" "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Carl Sagan?(Or did he steal it from someone else?) I prefer it stated: What is *only* asserted without evidence *should* be dismissed as baseless.
This is a disturbing turn for Eric Hovind. He hopes to convert atheists, but this rhetoric is so bad that I showed it to a Christian friend and she's like "so this is what I sound like to you when I'm trying to convert you?" I said "yes". She said "I'm sorry"
Guitar dog. . 2 years ago. . "Sin is an imaginary disease invented to sell an imaginary cure" (don't remember where i got that from). Awesome work Paulogia. 7 replies. 127 likes. Well Jesus certainly did not say sin is an imaginary disease. Paulogia Is deadly wrong
"Clean your room" "but WHYYYYY daddy...?" "If you would like to eat, live indoors and wear clothes, you'll do as I ask." God does not have this authority of us... but a parent has this authority (and responsibility) over their kids... very poor analogy young Hovind.
You don't have to turn it into a creepy threat. There are plenty of valid reasons why kids should keep their rooms clean. How about you give one of those? Why shouldn't we teach our kids that requests require reasons?
I went to a private Christian school and they would use Kents videos as actual science. At the time, I drank the kool aid and thought I was smarter then those who were taught the truth. When I got in a debate, it didn't not go well for me lol. But yes, luckily for the Internet has come and easily destroys any argument that religion can try to offer.
I went to an ACE school back in the 80s myself. And even though we didn't have Hovind's bullshit to be inunndated with, the curriculum was just as bad, if not worse, especially in the sciences. Fortunately, I started questioning my beliefs within a year after entering the Air Force. And as I experienced more and more of the real world, my old beliefs started slowly dissolving away, The final nail in the coffin for God as far as I was concerned happened end of May 2011, when despite many many family members and friends praying hard for her, my second oldest sister finally lost her battle with a cancer she should have never had anyway (it was a super rare type that mostly affected adolescent boys). I remember on the drive here to see her one last time, I even offered that if she had a full recovery, I would believe and serve God again. A half hour after I got here, we got the call that she was gone. In light of the promise I made if she recovered, I determined once and for all that God was not only dead, but never ever existed, and that any omnipotent being that would allow someone who had done nothing wrong to suffer such a horrific ordeal was nothing but a psychotic cosmic horror unworthy of worship.
I guess I got lucky. I went to a Catholic school almost all of my life and we had religion class every year. BUT, Science was taught in science class and religion was taught in religion class. If the two clashed, Science won and religion was reinterpreted. I was fine with believing in both until my wife (who is a YEC) and brother in law (who is a baptist minister and YEC) argued with me that I couldn’t believe in both. So I studied science more and am now an atheist.
I'm astounded presuppositional apologetics is a thing. Here is the argument: Premise A: God exists. Premise B: whatever. (Literally doesn't matter as long as it doesn't contradict Premise A) Conclusion: God exists. Why would anyone spend more than 20 seconds on such drivel?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question (edit: "When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors dub it circulus in probando (reasoning in a circle)[9][17] or, more commonly, circular reasoning.")
Thanks for doing this Paul! I was once a Christian. Grew up mostly as a non-practicing Catholic. In my teenage years, I found myself being part of a Christian cult. After 5 years of daily Bible studies, i quit and took my little sister with me. I really wanted to believe like the others. I gave it 5 whole years. I just could never suspend my disbelief enough to truly commit, or ignore the blatant misogyny, racism, classism and homophobia. I just couldn’t. That experience did me in. I have been enjoying your videos so much. Had I had access to content like your back in the day, I would have walked away sooner.
Wait, wait....WAIT! These guys are PROUD of their inability to show evidence for their claims and their presuppositions? So..... what is the point of their show then? If you are just going to make empty claims then your empty claims have no more weight than any other empty claim.
They're creationists. They could as well just show a fixed screen for half an hour with the words *"believe in God! Sent us money!"* and a mesmerizing inward-rolling spiral around it... The result would be just as good for their target audience.
IKR? They should just make one single episode with both of them shouting at the camera "JUST BELIEVE IT! SERIOUSLY, COME ON! IT'S TRUE! IT SAID SO RIGHT IN THE GODDAMN BOOK!!" *credit roll*
this is probably the 3rd time i've watched this video... and i still laugh out loud each time i hear you say "the federal government invited him to take mandatory 9 year time out from society". amazing. love you, Paul. keep it up brother.
