Analysis of the youtube video "A Matter Of Gravity - John Lennox"
This thread is to explain away some of the doubts/arguments raised by John Lennox in this video

Some attempts from my side as below
1. John Lennox dwells a lot on the objection that "Stephen Hawking suggests that universe created itself". He argues that X creating X is an absurdity because creation by X presupposes existence of X.
The statement sounds absurd just because of language limitations. The universe is defined as "everything that is" and hence statements such as made by Hawking arise. Before singularity there was nothing, which is still referred as universe. And then the universe as we know came into being, thus Universe created itself. Stephen Hawking's statement can be easily rephrased as "Universe changed its state from nothingness to something-ness" and this definitely isn't absurd.

2. He then argues on Stephen Hawking's statement that "Laws of quantum physics can create something from nothing". He argues that how can there be laws of universe when universe doesn't exist in the first place.
This is a very stupid argument for two reasons
i. He employs the exact same argument to justify how god created universe and god was never created but always existed. He thinks its fine to assume a complex intelligent mind to exist without the universe, but its not fine for laws to exist independent of universe.
ii. Law is just a rule and is not dependent on any concrete existence. Rules/Laws do not need existence of anything because they are abstract, just like rules of chess can exist independent of the game.

3. Lennox cites an example of cake to explain the creation and creator philosophy. He says that given a cake designed by someone, we can only analyze how's the cake made etc. but can't decipher its purpose. The purpose can only be understood if the creator reveals itself, which apparently he/she has already done through Christ's resurrection.
This is a ridiculously flawed logic. For starters it presumes every thing ought to have purpose, and for a thing to have purpose it ought to have a creator. All of these statements are non-starters. Things don't necessarily need to have purpose. And even though they have a purpose it needn't be for somebody else. Purpose can be just for itself.
But I would like to argue it in a different way. If our universe had an irreducible complexity like the cake example then it would have been probably ok to conceive of questions about purpose of universe. But the universe seems to be reducible to fundamental laws that aren't quite as complex and hence it almost rules out the question of purpose. Consider a simple example, if we receive an intelligent signal (a complex pattern) we might consider it being transmitted by some alien species to announce their presence, but if we detect a random pattern, we don't confer any purpose to such signals.

4. The funniest argument from Lennox is about complexity. He states that the concept "That a theory should be less complex than the data it explains" is rubbish as all the theories we have propounded are very complex. He comments that Richard Dawkins book was 400 pages long and it emanated from a compilcated brain of his, thus disproving the simplicity notion.
This argument almost deserves ROFL. He totally mistakens the physical complexity e.g. entropy, information content etc. with what is "complex for humans to comprehend".

Another general mistake he commits is expressing his awe about how bible got it right that our universe had a beginning. He conveniently ignores Dawkin's simple explanation that there was a 50-50 chance of bible getting it right. Not so awesome odds.
[+] 2 users Like Kanad Kanhere's post

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Tongue Spoof video featuring actual quotes by Christians sidsty 0 3,464 16-Sep-2011, 07:45 PM
Last Post: sidsty

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)