Evidence of God

Eloquent address by Prof John Lennox to the Oxford Union. Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford.


13 responses to “Evidence of God

  1. This is not evidence but philosophical bullshit.
    That you would offer up this diatribe,and imagine I had not encountered Lennox before is typical of newbies who think atheists haven’t heard ALL the arguments from just about every leading theist in the market. Lennox is a dick; a nitwit who espouses nothing but waffle and even quotes Plantinga of all people, and then has the gall to say “Biblical Theology”
    He has obviously no idea of archaeology and by the sound of it no interest.
    He has had his arse handed to him on numerous occasions by the likes of Hitchen and Dawkins
    Please point to any part of this speech that demonstratesevidence for your god?
    Just one tiny point. Just one.

    • Funny! This is exactly what RLC said about your approach on his blog. None of the evidence is evidence you consider “admissible” – so why bother asking for it. You’re just avoiding answering a very simple question over there.

      What is quite amusing is how you go around insulting and deriding people who are, I imagine, vaaaastly more qualfiied than yourself on these matters, so supremely confident that they are the ignorant ones. Like you are the only one who has ever opened a book.

      If you could keep the swearing down that would be great…

      • The ridiculous deserve ridicule. And if you have ever heard the vitriol spewd by Lennox on numerous occasions, especially toward the late Chris Hitchin, you might be a bit more circumspect on who you label insulting and derogatory.

        What is it you are unable to grasp regarding this issue of evidence?

        I am an atheist. I choose this stance based on several
        Let’s look at them shall we?

        The Bible.
        1. The Old Testament is pretty much all myth.
        There is not a recognized archaeologist that will not agree.
        2. If you go read John Zande’s recent post regarding his current correspondence with over 60 Rabbis from across the spectrum you will see that they all agree that it is myth, even many of the orthodox Rabbis.
        He recounts a story of one who took his more liberal colleague to one side and explained while everyone knows it is fiction it isn’t something we should announce in public.
        3.From a Christian perspective the Old Testament is an entree for the New Testament. Without the Old the New has no raison d’etre.
        This was why Marcion wanted shot of the Old, because he realised that Yahweh is a monster and he considered Jesus was a different god. But the church were not having it as with out the Old there would be no history,no Original Sin and no prophecy.

        So now you have to deal with this. The lies the erroneous translations and the ridiculous myths that in this day and age only dicks will believe.
        And there is only so far you lot can move the goal posts.

        Now, the Old is all myth, no Patriarchs no Moses no Exodus and here we have Jesus going on about the Law and the Prophets.
        The man was either completely unaware of his own history or he was not who it is claimed he was.
        Or the biblical character is simply a narrative construct, a simple work of fiction.

        I don;t give a monkey;s uncle if you accept this or not. The Jews do and eventually your silly religion will implode, as will Islam, simply because it HAS to. A lie cannot be sustained indefinitely.

        The only group that might emerge from this unscathed are deists, who do not hang their hat on any doctrine and certainly not on a stupid story about a man god.

        Now, if you are prepared to admit that what you believe is based on faith and faith alone I have no issues with.
        But if you insist there is evidence, then demonstrate it.
        Not by philosophy, no by clever rhetoric and not ny theology.

        the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
        “the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination”
        synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation More
        information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court.
        “without evidence, they can’t bring a charge”
        synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation More
        signs; indications.
        plural noun: evidences
        “there was no obvious evidence of a break-in”
        synonyms: signs, indications, pointers, marks, traces, suggestions, hints; More
        verb: evidence; 3rd person present: evidences; past tense: evidenced; past participle: evidenced; gerund or present participle: evidencing
        be or show evidence of.
        “that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings”
        synonyms: indicate, show, reveal, display, exhibit, manifest; More

  2. Something you really ought to read..

    Follow the links to Westar Site if you object to Godfrey

  3. Oh, and please don’t come back and ask, So What?

  4. You’ll forgive me if i (and the rest of the evangelical world) don’t fall in a heap at this….Oh no, another bunch claiming the Bible isn’t true! Whatever will we do?!?!
    Isn’t there still a question waiting for your attention over on RLC’s page?

  5. ”…credentuled experts”

    I have no idea what one of these is, but there were none at the Acts Seminar.

