circular logic 101.
step 1.ignore the actual question.
step2.introduce your own premise.
step3.then proceed to chase your own tail round and round and round and round until the person who posed the question head explodes.

The kid owned him

Arguing with an 11 year old... and losing. Pure. Gold.

You've lost if you're arguing with an 11 year old at all.

At 1:10, watch really closely and you can see his brain explode.

@enoch The argument he is making is this:

Without being omnipotent, you cannot know anything for certain. If you don't know anything for certain, you don't really know anything, period. For example, any claim to knowledge that you make, such as that you exist, that 2 + 2 = 4, or that the sky is blue, is based on what your senses and reasoning are telling you. When asked to justify how you know your senses and reasoning are valid, you could only reply that you know that by your senses and reasoning. This is of course a viciously circular argument, and logically fallacious.

So because of this problem, which is really the problem of induction, you couldn't name even one thing you are absolutely certain of. You could only say that you think it is true, but that is a big difference from knowing it for certain. For example, if you asked someone what the speed limit of the road you're on is, and they answered "i think it is 60 miles an hour", do they know it ? No they don't.

So, there is only one other way to know something for certain, which is revelation for an omnipotent being, someone who does know everything. So therefore, his argument is that without God, you can't know anything.

So, although it sounded quite awkward, the kid didnt understand what Eric was talking about, and he actually lost the argument by making an absolute knowledge claim that he couldn't justify. Although I also tend to agree with @rottenseed.

Parents do it all the time

But... don't we only have a book's word that it was written by men, inspired by a God who couldn't lie?

And, doesn't that same God contradict himself dozens of times in said book?

If I give you my word that I can't lie, and I know everything, would you believe everything I say is true?

Horvind's argument is pathetic. Suitable only for debating pre-teens (and even then it only works on the not-too-bright ones).

But then by the same logic Hovind has no grounds to make an assertion either, because he is subject to the same laws of not having absolute knowledge as he is not a god himself. ===> back to square one.

So your argument is flawed too, because a perceived "revelation" is *not* the same as being demonstrably an actual god.

But yes, the kid should not have made a claim to absolute knowledge to the non-existence of a god.

What it proves is that God is the only ground for making knowledge claims. A person receiving revelation from God therefore does have ground for making absolute claims, and has a justified true belief in God.

Whether I could prove that I have received revelation from God is a different question. What is clear is that God could reveal Himself in such a way as you could know it for certain. However, since outside of revelation from God no one has any ground for knowledge claims, they would have no actual grounds for rejecting the claim. They could however test the claim by asking God for that revelation for themselves. This is what the bible says, that the world in its wisdom has never, and will never know anything about God. It is only when God directly reveals Himself to us that we know anything about Him, and Jesus is that revelation of God to the world.

Whether or not we can know anything for certain to such an extreme is a functionally useless question to start with, I like to think of it as the Sudoku of philosophy - for some it is fun and maybe challenging to work through, it might even make someone feel vaguely intellectual when they're watching an action flick, but it is otherwise utterly pointless.

I happily admit that there is a theoretical possibility that everything is a computer program designed to deceive me into believing a particular state of affairs, but as a sane person, I go about life assuming that my senses do a pretty good job of telling me about the world around me. If you have difficulty with this, you are deranged.

So outright, I reject the notion that there is any need for absolute certainty, much less that someone's imaginary friend they keep telling me about can provide it.

Reality is invariably self consistent, the coincidence of that alone is enough to convince me to pay attention to people who do their darndest to understand it (reality) and do my darndest to understand it myself.

And no, even if there is some way to improve our current degree of certainty by the ten to the power of negative eighty two percent we lack to achieve absolute certainty, then you don't get to arbitrarily claim that God is that way because a book says he knows everything. And especially not if you had a personal revelation.

My buddy Shane told me yesterday that the buck stops with him, and he was simply born with complete omniscience. He knows absolutely everything. He's coming over to dinner tomorrow, if you stop by my place he can tell you about it too. It's crazy, some weird and rare genetic defect from what I understand. But I'll tell you, boy am I glad he has that defect because if he didn't, I'd only be about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that it's a bad idea to get shot in the head by an AK 47. I mean, you never know. There are times when I want to test those odds.

2+2 does equal 4 and it has fuckall to do with humans. If there were no humans 2+2 would still equal 4 because math is universal.

Everything blue is blue because of specific wavelengths of light which we detect (as blue) via our eyeholes. This wavelength once again has fuckall to do with humans, senses or perception.

So therefore you're an idiot. With certainty.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
'nuf said.

The question is, what ground do you have to make *any* knowledge claim? If you can't tell me even one thing you know for certain, then what do you actually know? As I gave in my example, if you asked someone what time it is and they said I think it's 3 pm, do they actually know it?

The point is that we do know things, and we operate in a world of certainty, but the only way to justify that knowledge is by pointing to God. You can't justify it by pointing to yourself.

I happily admit that there is a theoretical possibility that everything is a computer program designed to deceive me into believing a particular state of affairs, but as a sane person, I go about life assuming that my senses do a pretty good job of telling me about the world around me. If you have difficulty with this, you are deranged.

Do everyones senses work equally well? Is everyones reasoning equally valid? If you're satisfied with circular reasoning, ie, that your senses are valid because your senses tell you they're valid, then you should have no problem with the argument that God exists because He exists.

So outright, I reject the notion that there is any need for absolute certainty, much less that someone's imaginary friend they keep telling me about can provide it.

There is when making knowledge claims. Again, if you can't make any, what do you actually know?

Reality is invariably self consistent, the coincidence of that alone is enough to convince me to pay attention to people who do their darndest to understand it (reality) and do my darndest to understand it myself.

What's your theory about why it should it be "self-consistent", or comprehensible by human beings at all?

And no, even if there is some way to improve our current degree of certainty by the ten to the power of negative eighty two percent we lack to achieve absolute certainty, then you don't get to arbitrarily claim that God is that way because a book says he knows everything. And especially not if you had a personal revelation.

