I have just recently discovered this guy. I find him very interesting and I would like to share. I have been wondering where he was when Richard Dawkins was prancing around in the media promoting atheism. I would love to see a debate between the two of them.

He says many things that I've said before on this forum but he also says somethings that I quite disagree with. So abeg don't use him to attack me. I just think he is interesting and I would like to share his talks.

Ravi Zacharias answers Stephen Hawkins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wMyMmjPgLs&feature=related

Ravi Zacharias answers a young Muslim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl9ds3W7HQ0&feature=related

Ravi Zacharias supports the bible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRP0I2SrVs&feature=related

Ravi contra Atheism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJmsK2s0uI&feature=related

Please enjoy these videos and let us know what you think of his words. I would like to discuss his thought.

@Pastor AIO

I agree with a lot of what Ravi Zacharias said except on the third video titled "Ravi Zacharias supports the Bible."

I think he made tremendous blunders in that argument; his premises definitely did not lead to his conclusion. But in-order not to start a religious battle, I will not go into it; because I don’t think that there is any way I can expose the error of his argument without appearing to discredit or question a book that many people hold sacred. Many people hold the Bible sacred, and I respect that. The Bible definitely contains stories with high spiritual and moral values, and I very much respect this undeniable fact.

About Stephen Hawkins, Ravi Zacharias is very right. I perceive Stephen Hawkins as always trying to take advantage of his reputation, (this is just my opinion though). This strategy is very common among politicians and the masses often fall prey to it. Stephen Hawkins, I believe, uses the respect and his reputation of being a brilliant scientist to forward his atheist agenda. How does gravity imply that the universe has no creator? Peharps Hawkins realizes that the masses have his confidence due his brilliance in science, he also knows that majority of the people who clamor for his books do not really understand the concepts of advanced science, then after explaining his concepts when he makes the outrageous claim that there is no God or creator. The poor, emotional and ignorant masses cannot see that there is no real correlation between the discoveries about the operation of physical gravity and the existence of God. One has to grasp a concept first in-oder to be able to tell whether it implies that there is a creator or not. The average person would rather go with the general opinion; after all if somebody as intelligent as Hawkins say it then it must be true. Some of them fear that by asserting otherwise they may reveal the fact that they do not really understand the scientific concept of gravity that Hawkins is pushing.

The fact remains that science does not and cannot prove the existence or the nonexistence of God. Science deals with only and strictly the physical, while God is non-physical. Any scientist who claims that he has arrived at the truth about the existence of God through his scientific discoveries is either an ignorant pseudo scientist or a trickster using science to trick people into accepting a world view that has nothing to do with science. I believe that Hawkins does not belong to the former, i.e. he is not an ignorant pseudo scientist.

The fact that a man knows one topic does not mean that he is also right in other topics. The fact that a man knows Chemistry does not mean that he knows fine arts too, and hence such a man should not use his knowledge of chemistry to persuade people to accept his views on fine arts. There are too different things!

Unfortunately even our brilliant friend, Ravi Zacharias, fell victim to this type of reasoning in the third video. The fact that a piece of literature is right in some areas does not mean that it is right in all other areas. Every object should be examined based on the essence of the object. You cannot judge the correctness of a chemistry book based on the fact that pictures on it are artistically very valid. The same way you should not a spiritual book based on the correctness of the historical information on it.

Thanks and remain blessed.

justcool:

About Stephen Hawkins, Ravi Zacharias is very right. I perceive Stephen Hawkins as always trying to take advantage of his reputation, (this is just my opinion though). This strategy is very common among politicians and the masses often fall prey to it. Stephen Hawkins, I believe, uses the respect and his reputation of being a brilliant scientist to forward his atheist agenda.

There is also the point raised in the video that somethings in books are put in there by the publisher, or by the suggestion of the publisher. The publisher is in the business of selling books and he knows his market, he knows what will sell and that controversy brings publicity hence sales. So quite possibly the publisher could have asked Hawkins to say something controversial about religion in order to bring sales. I know for a fact that they advised him in his first book that if he could half the number of equations in the book that he would double the sales. Or something like that. Maybe it was, 'for every equation you put in the book you'll half the sales'.

I used to do some writing myself and I remember one occasion when I was sent the draft that was going to be published. I struck out many things that I didn't say (my words had been edited creatively by the editor) and sent it back to them. Imagine my shock and horror when after the publication I saw that none of the corrections I made had been heeded. It was quite embarrassing cos many people thought I said those things. What could I do? I could get angry and swear never to write for them again but by that time it was too late.

This also reminds me of when Miles Davis' autobiography came out and some of his friends were upset by the things that he said in them. When they approached him Miles was surprised and asked, "is that really in the book?". The book was ghost written and Miles himself probably never bothered to read it.

My whole point is that in the world of publishing things are not so simply as 'the author said so so so and so'.

The debate is not between science and god but between logic and superstition. People believe in this all powerful being when there is absolutely no evidence that he exists. You don't have to prove that god doesn't exist any more than you need to prove that the Father Christmas doesn't exist: If there's no evidence, then he doesn't exist. If you can explain the natural world without invoking him, then he doesn't exist.

That's what Stephen Hawking understands and the people in your videos don't. You cannot just invent some mystical being and expect the scientific world to accept his existence when there is no real proof. In that way, god is no different than UFOs or the Loch Ness monster. Just because people claim to have seen something doesn't mean it's real.

The god of the bible wasn't the invisible, undetectable absentee that he is today. If the bible (or any other holy book) is true, then it would be trivially easy to prove his existence. The god in the bible routinely spoke to world leaders. He destroyed whole cities with fire. He killed off thousands of children if the country's leader didn't do what he wanted. He performed miracles and raised the dead. His followers could predict the future. They could speak foreign languages without having to learn them. They healed the sick, they made the sun stop in the sky.

Today, all this magical stuff seems to have disappeared. All that is left is a bunch of clowns deceiving people on television and what we see in the movies. Why? You people can probably come up with some long-winded explanation but I (and Professors Einstein and Hawkin) prefer to go with the simplest one: there is no god. The stories in the bible are just stories.

Show me some proof and I'll be happy to change  my mind.