An Open Letter to Atheists

[Edward Wheelbarrow]

Search results for query: Lennox

www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com

Of course, when he's exposed the "great mind" and "Oxford’s John Lennox" just becomes a "Catholic"

Have you ever met anyone as full of shit as Tiger

Would you ever shut up banging on about atheism you stupid bollox. Nobody gives a shite.

 

[AN2]

Would you ever shut up banging on about atheism you stupid bollox. Nobody gives a shite.

There's almost nothing to say about atheism, however, this thread is entitled - An Open Letter to Atheists

Now, would you ever shut the f*ck up

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Nobody has exposed Lennox you utter pillock.

You exposed him yourself. You said his ilk (non-RC's) are all condemned to the hellfire for eternity!

 

[Tiger]

You exposed him yourself. You said his ilk (non-RC's) are all condemned to the hellfire for eternity!

Myles seem to have developed a new skill of purposefully conflating unrelated issues. We have James as the sites very own on online troll who does this kind of sleight of hand habitually. We don't need you added into the mix. It's a bad habit.

You're also dodging the issue, which I presume is the point of your childish deflection. The topic here is the intellectual fraudulence of “Professor Dave,” an immature YouTube personality pretending to speak with academic authority while slandering actual scholars like Professor John Lennox of Oxford. That’s what’s being exposed—his lack of credentials, his mockery of reasoned argument, and his evangelical zeal for scientistic dogma dressed up as fact. The same can be said of channels like THE SOUND OF SCIENCE, which cloak themselves in the aesthetic of “objectivity” while offering anonymous, uncredentialed commentary soaked in bias and contempt for religious tradition. These are not scholars. They are propagandists —ideological foot soldiers of the new priesthood of materialism. Ultimately, they are stupid YouTubers that can't be taken seriously.

Now, as for your off-topic jab—yes, the Catholic Church teaches that it alone is the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter (Matthew 16:18). That is not my personal "condemnation"; that is doctrine.

Christ did not found 45,000 denominations. That number—(sourced from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity)—is the estimated count of Protestant sects and offshoots that now exist worldwide. This chaotic fragmentation is the legacy of man rejecting the authority Christ gave His Church, each group becoming its own pope, its own council, its own dogma.

 

[AN2]

Myles seem to have developed a new skill of purposefully conflating unrelated issues. We have James as the sites very own on online troll who does this kind of sleight of hand habitually. We don't need you added into the mix. It's a bad habit.

You're also dodging the issue, which I presume is the point of your childish deflection. The topic here is the intellectual fraudulence of “Professor Dave,”

No, it isn't

an immature YouTube personality pretending to speak with academic authority while slandering actual scholars like Professor John Lennox of Oxford.

lol By "slander" I assume you mean exposing Lennox for the bullshit artist that he is

The irony of course is that Dave is more qualified to talk about these topics than the great Oxfordian mind creationist carnie Lennox because he's more than a mathematician

That’s what’s being exposed—his lack of credentials, his mockery of reasoned argument, and his evangelical zeal for scientistic dogma dressed up as fact.

Blah, blah, blah..

For the record, Dave has been involved in academia and teaching and because he named his YouTube channel Professor Dave Explains and isn't an actual professor.. the FECs go on about it endlessly (because they're stupid and they have nothing else)

The same can be said of channels like THE SOUND OF SCIENCE, which cloak themselves in the aesthetic of “objectivity” while offering anonymous, uncredentialed commentary soaked in bias and contempt for religious tradition. These are not scholars. They are propagandists —ideological foot soldiers of the new priesthood of materialism. Ultimately, they are stupid YouTubers that can't be taken seriously.

Now, as for your off-topic jab—yes, the Catholic Church teaches that it alone is the Church founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter (Matthew 16:18). That is not my personal "condemnation"; that is doctrine.

Christ did not found 45,000 denominations. That number—(sourced from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity)—is the estimated count of Protestant sects and offshoots that now exist worldwide. This chaotic fragmentation is the legacy of man rejecting the authority Christ gave His Church, each group becoming its own pope, its own council, its own dogma.

 

[Tiger]

No, it isn't


lol By "slander" I assume you mean exposing Lennox for the bullshit artist that he is

The irony of course is that Dave is more qualified to talk about these topics than the great Oxfordian mind creationist carnie Lennox because he's more than a mathematician


Blah, blah, blah..

For the record, Dave has been involved in academia and teaching and because he named his YouTube channel Professor Dave Explains and isn't an actual professor.. the FECs go on about it endlessly (because they're stupid and they have nothing else)

The topic is the credibility of your sources—specifically, the intellectual fraudulence of “Professor Dave,” whose real name is Dave Farina, who worked as a high school teacher—not as a professor, researcher, or published academic. Yet he gives himself an academic title he never earned, postures as an expert in fields he’s not qualified in, and produces videos dripping with sarcasm and hostility toward anyone who challenges his worldview.

