A series of videos by Dr. John Lennox, a mathematician

The Pixie

Active member
Wow, you can use Google. Who would have thought?

How about you pick one you think is interesting and say a little about it. Why do you think it is interesting? Do you agree with Lennox?
 

The Pixie

Active member
There was a video of one of Lennox's lectures going round a couple of years ago called A Christmas Gift for Doubters that I reviewed. It was woefully bad. For example, he assumes the author of the Gospel of Luke is actually Luke, and that everything in the gospel is necessarily true. Sure, if we start from that assumption, it is easy to prove the gospel is true.

The video is very much about the virgin birth in Luke. Lennox looks at alternative explanations... but only considers if it was made up around the time of the birth, either by Joseph or Mary. He presents his false dichotomy: "It's either/or ladies and gentlemen. Either there was immorality OR this is the biggest thing that has ever happened in the history of the world" (his emphasis).

The far more likely explanation is that the virgin birth was made decades later, after both were dead. The virgin birth came from pagan myths, and was notably absent from Mark. Why does he not consider that possibility?

Because it might be right, and his faith has blinkered his critical thinking.

I do not doubt that he is a bright guy, but sadly his religion has demonstrably clouded his judgement.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
There was a video of one of Lennox's lectures going round a couple of years ago called A Christmas Gift for Doubters that I reviewed. It was woefully bad. For example, he assumes the author of the Gospel of Luke is actually Luke, and that everything in the gospel is necessarily true. Sure, if we start from that assumption, it is easy to prove the gospel is true.

The video is very much about the virgin birth in Luke. Lennox looks at alternative explanations... but only considers if it was made up around the time of the birth, either by Joseph or Mary. He presents his false dichotomy: "It's either/or ladies and gentlemen. Either there was immorality OR this is the biggest thing that has ever happened in the history of the world" (his emphasis).

The far more likely explanation is that the virgin birth was made decades later, after both were dead. The virgin birth came from pagan myths, and was notably absent from Mark. Why does he not consider that possibility?

Because it might be right, and his faith has blinkered his critical thinking.

I do not doubt that he is a bright guy, but sadly his religion has demonstrably clouded his judgement.
I suppose it's a good thing he's not your mathematics professor then, isn't it.
I get the impression you'd be telling him what an idiot he is for thinking that mathematics actually works.
 

The Pixie

Active member
I suppose it's a good thing he's not your mathematics professor then, isn't it.
I get the impression you'd be telling him what an idiot he is for thinking that mathematics actually works.
It is to be hoped he is able to argue his mathematics better than he can his religion. I assume he can, given his position, but I have not looked at any of his maths lectures, only his apologetics.

Do you want to defend his apologetics?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
It is to be hoped he is able to argue his mathematics better than he can his religion. I assume he can, given his position, but I have not looked at any of his maths lectures, only his apologetics.
Perhaps the problem is that you believe you have a clue what you're looking for, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with what genuine apologetics actually consists of.


Do you want to defend his apologetics?
Why, do you not think for yourself?
 

The Pixie

Active member
Perhaps the problem is that you believe you have a clue what you're looking for, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with what genuine apologetics actually consists of.
The problem is that Lennox's arguments depend on assuming the Bible is true. Here look, the virgin birth must be true, it says so in Luke! That is a circular argument. That is great for Christians - they already believe the Bible is true - so they think his arguments are reasonable. But it fails for the rest of us.

Why, do you not think for yourself?
How does that relate to what said? Do you think that I should defend his apologetics? I am not gong to do that because I disagree with him. You appear to think his arguments are good - that is why you started the thread right?

So why not step up to the plate? Why not defend his arguments? Pick one and present it.

The fact that you are so reluctant to do so tells me that actually you agree with me. You know his arguments are flawed and cannot be defended. You just do not want to admit it publicly. You want to maintain this illusion that Lennox has good arguments, even though you know it is not true. Says a lot about Christianity.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
The problem is that Lennox's arguments depend on assuming the Bible is true. Here look, the virgin birth must be true, it says so in Luke! That is a circular argument. That is great for Christians - they already believe the Bible is true - so they think his arguments are reasonable. But it fails for the rest of us.
Ok. Apparently you missed the first line of the bible.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
It's not an argument, it's not a "defense" of an argument. It's a simple statement. You can either accept it or not. It's not demanding that you accept it.
It simply IS.

So..... if you really want to deal with the issue of whether or not the bible is true, then you'd better go all the way back to Genesis 1:1.
Because until you do that...... NOTHING else in the bible makes any sense, on any real level.
but once you can acknowledge that God actually DID create the heavens and the earth, then nothing else in the bible is a problem.
Talking snakes, naked man and woman walking around a garden made for them, people living for hundreds of years, talking donkeys, virgin births, people raised from the dead, and being held accountable for our lives.