I honestly think he had it beaten into him and, even if he does know better, is too scared to say otherwise. The money is just a bonus, a consolation for that sinking fear he probably feels every time he thinks about questioning what he says. (Senior has a video where he proudly talks about how he beat the shit out of his kid for being afraid of the dentist, and then threatened to beat him even worse if he did not stop being afraid. I have no doubts these beatings went to anything else Hovind did not like his son feeling.)
He's lying. He's been around his old man long enough to know this is a money scheme without having to get a real job. Like on Dogma Debate when Sye Ten brought up taking a polygraph test about his belief in god, the host shoots right for Eric and asks him. Eric is obviously disturbed by the proposition. If he's asked if he really believes the earth is 6,000 years old etc.. he fails miserably. He and his old man have been refuted too many times by intellectually honest people. Presuppositional belief is one thing, YEC is demonstrably false and he knows it.
Which Einstein found very useful in his development of his General Theory of Relativity. Correct implementation of the implications of both Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity are essential to the GPS system now foundational to the operation of modern society.
3:30 Wait a second Paul. Haven't you said that you were a young Earth creationist and it was Creation today that convinced you the God does not exist? It seems to me that Eric is a bit incompetent if he is convincing True Believers of the opposite of what he is trying to convince others.
Another excellent video. Your calm, yet questioning tone is soothing and helps a listener focus on the words you speak rather than the emotion you or they may feel about those words. I was very impressed that you stepped outside of "pure science" and noted variations in translations of the Bible. I, personally, have read 3 translations of the Bible - Bishop's, KJV and NIV (NIV is an abomination LOL) - each with it's own "adjustments", additions, subtractions and tinkering. One mistranslation or intentional change can alter the interpretation widely. So, bravo for noting that and pointing it out so concisely and clearly. I can tell that this will be a channel I will be returning to again and again and I will look forward to each visit. Thank you, sir.
Just a friendly reminder - as someone who has served the armed forces as a commissioned officer. There are 2 people leading People who are authorities and authoristic people. I hate the latter becuase they need to pull rank (such as "I'm a priest and therefore know better than you who red and studies the bibel) A true authority comes with knowlage, somesort of wisdome and experiance of said field he/she is an authority in. Just a little example. When I was holding the rank of 2nd lieutendant I "bowed" to a private frist class becuase she was a medic and I was attending a medical class where she was teaching. (something which is normal in the german army having lower ranks teaching higher ranks in different fields due to expertiese - same as I tought a few generals and admin staff about mines and explosives). I bowed to her becuase she held true authority over the topic and I respect it. The same way as she bowed to me as soon as class was over and she was no longer the authority over the exercise. Yet I had a captain who was authoristic who always had to pull his rank to make a point even about electronics which he had no idea over but one of my soldiers was a Master of engineering in electronis. As with religious authorities, I have no problem talking to my former pastor because he helped me through quite a rugh patch of my live, funnily enough at that time I was catholic and he was a protestant and it was barly about god. Yet I respect him and now as an atheist I love arguing with him about the different philosophies and am able to admit that some of my understandment of scripture might be off and I need to look deeper into a specific topic. BUT he does that not by an authoritarien behavior but by knowing the literature better at some points which I respect. In that way yes I do trust authoriteis but dispise authoteristic people. I feel those people from answers in genesis as well as creation today is more about beeing authorsistic. A true authority doesn't hate to have his/her statement questioned (if allowed by the sitaution) but uses it to check the decision making cicle and come to a better conclusion. I hope I made it clear what I meant as english is not my first language.
Hey, here is something that might be interesting for your religious discussions with your pastor ^^ : If in the torah, bible and quran it was written : "Hell is a place where you'll experience every pain and sadness you ever caused, unless the victim forgave you. Heaven is a place where you'll experience every pleasure and joy you ever caused, unless you refuse it. When you die, you'll first go through hell once, then go through heaven once, and finally choose whether you want to live in my kindom." How much better would the world be? Or in other words : If every jew, christian and muslim believed that hurting and helping other will ultimately result in hurting and helping themselves, how many wars and crimes would have been avoided, and how many people would go around trying their best to make as many people as possible happy?