Meanwhile, John Lennox is an emeritus professor of mathematics at Oxford with a doctorate in the philosophy of science and decades of formal academic engagement. He has debated top atheists—Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss—face-to-face, with clarity and civility. Dave Farina, on the other hand, fires potshots from behind a camera.

As for science, let’s take two examples where Farina’s views have aged poorly:

1. On gender, Dave claims that a man can become a woman simply by "identifying" as one—stating in one video that this is “just biology.” No, it’s not. That’s ideological assertion, not empirical science. Biology is rooted in chromosomal reality, not costumes and feelings.
2. On COVID-19 vaccines, Farina repeatedly claimed the injections were “perfect,” mocking any hesitancy. But we now know there were adverse effects, waning immunity, and scientific revisions on transmission—all acknowledged by mainstream studies and regulatory agencies. That’s not perfection. That’s propaganda.

Dave is a charlatan.

You say he "exposed" Lennox. Fine. Then answer this—with your supposed commitment to reason:

Can you identify a single point—clearly, here in writing—where Lennox is shown to be objectively wrong in his reasoning or facts?

Put your money where your yappy mouth is.

Not a sneering video, not name-calling or editing tricks—just one substantive refutation, laid out plainly.

Until then, the contrast stands: Lennox argues with dignity, credentials, and reason. Farina lashes out with memes, mockery, and borrowed authority. That’s not science. That’s performance.

 

[AN2]

The topic is the credibility of your sources—specifically, the intellectual fraudulence of “Professor Dave,” whose real name is Dave Farina, who worked as a high school teacher—not as a professor, researcher, or published academic.

Professor Dave

David James "Dave" Farina, more well known as Professor Dave, is an American Italian science educator, YouTuber and former lecturer.[1][2][3][4] He received his Bachelors Degree in Chemistry from Carleton College in Minnesota 2005. After this, he migrated to first Hollywood then the San...

rationalwiki.org

Yet he gives himself an academic title he never earned, postures as an expert in fields he’s not qualified in, and produces videos dripping with sarcasm and hostility toward anyone who challenges his worldview.

Meanwhile, John Lennox is an emeritus professor of mathematics at Oxford with a doctorate in the philosophy of science and decades of formal academic engagement. He has debated top atheists—Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss—face-to-face, with clarity and civility. Dave Farina, on the other hand, fires potshots from behind a camera.

As for science, let’s take two examples where Farina’s views have aged poorly:

1. On gender, Dave claims that a man can become a woman simply by "identifying" as one—stating in one video that this is “just biology.” No, it’s not. That’s ideological assertion, not empirical science. Biology is rooted in chromosomal reality, not costumes and feelings.
2. On COVID-19 vaccines, Farina repeatedly claimed the injections were “perfect,” mocking any hesitancy. But we now know there were adverse effects, waning immunity, and scientific revisions on transmission—all acknowledged by mainstream studies and regulatory agencies. That’s not perfection. That’s propaganda.

Dave is a charlatan.

You say he "exposed" Lennox. Fine. Then answer this—with your supposed commitment to reason:

Can you identify a single point—clearly, here in writing—where Lennox is shown to be objectively wrong in his reasoning or facts?

lol Lennox doesn't have any facts, he's a creationist carnie

What he has, though, are lies

Put your money where your yappy mouth is.

Not a sneering video, not name-calling or editing tricks—just one substantive refutation, laid out plainly.

Until then, the contrast stands: Lennox argues with dignity, credentials, and reason. Farina lashes out with memes, mockery, and borrowed authority. That’s not science. That’s performance.

 

[clarke-connolly]

How come, Atheists get pretty scarce in a Fox-Hole under attack ? !

 

[AN2]

How come, Atheists get pretty scarce in a Fox-Hole under attack ? !

What I think is a silly notion is that Dave Farina hasn't or wouldn't debate John Lennox.. I'm sure he'd love to.. and would tear him (Lennox) a new asshole

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Slandering actual scholars like Professor John Lennox of Oxford.

How can you call him a scholar on the one hand but a heretic on the other?

 

[clarke-connolly]

Is David Farina a better God than John Lennox ? ?

Or, Would David Farina make a better God than John Lennox ? ?

 

[Tiger]

How can you call him a scholar on the one hand but a heretic on the other?

Myles, the words scholar and heretic mean completely different things - one refers to academic ability, the other to religious belief. There’s no reason to link the two.

Also, I didn’t and wouldn’t refer to Professor Lennox a heretic. That term probably speaking refers to someone who was Catholic and then rejects Church teaching. Lennox is a Protestant, so from a Catholic perspective, he’d be more accurately called a schismatic or non-Catholic - someone who incorrectly holds different beliefs, in good faith, having never been Catholic.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Isn't he condemned to hell as per your beliefs?

 

[Tiger]

lol Lennox doesn't have any facts, he's a creationist carnie

What he has, though, are lies

This is a textbook example of intellectual evasion.

