yeah follow a book from 2000 years ago, that;s true progress give me a break... I guess usa moronic

Peter begins interrupting Hugh within Hugh's first 3 sentences. He's so typical of those w/his ideological leanings - arrogant, condescending, self-righteous. Placing all emphasis and importance on himself and his own "intelligence". Ole Pete would do well to have a huge dose of humility shoved up his pompous arse.

@@Edwinvangent, you could look at it from an intelligent pov rather than a bigoted point of view, ya know? The Bible, which consists of 66 books in total, has been relentlessly scrutinized by "experts" and scholars alike for literally Thousands of years and has never been disproven or even remotely uncredible. But, yeah usa moronic- LOL, you sound like what you're complaining about.

Edwin: Your statement proves that you’ve never read the Bible nor no studied where it came from and how it came about or you wouldn’t of made that statement

I suppose it shouldn't come as a big surprise that this preternaturally brilliant man, Peter Atkins, is so often criticized as arrogant and condescending precisely because he is so much smarter than the rest of us, or most. Evidence and Fearless rationality over cosmic wishful thinking and superstition all day baby!

As I have experienced, Most Aetheist behave defensive which can weaken their argument in that the hearer sees the defensive approach as anger and the Aethiest not totally believing their point. Also, Atheist Usually cannot provide logical evidence of their point of the world , man, mans' purpose, creation of the Earth, the universe and man; the most intelligent life form.

Hugh is a born again man, Peter isn't...

Atkins sounds frustrated...Ross sounds enlightened

Most atheists are confrontational and try to use any arguement to deny the existence of God.

It's almost like one person is right and knows it, and the other knows he is wrong but is too proud to admit it 😂. One more win for the big man upstairs.

Your man, as Peter put it, is intellectually lazy and lacks the reasoning of a scientist. He's more suited to the role of a preacher

Yikes.

​@@CesarCloudsIt's amazing!

@@noahm44 What is?

Not being a bitter Atheist is amazing@@CesarClouds

That's utter nonsense. Lol

@@chlomyster8526 it's completely true. Open your eyes and look at them

@@stevenselleck5460 Atkins is simply weary of listening to lazy drivel

Very true! They opposite for Hugh

Please do. Try try try to keep your mind open to the possibilities....Ask God to help you read his word, and show himself to you...I will pray that he reveals himself to you.

I think you're lying about being an atheist.

@@mcmanustony he have a Free will conscience brain heart instinct GOD given gifts to make hes own desitions no't given to him by some explosión or some hominidus 😂

@@raulmartinez429 How do you claim to know any of this?

You have already recognized God from god.

too bad he is wrong

@@davem9176 He's wrong about what?

@@davem9176 elaborate?

@@davem9176 there is no right or wrong, wyh u want to lush your objective belief toward religious peoples?.

@@aimaniman5557 i have no idea what you are trying to say.

OK calm and patient but what about reason and evidence ?

watch the whole debate. Dr. Hugh Ross clearly won this debate. :)

If Ross is Intelligent he would conclude that there is zero evidence for the existence of a supernatural entity, and that there is a plethora of evidence that religious literature is man made. He clearly desires an all seeing father because he does not want to face reality I.e. born, live die.

​@@johnsnowdon4886 sometimes being calm and patient speaks louder than a boastful man who can throw out logical words like he's got the higher ground. Atkins gets a huge F in debate, Hugh Ross gave some decent arguments. So did Atkins, but he's got such low cognitive awareness to realize his own pride.

He is Autistic too

Why do you admire a man who loves a stolen corpse? ;-)

Humble guy!

I am biased towards Hugh, but that's exactly what I was thinking, and am wondering if anyone had the same assessment. Atkins comes off as an arrogant, pompous, close-minded man.

Wow, you noticed the striking difference in their attitudes? I actually attended the same college where Atkins taught, and I vividly remember seeing him cruising around in his flashy gold Rolls Royce. It made me wonder, why the need for such extravagance when a simple bike sufficed for most folks?

​@@WhoHAAAAAHugh Ross, incredible Man.

Hitch was the only one I could stomach to watch or listen to.

without watching the video, i can see that you are a christian. nobody judges like a christian.

