Peter Singer vs John Lennox | Is There a God? Debate

In the land Down Under, two intellectual titans go head to head over an age-old question: Is there a God? Oxford scientist and Christian apologist John Lennox takes on bioethicist and philosopher Peter Singer, one of the most controversial and influential atheists of our time. Fixed Point's Larry Taunton moderates the debate in the handsome Town Hall of Melbourne, Australia Singer's home city.

At times philosophical, at times deeply personal, "Is There a God?" is a fascinating debate that grapples with difficult subjects such as suffering, justice, and more - right down to the most fundamental questions of existence: "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?"

"Given what we know about the world now, belief in a deity - particularly a deity of the Bible - is irrational." - Peter Singer

"Just as rationality can be used but cannot ultimately be explained without God, the same is true of morality." - John Lennox

[s.vanheijnsbergen]

John Lennon: "Imagine no religion."
John Lennox: "No."

[Jeremiah]

It's so refreshing to see two gentleman have a civil debate and discussion on this topic.

[jpg]

What an amazing discussion. One of my favourite debates so far.

[ENFPerspectives]

- "There are but two possibilities: (1) Life originated from undirected processes; or (2) Life originated from directed processes. Scenario (1) is impossible for the reasons stated below. Whenever you have two possibilities if, you prove one to be impossible then you have necessarily proved the other to be *certain*.

Atheists often accuse Christians of adhering to a “god of the gaps” fallacy; that we adhere to an argument from incredulity. However, nothing could be further from the truth. We do not argue that we do not understand how undirected life origination happens and therefore God. We affirmatively state and prove that undirected life origination is absolutely impossible.

Why is it impossible for life to arise from undirected processes? To begin with, it is statistically impossible. It is generally accepted that odds greater than 1:10^50 are so remote as to be impossible. Assuming arguendo that it is even possible for molecules to assemble themselves into cell membranes and to cooperate to develop life processes, and further that they could posit and develop the ACTG(u) language carried in DNA, it must be noted that the simplest moneran known to man has a DNA sequence that is a little over 218, 000 letters long. Let’s round it down and also discount the (U) in the DNA coding. Bending over backwards in favor of the atheist, the odds of assembling the sequence of DNA needed to govern the operation and reproduction of the simplest moneran are 1:4^218000. Rephrased to base-10, we are at 1:1.607*10^217060.

Also, let's assume arguendo that the “consensus” age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. That works out to 4.35*10^15 seconds. Let’s also assume that the “consensus” of subatomic particles in the known universe is correct at 10^86. That is 4.35*10^103 particle-seconds from the beginning of the universe to this day. Every subatomic particle in the universe would have to engage in 3.69*10^216957 *ordered experiments* (where no two experiments were identical) *per second* from the beginning of the universe to *now* to find the DNA sequence of the simplest moneran.

As you add to those odds by raising them to the power of the odds of: (a) DNA itself forming; (b) within a cell membrane since water is caustic to it; (c) the cell membrane itself forming; (d) with the correct mix of left-handed amino acids [and none right-handed]; (e) in such a manner as to have the correct food to metabolize; (f) with the correct temperature; (g) with the correct pH; one can clearly see that the odds rapidly exceed a number of one in ten raised to the power of a number of zeroes in it that exceed the number of subatomic particles in this universe. Impossible. To an absurd degree.

The impossibility of unintelligent chemicals positing and implementing the DNA language cannot be stated numerically; the odds are one in **infinity**. Chemicals are unintelligent. It is ipso facto impossible for them to cooperate. If you wish to make chemicals reflect intelligence, then external intelligence must be applied. DNA itself is the irrefutable calling card of God.

That said, let’s proceed to other things that make undirected life origins impossible. Each and every action whereby an element, molecule or life form proceeds from the simple to the complex requires the application of external intelligence. Physical laws make this an absolute. Matter within a system proceeds from the complex to the simple, and not the other way around. This physical law can be suspended - but only by the application of external intelligence; e.g., heat soda ash, silica and lime to 1200 degrees Celsius for a measured period of time and you produce glass. Blow air into the center of a blob of glass and cool it in a controlled fashion, and you produce a bottle. However, this law cannot be suspended by undirected processes. Therefore, intelligence is a requirement for taking the simple and fashioning it into the complex.

While this law appears easily suspended in such thing as nuclear fusion, no actual suspension of physical force absent the application of external intelligence has ever been observed. Physical laws are much less easily suspended as complexity grows. In other words, the more complex the outcome becomes, the more intelligence is needed to effectuate the complexity. This is most truthful in progressive evolutionary speciation – one species adapting to some outside factor to become a more complex species. There is a reason that this we have never observed this: It’s impossible.

How does a creature go from being sightless to having eyes? How would an organism know that it needed this adaptation? How would an organism know how to implement such an adaptation? It would not. Therefore we are assuming a serendipitous random mutation to something vastly more complex. However, virtually all observed mutations are harmful or even fatal. A serendipitous mutation to a higher species has never been observed. Has evolutionary speciation ceased?

“Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate” – William of Ockham. Creation adheres to Ockham’s Razor because it requires the creative intelligence to intervene a limited number of times to originate the universe and life and populate the Earth. Abiogenesis and progressive evolutionary speciation both require an infinite number of serendipitous, sequential and progressively more complex suspensions of physical laws, all without any intelligence to guide them, to accomplish its goal. The more simple explanation is likely the correct one.