I asked for a single, specific example—in writing—where Professor John Lennox is shown to be objectively wrong in his reasoning or facts. Instead, you gave a lazy sneer: "Lennox doesn’t have any facts, he’s a creationist carnie."

That’s not an answer. That’s a tantrum.

If Lennox is lying—as you claim—then it should be trivially easy to quote him directly, demonstrate the lie, and present the correction. But you haven’t done that. You’ve just repeated the accusation, as if repetition equals truth.

John Lennox has spent decades engaging top-tier atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Krauss—not with memes or sarcasm, but with formal arguments, citations, and public accountability. He’s debated in the open, under scrutiny. Where is Fake Dave in that arena? Nowhere. Because he wouldn’t last five minutes without a pause button and an edit timeline.

So I’ll ask again, politely and precisely:

Name one fact that Lennox has presented which is objectively false—and explain why.

If you can’t do that, then you’re not exposing anything. You’re just proving that mockery is all you have left when reason runs dry.

 

[AN2]

This is a textbook example of intellectual evasion.

I asked for a single, specific example—in writing—where Professor John Lennox is shown to be objectively wrong in his reasoning or facts. Instead, you gave a lazy sneer: "Lennox doesn’t have any facts, he’s a creationist carnie."

That’s not an answer. That’s a tantrum.

lofl

You were asked to rebut a single statement of dozens available to you in the videos I've posted about the creationist carnie John Lennox, and of course, you didn't

Okay, fine, state a single fact of his (Lennox)

If Lennox is lying—as you claim—then it should be trivially easy to quote him directly, demonstrate the lie, and present the correction.

I have already done that. Do try to keep up

But you haven’t done that. You’ve just repeated the accusation, as if repetition equals truth.
John Lennox has spent decades engaging top-tier atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Krauss—not with memes or sarcasm, but with formal arguments, citations, and public accountability. He’s debated in the open, under scrutiny. Where is Fake Dave in that arena? Nowhere. Because he wouldn’t last five minutes without a pause button and an edit timeline.

So I’ll ask again, politely and precisely:

Name one fact that Lennox has presented which is objectively false—and explain why.

Lennox hasn't any facts, nor does any other creationist carnie, duh

If you can’t do that, then you’re not exposing anything. You’re just proving that mockery is all you have left when reason runs dry.

 

[Sid Broccoli]

Is he still banging on about atheism?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

This is a textbook example of intellectual evasion.I asked for a single, specific example—in writing—where Professor John Lennox is shown to be objectively wrong in his reasoning or facts. Instead, you gave a lazy sneer: "Lennox doesn’t have any facts, he’s a creationist carnie."That’s not an answer. That’s a tantrum.If Lennox is lying—as you claim—then it should be trivially easy to quote him directly, demonstrate the lie, and present the correction. But you haven’t done that. You’ve just repeated the accusation, as if repetition equals truth.John Lennox has spent decades engaging top-tier atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Krauss—not with memes or sarcasm, but with formal arguments, citations, and public accountability. He’s debated in the open, under scrutiny. Where is Fake Dave in that arena? Nowhere. Because he wouldn’t last five minutes without a pause button and an edit timeline.So I’ll ask again, politely and precisely:Name one fact that Lennox has presented which is objectively false—and explain why.If you can’t do that, then you’re not exposing anything. You’re just proving that mockery is all you have left when reason runs dry.

This is preposterous. On the one hand you say Lennox proposes a falsity yet on the other you're defending him as a Christian scholar.

Why do you think you can possibly have it both ways without sounding like a total hypocrite?

 

[Tiger]

lofl

You were asked to rebut a single statement of dozens available to you in the videos I've posted about the creationist carnie John Lennox, and of course, you didn't

Okay, fine, state a single fact of his (Lennox)


I have already done that. Do try to keep up



Lennox hasn't any facts, nor does any other creationist carnie, duh

What statements are these James? I’m saying there isn’t any, you say there is. Show us all.

Ok, let's take Fake Dave's video that you posted - Fake Dave's video (as always) misrepresents scientific nuance, there's literally no specific refutation of John Lennox as you claim. No false claims are cited or corrected from Lennox’s work. Fake Dave’s criticisms are broad and dismissive, not targeted or verifiable.

Until concrete counterexamples of Lennox’s factual inaccuracies are produced, it’s not Lennox who’s being exposed—it’s Fake Dave’s own lax method, his category errors, and his rhetorical overreach. If you want to challenge Lennox and prove your point, you’ll need more than mockery. You’ll need a quote, a counterproof, and a citation. As you have never attended 3rd level education, you will struggle with this and instead post a childish sneer with a 'lol'.

You've made a grand claim - back it up or shut up.

G'wan show everybody that you are wrong by not producing a single quote.

 

[AN2]

What statements are these James? I’m saying there isn’t any, you say there is. Show us all.