That isn't the argument. The argument is, there are only two routes to truth. One is that you're omnipotent. Two is revelation from an omnipotent being. Everyone else is living in a world of uncertainty and does not really know anything. The argument is, without God, you can't prove anything.

My buddy Shane told me yesterday that the buck stops with him, and he was simply born with complete omniscience. He knows absolutely everything. He's coming over to dinner tomorrow, if you stop by my place he can tell you about it too. It's crazy, some weird and rare genetic defect from what I understand. But I'll tell you, boy am I glad he has that defect because if he didn't, I'd only be about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that it's a bad idea to get shot in the head by an AK 47. I mean, you never know. There are times when I want to test those odds.

I'm sure you could name any number of situations where it seems very likely that you know something, but the question remains, how do you prove it? You don't have any proof for your claims no matter how obvious they may seem.

What is the reason that the laws of mathematics would apply even 5 seconds from now? How do you know they are universal, and why are they universal? Why should that specific wavelength be the same 5 seconds from now? etc.

It's the same problem. You can't justify universal laws without a lawgiver.

Hi Shinyblurry,

Do you read what you type?

Let us turn this around - shall we...?

I'm sure you could name any number of situations where it seems very likely that you know (that there is a God), but the question remains, how do you prove it? You don't have any proof for your claims no matter how obvious they may seem.

The argument isn't about whether I can prove God has given me any such revelation. The argument itself reveals the necessity of Gods existence. The argument is whether there is any basis for any knowledge claims outside of God. Or as Eric puts it, the proof that God exists is that without Him, you couldn't prove anything. It is to say that God is the only basis for any rational thought. It is also to say that when you are appealing to universal, unchanging and immaterial laws to prove anything you are borrowing from my worldview, because there is no support for such things in yours.

Haha! Engaging in discourse with shinyblurry is a bit like punching yourself in the head. Not only is it stupid, it's making you stupider.

You guys are going to get dizzy trying to reason with SB. He has a life-time supply of blue pills.

nuh uh

That's it, go to your room!

That's what he *says*, but he certainly does not offer and proof / argument for this. Sure he waffles on and offers some form of malformed circular logic, but no proof.

Shinyblurry we've talked about this before, and I know you claim that you've gotten your "knowledge" of "God" from your direct explicit conversational contact with him, and a perceived personal manifestation of his presence, but personal experience doesn't stand as any kind of argument / proof for his existence.

I could say that they Stay Puft Marshmallow Man appeared to me in my room last night and told me that eating lettuce was immoral and Justin Bieber is his earthbound minnion. But I'm sure if I told you that's you'd not believe me and look for some kind of proof.

For the rest of you, here's some quotes from shinyblurry from another thread, just so you know where he's coming from.

----------------------------------

shinyblurry says...

Since you asked, I'll tell you why I believe in God. Up until 8 years ago I was agnostic. I was raised agnostic, without any religion. We celebrated Christmas and Easter, but that was about it. I wasn't raised to like or dislike religion, I was simply left free to decide what I believed.

At the time I became a theist, I didn't believe in a spiritual reality, or any God I had ever heard of, because like most of the people here I saw no evidence for it at all. I actually used to go into christian chat rooms and debate christians on what I saw to be inconsistances in the bible. A lot of what people have said in this thread are thoughts that I once had and arguments I used to use myself.

Then one day it all changed. I guess you could say my third eye was opened. I had something akin to a kundalini awakening, spontaneously out of nowhere. When it was over, I could suddenly perceive the spiritual reality. I didn't quite know what I was looking at, at the time..didn't truly understand what had happened to me (though through intuition i understood the great potential of it). It was only after researching it online and finding out about the chakras did I start to understand.

It's an amazing, truly truly amazing thing to find out everything you know is wrong. It is really utterly mind blowing. This however, was the conclusion I was forced to immediately reach however, because the evidence for it was right in front of my face. Everything that I had known up until the point I could perceive the spiritual was missing so many essential elements that I may as well have been just born.

I started to receive signs..little miracles, I would call them..like stepping in front of a vast panarama of nature and suddenly seeing it at an angle impossible to human sight, where everything is in focus at the same time, that produced such startling beauty it filled me to overflowing with estatic joy. I started to perceive there was a higher beauty, a higher love that had always been there but I had somehow missed it. I started to get the point, that there was something more. That there was a God.

When I conceded it was possible, to myself, it was then that I started to hear from Him directly. He let me know a couple of things, and proved to me that I wasn't just imagining Him. He showed me that He had been there my entire life, teaching me and guiding me as a child on, only I had been totally unaware of it. He showed me how we "shared space", and that not only could He read my mind, but in some essential way that He was what my mind is. That He is mind itself. He showed me how my thought process was more of a cooperative than a solitary thing.

Now before you say I just jumped at all of this because everyone wants to imagine a loving God, etc etc..untrue in my case. When I first found out He was definitely real, i was scared shitless. Up until that point, my thoughts about God were all negative. I figured if He did exist He probably hated me. You see, that is what I had gleaned growing up in a Christian society without actually knowing anything about it.

At this point I became a theist. I thought of God as a He because He seemed masculine rather than feminine, and also I thought of Him as the Creator. I didn't know anything about the bible, or the Holy Trinity, or what a messiah was, or any of that. I thought the God I knew must not be generally known because I had never seen anything out there that pointed to a loving God.

For the next 6 yeears I was on a spiritual journey. I studied all the various belief systems, spiritual or otherwise, all the religious history..east and west, north and south. I studied philosophy and esoteric wisdom, gurus and prophets. The one I really hadn't studied though, was Christianity. The reason being I didn't believe Jesus actually ever existed so I dismissed it out of hand.

Before I knew anything about Christianity, God taught me three important things about who He is. One, He taught me His nature is triune, that God is three. I didn't understand what that meant precisely, I just knew that was His nature. He also taught me that there was a Messiah. He taught me that there was someone whose job it was to save the world. The third thing and most important thing He taught me was about His love. That He loved everyone, and that He secretly took care of them whether they believed in Him or not. He showed me His perfect heart.

