can happen in sequence without time to separate them. In any case, an eternal natural world would seem to fit t
It depends on the form of the creator don't you think? If it was a human then you'd say well a human created it, but the bible clearly states that God is a flame of fire, it also states that God is Light itself, If God is Light itself then He would have Power over All things, I truly believe that gravity is only controlled and programmed energy to do what it's supposed to do
@@jamierivera7259 And the bible was created by humans, so any definition therein contained is, perforce, a "human" definition.