The doubts as to Creation are unreasonable, and are usually accompanied by an attempt to burden-shift from proving one’s assertion of abiogenesis (and the denial of God's existence is implicitly an assertion of abiogenesis) to forcing the Christian to prove creation in order to rebut a presumption of abiogenesis. However, every time we take up the mantle and do so, the evidence is usually rejected without any consideration, much less serious consideration. This notwithstanding the fact that any doubts of its veracity or of the conclusions reached are certainly unreasonable.

While Christians are tarred with the “god of the gaps” fallacy, it is more apropos to say that atheists are in reality adhering to a “godless of the gaps” fallacy, whereby it is held that “I don’t understand how God can exist, therefore not-God.” Or, perhaps more appropriately, “I don’t like the idea of God or how He runs His universe, therefore not-God.”

Faith to the Christian has nothing to do with merely conceding His existence. It has to do with trusting His veracity and His goodness and His Word and acting on that trust. I could give the arguments that God - the Living God as depicted in the Bible - is the only possible Creator and that Jesus is exactly who He claims, but this post is very long as it is.

Thank you." - John F. Tamburo

[nightoftheworld]

1:18:29 "Let's try and look at the logic of it. If Jesus actually was God, the question that I'm faced with is: _what was God doing on a cross?_ And I can begin to see here that if this is true then God has not remained distant from the problem of suffering and evil but has himself become part of it."

[chasepotter]

As an atheist, let me acknowledge, with the highest possible praise, John Lennox vocalizes cogent hypotheses and objections every atheist should hear. Though I believe many of them are unfalsifiable, they are some of the best examples of reasonable critiques of non-belief.

[jonathaneidering]

John Lennox could be a commentator in movies of nature. very pleasant voice. It's like he is from the LOTR-world.

[megalopolis]

How does this debate not have a billion views by now? This was epic. This might be my new favorite debate. Both sides had top notch arguments, each thoughtfully responded to the other's arguments and rebuttals, and each was very humble and respectful of one another. I was utterly amazed, actually, with how quickly these speakers came up with pertinent and relevant responses to each other--complete with quotes that the Australian audience could also relate to--in such a short period of time. My mind is blown right now. These are the kinds of discussions we all should be having with one another. The only reason I come down on the side of John Lennox is because I have discovered Christ due to evidence and experience before seeing this debate; if I had not, and came to see this debate with no belief one way or the other, I might call this a draw (but for the way that Lennox somewhat threw off Singer by his question regarding his atheist faith based on his heritage, and Singer's answer for the child's question was very telling and highly depressing), and would be very interested in conducting further research to see where it led. Great debate, awesome moderation, and wonderful civility by everyone. Thank you for hosting and sharing this amazing talk, Fixed Point Foundation.

[SonOfTheLion]

Singer really did the "Who created God?" objection! Tell me you dont understand the cosmological argument without telling me you dont understand the argument.

[sweetcaroline]

I like John Lennox a lot, the clarity of his exposition. Always a pleasure to hear.

[williamjohns]

Just because the evolution of the human mind was not directed toward truth but toward survival doesn’t necessarily imply that the human mind cannot arrive at truth.

[soslothful]

It is deeply refreshing to hear this topic discussed without rancor, talking over one another or cheap jokes.

[beautybearswitness]

how snob is that statement 1:10:52 ! when you realize that you just made billions of humans « irrational »! in fact, the vaste majority of humans who have ever existed on earth did have some sort of religious beliefs…

[mkmason]

Thank you for this presentation and the work you've done to bring it.

[carlos]

I still haven't heard any evidence.

[kcl]

So, Lennox only was able to explain that there COULD be a god, and Singer explained how the universe can exist without need for a god. Fact is, we can't know for sure if there is some intelligent source that set things in motion.

[richardp]

Wonderful watch. In his opening statement he mentions that "if God needs no first cause we out to be able to say the universe needs no first cause." But wouldn't that help prove God? that he has no first cause, and he gave everything its first cause. The watch has first cause because it was created. The universe and us have first cause because we were created. God Bless all of us!

[lyricalmike]

What is that poet John Lennox talked about at 1:27:40? I can’t find his name, the captions didn’t show his name.

[jennifer]

As with every other apologist I have listened to, Lennox has done an anemic job of trying to explain the unexplainable, the greatest problem Christianity faces, that of suffering.
The usual themes:suffering is a test; the crucified Jesus suffers with us; suffering is our penance for original sin; we suffer but with it comes hope - suffering here will be made up for in the next life of heavenly bliss - all challenge believability.

Interestingly, I have heard at least one apologist say there is suffering in heaven as well. Does it ever strike the Christian as ludicrous to assert these things?
If god exists, he is nothing short of a cruel game player, enjoying the suffering which he alone could assuage, much as a misguided boy delights in pulling the wings off living insects.
Why this stupendous level of suffering - wouldn’t a fraction of what we endure be sufficient for his reasons?

Lennox speaks about the comfort of hope people have, but does he not see what an exclusive club that is? Where is the hope for non- Christians as they suffer terribly under the same god’s action/ inaction?
Since modern man emerged from Africa approximately 100, 000 years ago, untold numbers of humans have suffered and died without even knowing the God-of-the-bible existed.
It boggles the mind that Christians convince themselves to believe, no matter what.

[MixtapeKilla]

Science, the Universe, The God Question

I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Dr. Ravi Zacharias debate Peter Singer & Dr. Peter Atkins at Cornell University