Oh for the love of f*cking God..

I have made a point of pointing out in this thread, that the Big Bang theory is not a something from nothing theory. I have cited creationist carnie John Lennox as well as creationist carnie Stephen Meyer reciting that lie

Are you going to cite one of Lennox's "facts" or not?

Ok, let's take Fake Dave's video that you posted - Fake Dave's video (as always) misrepresents scientific nuance, there's literally no specific refutation of John Lennox as you claim. No false claims are cited or corrected from Lennox’s work. Fake Dave’s criticisms are broad and dismissive, not targeted or verifiable.

Until concrete counterexamples of Lennox’s factual inaccuracies are produced, it’s not Lennox who’s being exposed—it’s Fake Dave’s own lax method, his category errors, and his rhetorical overreach. If you want to challenge Lennox and prove your point, you’ll need more than mockery. You’ll need a quote, a counterproof, and a citation.

As you have never attended 3rd level education, you will struggle with this and instead post a childish sneer with a 'lol'.

But I have a degree, and I've told you that many times. So, once again, you resort to lying

Look, you just have a LC (maybe). That's okay, you were born stupid

You've made a grand claim - back it up or shut up.

G'wan show everybody that you are wrong by not producing a single quote.

 

[Tiger]

Oh for the love of f*cking God..

I have made a point of pointing out in this thread, that the Big Bang theory is not a something from nothing theory. I have cited creationist carnie John Lennox as well as creationist carnie Stephen Meyer reciting that lie

Are you going to cite one of Lennox's "facts" or not?

Firstly, you invoked fairytales to try and prove your point about what existed before time. Your argument was demolished and then you tried to backtrack and disown it.

Secondly, what we are talking about here today is your claim that some YouTube videos that you posted have “exposed” Lennox’s position. Now you are backing away from that.

You haven’t identified a single demonstrable falsehood from John Lennox—only interpretations you happen to disagree with.

Lennox points to the Big Bang's implication of a space-time origin as support for a created universe. That’s a defensible position grounded in mainstream cosmology, not a "lie." If you want to refute it, do so by quoting an actual factual error—not by hurling insults or misrepresenting intent. Dismissing him as a “creationist carnie” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s just noise.

As for invoking Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) to sidestep the beginning of the universe—come on. That model has no empirical support, violates the second law of thermodynamics, and lacks a clear physical mechanism for its proposed cycles.

Even Penrose himself has acknowledged the lack of observational confirmation and describes it as “hard to swallow”.

You're substituting a data-backed model (Big Bang with inflation) for a mathematically elegant speculation that predicts nothing and explains little. So no, CCC doesn’t refute Lennox—it’s just wishful thinking.

But I have a degree, and I've told you that many times. So, once again, you resort to lying

You communicate with emoji’s and ‘lol’s’ and child-like sneers. You have no degree James.

 

[AN2]

Firstly, you invoked fairytales to try and prove your point about what existed before time. Your argument was demolished and then you tried to backtrack and disown it.

lol Utter, deluded madness

I said that the Big Bang theory is not a theory of something from nothing.. that's a fact. An important fact, if you understand why Lennox and other creationist carnies lie about it

Secondly, what we are talking about here today is your claim that some YouTube videos that you posted have “exposed” Lennox’s position. Now you are backing away from that

You haven’t identified a single demonstrable falsehood from John Lennox—only interpretations you happen to disagree with.

Lennox points to the Big Bang's implication of a space-time origin as support for a created universe. That’s a defensible position grounded in mainstream cosmology, not a "lie." If you want to refute it, do so by quoting an actual factual error—not by hurling insults or misrepresenting intent. Dismissing him as a “creationist carnie” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s just noise.

As for invoking Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) to sidestep the beginning of the universe—come on. That model has no empirical support, violates the second law of thermodynamics, and lacks a clear physical mechanism for its proposed cycles.

Even Penrose himself has acknowledged the lack of observational confirmation and describes it as “hard to swallow”.

You're substituting a data-backed model (Big Bang with inflation) for a mathematically elegant speculation that predicts nothing and explains little. So no, CCC doesn’t refute Lennox—it’s just wishful thinking.

You communicate with emoji’s and ‘lol’s’ and child-like sneers. You have no degree James.

 

[AN2]

Firstly, you invoked fairytales to try and prove your point about what existed before time. Your argument was demolished and then you tried to backtrack and disown it.

Secondly, what we are talking about here today is your claim that some YouTube videos that you posted have “exposed” Lennox’s position. Now you are backing away from that.

You haven’t identified a single demonstrable falsehood from John Lennox—only interpretations you happen to disagree with.

Lennox points to the Big Bang's implication of a space-time origin as support for a created universe. That’s a defensible position grounded in mainstream cosmology, not a "lie." If you want to refute it, do so by quoting an actual factual error—not by hurling insults or misrepresenting intent. Dismissing him as a “creationist carnie” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s just noise.