@@WeighedWilson Why is it wrong to judge? If you walk down the street and see a guy beating up his girlfriend and insulting her, you would make a judgement of that guy, would you not? Judgement is integral to making assessments and decisions, without it you left rudderless and adrift. You have to call out what is wrong, such as arrogance, in order to learn what flawed, maladjusted behavior is. That's what acwilsn is doing, and I see no problem with it. Christian, or otherwise.

Christ was judged by a non Christian & was given the death penalty. He rose from the dead!

@@08453300222 you're sure or you just want it to be true? Because if it's not you have no purpose to live anymore??

Peter is a moronic narcissist. Shitty human being.

Good luck Peter in eternity.👀

Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

@@debfiel6585 your arrogance is disgusting. You have beliefs you can no more demonstrate than you can walk on water. Peter Atkins for obvious reasons doesn’t share your beliefs. Cope.

Ross IS intellectually lazy. Your approval is not needed to point that out. Both have a record of scientific achievement. One is WAY more significant than the other and spans several decades. Here’s a clue: it’s not Hugh Ross.

That's pretty presumptuous.

When you can't master the facts, indulge sophomoric attacks. Fits Atkinson to tee. At least, Dawkins could be gracious.

you're right

Because he is an old earth creationist

William Lane Craig has called Hugh Ross "evangelicalism's most important scientific apologist". So he is probably quite famous in his own circles. But the majority of Christians today either accept evolution or the simpleton young earth approach. Hugh Ross interpretations are speculative, forinstance his idea that Adam and Eve were literal people made 50,000-150,000 years ago.

Fernando Paulus ken ham is famous for absolutely wrong reasons. Hugh ross, lane craig, john lennox , francis collins are some awesome ones

@@drlerky2539 True. A lot of Christians consider old Earth creationists to be heretics.

A5 comment 😂 👌🏾

Peter is Nervous and desperate lol

I AGREE AND VERY EDGY AND NERVOUS AND HE KEEPS INTERRUPTING (RUDE ) FELLA

Good one!

Peter seems so sad and bitter

Well said. He claims to be an open mined scientist in one sense but he clearly doesn’t believe what he claims. When he said that there is no evidence that could convince him of the existence of God then logic would suggest that his beliefs are not in fact based on evidence but in just tearing down what ever possible explanations made by a theist. If theism is belief then does atheism then become an undefinable non belief system with no causal agent and no beginning when everything came from nothing. Isn’t that blind faith? Sounds like a fairy tale.

Hugh's arguments are littered with logical fallacies and appeals to magic and wizards. Atkins puts it quite nicely when he says theists are being intellectually lazy. Instead of getting their hands dirty and trying to understand something, they just throw their hands up and say "we know the answer already... god did it"

@@pazuzil Please cite with timestamps where he appeals to “magic and wizards” (btw the Christian God is not some bearded man in the sky who casts spells on you, you obviously don't understand Abrahamic monotheism in the slightest) and please name and timestamp said “logical fallacies". Also, some of the greatest minds in science have been Christians. Here are a few along with their accomplishments… Isaac Newton - Father of Modern Physics and Calculus Wernher Von Braun - Father of Modern Rocket and Space technology Rene Descartes - Founder of Cartesian math and Analytical geometry Raymond Vahan Damadian - Inventor of the MRI Francis Bacon - Pioneer of the modernized scientific method Louis Pasteur - renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation, and pasteurization John Eccles - Nobel prize winner for his work on the synapse Alexander Flemming - Man who discovered penicillin There are so many others, this list is a tiny bit of them…. Just think, what would the world look like without these "intellectually lazy" men?? Peter Atkins is nothing but a pompous jerk. He is a great chemistry professor in his own respect, but he really didn’t contribute anything groundbreakingly important to the scientific community. Also, I don’t think the idea of God is “intellectually lazy” in the slightest. Many brilliant people find God to be highly intellectually stimulating, it compels many people to study the natural world.. A theist holds that God has created everything in the natural world and that God upholds everything in the universe. So basically in the mind of a Christian God has done everything, just because we discover how it works doesn't mean God is removed from the picture, we're just discovering how God created stuff. Also Mike if you see this, thanks for your videos on the fulfilled prophecy, really helped in my understanding!

@@hspwr3521 You obviously dont know much about Hugh Ross's beliefs. He thinks a sky-wizard conjured the Universe out of nothing and then made the first human male by animating a clay figure and the first female from his rib. That there is the very definition of magic is it not? And what if some of the greatest minds in science have been Christians? Almost everyone who lived at the same time as these men identified as Christian including some of the dumbest people at the time. And how are the scientific accomplishments of these great scientists relevant to their views on religion? Newton had some crazy beliefs about numerology, astrology and alchemy... should we take his views on these subjects seriously because he was also a great scientist? come on ...