What led me to the bible was this: I asked Him who the Messiah was and He told me to look in a mirror. At the time I had been away from civilization for a few months and my beard had grown out for the first time in my life. I hadn't seen a mirror since I was clean shaven. I sought one out and when I saw my reflection I couldn't believe my eyes. I looked *exactly* like Jesus Christ. I mean to a T.

It was then I was forced to accept the possibility that Jesus was real. To be honest, I really didn't want to. I felt like I had a really special relationship with the Father and that Jesus could only get in the way of that. I didn't even feel like I could pay Him any real respect, because I knew the Father was greater than He was. But, I couldn't ignore what He was showing me, so I started to read the bible. To my surprise, I found out it was about the God I already knew.

Everything I read in the bible matched what I already knew about God . The Holy Trinity matched His triune nature. That there was a Messiah and Jesus was it. And most of all His love, His great and majestic love, for all people, was perfectly laid out in ways I had never before comprehended. The bible was the only information on Earth that accurately described what I already knew about God. That is how I knew it was true from the outset.

So that's when I became a Christian. I couldn't ignore the evidence. My journey to Christianity was based on rationality and logic, believe it or not, albiet with miracles and spirituality mixed in. Even the miracles themselves were logical, as God showed me how He worked from a meta-perspective, and that time and space didn't restrict Him at all. So there you have it..an interesting testimony to be sure.

I am unusual in that I didn't come to God on my own. God chose me, I didn't choose Him. I might never have come to God if He hadn't. I found out later that this means I was elected..in that, before God made the world He had already planned to create me to do His will. After He woke me up it never really took much faith to believe in God because He demonstrated to me His amazing power and ASTONISHING intellect in ways that were impossible to refute. Whatever brick wall I would put up, He would smash it down into oblivion. He favored me because I stayed hungry. I knew the truth was knowable, and I gunned for it 200 percent. I would have died for it.

So I empathize with the people here. Some of you might actually be elected too, it just is not your time to know. Some are probably angry/scared/rebelliious, while still others are intellectually incurious and swayed by hyperbole. I'm pretty sure not many people here have actually read the bible. I hadn't either..I was simply arrogant at the time.

So what I would say to people here is..there is far more going on than seems apparent..if you don't believe at least that there is a spiritual reality, you're practically rubbing two sticks together. God definitely exists and will prove it to you if you humble yourself, come to Him in sincerity, with your total heart and pray. Admit you're a sinner, and ask Him to be your Lord and Savior. Anyone can know God is real. I wish I had read it earlier..would have saved me a hardship. Save yourself the trouble and find out the truth for yourself, that God is real He loves you. God bless..

-------------------------------------

I've offered up a cohesive explanation of what Eric is talking about. The entire point of this video is to mock Eric Hovind by implying that 6th grader beat him in a debate. Yet, the 6th grader had no idea what he was talking about and lost the debate by making an absolute claim. In the same way, I don't think many people have understood the argument here either and assume because of the reaction of the crowd that Eric lost. Perhaps he didn't state his case very eloquently, but he didn't lose, and of course we are missing the entirity of the actual debate that Eric had with the kids dad.

In any case, proving my personal revelation has nothing to do with the argument itself. It is an argument that proves the necessity of God by showing the impossibility of the contrary. In regards to proof, my position has always been, which is also the position of scripture, is that God works by personal revelation. You aren't going to know anything about God without that personal revelation. He does, however, give everyone enough information to seek Him out. Everyone has a conscience and knows they are morally accountable for their sins, and everyone can see in the creation evidence of a Creator. If you want to know what I am saying is true, you can sincerely ask God to come into your life and then He will reveal Himself to you. This is something you can do at any time..

You could pray something like this: Jesus, if you are everything the bible says you are, I will serve you. Please come into my life.

If you mean that He will reveal Himself.

Hey shiny blurry, you need to learn how to read. Particularly if you want to be taken seriously.

Nothing can completely eliminate uncertainty, we can only hope to reduce uncertainty. It is a false premise to say that there must be absolute certainty, and it is a false solution to say that God gives it.

Is trusting my senses because my senses tell me I was right to trust my senses circular reasoning? In an extremely technical sense, yes. And it's definitely true to say that some people are better at sensing reality than others. But that's all we have and as it turns out we can achieve some pretty cool things operating under those assumptions.

Some, for instance, seem to think that the divine maker of the Universe told them that the earth is 7000 years old. Those people are pretty bad at interpreting reality and they typically have a really bad track record of finding things like AIDS medications. But hey, they sure can feel intellectually superior to a 6th grader or they might think that they're being smart on an Internet forum and that they have figured out some massive flaw to our blind trust in the audacious assumption that everything that goes up must come down.

Others, on the other hand, use a super rigorous technique to reduce the odds that their conclusions are at odds with the reality we can sense and they do things like invent MRI machines that have this weird ability to predict the presence of tumors.

I mean, I'm inclined to believe that our understanding of physics is validated by repeated, accurate predictions of tumors and broken bones and their nature, but I don't think I should trust that. My senses could be deceiving me.

Nothing can completely eliminate uncertainty, we can only hope to reduce uncertainty.

Are you absolutely certain about that?

It is a false premise to say that there must be absolute certainty, and it is a false solution to say that God gives it.

The premise is that you have no ground for any knowledge claim, and that without God it is impossible to prove anything. If this is a false premise, make a knowledge claim and tell me your grounds for it outside of God.

Is trusting my senses because my senses tell me I was right to trust my senses circular reasoning? In an extremely technical sense, yes.

Saying your senses prove your senses is circular reasoning in any sense of the term.

And it's definitely true to say that some people are better at sensing reality than others. But that's all we have and as it turns out we can achieve some pretty cool things operating under those assumptions.

Some, for instance, seem to think that the divine maker of the Universe told them that the earth is 7000 years old. Those people are pretty bad at interpreting reality and they typically have a really bad track record of finding things like AIDS medications. But hey, they sure can feel intellectually superior to a 6th grader or they might think that they're being smart on an Internet forum and that they have figured out some massive flaw to our blind trust in the audacious assumption that everything that goes up must come down.

Others, on the other hand, use a super rigorous technique to reduce the odds that their conclusions are at odds with the reality we can sense and they do things like invent MRI machines that have this weird ability to predict the presence of tumors.

