Just watched the first part and realised that it's all one sided debate. Dr. Lennox explains his views and believe in a very articulated manner with views of other scientist and history. McKaiser just talks about his own views with no supporting views of other well known people to support his beliefs. His arguements are shallow and no historical basis. The so called master debater just cannot measure up to Dr Lennox.
With no great surprise another atheist offering noooooo prove of their own belief system but sits there trying to pull apart Mr Lennoxs beliefs instead .........Mr Lennox is a brilliant speaker
gary ashdown Atheists don't have to prove anything. Zilch. Nada. You know why? because the burden of proof (say it with me) lies on those who assert that there is a God. Read up on Russell's teapot. Thank me later.
Maromo Maredi I don't agree. It is a widely time wasting assumption. It is not a trivial scientific matter. The Christian has nothing to lose nor gain. Read up on Pascal. Why should it matter to us?
Both debaters are knowledgeable but unlike Lennox , McKaiser has no wisdom and Spirit of God. And unlike Lennox who is there for God's glory , McKaiser is there in that forum for his self's honor .
wisdom and spirit of God what that does even mean -what is the spirit of god and his wisdom, do you have it and how do you know you do. what is a god. what is spirit, what is a soul? do you even know these since you have them?
McKaiser's favorite line ''i think John has the more difficult side'' . Mr McKaiser is a good speaker, but yet again he is trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. John is a great speaker also and as i listen he is very convincing on many points.
The Berean McKaiser is right. John has to prove a) that the universe was created by a God and that b) that God is the Christian God. McKaiser simply has to poke holes in those arguments because the burden of proof lies on those who make claims.
You believe by faith? Great. Tell that to Lennox. He seems to think that there is evidence for your god. What McKaiser is saying is a) you can believe by faith that there is a god, but however b) the minute you enter into philosophical discussions on whether your god exists in which you do indeed assert that your god exists, then you have a burden of proof. Which means, you can't just go around in debates saying that your god turned water into wine. You have to a) prove that he exists and then b) prove that he can turn water into wine.
You are a little mixed up with your assertion. If i did show you how Jesus turned water into wine your intellect would be satisfied. If you were at the banquet and believed your soul would be satisfied. Now you can have your mind saisfied but stil be lost, Jesus came that our souls would be satisfied....some look for truth others play with it and make it common !
The Berean Don't start trying to be smart. You said there's no evidence that a) that your god exists. Don't try sneak in Jesus and wines now. There's no evidence. You have faith. Claim it. Don't say "I don't have evidence that X happened and believe it on faith" and then go "But if you experienced X, you'd believe it exists". You know why? Because the difference between situation 1 and 2 is that in 2, you have evidence. So if you have evidence of such event X beyond mere faith, present that. Don't dance around. It's like me believing that unicorns created the universe. Then when you contend it, I say; "well if you were at the creation you'd believe". It's dishonest. Frankly if your all powerful god existed, you'd easily persuade me. Now, I believe him even less.
McKaiser's claim is that you do NOT need God to explain what is "independently" wrong. However, McKaiser argues with his moral conscience, benefiting from the moral conscience that God has given him. You don't need to acknowledge a singer for their song, but you still get to "independently" enjoy their music.
The hard thing about this debate is that the Christian is arguing from the assumption that God is real and that all the subsequent consequences of there being a God. While the atheist is arguing from the point of there being no God. It's like transport experts arguing about transport methods in society while one believes and understands how cars work and the consequences of having a world with cars and the other talks from a point of a world without cars. The argument therefore forces the rational of the atheist to fall into a argument where God rational is a norm. It doesn't work then
But John's argument that some people do not get justice in this world ergo the Christian god needs to exist to dish out justice is intellectually dishonest. 1) Why doesn't an omnipotent god just make a perfectly just world? 2) Why do we have to appeal to injustice to become Christians? Why don't we bring up Hindi karma in order to address the problem of evil? I'm not convinced here.