@@pazuzil Ok, on top of not pointing out the supposed "logical fallacies" committed on Ross' part, you missed my point entirely. Also, you ignored what I said, GOD IS NOT A SKY WIZARD. Neither the Koran, The Bible, or the Talmud have ever said God is a magic sky wizard who conjured the universe. The Abrahamic God is purported to be the space-less, timeless, and immaterial causal agent of the universe. The Bible never said that Adam was a clay figure, I seriously don't know what bible you are reading, I frankly think you haven't read a lick of it. Even if it did say that, that part of Genesis does not have to be taken literally to understand the core doctrines of Christianity. In addition I was listing those scientists to prove that one isn't necessarily intellectually lazy just because they believe in God, I was in no way saying we should believe everything they believe. Also, your incoherent and hard to read piece on how "everyone at the same time as these men were Christian" is just utterly and completely untrue. For instance Von Braun used to be a Nazi rocket scientist who was an atheist for most of his life, he was not exactly raised in a Christian environment. Damadian is still alive and was raised in modern times, the majority of people and scientists in this day and age are not Christians in the slightest. Pasteur lived during the 19th century, that's when Darwin's ideas were taking off and the majority of those in the scientific community were leaning towards materialism and a steady state universe model. John Eccles, lived in the 20th century, theism of any kind was not common in the scientific community and its influence on the people was waning. Flemming was in the same spot as Eccles.. Its astounding to me that you think it is within the bounds of rationality and empiricism to assume that something came from nothing, and that this something somehow arranged itself into planets and stars and on one of those planets there was a bubbling protein soup that somehow churned out all life we see today. I think your beliefs are somewhat fantastical dude, I think it perfectly reasonable and rational to assume a mind is at work behind these things. Also, don't try to respond to the bit above saying "wElL thE ScIenTiFIC cOnseNsuS saYS iT haPPEnEd tHaT WAy sO yoU DoNT kNow wHAT UR talkInG abOUT". Don't try using an appeal to authority/consensus fallacy like that on me. Unless you can personally justify your asinine beliefs here on the spot, you got nothing to say to me. Your beliefs seem to me to be far more ridiculous than Hugh's.

@@hspwr3521 1) The Koran, The Bible, and the Talmud describe a being who created the world out of nothing i.e. creatio ex nihilo in stages using nothing but a few words. If that isn't a wizard casting magic spells, I dont know what is. 2) Genesis 2:7 says "the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being." Another example of magic... 3) Not all wizards have a physical body. Didn't you ever play Dungeons and Dragons? 4) I never said everyone at the time were Christian. Instead I said most were. So quoting a few examples of non-Christian scientists doesn't counter anything I said 5) I also never said something came from nothing. I don't believe wizards exist or that magic is real. Thats your position

Thank you for your volunteer work .

@demi- dogg No idea what point you are trying to make ....?

@Dan Delgado Who is guilty, then? Jesus or the man who abuse of his freedom to make bad choices? I really wonder if you want just blame God or the freedom we have.

@demi- dogg I don´t know why are you in that manner...Despite that, there is a confusion in terms of what Satan is. Satan was NOT created (evil) as an act of creation. It was, according to theology, a decision based, again, on free will, before being capable to know God, the demons themselves. So, yes, the most perfect reality could be the one with freedom, taking this into account. Apart from that point, I must assume you are only interested in Christian worldview. I wasn´t pointing out one subjective interpretation, as we should first consider theistic implications, to then make history and evidence to realize what is the most sensible statement of God.

@Dan Delgado Your incoherent babbling is pure ignorance. You comment on things which you have no authority or education on. Please enlighten us, with all of your endless wisdom, oh Mr. Delgado, what would your perfect creation entail?

If you could quit sneering in ignorance long enough to get off your arse and READ some of Atkins actual scientific work you'd not post such a pitiful comment. Atkins is one of the most distinguished scientists alive. Ross is not. Do you know how books work?

HAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHA

seriously, i dont think he even gave one arguement for his reasoning the entire debate.

@@mcmanustony what was your PhD in?