I mean, I'm inclined to believe that our understanding of physics is validated by repeated, accurate predictions of tumors and broken bones and their nature, but I don't think I should trust that. My senses could be deceiving me.

And why should those predictions be useful even 5 seconds from now? You're placing your faith in something you can't justify. What is the basis for unchanging, universal, immaterial laws in your worldview? Where do you get those outside of God?

My justification is simply that it has a good track record. If you are really trying to say that I am unreasonable to assume that all physical laws will remain more or less unchanged for the next five seconds then you demonstrate your own stupidity.

You haven't demonstrated that we need to know anything with absolute certainty. Is there any practical value to it?

Can you show me one instance where knowing that something has been the case in every conceivable instance since the dawn of time is just too vague for you?

Things seem to hum along just fine under the crazy assumption that breathing in and out is the way to go.

Hey Shinyblurry,

This is exactly why you should come over to my house and try some DMT. You said anyone who does it is under control of demons. How would you know if you havent tried? Are you saying that you do not really know anything at all?

The door is open.

Anyway, I think it is foolish for anyone to say that god does not exist and they know it. But, god could mean so many things. All I know is that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible based on older stories. It is man made, there may be some truth to it but there is some truth to everything. The kind of fascism hypocricy that today's extremist republican christians exhibit disgusts me. They would let rich, corrupt motherfuckers, manipulate them for their own gain and throw them from a plane. Their perception of reality is so completely bent by right wing think tanks and corporatism that they live in some sort of Christian inspired DaDa universe while the rich send their zombie minds to the polls to vote with their manipulated hearts and steal every last penny from their coffers as they self willingly turn a blind eye.

Is that an open offer for DMT, or do I have to question the reliability of the universe first?

My justification is simply that it has a good track record. If you are really trying to say that I am unreasonable to assume that all physical laws will remain more or less unchanged for the next five seconds then you demonstrate your own stupidity.

The main problem with your justification is that it is logically fallacious. You're still using circular reasoning. Your evidence that the future will be like the past is the past. Is it correct reasoning to use logical fallacies?

You haven't demonstrated that we need to know anything with absolute certainty. Is there any practical value to it?

Can you show me one instance where knowing that something has been the case in every conceivable instance since the dawn of time is just too vague for you?

Things seem to hum along just fine under the crazy assumption that breathing in and out is the way to go.

Well, the thing is, we live in a world of certainty, not uncertainty. What this means is that you are living a double life of sorts. You are uncertain about everything in theory, but of course you never live that way in practice; you expect everything to continue as it has from the beginning of the Creation. You expect that when you jump up you will come back down again. You expect when you say the words "juniper tree" that the sound waves will carry those words to the other persons ear, and they, using universal rules of logic, will comprehend what you're talking about. You are living according to the ideals of a Christian worldview, but simultaneously denying it with your atheism.

Did you know, for instance, that the idea in science of nature being lawfully ordered is a Christian one? It was supposed by 12 century Christians who believed that the Universe was governed by Gods laws, and that we could suss out these universal laws by investigating secondary causes. Here is some of the history of all of that:

http://bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm#introduction

So this world of certainty we live in is based in no small way off of Christian ideals and principles. You could not actually justify any of it unless you invoke an omnipotent God who created and maintains all of these things, and will continue to do so. So, the argument is the impossibility of the contrary, which is not only a denial of the world of certainty that we live in, but also the loss of any basis for rational thought.

The door is open.

Thanks.

Anyway, I think it is foolish for anyone to say that god does not exist and they know it. But, god could mean so many things. All I know is that a bunch of dudes wrote the Bible based on older stories. It is man made, there may be some truth to it but there is some truth to everything. The kind of fascism hypocricy that today's extremist republican christians exhibit disgusts me. They would let rich, corrupt motherfuckers, manipulate them for their own gain and throw them from a plane. Their perception of reality is so completely bent by right wing think tanks and corporatism that they live in some sort of Christian inspired DaDa universe while the rich send their zombie minds to the polls to vote with their manipulated hearts and steal every last penny from their coffers as they self willingly turn a blind eye.

Well, in this context God means the being that created the Universe. The scripture claims to be revelation from this God, in the person of Jesus Christ. God says we have all sinned and are accountable to Him for our sins, but He sent a Savior who paid the price for our sins so we could be forgiven and have eternal life with Him. Jesus says everyone who comes to God must go through Him:

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So, God could be many things, but there is only one way to know God according to Jesus. So, it's not something you can just pick and choose from. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, none of it is true. I have found His claims to be true.

I can't speak for your impressions of Christians as seen through the lens of our current culture, but seen through the lens of society at large Christians have been a force for good. Before the welfare system was created, the church in America was providing the social safety net, and still does in a number of ways. They're the ones running the charities, food banks, youth centers, blood drives, homeless shelters, etc. Look in any community, you will undoubtedly find Christians taking care of the poor and doing good works. I'm not saying there are no secular charities, food banks, etc, but this is something the church is well noted for.

There is some truth to what you say. Christians are not perfect, and unfortunately in the western church this sometimes becomes very apparent. You do not usually see this kind of behavior from Christians in countries where there is some cost to becoming a Christian. When there is no cost to following Christ, the church becomes lazy and apostate, as you see today in America. A good percentage of American Christians probably are not saved. This isn't though a reason to reject Jesus. He in fact predicted this behavior from Christians in Matthew 24. It is simply that we are not following His ways that you see this kind of behavior.

Question: Do you have any church background or were you raised in a secular home?

@TheSluiceGate actually the kid was pretty smart, he was saying that he was sure there was no proof of good, rather than that he is sure that there is no god, which is accurate.

I would beg to differ on this sentiment. We have little knowledge of where we come from. Even Francis Crick, one of the founders of DNA suggested that we are on Earth through panspermia from another sentient race.

Then you have to ask who created them, and who created the creators, and so on. It becomes a chain of causality. You then have two options. Either, you have to believe that something came from nothing, or, there is an eternal first cause of everything that exists. I think something coming from nothing is impossible, so an eternal first cause is the only option left. If you agree, then we'll call that God.