Welcome! Good to have some new blood, you are right that there was a need for someone to take the mantle from those insightful-but-now-inactive predecessors. I very much enjoy your low key style and you phrase some things in ways that I hadn't heard before - a tough feat in this subject. You earned a new subscriber. One request: would you mind turning the intro/outro music down? It's one thing for those bits to be a little louder, it's another when you have to scurry for the volume controller so as not to bother people in the office next door. :)
I'd like to second the request regarding the intro/outro. If not for having a volume wheel on my keyboard, I'd have to pause the video long enough to turn down the volume, and then turn it back up again after the intro. As it is, I keep the volume at 70 for most of the video (love the low-key voice), but have to turn the intro/outro down to 20 so it doesn't leave my ears ringing.
Eric Hovind " FAITH LITERALLY is the EVIDENCE." Showing that Eric does not know the definition of Faith, LITERALLY, or EVIDENCE. Good luck to anyone that believes this guy( or, has FAITH in him).
Hanno Nymus Totally agree. I appreciate the soft spoken calm narration, so I turn up the volume to hear it clearly, then at the end my ears are ripped open with the loud outro music at the end.
Wanted to write comment about subject, went to comments, and was surprised to find issue in top comment. Otherwise fine intro, but too loud. Please.. I sometimes watch videos late at night, and can fall asleep. Well, cant if something all of the sudden drills ears and brain
It's so nice of them to right out tell us, that they don't care where the evidence truthfully leads. Thank you this was so great. I laughed and scratched my head a ton. And Logicked changed my life as well.
Paulogia Thank you. Your channel is young but already enjoy it. It's channels like yours that help gullible people not be gullible anymore. :) I am also a former YEC.
Maths...plural...is quite commonly used in the UK where they consider each branch of math a separate subject and Eric (the creatard that he is) finds this laughable!! What a goober.
Keep this up, and we're permanently going to expect professional grade content from you, buddy. That being said, am I the only one who thinks Eric Hovind is a bad parent? "Clean your room because I said so"? Really, he couldn't come up with just one good, non-circular reason for cleaning your room? > Clean your room because it's easier to trip & hurt yourself in this mess. > Clean your room so you stop losing your toys. > Clean your room because you don't want to look like a tool when your friends visit. > Clean your room because otherwise your mom is going to donate everything in it to charity. Those are off the top of my head, none of them are circular. Finally, it's not much of an offer, but if you want a stab at a broader audience, I'd love to have you on my channel as a guest sometime. I'm enjoying your content & finding it to be some of the best in the "genre" from us smaller channels.
Well, it's my intent is to get better, but your praise is high and welcome. My rest-of-the-year is tight, what with baby Jesus season... but I'm very open to working with you. Message me and we can figure it out.
You forgot the most important reason. "Clean your room, it's a fire hazard. We don't want to be telling the fireman, our son is trapped in there. I told him to clean it, but he refused."
hey, I feel it necessary to point out that 'because I said so' isn't a circular argument. the rest is telescopic, saying 'because I said so' is just giving up and falling back to arguing from authority.
It shows why he never got on with Scientists, they knew the risks of observer bias hundreds of years ago and he's trying to teach it as a position to start picking and choosing from....
"How do we know that God's word is true?" is a silly question. If it is God's word or course it's true, that's one of the main attributes of God, his infallibility. Sensible questions would be "how do we know that God exists" and, if He does, "how do we know that the Bible accurately represents His opinions?" And the answer to both is - we don't.
Using the Bible to prove God is real because the Bible says so is circular reasoning. However, a kid continually asking his father why he needs to clean his room is not circular reasoning. It's a series of questions that all happen to be similar. It's a circular "argument" in that it's ultimately pointless to continue--because the answer won't change. There's no chain of dependency in the logic. This line of reasoning stumped me when an apologist at my college used it, but after thinking about it for half an hour at home, I realized the flaw.
"You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room" would be circular reasoning and your kid would be justified calling you moron for saying it.