How does that relate to what said? Do you think that I should defend his apologetics? I am not gong to do that because I disagree with him. You appear to think his arguments are good - that is why you started the thread right?
I think you should learn how to think. You clearly do not know how to reason beyond your own myopic world view. Which is a genuinely dangerous place to be.
So why not step up to the plate? Why not defend his arguments? Pick one and present it.
I think he does quite nicely himself. He's clearly a lot more education, and professional experience than either one of us.
Besides, I'm not here to give a commentary on a commentary of the bible.
If you want to talk about Jesus, we can talk. But Dr Lennox's commentary is self-supporting. If there's something he said which you're not understanding, then we can discuss that.

The fact that you are so reluctant to do so tells me that actually you agree with me.
That just tells me that you don't know how to think for yourself, and need others to agree with you. We call that solipsism.
Just because someone doesn't want to engage in useless debate doesn't mean they agree with you. It could quite simply mean they're not interested in beating things that don't require beatings.


You know his arguments are flawed and cannot be defended. You just do not want to admit it publicly. You want to maintain this illusion that Lennox has good arguments, even though you know it is not true. Says a lot about Christianity.
And this statement says a lot more about your own ignorance.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Ok. Apparently you missed the first line of the bible.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
It's not an argument, it's not a "defense" of an argument. It's a simple statement. You can either accept it or not. It's not demanding that you accept it.
It simply IS.
So it seems we both agree no argument has been offered here that Christianity is true.

So..... if you really want to deal with the issue of whether or not the bible is true, then you'd better go all the way back to Genesis 1:1.
Because until you do that...... NOTHING else in the bible makes any sense, on any real level.
You just said that that is not an argument!

If you have no argument, only an unsupported assertion, why should I think you (or the Bible) are right?

but once you can acknowledge that God actually DID create the heavens and the earth, then nothing else in the bible is a problem.
Right. First I have to blindly believe the Bible is true. Then it is very easy for you to prove the Bible is true.

The bible is true
Therefore the Bible is true.

I think that that is a circular argument, but I do not doubt you find it convincing.

I think you should learn how to think....
No, Steve. You think I should think the same as you.

You think I should blindly believe the Bible is true, just because you do.

I think he does quite nicely himself. He's clearly a lot more education, and professional experience than either one of us.
So he does not present any argument for the Bible sufficiently well that you can repeat it here in your own words.

I understand.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
So it seems we both agree no argument has been offered here that Christianity is true.
🤔
Not at all.
You appear to think that there's an argument which will force you to make a choice of where you want to spend your eternity once you die.
This is about you choosing.
Biblical Christianity was proven true when Jesus rose from the dead.
It's entirely on you at this point what you're going to do about it.


You just said that that is not an argument!
It's not. It's a choice.
There are no arguments which will over twist your arm, and force you to make a choice.
This is about a change of heart, which you have to decide whether or not you want.

If you have no argument, only an unsupported assertion, why should I think you (or the Bible) are right?
Because it's not an argument which is going to force you to choose.
It's simple facts. Exactly like in a court case. We present the facts, and you decide whether or not you're going to believe God.


Right. First I have to blindly believe the Bible is true. Then it is very easy for you to prove the Bible is true.
Only if you think blind faith is valid. but that's not how this works. It never has.
And for you to continue to believe that's how it works speaks more to your own bad ideas than the truth.
We who follow Jesus, actually get to learn, and demonstrate how this does and does not work.
We're in fact commanded by Jesus, his half-brother James, Peter, John, Jesus' other half-brother Jude, and Paul to do what Jesus said, so we can learn for ourselves.

Matthew 7
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.​
26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”​

John 7
16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. 18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.​
James 1
21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.​
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.​



The bible is true
Therefore the Bible is true.
the bible is true, therefore I can apply what the bible says, and get the results it states I'd get by applying it to my life.


I think that that is a circular argument, but I do not doubt you find it convincing.
Of course you do. You do this because you are using circular reasoning, not biblical reasoning.
Lose the circular reasoning, and start learning to do what the bible says, and you can learn for yourself.

No, Steve. You think I should think the same as you.
I'd rather think like the one and only person who has the most accurate form of thinking then to think like what someone else who has jacked up thinking. As YHVH is the most accurate thinker, I'll learn how to think like he's inviting me to.
You think I should blindly believe the Bible is true, just because you do.
You're stuck in your own circular thinking, believing that I want something of you that I do not.
I want you to learn to follow Jesus, so you can see that there's no better way to think, than to learn the truth of who he is.
He did after all tell us---

31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”​
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”​
34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.​


So he does not present any argument for the Bible sufficiently well that you can repeat it here in your own words.
You can either learn, or continue demonstrating that you're thinking circularly.
I understand.
Are you sure, because this entire post is wrapped up in your very own circular logic.
 