Who knows? The Christian perception of god in reality is quite possibly unfathomably simple, that is to say that which is the creation of all existence. Listen, I want the truth just as much as you do, that is why I gone far out to experience mystical experiences that only prove to me that whatever this is, is far more complex and loving.

It's good to hear that you are pursuing the truth. That is something I greatly respect. My question to you is, if the truth is Jesus Christ, as He claims (I am the way, the *truth* and the life), would you turn your life over to Him?

The Christian conception of God is actually very complex in some ways, and simple in others. Complex, when you consider the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of Christ. Simple, when you consider the Fathers love for His children the sacrificial love of His Son. The theology also shares this dichotomy of depth and simplicity, and it is all knit together with sinews of love and unity into the mystical body of Christ. The Christian God is, like the Universe He created, both complex and simple.

I'm not sure what you mean by more loving. I'm going to need a definition and example of what you're talking about before I reply to that.

No one can prove Jesus was raised from the dead it is a phenomenon not widely occurring. I would never say that Jesus never existed but I think it is probable that Jesus existed in a much more humble way than what is described by his disciples. Therefore, I look at it as a book of tall tales. There is nothing wrong with that, I mean if you can accept it for what it really is... a book of Tall Tales.

Presumably, if Jesus is alive, He could prove it couldn't He?

Yes, I went to a Lutheran church every Sunday for eighteen years. Most of my parents community were involved with the church. They all know my feelings on the subject and over time I have seen their Christian foundations dissolve for better or worse. For me, it is undeniably a farce of divinity. I respect Christianity, probably without Christianity I would never had wanted to seek out the real, hard truths. Christianity spoke so much of honesty and truth. I adore those concepts and unfortunately Christianity does not hold a flame to what I now know.

You will find me very much in agreement with you when you say that dead religion is a farce of divinity. When it comes down to it, there are two types of Christians in this world. Those who have a religion, and those who have a relationship. Those who have a religion are those who follow the traditions of men, and believe that to follow God is to go to church, read the bible, and pray at the suitable times. Basically, if they follow their good and bad checklist well enough, some day they will make it to Heaven. Their faith is blind and based only on what they've read, but not what they've understood to be true from experience.

Those who have a relationship are those who have a personal, intimate, experiential relationship with the living God. They have the Holy Spirit living with them, who has supernaturally transformed them into new people. These people experience the presence of God in their daily lives, and are personally guided by God in everything they do. These people know the truth, experience it, and live it out every single day. It sounds to me that your experience had the character of the former and not the latter. I am not shocked at all that you left the church under those pretenses, and I would have too. It is a story I have heard many times in the past, that people who grew up with dead religion and never learned how to have a personal relationship with Christ, quickly abandoned the faith of their parents, because either they never really believed in the first place, or they had no foundation for their beliefs, and the world quickly converted them to its ways.

There is more to this story Shinyblurry, my spiritual quest started late, after I was free from the churches hold . I am not a liar, I have never purposefully stolen anything and I treat people with honesty and compassion. I may be very left leaning but I find myself to be much more ethical, non judgemental and compassionate than most

I appreciate that you're a relatively moral person. We as humans tend to judge ourselves based on a relative standard, based on how we line up to other people. Compared to rapists and pedophiles, we're both very upstanding citizens I am sure. Compared to Hitler, we are looking almost perfect. Yet, God doesn't judge on a sliding scale; He uses an absolute standard. Gods standard for good is moral perfection, and He considers anything short of that to be evil. That is why God is holy and we are not. So, for example, you say that you're not a liar, but if you've ever told even one lie then you are in fact a liar, as a liar is a person who has lied. If you've ever stolen *anything*, regardless of its value, you're a thief. If you've ever used Gods name in vain you are a blasphemer. Gods standards are even higher than this, though, in that He consider what you've thought in your heart. For example, if you've ever even looked at a woman with lust He considers you an adulterer at heart, and Jesus says if you've ever hated anyone you've murdered them in your heart. (full disclosure: I've done all of these things) So you can see that our relative standard doesn't cut it when it comes to what God considers good, and even one sin is too many. That's why Jesus died for our sins, because we cannot meet Gods holy standard on our own.

One night maybe ten years ago, for a few seconds, and then hours I thought God had contacted me and it was weirdest thing I have ever experienced. And it was real, I mean the experience. And so my quest began and I found a partial truth after many years of research...

Tell me more about your experience of God..why was it weird, and what partial truth did you find that seemed to confirm it?

and it only raises more questions on divinity, soul, morality, the mind, the universe. Thus is life. Keep asking questions. Keep thinking. Keep researching.

I respect your search for the truth, and I think it is a good thing. Scripture says, seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be given. Knock, and the door will open. Do you believe that you have a soul?

The truth is out there, yet none of us know it yet. And I mean NO ONE.

I'll have to stop you here because you're making an absolute claim and this is self-contradictory. This is revealed by the question, "is it absolutely true that no one knows the truth?" The best you could say is that you don't know the truth, but you don't know what I know. How could you, if you don't know what the truth is?

Further, this ties into what we're discussing about the video. That there are only two routes to truth. Either you are omnipotent, or you get revelation from an omnipotent being. Since neither of us are omnipotent, there is only one possibility of either of us knowing the truth, which is an omnipotent being revealing it to us. I fully agree with you that outside of such revelation no one knows anything. But, if God gave me such revelation how would you know whether He did or not? You couldn't say no one knows the truth, because you don't know what God has or has not revealed. You only know what God has revealed to you, if anything.

Dude, you keep dancing round my question with tediously long posts. Let me be a bit more clear.

Give me one example of a physical reality that you can understand via divine revelation that I can't possibly understand via my senses or the senses of humans that are smarter than I am.

And then I want you to tell me why it is useful knowledge.

Knowledge of the spiritual realm is not physical so it is not useful to me, and young earth creationist nonsense doesn't count as something I can't understand without revelation because if it actually happened (hypothetically speaking, of course), then I could use my senses to detect it.