+Fred Derf If a parent said "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room," that parent would be implying "Clean your room because that's what I want you to do and I don't want to argue," which is not circular reasoning. The child can ask as many times as he/she wants and the answer is still "because that's what I want you to do." Do you think parents would literally mean "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room" in a circular way? That's silly. Anyone should understand that a parent saying "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room" just doesn't want to argue. The ultimate reason is "because I say so," which isn't circular reasoning. This is not the same as reasoning that God is real because the Bible says so, while also believing the Bible is true because it's God's inspired word. The truth of the first statement is dependent on the truth of the second, and the truth of the second is dependent on the truth of the first. In the parent/child example, the parent's desire for the child to clean his/her room is not dependent on what the child asks.
+Chris Collins, writes _"If a parent said "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room," that parent would be implying [...]"_ I really don't care what you infer from the statement, the reasoning being stated is circular. _"Do you think parents would literally mean "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room" in a circular way? That's silly."_ Of course it's silly, circular reasoning is always silly. "The bible is true because the bible says it's true" is equally as silly. You're arguing semantics over an analogy... [sigh]
+Fred Derf My point was: The parent and child argument is not circular reasoning. It's a series of questions (instances of the same question) that get the same answer. The father's reason for wanting the room clean is not dependent on the child's answer. When an argument doesn't seem to go anywhere because the same points are being made, we call that a "circular argument" even though the logic isn't necessarily circular. Whereas, if you say "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's God's word," then God's existence is dependent on the Bible being true, and the truth of the Bible is dependent on God's existence. This is a paradox. The father/child argument is not. There is a difference.
I’ve been following your videos for years but only stumbled across this one now. It truly is exceptionally good! Completely devastating to young Hovind and his enablers. They really have no shame.
The comment about Euclid and parallel lines is probably a poor recollection of Euclid's Fifth Postulate (the best known of his axioms/postulates). It is true that in mathematics we do use axioms as a starting point, but considerable effort is put into ensuring they are basic, minimal and independent. And it is just (pure) mathematics, not science. If you want to mess with your mind some time, try reading the ZFC axioms of Set Theory.
And the parallel postulate was hotly contested because many DIDN'T consider it sufficiently obvious and removing it is necessary to work with geometry on a sphere or hyperplane.
+Josh White "Hyperplane" seems like a bad term to refer to the hyperbolic plane, because it sounds more like something related to higherdimensional space, like how a tesseract is also known as a "hypercube".
Math is inherently an abstract concept. Maths exists as logical constructs because of the presuppositions made about them. That's why maths can be proven. Maths can be used to describe reality, but maths aren't real. A two doesn't actually exist (other than conceptually), you can't get a box and fill it with a bunch of two, you can't make a pile of equals and I can't go to my neighbour's and borrow a cop of square roots. BTW: I have no problem accepting god as an abstract concept.
Extra history had a really great series on postulate 5 and how non Euclidean geometry came about, I highly recommend a watch for the cliff, cliff notes.
@@fred_derf on the point of mathematics not existing outside of as a conceptual thing, that is a rather, unique, debate that has been going on for quite a while in the intersection of mathematics and philosophy To my knowledge there isn't a broad consensus, but overall it bears little to no effect on how math is performed
Had I just wanted to "live in sin" as they so claim, I would have stayed a Christian. Back then all I had to do was feel guilty and apologize to God and all was forgiven no matter what I did. Whether I hurt someone's feelings, stole money, broke something, or whatever. Apologize to Jesus and feel bad about it was all I needed and I knew all was forgiven. Now as an atheist, if I do wrong then I have to own up to what I did and make amends with the person I hurt. Leaving the faith didn't give me a free ticket to do all the bad I wanted. As a matter of fact it made me morally accountable for my actions. Their attempt at claiming all unbelievers just want to sin is a failed attempt at putting themselves up on a nonexistent moral pedestal when they represent the antithesis of morality. They in fact believe in a total perversion of it. Who would ever accept a system in which we actively punished innocent people for the crimes of others? Would we think justice is served by putting away someone who never murdered someone, even if they volunteered, so that the murderer can remain free? If not, then why do theists insist that is an all good gods plan for the universe?