@@davidmcintyre7908 Pure mathematics- I did research on indecomposable modules over valuation rings. My work in music overtook this before finishing though I did settle an outstanding conjecture of my supervisor on minimal generating sets for these modules. Why? What possible relevance does my academic history have to this debate?

The truth stand's on it's own accord

You are hearing what you want to hear. Hugh never resolved Atkins’ question: how does an agent exist outside of time and space. How can anything exist in nothing? It is a logical contradiction. What does “before time” even mean? Spaceless timeless makes no sense, and such a being does not comport with the god of the Bible at all, a god that experiences regret, and so causes a flood to kill every baby, etc, and so on. And the only reason that people make the “space less timeless” assertion about god is your tactical retreat to the Kalam syllogism. But those properties do not comport with the god of the Old Testament.

Amen to that!

Unbelievable!!! This guy said that he found confirmation of big bang and all physics correctly in the Bible... He clearly hasn't read the first chapter of Genesis... God created day and light and night 3 days before creating the Sun and moon... Then God gave all plants and trees for humans as food... A very informative and reliable story indeed... Every physicist, if he reads the genesis 1, will instantly embrace it as true... But he must be a true scientist... ======== And how do you look at the fact that Jesus exposed himself as Orthodox Jewish supremacist??? Who disrespects all non Jews by calling them dogs, animals in essence... This is Orthodox Judaism... Only Jews are worthy to be called children and the rest of humanity are animals. And Jesus said just that in Matthew 15... He said is sent only to Jews, that only Jews are children, and the feast are dogs... The story is repeated in Mark 7... Amen.

immigrant george Read navigating genesis

@@jamesveerdog2723 So, the message sent by God must be explained by humans because God messed Everything up???

immigrant george Gods message must be interpreted correctly

I noticed and thought the same thing…just look at the difference in expression and demeanor between the two.

@@emilys5024 the peace of God

A common trait among Christians. That is one thing that attracted me to it so strongly. As rianalouw points out, God's peace.

Delusion of faith.

Well, in all fairness, Peter has a few years on Hugh too. I think both men can be equally respected.

I had plenty of effort hiding my atheism from my parents and never bothered asking questions about anything. Even as first grader i saw my mother as ignorant about basic science. I still remember her watching simple scientific documentary and saying that its bullshit propaganda and she has no ideas how monkeys can turn into humans. I had no idea why her comprehension was so bad. Documentary wasnt even interesting but i got more information out of it as 7 year old then mother of 2. Better asking questions from teachers and approaching library. Parents can be selective with their own goals as what their vision of parenting is.

Quote often repeated by Lennox with no attribution to originator Robin Sharma

He used to believe in God though. Maybe he just became depressed and jaded as he was abused.

...never heard that quip before but it is brilliant!

Copper wire : Invented by two men, fighting over a penny.

@@marksnider9378 Your copper wire shoot made me giggle. Good stuff!

He never lost you, He loves you!

The gamechanger for me was consciousness and free will. You are more than a bunch of chemicals. Merry Christmas ❤️

God hadn't lost you. Prayers♡🙏🏽

He found you already!

He has always been with you!❤

Yes, he is really into it and on top of it; very bright young man, thank you : )

Agree

​@ENFPerspectives I think not, the arbiter allows Peter Atkins to get away with far to many interruptions

Justin did his job very well. His personal technique should be studied.

he did give Adkins more than his fare share, but Atkins was hostile and provocative pressing for an emotional reaction to take advantage of. His tactic was thwarted. We were able to hear both sides and it did not erupt into chaos.

Amen to that

I would like to debate this fuckign child abuser Hugh Ross. religion cannot win any debate those about magic claims.

Theism is more like the foundation of Science, which itself is Philosophy, and all that needs to be laid out. Hugh´s descent into that "fossils on the moon" notion is ridiculous. Abiogenesis, as tracked by Fritjof Capra, is requiring philosophical analysis to address the Physics in a vesicle. God created the Laws of Nature, and brought out Jesus Christ, and its HIS gifts that allow us to study Scientific Philosophy in the first place. Those Laws of Nature are what is behind abiogenesis, and its the Philosophy of getting around any limiting paradigms that is needed to understand those processes under those conditions.

Timothy Mostad Computer code more advanced than ours and more information than all encyclopedias combined written into the genes of the simplest amoeba. Way more believable then your Fairy Tale. You have nothing.

