Oxford Mathematician STUMPS Richard Dawkins About God

Oxford Mathematician John Lennox and the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins have a discussion at the Oxford Museum of Natural History and the Lennox takes this opportunity to really push the Dawkins on the existence of God which leads to a fascinating moment where Dawkins gets stumped by using his own logic against him.

[questioneverythingHaid-gbdc]

“I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.”
Richard Feynman.

[markjeppo]

Everything is so complex therefore God. Lennox is using two well worn arguments (a) argument from design and (b) argument from incredulity.

[sandorcsorba]

10:00 this young is fella really threatening us with hell after a very sophisticated debate between two scholars.
God damn you 😂

[vcortez]

Here's the thing: Dawkins is willing to throw his hands up and say "I dont know, science hasn't figured it out yet." Lennox sees the unknown, and insists that there's a God to fill that knowledge gap.

[jballard]

Hey Jaiden - Can you post the time stamp where RD becomes stumped, can't find it.

[andrewlindsay]

I feel sorry for Richard Dawkins. He must be sick and tired of being asked stupid questions. 10/10 for patience.

[prithirajbarkakoty]

Nowhere you find Dawkins stumped in this conversation

[kbeesmot]

Dawkins won this debate for me.
The universe came about through a rapid expansion which is known as the big bang. John Lennox at 6:33 says he isn't ruling out a physical side to the creation of the Universe.The universe is an expansion for pure energy and as we know, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy, in its neutral pure form has been around infinitum. It is as simple as that.

[johnpro]

Prof dawkins is not stumped for an answer, he is just incredulous at big john's reasoning .

[marcelvandorst]

Dawkins didn’t said who created the logos. He said where did the logos came from.

[intelligentpeople]

This is called the argument from personal incredulity. We all know who got stumped!🤣

[thatmanstumototours]

Missed the "stumped" part...

[firemaniac]

When the mathematician asked about the complexity of DNA not being explained by randomness, Hawkins should have brought to discussion the infinite monkey theorem.

[mmcinva]

When Richard Dawkins claims that science doesn't know everything yet about the beginnings of life is a far cry from being "stumped"

[felixcurry]

Your criticism of Dawkins is that he relies on evidence?

[alecxjones]

Says he understands then displays exactly how he doesn’t understand.

[SmoothBlack]

16 year old zoomer explains why a published Oxford PhD doesn't understand logic. I love this timeline

[wesboundmusic]

I don't exactly know on what basis YouTube's algorithm suggested your video to me, but here I am and watched it mindfully.

I got news for you with regard to "going to hell": I had an NDE at age 4 and at that time growing up in a Christian, but non practicing household, I had _not_ evolved an understanding of God, the mortality of the human body, heaven or hell or any other philosophical, spiritual or much of any "abstract" concepts to begin with. And oh my god, I entered an eternal _nothingness_ in my NDE and even if from that I still didn't fully believe or even if I had to _make myself believe_ in ways, that are only a fraction removed from "lying to myself", I can assure you, it would still be a _lot more tolerable_ than finding my consciousness lingering while the body and brain were unconscious and being stuck in eternal _nothingness_ ! (without a tunnel, a light, angels, without a "light body" or any such "thing"....).

As far as the argument between Dawkins and Lennox is concerned, I'd drill down your own take to suggesting you made out Dawkins to _not follow the scientific_ method and I'd agree 100%! If the scientific method has taught us anything, it is that we're advised to come to a complex problem with an open mind and even a need to be willing to question everything we may have found to be true thus far. So yes, in that sense, Lennox is more true and loyal to the scientific method than Dawkins is, who flat out rejects even the mere _possibility_ of there being a god by "arguing" that complex things come from simple beginnings per his understanding of science, however failing to acknowledge the empirical fact that even singular cell organisms demonstrate a level of intelligence that he leaves unaddressed, unacknowledged and arbritarily disregards this very significant property in even the most primordial of organisms, thus falling for an "a priori ruling out" of a possibility, he simply decides to be irrelevant. In short, I'd provocatively articulate it as Lennox being the better of the two scientists having this conversation.

Well, there's my 2, 5 or 10 cents worth.... ;-)

[bv]

Where is the part where Dawkins gets STUMPED? I must have missed it...

[CodeLife_]

The thing the mathematician doesn't really grasp is that given the sheer scale of the time dna has had to change and become as it is, it doesn't change anything that it's incredibly complex. Our human minds have a really hard time understanding how complex things can come from simple things, but it is definitely possible, given enough time and a whole universe of possibilities.

On top of that, even if we granted the mathematician his point, it still wouldn't point to a God. It would simply point to a more complex thing than dna having created it.