There's one flaw in demanding "evidence" before believing something: You didn't specify that the evidence must also be _valid,_ verifiable, testable, tested, and related to the subject in question. When you just say that you need "evidence" to believe something, that's when people like Eric come and show you a boatload of stuff, claiming for it to be "evidence", and when you refute that evidence, these people like Eric think "he asked for evidence, but when I gave him tons of it, he just ignored it; therefore he isn't _really_ asking for evidence, he's just giving an excuse not to believe." Skepticism is not only about demanding evidence, but more importantly, requiring a certain _standard_ of evidence. As said, it's not enough to have "evidence", but for it to be valid, verifiable, testable, and so on. And the thing being proved must be falsifiable as well (in other words, it must be possible to give evidence and perform tests that, if positive, would disprove the claim). But how to make people like Eric understand that? Maybe it's impossible.
+WarpRulez, writes _"There's one flaw in demanding "evidence" before believing something: You didn't specify that the evidence must also be valid, verifiable, testable, tested, and related to the subject in question."_ That's why I demand sufficient good evidence.
It sounds like there has been some kind of marketing conference. Evangelicals are slowly coming to the same conclusion academics have known for a long time. There is no reasonable argument for Christianity. Perhaps more significantly, they've failed to make any significant in-roads to sell stuff to the mainstream. So, they're changing up marketing strategy. They're going to have to focus on making money from the already-converted. Just goes to show, this is entertainment. It never was about any kind of truth. It's about selling stuff. The problem is they can only really hope to sell you one Bible. So, you need to buy all these other books, DVDs, and whatever other stuff you'll buy. Can you imagine Ray Comfort or Eric Hovind giving away all their money to a charity to feed hungry children? In the Bible, which they claim to believe, it's the merchants of religion who were thrown out of the temple.
It is not just that there is no valid argument for Christianity. There is no valid argument for theism of any kind, especially not for *monotheism.* “On Human Suffering and the Concept of God”- the psychological nature of religions. neomodernistpoetry.blogspot.com/2018/11/on-human-suffering-and-concept-of-god.html currently being revised at homoeroticpoems.blogspot.com/2018/06/on-human-suffering-and-concept-of-god.html
I have read bits of the Bible over the years. There is nothing in it to convince me that there is a God. I have read many a Better Book written by authors .The only God in the Bible are the Gods people make up themselves. If you threw out the Bible and all the Science we know to date for one thousand years. And start again with Science and Religion. Science will always be the same, whereas who knows what will happen to religion. ( Thanks Ricky Gervais)
Eric, you stand in front of your child to tell him to clean his room. He can hear you, see you, smell you, touch you. You're real. Yahweh, on the other hand, is invisible, inaudible, untouchable, unsmellable. We can't even hear him telling us to clean our rooms. So, how is that a good analogy?
Eric:"Faith doesn't *require* evidence." Corrected statement:"Faith doesn't *allow* evidence. It requires ignoring all evidence that //might// weaken your faith."
The REAL issue regarding whether Batman would beat Wolverine or vice versa is not that they're fictional characters. It's that they belong in entirely different fictional universes, both of which operate according to their own sets of rules, and both of which are owned by a different company...
Why does Eric as a grown up man not know a better reason for cleaning a room than "because i say so"? Maybe because Kent never bothered to give any better ones??? I can come up with lots of stuff... because we like it when the house is tidy, because your stuff has cost a lot of money and there is no reason to let it go to waste, because it is a hygiene and safety risk to have shit lying all around (it could hurt you or make you sick to just have everything lie anywhere) or even "because you've done something we did not like and now you have to do something so earn back your privileges as a punishment and bringing a bit of order back into your personal stuff seems something even a 9 year old can do" ;) Eric really IS a single giant disappointment, regardless of what he tries to do. It never ends well. Ouch... "Why" do parallel lines never meet? Because the world Parallel already MEANS "lines that do never meet but stay at a constant distance for their common length". Yes it is axiomatic and cannot be proven, but being true by definition isn't the same thing in math, where we NEED to put down definitions or nobody would know what "multiplied by" means or "equal" as it would be in Logic when you say "a universe is created and therefore needs a creator" (while the thought "IF the universe is created it needs a cause for being created" is logical, assuming a personal creator isn't and presupposing creation isn't either)
Well their logic also doesn't hold water if they axiomatically presuppose the AUTHORITY of god... There are lots of situations where "i create" and yet still wouldn't have the right to "judge", because i already did the creating against law and order... like building an extension to my house breaking zoning laws and not getting a permit first or siring a child through rape or "tuning" my car illegally... nothing of these "creations" does make me owner of the shit i've done with the exclusive power to judge, they make me lawbreaker and probably also charged and convicted. Also human moral understanding tends to go from "a parent has ultimate authority" to "a child has rights of their own and a parent can't just do what they want with the child, especially if it hurts or harms the kid and might kill it". WHY would god be any better off in regards to his "creation"? And where are his responsibilities to HELP the creation go along fine? Natural Disasters, Plague, Satan roaming freely to corrupt everything even worse than it already is... God is a pretty negligent landlord for all this authority he supposedly enjoys. It's just a one way deal? Why would we care if he LOVES us? He brought us in the world and SHOULD be culpable to not casually bring us out of it again, especially with his Calvinball rule aka "sin" that seems pretty harsh with its eternal consequences ;)
There's some decent history in places. There's tons of obviously made up crap (pretty much everything in Exodus and earlier), but a lot of the events later in the Bible seem to have a general basis in reality, like the Assyrians taking over Israel.