As for invoking Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) to sidestep the beginning of the universe—come on. That model has no empirical support, violates the second law of thermodynamics, and lacks a clear physical mechanism for its proposed cycles.

Even Penrose himself has acknowledged the lack of observational confirmation and describes it as “hard to swallow”.

You're substituting a data-backed model (Big Bang with inflation) for a mathematically elegant speculation that predicts nothing and explains little. So no, CCC doesn’t refute Lennox—it’s just wishful thinking.

You communicate with emoji’s and ‘lol’s’ and child-like sneers. You have no degree James.

The only interest unscientific, creationist carnies like Lennox have in the Big Bang theory is to talk about it, by lying, as a theory of something from nothing, so, they can insert their God. These carnies are as transparent as a pane of glass

 

[AN2]

Firstly, you invoked fairytales to try and prove your point about what existed before time. Your argument was demolished and then you tried to backtrack and disown it.

Secondly, what we are talking about here today is your claim that some YouTube videos that you posted have “exposed” Lennox’s position. Now you are backing away from that.

You haven’t identified a single demonstrable falsehood from John Lennox—only interpretations you happen to disagree with.

Lennox points to the Big Bang's implication of a space-time origin as support for a created universe. That’s a defensible position grounded in mainstream cosmology, not a "lie." If you want to refute it, do so by quoting an actual factual error—not by hurling insults or misrepresenting intent. Dismissing him as a “creationist carnie” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s just noise.

As for invoking Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) to sidestep the beginning of the universe—come on. That model has no empirical support, violates the second law of thermodynamics, and lacks a clear physical mechanism for its proposed cycles.

Who "invoked" Penrose’s CCC, whatever that means, you fuzzy-brained moron

What happened is that both myself and @Haven corrected you on the theory, specifically that it isn't a multiverse theory

Of course, you gave your usual - Nuh-uh, it is! response, and not only that, insisted that we believe it (a theoretical physics theory) to be true

You are quite severely mentally disabled

Even Penrose himself has acknowledged the lack of observational confirmation and describes it as “hard to swallow”.

You're substituting a data-backed model (Big Bang with inflation) for a mathematically elegant speculation that predicts nothing and explains little. So no, CCC doesn’t refute Lennox—it’s just wishful thinking.

You communicate with emoji’s and ‘lol’s’ and child-like sneers. You have no degree James.

 

[AN2]

Firstly, you invoked fairytales to try and prove your point about what existed before time. Your argument was demolished and then you tried to backtrack and disown it.

Secondly, what we are talking about here today is your claim that some YouTube videos that you posted have “exposed” Lennox’s position. Now you are backing away from that.

You haven’t identified a single demonstrable falsehood from John Lennox—only interpretations you happen to disagree with.

Lennox points to the Big Bang's implication of a space-time origin as support for a created universe. That’s a defensible position grounded in mainstream cosmology, not a "lie." If you want to refute it, do so by quoting an actual factual error—not by hurling insults or misrepresenting intent. Dismissing him as a “creationist carnie” isn’t a rebuttal—it’s just noise.

As for invoking Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) to sidestep the beginning of the universe—come on. That model has no empirical support, violates the second law of thermodynamics, and lacks a clear physical mechanism for its proposed cycles.

Even Penrose himself has acknowledged the lack of observational confirmation and describes it as “hard to swallow”.

You're substituting a data-backed model (Big Bang with inflation) for a mathematically elegant speculation that predicts nothing and explains little. So no, CCC doesn’t refute Lennox—it’s just wishful thinking.

You communicate with emoji’s and ‘lol’s’ and child-like sneers.

You have no degree James.

I do. And if you make it worth my while, I'll prove it. Twenty grand your money, twenty grand mine (I might settle for less)

 

[Tiger]

The only interest unscientific, creationist carnies like Lennox have in the Big Bang theory is to talk about it, by lying, as a theory of something from nothing, so, they can insert their God. These carnies are as transparent as a pane of glass

A hopeless response. As usual, your reply was, frankly, an informationally deficient throwaway.

Tossing around terms like “creationist carnie” and laughing emojis might earn you points in a Reddit echo chamber, but they don’t qualify as a serious argument. Someone with a degree would not debate like this. They would start with a quote from the person that they are claiming are lying and then form a proper detailed argument to prove their point. You are incapable of this.

If you're going to accuse someone like John Lennox of “lying,” the burden is on you to show not only that his claim is false, but that he knows it’s false and is willfully distorting it.

Let’s clarify what Lennox is actually saying — because you clearly haven’t. Lennox never misrepresents the Big Bang theory as definitively proving that the universe came “from absolutely nothing” in a scientific sense. What he does do is highlight a perfectly reasonable — and indeed, widely held — interpretation of its implications: that if the universe (including time, space, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning, then either it came from nothing (in the true metaphysical sense), or it came from something beyond physical reality. That’s not religious trickery. That’s standard philosophical reasoning based on scientific data. In God and Stephen Hawking, Lennox writes:

"If there was nothing before the beginning of space-time, then the universe came from nothing — unless there was something or someone beyond space-time that caused it to come into existence."