  6. Pingback: God does exist! | Random thoughts

  7. CCT and Quack are so right to point out what a bubble you live in Ark. Your capacity to discern truth from fiction is very flawed. You hurl your insults at those with whom you disagree, but you just prove to others that you are a fart in the wind not to be taken seriously.

  8. @ Marc

    CCT and Quack are so right to point out what a bubble you live in Ark. Your capacity to discern truth from fiction is very flawed. </blockquote?

    It is either flawed or not flawed. There are not varying degrees of flawed so

    very flawed is a daft thing to say.

    This is yet another case of burden of proof.
    If the initial claimant cannot substantiate his or her claim why should I believe it?
    And why are you all so afraid to provide this precious proof that you consider you have?
    I am not refusing to listen or read or even deny. All I ask is that it be provided.
    Has anyone done this to a satisfactory level that is devoid of obfuscation and ambiguity?
    No. Never. In the end It all boils down to faith and at that point the religious insert their deity.

    Everything christianity stands for is founded on biblical text. If this cannot be substantiated then why should Christians have the right to proselytize it as truth?
    Not only that, their doctrine has been subject to accretion, interpolation, and outright forgery, like many stories of this nature over the millennia. This is proven fact, and yet the core tenets of Christianity for example have never been demonstrated to offer a grain of verifiable truth.
    Everything is simply based on faith.

    Historical examination of your religion has been mostly frowned upon for most of the time since its establishment and it is only fairly recently that open enquiry has been allowed, let alone encouraged. And so now you are all messing your pants because your faith cannot stand up to scrutiny? Why? You should welcome the most robust enquiry, the most vigorous dissection of the texts.
    Rather than fight atheists and those of different faiths and religions you should be working with them to get to the core historical truths of what you believe.
    But do you? No. Do you hell!
    You recoil at any suggestion it is nothing but myth, yet reject Islam.
    You cite those that have died for this ‘faith’ yet scream beware of false prophets.
    You cite “the absence of evidence …” etc regarding Moses and the Exodus, but are prepared to accept that a global flood story is a myth, yet fight tooth and nail to defend the Virgin Birth nonsense and other miracles including a resurrection , simply because they apply to your god, Jesus.
    If there is truth to what you claim then you should be striving to get to the root of that truth instead of whining like petulant children simply because atheists don’t accept the ”god inspired’ words you consider sacrosanct but the text of other religions as merely myth and fantasy.’

    You hurl your insults at those with whom you disagree, but you just prove to others that you are a fart in the wind not to be taken seriously.

    It wasn’t that long ago that there were no recognised atheists and the horrors perpetrated by the church and religion…all religion went largely unchecked.

    As I have suggested many times. Go and read a few deconversion stories and se how their former faith and ideology and evangelism is almost strong like the way you all are now.
    Take the time to read thoroughly and see understand why they deconverted.

    Sometimes the ridiculous deserves ridicule, especially where it is causing harm.
    And religion causes so much…

  9. Your reasoning is not flawed in what you have written here. I take it seriously so I retract my last remarks with apology.

    I have read Nate’s story along with several others and found a lot that I identified with. I went through a similar process my self about 12 years ago.
    What makes my experience different is that when I weighed the evidence of science regarding origins, it all points to an intelligent Creator. Accepting that the evidence points to a Creator, then bring up the question why? This led to an evaluation of the multitude of explanations (religions) already in existence. Striving to use an apophatic approach that eliminated what was likely false, I arrived at Christianity. With all of the sects of Christianity, I continued the process until I arrived at Orthodox Christianity.

    You are correct in your insistence that Faith is required to sustain any religious belief because spiritual matters cannot be empirically measured and evaluated. You are also correct in you observations about what harm religions have caused, but you do not acknowledge the good that it has done. That the Bible is not inerrant, and its writers were influenced by their culture has been proven to the point that Christians who believe in Sola Scriptura have serious problems.

    Regarding the ongoing work of historians and archaeologists, their work is important yet not always definitive. We all approach new revelations with an opinion. This is why it often take quite a lot of evidence and time for concepts to change even in hard science.

    I am not sure I share your point about ridicule, but I do believe that the hard questions you ask are reasonable.

Please share your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s