Nouveau

Active member
Biblical Christianity was proven true when Jesus rose from the dead.
And leprechaun was proven true when he put his pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

You appear to think that there's an argument which will force you to make a choice of where you want to spend your eternity once you die.
This is about you choosing.
It's not. It's a choice.
There are no arguments which will over twist your arm, and force you to make a choice.
This is about a change of heart, which you have to decide whether or not you want.
Why do you keep calling it a choice? What specifically do you think we can choose to do? We certainly can't just choose to believe without evidence. You didn't. You had to get your (oft referred to yet never detailed) response from God first, before you could believe. So where is the choice for us?
 

The Pixie

Active member
Not at all.
You appear to think that there's an argument which will force you to make a choice of where you want to spend your eternity once you die.
This is about you choosing.
I cannot choose to believe something I do not think is true.

Biblical Christianity was proven true when Jesus rose from the dead.
It's entirely on you at this point what you're going to do about it.
Wrong. Biblical Christianity is proven true once it is proven that Jesus rose from the dead.

It's not. It's a choice.
There are no arguments which will over twist your arm, and force you to make a choice.
This is about a change of heart, which you have to decide whether or not you want.
Again, I cannot choose to believe something I do not think is true.

Because it's not an argument which is going to force you to choose.
It's simple facts. Exactly like in a court case. We present the facts, and you decide whether or not you're going to believe God.
You present your opinion.

Just because you assert it is fact does not make it so.

Only if you think blind faith is valid. but that's not how this works. It never has.
And for you to continue to believe that's how it works speaks more to your own bad ideas than the truth.
I can only assume you believe by blind faith because you are unable to provide evidence to support your position.

Let us try this again: Why should I think the Bible is true?

You say you do not believe by blind faith, so tell me why YOU think the Bible is true.

the bible is true, therefore I can apply what the bible says, and get the results it states I'd get by applying it to my life.
As usual, you assume the Bible is true. All your arguments are based on that assumption.

Tell me why I should think it is true.

Of course you do. You do this because you are using circular reasoning, not biblical reasoning.
Lose the circular reasoning, and start learning to do what the bible says, and you can learn for yourself.
What circular reasoning?

Your accusation is based on the fact that I accused you of circular reasoning and nothing more. You are like a kid in the playground saying "I know you are, but what am I?"

Your circular reasoning is this:

the Bible is true
therefore the Bible is true

Can you say what my supposed circular reasoning is? Of course not! It is just make believe.

I'd rather think like the one and only person who has the most accurate form of thinking then to think like what someone else who has jacked up thinking. As YHVH is the most accurate thinker, I'll learn how to think like he's inviting me to.
Again, your claim is based on your blind belief that the Bible is true.

You can either learn, or continue demonstrating that you're thinking circularly.

Are you sure, because this entire post is wrapped up in your very own circular logic.
I find it laughable that after my accusation that you use circular reasoning suddenly you have decided that I must use circular reasoning. You never said that until halfway through your last post. Clearly, it only occurred to you when you read it in my post. Then suddenly it is pretty much every sentence.

I would encourage anyone reading this thread to do a Ctrl-F search for the word "circular", to see how previously it was not a work Steve used, and then suddenly it is in nearly every sentence. Hilarious!
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I cannot choose to believe something I do not think is true.
So, you choose to believe something you think is true, because it's based on ignorance?
Seems like a fallback position.

Wrong. Biblical Christianity is proven true once it is proven that Jesus rose from the dead.
That was done 3-40 days after his death.
Or is that the problem? You're not actually interesting in knowing the truth?


Again, I cannot choose to believe something I do not think is true.
And yet you believe what you do believe because you're not willing to take the time to learn the truth.
Why would you do that?


You present your opinion.
I present the truth. What you do with it is on you.


Just because you assert it is fact does not make it so.
Same can be said of your unbelief.
Why would you believe what you do, and base it on your unwillingness to take the time to learn the truth?


I can only assume you believe by blind faith because you are unable to provide evidence to support your position.
Well.... that kills the whole thing then doesn't it?
Just as long as you assume, you've definitively proven, once and for all, that you're right?
Did anyone ever tell you what ass-u-me means?
In trying to make one out of me, you really just make one out of yourself, and it helps neither.
Why would you want to do that?


Let us try this again: Why should I think the Bible is true?
Because it is true.