This is not a distortion; it’s an inference. A fair one. If you think it's wrong, engage the logic — don’t just throw around immature insults.

Now, let’s turn the question back to you: When you claim the Big Bang didn’t involve a “something from nothing” implication, what exactly are you proposing as the “something” that preceded the Big Bang?

The conventional responses vary from one evidence-less fantasy to another — quantum fluctuations, a multiverse, eternal inflation, or Roger Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology. But not one of these models is confirmed. They are all speculative, theoretical constructs without a shred of empirical verification. Worse still, they often push the explanatory problem one step back without solving it.

If a quantum vacuum existed "before" the universe, what caused that? If a prior universe existed, how did it come into being? At some point, you either land on infinite regress (which most philosophers and physicists find problematic) or you have to propose a necessary, uncaused reality — which sounds suspiciously close to what Lennox is talking about.

 

[Haven]

A hopeless response. As usual, your reply was, frankly, an informationally deficient throwaway.

Tossing around terms like “creationist carnie” and laughing emojis might earn you points in a Reddit echo chamber, but they don’t qualify as a serious argument. Someone with a degree would not debate like this. They would start with a quote from the person that they are claiming are lying and then form a proper detailed argument to prove their point. You are incapable of this.

If you're going to accuse someone like John Lennox of “lying,” the burden is on you to show not only that his claim is false, but that he knows it’s false and is willfully distorting it.

Let’s clarify what Lennox is actually saying — because you clearly haven’t. Lennox never misrepresents the Big Bang theory as definitively proving that the universe came “from absolutely nothing” in a scientific sense. What he does do is highlight a perfectly reasonable — and indeed, widely held — interpretation of its implications: that if the universe (including time, space, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning, then either it came from nothing (in the true metaphysical sense), or it came from something beyond physical reality. That’s not religious trickery. That’s standard philosophical reasoning based on scientific data. In God and Stephen Hawking, Lennox writes:



This is not a distortion; it’s an inference. A fair one. If you think it's wrong, engage the logic — don’t just throw around immature insults.

Now, let’s turn the question back to you: When you claim the Big Bang didn’t involve a “something from nothing” implication, what exactly are you proposing as the “something” that preceded the Big Bang?

The conventional responses vary from one evidence-less fantasy to another — quantum fluctuations, a multiverse, eternal inflation, or Roger Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology. But not one of these models is confirmed. They are all speculative, theoretical constructs without a shred of empirical verification. Worse still, they often push the explanatory problem one step back without solving it.

If a quantum vacuum existed "before" the universe, what caused that? If a prior universe existed, how did it come into being? At some point, you either land on infinite regress (which most philosophers and physicists find problematic) or you have to propose a necessary, uncaused reality — which sounds suspiciously close to what Lennox is talking about.

Lennox’s argument leans heavily on the notion that “nothing” means a total absence of anything — metaphysically and physically. But in modern physics, “nothing” often refers to a quantum vacuum or a pre-spacetime state governed by laws. When physicists like Lawrence Krauss talk about a universe from “nothing,” they usually mean a ground state with no matter or classical space-time, but still describable by quantum fields or mathematical structure.
So when Lennox sets up the premise:

“If there was nothing before the beginning of space-time, then the universe came from nothing — unless there was something or someone beyond space-time…”

he’s blending scientific models with metaphysical speculation and calling it "standard philosophical reasoning." That’s a conflation. It’s not that his reasoning is irrational; it’s that it presents a false dichotomy: either absolute nothing, or God. This omits a range of naturalistic models under active investigation.

You also claim Lennox is merely making a “fair inference.” But let’s be precise. Lennox infers a supernatural cause not from evidence, but from an absence of confirmed naturalistic explanations. This is classic God-of-the-gaps reasoning: “Science hasn’t explained X (yet), therefore it’s reasonable to infer God.” That’s not philosophically invalid, but it’s logically tenuous. Lack of explanation is not evidence for a particular explanation — especially not one that introduces a being with infinite properties (uncaused, necessary, timeless, etc.) without any independent justification.

Dismissing models like quantum fluctuations, eternal inflation, or the multiverse as “evidence-less fantasies” is misleading. These models are not myths; they’re grounded in mathematics and consistent with parts of quantum field theory and general relativity. They are speculative, yes — but so is any metaphysical claim about what preceded the Big Bang. The difference is that scientific models are testable in principle and often evolve in light of data. Theistic metaphysics, on the other hand, is immune to falsification.

You note that infinite regress is seen as problematic and thus propose a necessary, uncaused cause — God. But this is where the philosophical debate really lies. Why must the necessary being be a personal deity, as Lennox suggests? Why not a timeless quantum field? Or a self-existing set of physical laws? If we accept that something must be necessary and uncaused, we don’t automatically land on the Christian God. That’s a leap — and it’s one Lennox often smuggles into the discussion without defending rigorously.