poppa smurf. . 2 years ago. . if you discount those parts of the bible that aren't literally true, then the rest (about 12 words, i believe) are 100% true.. 2 replies. 7 likes. why then did jesus often quote the old Testament prpphets
Web Flotsam. . 2 years ago. . There's some decent history in places. There's tons of obviously made up crap (pretty much everything in Exodus and earlier), but a lot of the events later in the Bible seem to have a general basis in reality, like the Assyrians taking over Israel.. . 1 like. ok you are clueless...!!! first there would absolutely be no Isreal today if Moses had not left Egypt with his poeple the recent archeology finds of real mt Sinai in Saudi Arabia is just one of many reasons to support the Biblical History
I listened to this video and it sounds like the arguments that I have with my bible-thumping relatives. Finally, I ask them, “would you be a Christian today if you were born into a family of another faith?” This is when the personal attacks generally begin.
The only thing I approved of from these two Christians was when the Brit told the American that we say "maths" and not "math". Incidentally, if mathematics is plural, why shouldn't the abbreviation be?
Eric is right about one thing. When they leave the Bible out of a debate they have already lost. Because the argument they seem to always fall back on is "because the Bible says so". So when you take away that one point, they have nothing.
Eric was in a AronRa anti Ham Ark protest and Eric was destroyed. But all Eric says is "I'm saying if you don't know everything then you can't know anything to be absolutely true."
amazing to me that a human being can say “the faith in those things isn’t evidence because they’re not true, but our faith in our thing is evidence because it’s true” with all sincerity and not implode with the sheer levels of intellectual dishonesty.
They claim the only reason people reject the Bible is that they want to sin? I once considered joining a seminary. I was in a catholic school and a recruiter came around. I thought about it. I decided that if I were going to take this seriously I should read something more substantial than a children’s bible. Then I discovered that I couldn’t take what I was reading seriously. I couldn’t differentiate what I was reading from mythology. It certainly seemed to contradict what I knew about science. That’s pretty much where my Christianity ended. I think I was around 12. I wasn’t even thinking about sinning yet. I just couldn’t reconcile the Bible and reality. Maybe if I were older or asked questions about what I read, maybe I would have had a more nuanced response. Maybe even remaining catholic. I don’t know. I’ve often wondered if creationists have a similarly simplistic response to reading the Bible and worry about thinking as I did. That’s why they fight science so hard?
It is amazing how the way that the defense has changed over the years. However, there is one thing that is consistent, Paulogia has not changed. Thanks for keeping them up over the years.
"Because I said so" is never a good enough reason for anything. Even as a child that line pissed me off. Because it doesn't tell me anything. Eric loves that line because the people that follow it dont have to think then.
They gnaw on and on without arriving at any good reasons for faith in their god and their last resort to convince people is: "disbelievers just want to sin". Thanks Eric, that's very mature of you.
It's a simple and flawless formula. Believer: " The Bible is the word of God." Non believer: How do you know that? Believer: "The Bible says so." Non believer: I thought the Bible was written by men. Believer: "God told them what to write." Non believer: How do you know that? Believer: "The Bible says so." The reasoning is flawlessly circular.