An answer for your first question is, because that would mean that God would have to remove us of free will of being able to do unjust things. For the second, because only in Christianity does God join people in suffering and has unjust things done to Him, so that He could understand it from our perspective. And because of historical evidence.
Maromo Maredi Yes, that is a Christian view, God can't make illogical things, like create a round square. Or if He can, we coulnd not recognize and rationally understand that since those would be illogical to us. Also, I would not consider a world of robots without free will to be a perfect one, or even a better one, no matter how unperfect this one is.
Maromo Maredi Omnipotent menas to have unlimited power to be able to do anything that is logically possible. That is Christian view of God. But, as I said, God might be able to do something that is not logically possible, we would just not be able to comprehend it. I am not sure what is that confuses you there.
Secondly, let's assume the atheistic position removes all hope for justice. How does the Christian position inspire it? By proclaiming that their god is all-powerful but still chooses to create a world that can rob some people of justice? That doesn't sound like an all-good god to me.
What is justice if it can't be taken from someone? If all went well with everyone (assuming this is possible without encroaching on someone else's well-being), what would "well" mean?
I prefer no "justice "or perhaps just obvilion,to Johns Christian justice ,everlasting torture,for ANY crime,how can these christians be happy in heaven knowing people are being tourtued for eternity .
Just watched the first part and realised that it's all one sided debate. Dr. Lennox explains his views and believe in a very articulated manner with views of other scientist and history. McKaiser just talks about his own views with no supporting views of other well known people to support his beliefs. His arguements are shallow and no historical basis. The so called master debater just cannot measure up to Dr Lennox.
With no great surprise another atheist offering noooooo prove of their own belief system but sits there trying to pull apart Mr Lennoxs beliefs instead .........Mr Lennox is a brilliant speaker
gary ashdown Atheists don't have to prove anything. Zilch. Nada. You know why? because the burden of proof (say it with me) lies on those who assert that there is a God. Read up on Russell's teapot. Thank me later.
Maromo Maredi
I don't agree. It is a widely time wasting assumption. It is not a trivial scientific matter. The Christian has nothing to lose nor gain. Read up on Pascal. Why should it matter to us?
Both debaters are knowledgeable but unlike Lennox , McKaiser has no wisdom and Spirit of God. And unlike Lennox who is there for God's glory , McKaiser is there in that forum for his self's honor .
BLUEBIRD AN that Lennox professor is sharper or just knows more about what he is talking about.
BLUEBIRD God. You haven't even proven that that stupid glory thing of yours even exists.
wisdom and spirit of God what that does even mean -what is the spirit of god and his wisdom, do you have it and how do you know you do. what is a god. what is spirit, what is a soul? do you even know these since you have them?
Faith
Mckaiser is doing an honest & magnificent job
McKaiser's favorite line ''i think John has the more difficult side'' . Mr McKaiser is a good speaker, but yet again he is trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. John is a great speaker also and as i listen he is very convincing on many points.
The Berean McKaiser is right. John has to prove a) that the universe was created by a God and that b) that God is the Christian God.
McKaiser simply has to poke holes in those arguments because the burden of proof lies on those who make claims.
The people who claim all the evidence is.............? We believe by faith and you are telling me...we have to prove to unbelievers ?
You believe by faith? Great. Tell that to Lennox. He seems to think that there is evidence for your god. What McKaiser is saying is a) you can believe by faith that there is a god, but however b) the minute you enter into philosophical discussions on whether your god exists in which you do indeed assert that your god exists, then you have a burden of proof. Which means, you can't just go around in debates saying that your god turned water into wine. You have to a) prove that he exists and then b) prove that he can turn water into wine.
You are a little mixed up with your assertion. If i did show you how Jesus turned water into wine your intellect would be satisfied. If you were at the banquet and believed your soul would be satisfied. Now you can have your mind saisfied but stil be lost, Jesus came that our souls would be satisfied....some look for truth others play with it and make it common !