 

[AN2]

A hopeless response. As usual, your reply was, frankly, an informationally deficient throwaway.

Tossing around terms like “creationist carnie” and laughing emojis might earn you points in a Reddit echo chamber, but they don’t qualify as a serious argument. Someone with a degree would not debate like this. They would start with a quote from the person that they are claiming are lying and then form a proper detailed argument to prove their point. You are incapable of this.

If you're going to accuse someone like John Lennox of “lying,” the burden is on you to show not only that his claim is false, but that he knows it’s false and is willfully distorting it.

Let’s clarify what Lennox is actually saying — because you clearly haven’t. Lennox never misrepresents the Big Bang theory as definitively proving that the universe came “from absolutely nothing” in a scientific sense.

Sacre bleu

Of course he doesn't, his claim is that the universe came from his/your God

Neither Lennox nor Meyer dispute the Big Bang theory, they just lie about it as a theory of something from nothing, which it isn't

What he does do is highlight a perfectly reasonable — and indeed, widely held — interpretation of its implications: that if the universe (including time, space, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning, then either it came from nothing (in the true metaphysical sense), or it came from something beyond physical reality. That’s not religious trickery. That’s standard philosophical reasoning based on scientific data. In God and Stephen Hawking, Lennox writes:



This is not a distortion; it’s an inference. A fair one. If you think it's wrong, engage the logic — don’t just throw around immature insults.

Now, let’s turn the question back to you: When you claim the Big Bang didn’t involve a “something from nothing” implication, what exactly are you proposing as the “something” that preceded the Big Bang?

It doesn't involve a something from nothing "implication" and I amn't proposing anything i.e. nothing

You have this warped idea that because something doesn't have an answer therefore God, twas always thus

The conventional responses vary from one evidence-less fantasy to another — quantum fluctuations, a multiverse, eternal inflation, or Roger Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology. But not one of these models is confirmed. They are all speculative, theoretical constructs without a shred of empirical verification. Worse still, they often push the explanatory problem one step back without solving it.

If a quantum vacuum existed "before" the universe, what caused that? If a prior universe existed, how did it come into being? At some point, you either land on infinite regress (which most philosophers and physicists find problematic) or you have to propose a necessary, uncaused reality — which sounds suspiciously close to what Lennox is talking about.

 

[Tiger]

Sacre bleu

Of course he doesn't, his claim is that the universe came from his/your God

Neither Lennox nor Meyer dispute the Big Bang theory, they just lie about it as a theory of something from nothing, which it isn't



It doesn't involve a something from nothing "implication" and I amn't proposing anything i.e. nothing

You have this warped idea that because something doesn't have an answer therefore God, twas always thus

Okay, we’re done here. This is beyond hopeless.

 

[AN2]

Okay, we’re done here. This is beyond hopeless.

lol Yes you absolutely are, beyond hopeless

Everything just goes in one ear and straight out the other. You can't debate bro, you don't even understand what anyone else is saying, so quit trying. You are a soapbox dunce

 

[Tuco]

You are an embarrassment to atheists everywhere.

Trust me.

 

[AN2]

Lennox’s argument leans heavily on the notion that “nothing” means a total absence of anything — metaphysically and physically. But in modern physics, “nothing” often refers to a quantum vacuum or a pre-spacetime state governed by laws. When physicists like Lawrence Krauss talk about a universe from “nothing,” they usually mean a ground state with no matter or classical space-time, but still describable by quantum fields or mathematical structure.

No one's really heard of something from nothing theories, whether they be from Hawking or Krauss.. But everyone's heard of the Big Bang theory.. And that's where the BIG lie kicks in from creationist carnies like Lennox

So when Lennox sets up the premise:

he’s blending scientific models with metaphysical speculation and calling it "standard philosophical reasoning." That’s a conflation. It’s not that his reasoning is irrational; it’s that it presents a false dichotomy: either absolute nothing, or God. This omits a range of naturalistic models under active investigation.

You also claim Lennox is merely making a “fair inference.” But let’s be precise. Lennox infers a supernatural cause not from evidence, but from an absence of confirmed naturalistic explanations. This is classic God-of-the-gaps reasoning: “Science hasn’t explained X (yet), therefore it’s reasonable to infer God.” That’s not philosophically invalid, but it’s logically tenuous. Lack of explanation is not evidence for a particular explanation — especially not one that introduces a being with infinite properties (uncaused, necessary, timeless, etc.) without any independent justification.

Dismissing models like quantum fluctuations, eternal inflation, or the multiverse as “evidence-less fantasies” is misleading. These models are not myths; they’re grounded in mathematics and consistent with parts of quantum field theory and general relativity. They are speculative, yes — but so is any metaphysical claim about what preceded the Big Bang. The difference is that scientific models are testable in principle and often evolve in light of data. Theistic metaphysics, on the other hand, is immune to falsification.