You say you do not believe by blind faith, so tell me why YOU think the Bible is true.
At first, because I asked God, and he answered.
then, over the course of the next 43 years, I've learned it--- by reading it. I've taken the time to learn what it says, by reading it, and then I began putting the parts I can do for myself, to the test, to see if what it says actually results in what it states would be the results.
I found it does. So, I'm continuing to read, learn, and apply daily in my life, and in doing so, I'm continuing to find out that the bible actually is true. And the parts that I'm not able to corroborate--- historical parts-- I am learning that the parts which are corroborable, are enough for me to take the others as true.
And yes, as a matter of fact, I do check the archaeology, and other historical aspects. those which have been discovered have been proven true, and the ones which have yet to be discovered-- we all wait with the same waiting.

As usual, you assume the Bible is true. All your arguments are based on that assumption.
Nope. And telling me what I do doesn't help you, or your belief in non-belief.


Tell me why I should think it is true.
I just did. See above.

What circular reasoning?
the one you're using.
Your accusation is based on the fact that I accused you of circular reasoning and nothing more. You are like a kid in the playground saying "I know you are, but what am I?"
Telling me what you're doing by accusing me doesn't help your cause.

1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?​


Your circular reasoning is this:

the Bible is true
therefore the Bible is true
I'm still not seeing where what you're saying is true.


Can you say what my supposed circular reasoning is? Of course not! It is just make believe.
Sure.
You don't believe cause you don't do what's needed to know the truth, so you don't believe.


Again, your claim is based on your blind belief that the Bible is true.
So, as long as you say it, that makes it true?
Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

I find it laughable that after my accusation that you use circular reasoning suddenly you have decided that I must use circular reasoning. You never said that until halfway through your last post. Clearly, it only occurred to you when you read it in my post. Then suddenly it is pretty much every sentence.
I find it sad that you think as long as you deny it, you can't be using circular reasoning.
And no actually.... It's been stirring for a long time, because you, and other atheists keep claiming that others use circular reasoning, but are blind to their own.

1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

You've decided that you don't have to believe something that you're not able to prove, yet you refuse to do what's necessary to know the truth.
Last I'd heard--- that's the very definition of circular reasoning.


I would encourage anyone reading this thread to do a Ctrl-F search for the word "circular", to see how previously it was not a work Steve used, and then suddenly it is in nearly every sentence. Hilarious!
I have a better idea, why not use the definition provided by the sources.

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

You're starting with atheism. To you atheism is true, so biblical christianity can't be true, so atheism is true.

I grew up being taught how to do things, repair things, where my thinking was constantly challenged to solve problems.
I joined a union, and did an apprenticeship, where I was taught how to do a certain type of work, and solve the problems associated with that work.
Following a cancer diagnosis, and initial treatment, I began attending college, and aside from all the standard courses, studied math, and then physics, and the coursework associated with those two disciplines.

I've since done professions which do not allow for assuming what someone else says is true, and I have to demonstrate it.

So.....

You tell me.... how do you know that atheism is true?
 

The Pixie

Active member
So, you choose to believe something you think is true, because it's based on ignorance?
Seems like a fallback position.
No. I cannot "choose" what I believe at all. I am obliged to believe what appears to be true.

I fully accept that I could be wrong, but it seems much more likely to be right than choosing to believe something that appears NOT to be true.

Can you choose to believe Leprechauns exist? I would be curious how that goes.

That was done 3-40 days after his death.
Or is that the problem? You're not actually interesting in knowing the truth?
Neither you nor I were alive 40 days after Jesus' death. How can something that may or may not have happened nearly 2000 years ago prove something else happened nearly 2000 years ago to either of us?

What we have is today is hearsay. You take that is prove because - as discussed previously - you ASSUME the Bible is true, and work from there.

And yet you believe what you do believe because you're not willing to take the time to learn the truth.
Why would you do that?
I have actually done a lot of research into this, and have read several books on the subject. You are confusing wanting to learn about what really happened with blindly ASSUMING the Bible is true.

I present the truth. What you do with it is on you.
Wrong. You present me with your opinion, which is based on the ASSUMPTION that the Bible is true. I reject that assumption, and you are repeatedly unable to support it.

Well.... that kills the whole thing then doesn't it?
Just as long as you assume, you've definitively proven, once and for all, that you're right?
Did anyone ever tell you what ass-u-me means?
In trying to make one out of me, you really just make one out of yourself, and it helps neither.
Why would you want to do that?
I take it this is you talking to yourself, given your arguments are all based on the ASSUMPTION that the Bible is true.

The Pixie said:
Let us try this again: Why should I think the Bible is true?
Because it is true.
I said last time your argument is circular. Now you show that beyond all doubt.

  • Why should I think the Bible is true?
  • Because it is true.

You find that convincing. I do not. I am not even going to bother with the rest of your post after that!
 
Top