​@Timothy Mostad Scientism has taken you out of Science´s legitimate viewpoint and into imagining that Religion is not a legitimate knowledge and activity domain. Karen Armstrong has made an important point with her talking about "mythos" and the real impacts of spiritual-religious practices. It´s only in part about the literal reality of the "gods" in question. They are religious entities that involve people in a kind of relationship to the Universe´s Creator/Source/God Entity facet. The Christian appropriation of ancient Greek Philosophy and eclectic resources, and initiation of a pluralistic world culture reflects Christianity´s own pivotal position in the metaphysical philosophical analysis. Science itself is a product of Christian Philosophy, in fact, a form of it.

I thought the same. He was excellent.

I love how if you don’t know him you have no idea where he stands in his beliefs absolutely brilliant moderator, we need more like him

Don’t think so although he gets better in second part

Fabled Narrative yes, agree with that.

Fabled Narrative he talks too much

Ngl the laughs kind of made me think he was Christian because everyone Atkind talked he laughed along with Hugh, but maybe he's just a happy guy.

Absolutely agree with this. Quite possibly the best moderator I’ve ever seen on religion or politics

He is laughing like a red faced moron whenever Atkins is speaking on issues that are beyond his nutsized brain

I don't think he needs fame to do God's work.🙌🏼

Hank Moody: Yes; Ross reminds you of the character and antics of another person 2000 years ago by the name of Jesus, the Messiah; doesn't it? God bless you.

ABSOLUTELY !

He's deluded, nothing more.

God is going to give him his reward in heaven

What logic? The god nonsense?

@@alexnorth3393Did you watch the video at all? Or you’re just puffing up again and angry ?

@@alexnorth3393 Did you watch the video or just give an answer that fits your narrative?

@@alexnorth3393 Hey Alex, maybe you can explain Atkins statement that "nothing rolled over into something". Or is this atheist nonsense? If not, explain how nothing created our 2 trillion galaxy, fine tuned universe.

This is the way of debate. Find Hugh's many lectures. Or even better get his book called Navigating Genesis.

Adkins is too controlling and likes to hear himself talk and Huge is listening and expounding his own intuitive intelligence.

Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions

A few things indicated to me he is a JW. Good patient listener!

@@izziebon No he is not a JW but a Christian Apologist who founded Reasons to Believe.

And Atkins continually interrupted Ross

James White should learn from him.

Hugh gave Atkins the right amount of time to display his ignorance and narrow minded approach to real science....A seared mind??

Dewey Cox this is typical of atheist/ Bible believer debates. Believers are well mannered, respectful and tolerant whereas the atheists are usually cynical, rude and arrogant.

Johan Weakley Actually it’s just typical of Peter Atkins. I’ve seen many of his interviews/debates and it’s always this, without exception. He demands space to develop his arguments and never reciprocates that courtesy. A true narcissist, maybe even bordering on sociopath.

I was getting pissed at the dude lol like your making you proposition look wrong when you keep questioning him and not letting him Finnish.

He is patient because he knows God exist... and is the creator of the universe

Because he is pissed listening creationist nonsense.. staying calm is really hard when you listening ignorant bigots..

Are you suggesting any individual who has not acknowledged the existence of a god isn't interested in finding answers?

The Bible says in the end times the irrefutable evidence of God will be revealed to all.

@@theoskeptomai2535you are putting words in her mouth. Some people don’t want answers. They are just set in their so called intellectual arrogance.

They ask questions that they've already constructed an answer to. Disbelief is stubborn, but knows everything about nothing at all.

@@danielletracyanna lot of people actually wanted answers and become atheist.

Get his many books. I started with 'Navagating Genesis'. It makes scientific and logical sense of the first 11chapters of the book of Genesis.

@@joymeyer4730 Or better still, books written by people who haven't forsaken science for a career in Christian zealotry.....

@@mcmanustony if you read the Bible, you would see that the Bible is the first book (of any book religious or not) that spells out science. The book of Genius spells out the big bang. But ppl like you never want to hear what makes the Bible and its statements real and the truth. You call us fools.....

@@joymeyer4730 Oh grow up. I have read the bible cover to cover since childhood. It is bronze age folklore and nothing more. I'll leave you to your dependencies....