The Berean Don't start trying to be smart. You said there's no evidence that a) that your god exists. Don't try sneak in Jesus and wines now. There's no evidence. You have faith. Claim it.
Don't say "I don't have evidence that X happened and believe it on faith" and then go "But if you experienced X, you'd believe it exists". You know why? Because the difference between situation 1 and 2 is that in 2, you have evidence. So if you have evidence of such event X beyond mere faith, present that. Don't dance around.
It's like me believing that unicorns created the universe. Then when you contend it, I say; "well if you were at the creation you'd believe". It's dishonest. Frankly if your all powerful god existed, you'd easily persuade me. Now, I believe him even less.
The moderator tends to favor McKaiser and is not allowing a valid debate, point to point responses. Not good.
don't agree with him, but McKaiser is brilliant. There is though, a difference between existential brilliance and metaphysical wisdom. Great debate.
Agreed, this Mckaiser is very impressive in his improv argumentation abilities. But John's points are never answered straightaway.
Lennox talks to McKasier, and McKasier talks to the crowd. Seems a bit self-exaltatious
McKaiser's claim is that you do NOT need God to explain what is "independently" wrong. However, McKaiser argues with his moral conscience, benefiting from the moral conscience that God has given him. You don't need to acknowledge a singer for their song, but you still get to "independently" enjoy their music.
Need a part 3 when they realise the earth is flat and not a spinning ball flying through a vacuum.
I mean I feel like that's a given, no one really needs to debate on something everyone already knows.
The hard thing about this debate is that the Christian is arguing from the assumption that God is real and that all the subsequent consequences of there being a God. While the atheist is arguing from the point of there being no God. It's like transport experts arguing about transport methods in society while one believes and understands how cars work and the consequences of having a world with cars and the other talks from a point of a world without cars. The argument therefore forces the rational of the atheist to fall into a argument where God rational is a norm. It doesn't work then
But John's argument that some people do not get justice in this world ergo the Christian god needs to exist to dish out justice is intellectually dishonest. 1) Why doesn't an omnipotent god just make a perfectly just world? 2) Why do we have to appeal to injustice to become Christians? Why don't we bring up Hindi karma in order to address the problem of evil? I'm not convinced here.
An answer for your first question is, because that would mean that God would have to remove us of free will of being able to do unjust things. For the second, because only in Christianity does God join people in suffering and has unjust things done to Him, so that He could understand it from our perspective. And because of historical evidence.
Goran Vukša Duh? Then that means there's something your God can't do; create a perfect world with free will.
Maromo Maredi
Yes, that is a Christian view, God can't make illogical things, like create a round square. Or if He can, we coulnd not recognize and rationally understand that since those would be illogical to us. Also, I would not consider a world of robots without free will to be a perfect one, or even a better one, no matter how unperfect this one is.
Then you're done. No omnipotent God. Done. The Christian God is specifically one that is omnipotent.
Maromo Maredi
Omnipotent menas to have unlimited power to be able to do anything that is logically possible. That is Christian view of God. But, as I said, God might be able to do something that is not logically possible, we would just not be able to comprehend it. I am not sure what is that confuses you there.
Secondly, let's assume the atheistic position removes all hope for justice. How does the Christian position inspire it? By proclaiming that their god is all-powerful but still chooses to create a world that can rob some people of justice? That doesn't sound like an all-good god to me.
What is justice if it can't be taken from someone? If all went well with everyone (assuming this is possible without encroaching on someone else's well-being), what would "well" mean?
That atheist is absolutely incoherent!
What about the 67% of individuals in the world who don't relate with your conception of a christian monotheistic deity who is based in 3 entities?
Sandisile Qomoyi what about those who want to believe truth? What is the really real / what is ultimate reality? Atoms and the void?
Christianity- The belief that God sacrificed God to God to save God's creation from God.
I prefer no "justice "or perhaps just obvilion,to Johns Christian justice ,everlasting torture,for ANY crime,how can these christians be happy in heaven knowing people are being tourtued for eternity .