Let's cut to the chase here Shinyblurry:

You say that there's a John Smith (let's use that as a synonym for your god) , who lives close by, and he has absolute knowledge of the universe, and nothing can be known with certainty without his direct contact with me.

Let's for argument's sake say that, through whatever means, I become convinced by you that there is indeed this guy John Smith who does indeed have all this knowledge...

So how can I get to meet this wonderful John Smith gent? Does he actually even exist? Is he entirely made up? Is his existence some form of delusion, like a folk legend about fairies at the end of the garden? Have you dreamed of him while high on drugs? How can I work this out?

You say proof has to come through personal revelation by sincerely inviting him into your life, but this is *entirely* false. I was brought up a catholic, went to religious schooling, was baptised, made my communion, and confirmed, I preyed to him regularly. I did more than just invite him into my life, I spoke to him, and sometimes even pleaded with him, but I have never, ever, received any indication of any kind, no matter how minuscule, that he actually existed.

Even Matt Dillahunty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty) was raised a Baptist, and sought to become a minister, but now he is one of the world's most highly regarded proponents of secularism and atheism.

And what about all the existing ministers that leave religious orders and become atheists? There are currently organisations set up in the USA (such as The Clergy Project - http://clergyproject.org/) to help these people integrate back into society. I also personally know an ordained priest who left the priesthood on becoming an atheist.

Without you first proving that your god exists I can't entertain any notions that he may have any knowledge about anything. You've told me that this can be done by inviting him into your life, but this is entirely and demonstrably false.

In the absence of any proof / revelation that this omnipotent all knowing god of which you speak even exists, I'm afraid the knowledge you claim that he has must remain unproven too.

Jump the first hurdle of a god's existence, until then we're wasting our time debating what you claim he knows.

He's just going to tell you that all of those people weren't quite genuine enough in their quest for god and that by definition, someone who walked away from the faith without any sort of personal experience with God, he or she can not possibly have been a true believer.

You know, the intellectual equivalent of "Nuh Uhhhh!"

That's my whole point: to claim *that* would be bullshit.
I know from the personal testimony of those above that many did at one stage feel they had a genuine personal connection with God, and that having had that it should have provided the required proof, and made walking away near impossible.

But I'd rather hear from shiny himself, and not have us feel that someone answered for him, so what about it shiny?

Shinyblurry said this to me a while back in another thread:

"As far as being a Christian goes, you never knew Jesus Christ. That's what makes you a Christian. You had a head knowledge, but you weren't born again. " - shinyblurry

If he'll claim that about my personal spiritual journey to me in writing, then you can bet your last dollar that he'll claim that about Matt Dillahunty. Bullshit hasn't deterred him in the past.

If A is true, and A implies B, then B is true. Beleedat.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Eric Hovind, debate, young, earth, creationism, atheism' to 'Eric Hovind, debate, young earth creationism, atheism' - edited by xxovercastxx

Well Sluice, here is the problem. The catholic church teaches you that to follow God, you must do it through their church. In other words, they have made themselves the mediator between God and man. They have also supplanted the truth in the word of God with their traditions. They actually put the Pope, the traditions of the church, and the scripture on an equal level. So, to be a Catholic you must follow all of their traditions, agree with everything the pope says, do all of the sacraments, go to confession, etc etc etc. The issue is that none of this has anything to do salvation. You cannot come to know God by doing any of these things. So while you may have been talking to God, that doesn't mean you knew Him. To know God you have to be born again. This is what Jesus says about those seeking Him through traditions:

Mark 7:7

They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'

It's like this. If you needed to get to Los Angeles, and you took a plane to New York, would you expect to arrive at Los Angeles? Of course not. Trying to know God through Catholicism is like trying to reach Los Angeles by flying to New York. There are some Catholics, who, having read the bible and understood it, may have come to know God, but this would be in spite of their religion, not because of it.

Now, you bring up the question of why do some ministers fall away? Well, anyone can go to seminary and get a degree and call themselves a pastor. That isn't what makes someone a Pastor. Pastors are not educated, they are called.

Yes, some people may come to know God and still fall away. Look at what Jesus said:

Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.'

Rev 3:15 "'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot!

Rev 3:16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.

He promised the church in Laodicea that He would eject lukewarm believers from the faith. For those who know God and continually willfully sin, He says this:

Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Basically, those who come to God but don't really want to serve Him and they refuse to change, He lets them fall back into unbelief. If they ever turn around and want to come back, He will take them back again.

Right now, if you truly wanted to know God, He would reveal Himself to you. Pride may be the only thing that is getting in the way. He is knocking on your door right now; that's why we're having this conversation. It's up to you to answer it.

The trouble here, besides ignoring basically everything I've said, is that you're going off on an unrelated tangent. This doesn't have anything to do with whether absolute knowledge in the context of understanding "physical" reality is inherently superior. Obviously it's better in every conceivable way to know there is a God than to remain ignorant of it, but in any case, you can understand physical reality just fine without knowing that God exists. This is actually the point. If you can follow me here, I'll try to be brief:

You live as if certainty exists. When you jump, you never do it in fear that you'll never come back down again. When you turn on a light, you don't worry whether the light waves will instantaneously illuminate the room. Yet, there is no justification in your worldview why any of this should be so. You cannot justify even one piece of information that you know without using circular reasoning. You live in a world of certainty yet everything you know is actually uncertain. Your beliefs are in total contradiction to reality. Therefore, because of the impossibility of the contrary, God must exist. That's the argument.

@shinyblurry

Claiming that revelation is the only way to know anything is an absolute knowledge claim.

Claiming that God revealed to you that revelation is the only way to know anything is a justification by circular argument.

Believing that God cannot tell a lie is accepting a circular argument. We have only God's word that he cannot lie and liars claim to be honest all the time.

God himself has not been established and so cannot be reliably used as the fulcrum of an argument. Even among those who believe in God, there is little consensus as to his nature and attributes. I realize that you think you have it right while others have been wrong, but billions of other Christians have no doubt thought exactly the same. Until someone has something demonstrable, I do not care. "God" is just a word that people ascribe whatever definition justifies their beliefs to. Trying to build upon "God" is like trying to build a house upon a foundation of Jello.