​​@@mcmanustony Why did you read the Bible? whats your purpose? I read the bible when i was little but because I was born a Christian, and almost everyone i know is a Christian... But alas i went and enjoyed Sin so much that I almost became an Atheist. But there came a time where i almost lost my life and before that happens i called out his name, Jesus... and guess what? he saved me... and my life went 360.. and i started reading the bible again, and the scriptures, the words hits different this time.. This that i thought i knew, i actually didnt, i can relate it to my everyday life,.in school, relationship, science, family i mean everything... Now i read the bible because i want to be closer to God... what about you?

I don’t understand how these debaters didn’t come to know Peter’s “cut off” style yet and give him a taste of his own medicine.....they are too nice to him.

and it's all he's got.. The man can't debate his way out of a wet paper bag!

The more Peter speaks he proves God exist. Particle charge balance to zero explains that something had to happen to pull them apart. I want an explanation of WHY "nothing rolled over into something".

@@SeanbreedSelymrecords They cannot do it, not because there are not allowed, but because they simply can't. He is too good of what he is doing by profession (chemist) and calls for clarification for every term the opponent spits out. I know that he simply acts like a professor questioning his students wording but that is the position his opponents put themselves into.

@@SeanbreedSelymrecords right!! Like Chris Wallace moderating Trump & Biden 🤦🏼‍♀️

When Atkins meets God he's going to s**t his astral pants with embarrassment 😂

Justin Brierly is the best🙂

It was giving me a headache.

45:38 that middle finger. XD

@@Anti-Alphabet_Mafia wowww he totally did that on purpose.

Seems like Hugh was the doctor while Atkins was the politician. Hugh was clearer on why he thought something where ATKINS would just basically say, “no it’s not” with no evidence for why he thought that.

@@TheRazmotaz it's a choice to DENY all the facts. Some simply do not Like The idea of a GOD. It terrifies them.

He has more faith than all Christians combined.

Lol

Me too! I was thrilled with this. Fuckk i could not stand that other guy.

Thanks for this heads up. I will skip it. I can't stand interruptions like that. (No matter which side does it.)

@ByHisCall I like watching debates that are organized and respectful on both sides. I have listened to a few debates where they take the opposite stand i.e. an atheist takes a theist approach and a theist takes an atheist approach. Those kind of debates include diving in opposite world views and really can make you shake your own world view. I used to debate like this in my biology class when I was in 9th grade. It was stressful for me, but it really gave me confidence in my original world view.

@ByHisCall Common Atheist..

@trident3b did I say that? No. But he's right about allot of things nevertheless.

You’d have to not to kill the pompous ass he was “debating”

@trident3b maybe or maybe not

@trident3b his arguments makes him right. Atkins embarrassed himself when he tried to say absolutely nothing rolled into something

The other guy constantly tries to be insulting

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA a funny old man.

Thats because it is stupid and lazy.

like a student who hasn't got a clue.

Explain@@cipndale

@@rocketman3158 what

@@cipndale ? Explain what you mean.

It's called the holy spirit

It's easy to scoff and post naive comments on UKposts! Space-Time theorems (*): a) "If mass exists and general relativity reliably predicts cosmic dynamics then space and time must be Created, implying a Causal Agent who transcends space and time." (Hawking, Penrose) b) "Any universe that expands on average has a beginning, implying a Causal Agent outside of space and time that Creates space, time, matter, and energy." (Borde, Vilenkin, Guth) 1) *The Bible documents that the Universe is expanding. - See these 5 Biblical Authors and 11 Biblical texts: (Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Zechariah 12:1, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15) 2) *The Bible documents that God is the Causal Agent that Created the Universe (all space, time, matter, and energy) in the beginning. Genesis 1:1. - Dr. Max Planck PhD Nobel Laureate said, "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." "The more I examine the universe the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.” Freeman Dyson -Disturbing the Universe page 250 “The impression of design is overwhelming” Paul Davies. -The Cosmic Blueprint page 203 “Arranging the cosmos as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.” Dyson, Kleban, & Susskind Quoted by Phillip Ball, Nature News 08/12/02 “An unknown agent beyond space and time intervened in the evolution of the universe for reasons of its own.” Dyson, Kleban, & Susskind Quoted by Phillip Ball, Nature News 08/12/02 You simply can’t handle the fact that God is the Causal Agent, it bursts the self imposed ignorance of the indoctrinated atheist.

how would we test if cause and effect are not universal ? It is an assumption but not theoretically necessary, more a viewpoint on a particular view of time.