You note that infinite regress is seen as problematic and thus propose a necessary, uncaused cause — God. But this is where the philosophical debate really lies. Why must the necessary being be a personal deity, as Lennox suggests? Why not a timeless quantum field? Or a self-existing set of physical laws? If we accept that something must be necessary and uncaused, we don’t automatically land on the Christian God. That’s a leap — and it’s one Lennox often smuggles into the discussion without defending rigorously.

 

[AN2]

You are an embarrassment to atheists everywhere.

Trust me.

You should've watched the video I posted here, Fortycoats -

Post in thread 'An Open Letter to Atheists' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/an-open-letter-to-atheists.710/post-135055

 

[SwordOfStZip]

What I think is a silly notion is that Dave Farina hasn't or wouldn't debate John Lennox.. I'm sure he'd love to.. and would tear him (Lennox) a new asshole

LOL.....

Anyway has anyone else seen this discussion between "Professor" Dave and Jesse Lee Peterson?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVG1dNygOgA&t=1737s

 

[AN2]

LOL.....

Anyway has anyone else seen this discussion between "Professor" Dave and Jesse Lee Peterson?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVG1dNygOgA&t=1737s

lol P. Dave really sets you guys off

That video would have nothing to do with the subject of this thread, though (unless you can point to them talking about the subject)

 

[AN2]

Nothing says ‘defeat’ more than James pathetically replying to his own inane posts with weak, cheaply put together - biased YouTube videos.

He never responds to arguments directly. An unfortunate bi-product of not knowing what the fuck is going on.

^ Literally didn't watch the video (or was incapable of understanding or replying to its content)

Dreary me

 

[Tiger]

^ Literally didn't watch the video (or was incapable of understanding or replying to its content)

Dreary me

It’s your lucky day James. It’s Friday Quiz Time!

If the totality of physical reality — including time, space, matter, and energy — began at the Big Bang, and you reject both creation ex nihilo and an eternal regress, then on what coherent, evidence-based ontological grounds do you assert that something existed prior to or independently of that event, and what is its causal status?

 

[AN2]

It’s your lucky day James. It’s Friday Quiz Time!

If the totality of physical reality — including time, space, matter, and energy — began at the Big Bang,

The expansion of the universe is what "began" at the Big Bang

Instead of being a liar, if Lennox said -

"The Big Bang theory doesn't explain why the Universe - from its initial state - began expanding"..

Then that would be truthful (as well as a 'duh') but that doesn't have quite the creation ring to it, does it. So he resorts to lying, the Big Bang theory, which he doesn't argue against, same as Meyer, is a something from nothing theory (which it isn't) he says, and the 'nothing' is his/your God

The guy is an embarrassing carnie, they all are. Your guys need to stop bullshitting about science and realise that they lost that fight before it even began

and you reject both creation ex nihilo and an eternal regress, then on what coherent, evidence-based ontological grounds do you assert that something existed prior to or independently of that event, and what is its causal status?

 

[Tiger]

The expansion of the universe is what "began" at the Big Bang

Instead of being a liar, if Lennox said -

"The Big Bang theory doesn't explain why the Universe - from its initial state - began expanding"..

Then that would be truthful (as well as a 'duh') but that doesn't have quite the creation ring to it, does it. So he resorts to lying, the Big Bang theory, which he doesn't argue against, same as Meyer, is a something from nothing theory (which it isn't) he says, and the 'nothing' is his/your God

The guy is an embarrassing carnie, they all are. Your guys need to stop bullshitting about science and realise that they lost that fight before it even began

Crap and incorrect deflection. The question had nothing to do with Lennox’s views. Someone with a 3rd level education, would have read the question and understood stood it. Zero points.

Let’s try that again…


If the totality of physical reality — including time, space, matter, and energy — began at the Big Bang, and you reject both creation ex nihilo and an eternal regress, then on what coherent, evidence-based ontological grounds do you assert that something existed prior to or independently of that event, and what is its causal status?

 

[AN2]

Crap and incorrect deflection. Zero points.

Let’s try that again…


If the totality of physical reality — including time, space, matter, and energy — began at the Big Bang, and you reject both creation ex nihilo and an eternal regress, then on what coherent, evidence-based ontological grounds do you assert that something existed prior to or independently of that event, and what is its causal status?

You're not responding to anything that I'm saying..

You're responding with - I'll just regurgitate another question instead

 

[Tiger]

You're not responding to anything that I'm saying..

You're responding with - I'll just regurgitate another question instead

You’re some spoofer. 3rd time lucky. Friday quiz time…

If the totality of physical reality — including time, space, matter, and energy — began at the Big Bang, and you reject both creation ex nihilo and an eternal regress, then on what coherent, evidence-based ontological grounds do you assert that something existed prior to or independently of that event, and what is its causal status?