You are correct that the laws of nature could change in 5 seconds, but we have testable, reproducible results by basing our work upon those laws (or our best approximation of them) and that is more useful to me than the formless, shifting apparition which you implore me to love and fear in their place.

My ability to ignore the infinitesimal possibility of a malfunctioning gravity well is entirely a result of me having bigger fish to fry. It is not rigorously justified, it is merely a practical concession to my finite mind. It is indeed technically fallacious and yet it has been completely accurate so far. That may very well be the limited scope us humans have to deal with.

You have not demonstrated that there must be absolute knowledge provided to us, because you have not provided an example of anything in this world that is inconsistent with an uncertain universe, nor have you shown an instance of us relying on reasonable assumptions failing in some unexpected manner.

Unless, of course, you would like to provide me an example or two. Sorry, but "obviously better in every conceivable way" just doesn't cut it. You have to give examples. Come on, with "every conceivable way" available to chose from, you should be able to come up with at least one, no?

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Worlds-Best-Cat-Toy-Keep-Kitty-Busy-For-Hours

World's Best Cat Toy Keeps Kitty Busy For Hours! has been added as a related post - related requested by messenger.

To be fair to Jello, it has a definable shape, colour, ingredients and texture, can actually support things, and can somewhat maintain its shape. God has absolutely no consistent definition or constitution. It's like building a house on a foundation of a vacuum in space.

Claiming that revelation is the only way to know anything is an absolute knowledge claim.

Claiming that God revealed to you that revelation is the only way to know anything is a justification by circular argument.

The claim is that without God you can't know anything. The proof that God exists in this argument, because we do know things, is the impossibility of the contrary.

God himself has not been established and so cannot be reliably used as the fulcrum of an argument. Even among those who believe in God, there is little consensus as to his nature and attributes. I realize that you think you have it right while others have been wrong, but billions of other Christians have no doubt thought exactly the same. Until someone has something demonstrable, I do not care. "God" is just a word that people ascribe whatever definition justifies their beliefs to. Trying to build upon "God" is like trying to build a house upon a foundation of Jello.

The argument is intended to establish the existence of God as a necessity for rational discourse. As far as what Christians believe about God, our beliefs about Jesus Christ, who He is, what He came here to do, His attributes and nature, etc, are universally agreed upon by almost everyone. The idea that there is all this infighting amongst Christians about who or what God is is false. The division has to do with various minor doctrines, most of which are not consequential to the core doctrines.

You are correct that the laws of nature could change in 5 seconds, but we have testable, reproducible results by basing our work upon those laws (or our best approximation of them) and that is more useful to me than the formless, shifting apparition which you implore me to love and fear in their place.

It's interesting that you formulate the dichotomy as either God or science, implicating that science is functioning for you as a sort of stand-in for God. After all, isn't it where you find your explanation for reality? Don't you place your faith in its omnipotence to find every answer and solve every problem? So yes, to know God you will have to displace the idol, but not science itself. Sir Issac Newton certainly didn't see it that way. He saw science as something which demonstrated Gods glory and did not conflict with his research. Obviously his view benefited all of mankind many times over.

My ability to ignore the infinitesimal possibility of a malfunctioning gravity well is entirely a result of me having bigger fish to fry. It is not rigorously justified, it is merely a practical concession to my finite mind. It is indeed technically fallacious and yet it has been completely accurate so far. That may very well be the limited scope us humans have to deal with.

I'm glad you can admit it. That's real progress.

You have not demonstrated that there must be absolute knowledge provided to us, because you have not provided an example of anything in this world that is inconsistent with an uncertain universe, nor have you shown an instance of us relying on reasonable assumptions failing in some unexpected manner.

The argument is intended to show that we all treat it as absolute knowledge in reality, and that without absolute knowledge, you don't know anything. Therefore, you live in contradiction to what you actually believe, and what you experience, and that God is the only actual way to make sense of your reality. You say you do just fine by assuming what is contrary to reason, because it works for you. Well, that's what you accuse me of doing, isn't it?

Unless, of course, you would like to provide me an example or two. Sorry, but "obviously better in every conceivable way" just doesn't cut it. You have to give examples. Come on, with "every conceivable way" available to chose from, you should be able to come up with at least one, no?

You don't see how knowing that God exists would be better than not knowing? If God exists and you don't know it, it means you are ignorant of everything that matters. It means you don't know why you're here, what you're supposed to do, and how you can achieve your greatest potential. It means that you will never have any lasting peace because you have no peace with God. It means you'll have never known the love of God, or all of the blessings that He has provisioned for you. It also means, that you'll have missed your chance for eternal life with Him. I think the benefits as well as the consequences are self-evident.

Well for someone who thinks it's super risky to go out on a limb and assume that the sun will rise tomorrow, you sure do make a lot of specific assumptions about God on the basis of the fact that they are self evident to you.

Oh, and for the 100th time I do understand your argument and for the 100th time your argument is invalid precisely because it is unreasonably extreme to say that "without absolute knowledge, you don't know anything."

It's far more accurate to say that without absolute knowledge we don't know absolutely everything, but we're working on it and we're not doing too bad, it seems.

I've been admitting that all along and I am quite comfortable with that very inevitable degree of uncertainty. Your condescending reference to my supposed "progress" only indicates that you can't read.

Your assumption that the universe must grant us this absolute knowledge is nothing more than hubris. The universe owes us nothing. It owes us no safety, no certainty and no understanding. We are damn lucky to have what little we have.

And you still didn't answer my damn question.

This doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If you have two monkeys standing next to two monkeys, you have four monkeys. In 5 seconds, unless another monkey walks up or one of them has a baby, you still have 4 monkeys.

There's no "laws of mathematics" here, it's just counting. Unless someone changes the what the words mean, you still count the same amount of monkeys. Or, perhaps, some external agent fundamentally alters the situation by adding hidden monkeys, or making invisible monkeys, or creating parallel universe monkeys that you can't count - but even in those situations, you're still just counting monkeys and missing some.