@@rogertheultimaterabbit I’m sorry, and I do mean that I am sorry, but this is incorrect. Go back and listen to this part again. Study into it more. That is a poor poor comment to say. It is simply incorrect. Notice how Peter starts to cut off Hugh once he says this, because Peter knows he’s right but has to in some way swing it back towards the atheist side because he simply does not want there to be a God. It’s obvious.

Peter was not that bad y'all need to relax in the comment section🤣🤣

@@ashley_brown6106 He was even worse.

Texitlox watch it again u missed most of this debate

Whizman Of course it is possible that I've missed a sound argument of Atkins against Ross'. Could you tell me the minute where this happened during the video? Because I don't have the time to watch it again.

Texitlox Nice try troll 🐸

Perhaps not anything "started it." Our universe may have been secreted out of yet another universe,which came from yet another, which then boils down to bubbles forming within an overarching (non-conscious) mega-verse that did not begin and will not end. It would have its own time separate from ours, so mini-verses within it can have their own apparent beginnings. Beginnings within a necessary mega-verse that never began. Why not? It's a philosophical idea as much as theism.

Texitlox Atkins is committed to atheism regardless of how unlikely "mathematically speaking" this universe exist to support advanced life. His theory isn't falsifiable and therefore isn't a theory at all.

Yessss he has so many wonderful videos and articles. He is remarkably intelligent. I think I am going to check out his book 🙌🙌🙌

I like him also for the same reasons.

@@SkyGazerForever1111 how was the book?

Exactly Britt! Exactly!

Me too!

Lol. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

A war in in heaven (or in the heavens) & still waring hence spiritual warfare & 1/3 of angels being cast out of heaven...what Satan thought of as a successful assassination (my interpretation of salvation through Jesus) turned out to be a sacrifice for our sake!

As far as they will be allowed

Revelation, during God's wrath, tells how atheists will beg rocks to fall on them, rather than bow down to God and accept Jesus. It's sad to see how Atkins has chosen that same attitude.

You could say the same about Peter👍

It’s because of his Asperger‘s

More like chief of the village of the damned or some Lynchian giant

Jace Izzonn Yes, Peter is not yelling and has an inside voice. But you’re right, he is terribly antagonistic and throws ad hominems left and right, and uses this ridiculous rhetoric to denounce the other side.

It’s easy to be that confident when you’re completely delusional.

He was a terrible moderator. He spoke more than Dr. Ross did.

No he didn't, he doesn't let them finish their points

HE gives too much of his own opinion. In that setting he is the moderator, not the person debating. He felt compelled to add to what they (the two debaters) were stating; or at least to clarify what they said. It was unfortunately not very professional.

They should have just tied Peter up, knocked his teeth down his throat, and then let Hugh school them both.

Thanks :-)

he read some of it and it was enough, its a book of nonsense, how many pages of nonsense you read doesn't change that, he is a scientist that knows religions are made up nonsense and he doesn't waste his time with them because he is a scientist doing science and writing a lot of books on science

@@davem9176 String theory is described in Genesis 1.

@@Dude_Slick nonsense

@@davem9176 String Theory in essence is described as strings of energy vibrating at differing frequencies to create all the varying densities of matter. Yes or no?

@@davem9176 Cat got your tongue Dave?

Thank God we all don't have Hugh's intelligence, or we might all believe in his foolish teaching of billions of years, NOT SCRIPTURAL, that's for sure.

@@BEHONESTORELSE wdym

Study to show thyself approved unto God. A workman who need not be ashamed. Hugh is ALWAYS studying, researching, reading and writing. It's amazing what God can teach us if we are willing.

Pretty sure his parents aren’t alive anymore

"So much love and wisdom." Some call it charme - that's his trick.

Dude is amazing.

Very calm and sensible. I love the character.

@@fullarmor7599 me too, he is awesome!

That's the oxymoron of the century.

There’s others as well…Dr James Tour

He also said something like "no it's not, I don't know what you mean" He denied a point that he admittedly didn't understand.

Jason Ruediger Has he said that he have never read the Bible? I mean if he in fact never read it, then he has truly missed the real claims of Christianity! Would be interesting to find a source on him claiming to have never read the Bible.

Although, I have read it and he is 100% correct. He doesn't need to read it to know that. Have you read my book? 'Life as a Dwellden'? It's about how my God made the world. Is it true or nonsense? You need to read to know the truth otherwise, death be to you? Wait, where have I heard that before... maybe you should be a Muslim? Muslims say that their book is true, also. Have you read every holy book? How do you know what to believe or follow?

Trolin. I have read the Bible and its complete nonsense. Your arguments mean nothing (if you're even being serious).

Elias Trolin he says it in the interview.

Absolutely agree!! Ross is a great testimony and Example of how to live as a Christian

Yes, I noticed that as well! It is said that they don't see that this is indeed a faith of its own, or a religion of its own. It takes more faith to believe in "nothing" rather than we who believe in "something," or rather "Someone."

@@ChosenAndUndone He has one leg in occult ,he would not accept it even it were true .He supports self creation for lack of finding the creator .

Because the right answer is "I don't know"....and neither does anyone else. 1. Faith is the excuse people give when they believe something without evidence. 2. If you have a good reason to believe something, you give the reason, you don't claim faith. 3. Faith is not a pathway to truth. 4. Faith is nothing more than gullibility.

@@bme7491 Obviously you don't anything for certain. But when you commit to rejecting God, you're basing your beliefs upon something you yourself don't know. As to your belied. 1. The existence of existence is evidence of a creator. Saying that everything came from nothing is completely counterintuitive and itself an evidence-free belief. 2. The atheist in this video refused to provide proof for his skepticism. It was fully based in faith not reason. 3. When you say faith is not a pathway to truth, is that statement true? If so, how did you prove it was true? Do you have irrefutable evidence that this statement is true or faith that it's true? 4. Strange point since you don't provide evidence despite criticizing faith for lack of evidence.

@@bme7491 Yeah but supporting self creation is nothing more than gullibility , stolen property actioned as legit .

IKR? I saw 3 debates with atheists in wich their methodologies are such that they make it impossible for ANYTHING to count as evidence for God. First is this one where PA says that he would have to see, and that even if he did see he would doubt his sanity, therefore.... nothing would ever count as a proof for God with such a methodology. The second was michael shermer against david wood (and david does point out how themethodology makes it impossible to see anything as proof of God), Michael Shermer says that highly advanced aliens' tech would be indistinguishable from God, therefore, anything that points out to God, He just says "aliens". That way NOTHING will serve as evidence for God. Another one i saw was David silverman (atheist) saying: "We are open minded. We just want evidence (the more the atheists brag about this, the more convinced i am that it is BS), the difference is that when we find something that we don't know how to explain naturally and say 'GOD'. We just admit we don't know." See the error in the methodology? I get the "God of the gaps" objection, but the way he framed it in the debate, EVERYTIME something that might actually point to God he's just gonna say "i don't know. The explanation MUST be natural. Can't be God, Can't insert God when i can't explain naturally". So nothing will EVER serve as a proof of this supernatural being cuz if it seems supernatural or done by God the answer will be "i don't know. Can't insert God just bc i don't know the (natural) answer"... if that's his methodology, when is he EVER gonna see anything as proof for God? Never. The more debates i watch the more i see that most atheists just DON'T WANT God to exist, and Christopher Hitchen's christian brother assures that. If that wasn't the case, they wouldn't so often insist in methodologies that clearly make it impossible for anything to serve as evidence for God. But of course... they "just want evindence".... Bull----!

It's also funny how religiously he talks about _"tHe SciEnCe"_

@@dave9640 lol, the athiest creation: _"At first, there was nothin, and then it exploded"_ 😂

@@John-X do you have a source for that version of the Big Bang? Are you sitting on it? It’s almost as if you’re just a lazy ignoramus…

@@John-X what’s funny about “the science”? It’s shorthand for a hard won scientific consensus. Ross’s views are rejected and refuted by what’s known. “Funny”? Good god you’re easily amused

😂😂

Epic!

Savage!😅😅😅

Brilliant. Typical evolutionist. How did it get here evolution did it

He took a stance. You didn't pay attention enough. He clearly tilted towards Hugh Ross' position.

He’s first rate! What’s his name?

Not exactly true. He tilted more towards Ross' position. But he respected the British atheist position.

@@hollyfanatic8686 Justin Brierley. He's a Christian, and to an atheist it does show, but I agree he does manage to keep much more impartial than most moderators, Christian or not!!!

JezusisHeer777 he talks too much