2+2 is still 4. That's a certainty. You can argue whether or not it means anything, has any value, or whether or not those monkeys are even real. But none of that matters. There's still 4 monkeys that I can see. Of that, I can be certain.

You don't need to justify "universal laws" without a lawgiver. They don't care whether you justify them or not. They don't care if you attribute them to Jesus, Odin or Zeus. They just are what they are. That's kind of the point. That wavelength is gonna be that wavelength, because it is. Just as 4 monkeys will continue to be 4 monkeys, until the situation changes.

That's not a proof, that's just some givens and a conclusion and one of the givens is, itself, in need of proof.

I formulated no dichotomy, I am simply saying that God is not an acceptable base for an argument because God still needs to be established. In the same way that "Without God you can't know anything" needs to be substantiated before it can be used as a given in a proof, God also needs to be substantiated before I'll accept arguments that presuppose his existence.

Science has a track record of working; that's where my trust in that method comes from. I would never describe it as having unlimited power; unlimited potential, perhaps, but saying science is omnipotent doesn't even feel grammatically correct to me, let alone agreeable. In fact, I find science rather inefficient since we have to spend so much time trying to disprove things we think are true, but it's the best method we've got for producing useable, repeatable results.

There is no idol; I do not worship anyone or any thing.

@braindonut @xxovercastxx

Shiny has said here more than once that the only real proof of god is his own subjective experience of god, proof that he will never reject under any circumstances or in face of any evidence. But that won't stop him from wasting your time supporting arguments he will sooner or later agree don't form proof of anything, and then fall back to his subjective experience argument.

But you haven't understood the argument @shveddy. The argument is, that without God you don't know anything. The proof that God exists is the impossibility of the contrary, since we do actually know things. During our discussion, you've been unable to justify a single knowledge claim without using logical fallacies, and you don't argue this. What you've said is that you're willing to live according to what you acknowledge as fallacious reasoning, because it works. So, rather than acknowledge the obvious, which is that you need God to make any sense out of the world, you prefer to live contrary to reason itself. This admission means you no longer have any leg to stand on in the argument. It is also, I will note, what you have accused me of doing many times.

How do you know your reasoning about all of this is valid?

@xxovercastxx

That's not a proof, that's just some givens and a conclusion and one of the givens is, itself, in need of proof.

Well, you can demonstrate it is a false premise by demonstrating one thing you know for certain, and how you know it. Could you be wrong about everything you believe?

I formulated no dichotomy, I am simply saying that God is not an acceptable base for an argument because God still needs to be established. In the same way that "Without God you can't know anything" needs to be substantiated before it can be used as a given in a proof, God also needs to be substantiated before I'll accept arguments that presuppose his existence.

The purpose of the argument is to establish the existence of God.

Science has a track record of working; that's where my trust in that method comes from. I would never describe it as having unlimited power; unlimited potential, perhaps, but saying science is omnipotent doesn't even feel grammatically correct to me, let alone agreeable. In fact, I find science rather inefficient since we have to spend so much time trying to disprove things we think are true, but it's the best method we've got for producing useable, repeatable results.

There is no idol; I do not worship anyone or any thing.

How do you know the methods of science will be valid tomorrow?

Hey @messenger my old my friend; if you're going to speak for me, it's only right that you should accurately represent my views, don't you think?

What I've said in the past is, I cannot actually prove God to anyone, because God reveals Himself through personal revelation. He gives everyone enough information to know that He is, and that they need to seek Him out. I can give people arguments and evidences which might lead someone to conclude there is a God, but the conviction itself is only something which God Himself can reveal.

And that's different how?

It's different in that, I never said my personal experience is the only real proof there is. What i have said is that God Himself makes His existence evident to every person, through their own conscience and the things He has made. And again, there are many arguments and proofs which point to God which may lead someone to that conclusion, but it will take a revelation from God to bring them to the conviction. Those looking at the evidence with materialists presuppositions will just dismiss it out of hand..presuppositions, I will add, which are based on fallacious reasoning.

Then you don't understand what the word "proof" means.

So what do you think about the video?

I thought it was kinda funny. It was an argument between a professional fundamentalist trained-from-birth debater and a six-year-old, so nothing really came out of it, though it is funny to note that this kid fared better than Theramintrees against Hovind's "truth" argument.

The argument itself is invalid because it oddly requires the other person to agree with the conclusion before being able to make any affirmative statements against it. It's the "because God" argument again.

You're probably not familiar with the argument, and you only get to see a snippet of what he is talking about..but it's not a "because God" argument. The argument attempts to establish the existence of God by the impossibility of the contrary, it does not assume it.

Here is the whole debate

I'm not watching 2+ hours of religious debate. Can you point me to the right part? Or you can paraphrase it and we'll go with your version.

My point was that I was raised a catholic, not that I was bound by it's teachings and dogma. I had even stopped going to church when the real questioning began and would have considered myself agnostic just as you said you were when god revealed himself to you.

Futhermore I am entirely open to the possibility that there could be a god, but as there is no evidence to support the claim that there is, I remain unconvinced.

But if there is a god, hey there buddy, feel free to strike me with a lightning bolt in a "Road to Damascas" type situation. If you really exist then we should all love to know the truth about it.

I'll let you know when he calls!

Repeatedly, I have demonstrated that I understand what Eric Hovind is trying to get at and repeatedly, I have explained that it is flawed because we are not guaranteed some sort of absolute certainty about life and indeed there is no indication of any such reality. That supposed need for certainty is foundational to your argument and it is entirely assumed. The second premise of your argument is flawed because despite your claims otherwise, it is rather easy to function within our limited scope of knowledge and certainty.

You haven't given any examples to the contrary, so in the eyes of everyone who does not defend their imaginary friend at all costs, you are shirking the burden of proof. I'm sorry, but you don't get to default to a universe in which we have absolute confidence in our knowledge. Especially because we so clearly do not have anything of the sort.

This is the extent to which you have addressed these concerns: "So, rather than acknowledge the obvious, which is that you need God to make any sense out of the world."

It is not obvious, it is not necessary, and I'm withholding judgement on the matter until you take the time to demonstrate why it must be so.