I don't think my parents ever said "because I said so" to me. It turns out it's possible to parent without that phrase. The trick is to not make arbitrary rules.
great video, thanks for summarizing them so we don't have to watch. I just wanted to point out a correction on your list of Christians who accept old earth and/or evolution. Biologos was founded by Francis Collins (who has stepped down from leadership) and Hugh Ross is with Reasons to Believe. RTB rejects evolution but accepts old universe science. (RTB has some odd ways to accomplish this through progressive creation and "soulish" animals). That doesn't fundamentally change your point just FYI. There is a video on Thomistictheist's channel that has Hugh Ross, Eric Hovind, Ken Hamm and Ray Comfort discussing their differences. it's worth a watch. And again, thanks for the video, I'll be sure to watch your other ones.
Yes... I realized the mixup once the video was posted. You're exactly correct. I actually had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Ross since then and I hope to have more chances to do so. Very smart man, with calming demeanor... despite our disagreements. Thanks for watching. Please spread the word!
Best comment ever: “They don’t want to look at the RIGHT evidence”. All these years practicing law, I’ve been screwing up by trying to deal with ALL of the evidence instead of ignoring the WRONG evidence and looking at the RIGHT evidence.
Good stuff. Balance between intro music and the audio of the show is off tho bro. You had me scrabbling for the volume at the start to turn it down then soon as it was over turning it up to hear what you were saying That's nasty music by the way, almost anything would be better. Apart from that. Great stuff.
So as a Christian who believe the story of the flood a myth, according to the Hovind's do I not believe the flood because of my sin? Isn't accepting Jesus enough to remove my sin? Their theology is an affront to the gospel of grace.
Why should I clean my room? Because it's my house, I pay for your room, therefore I get to decide if I want it cleaned up, or I want it messy. I want it cleaned up, therefore you will clean it up. This is NOT a circular argument. This is an answer to the WHY. It may not be an answer the kid likes or even agrees with, but it is, in fact an answer.
I agree that this is not a circular argument, but it's still an argument from authority. I always wanted an argument from logic, or at least from contrasts.
FYI, "two parallel lines never meet" is actually an assumption in Euclidean geometry, not a definition (strictly speaking he misstated the assumption, but it's clear he's referring to Euclid's 5th postulate - given a line and a point not on that line there is exactly one line passing through the given point which does not intersect the given line). You can negate it and still get a consistent geometry (projective or hyperbolic geometry, depending on what it is replaced with). In no Platonic sense then is "two parallel lines never meet" objectively true without specifying a context about which we are more specifically speaking. So yes, you did assume it in math. Not on the "authority" of Euclid, but because it gave interesting and useful results as an assumption and it is consistent with the preceding assumptions.
Oh, the context of "better or worse" regarding the Hovinds, lol. Almost makes my head hurt. Daddy definitely is the smarter, more clever of the two. Junior's initial parroting added nothing and in some cases even took away And Eric's weaselish looks and shouting delivery don't help.
Paulogia, I too am an atheist. I was trying to point out the contradictory nature of King James Version of this verse: it invokes the concept of evidence while also claiming that we need this non-sensory faculty of faith to obtain that evidence. I hope this makes my statement clear, where I failed to do so in my initial comment.
I just want a couple of questions answered: If the Bible is infallible because it is the word of God, which Bible are we talking about? Is it the King James Bible? Is it the Amplified Bible? Is it The Beloved and I: New Jubilees Version of the Sacred Scriptures in Verse? And is the version written in Aramaic, English, Greek, or any of the other languages? There is no question I that there are differences based on translations, so we can’t say the translators were infallible. It is also true the the Catholic Church, which has been rejected by most of these Protestant denominations, did the job correctly when they chose the books that would be included and those that wouldn’t? And while we are at it, how can you say the Catholics were right about the Bible, but wrong about other aspects of Christianity?
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
anna elvira postma Hitchens Razor
Anyone comes to me with presuppositional arguments deserves to be humiliated for degrading the dignity of reason and logic.
@@justsomeguy2825 Unfortunately presups feel no shame or humiliation. That requires at least some level of thought or self awareness.
" "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Carl Sagan?(Or did he steal it from someone else?)
I prefer it stated:
What is *only* asserted without evidence *should* be dismissed as baseless.
@Oucast American don't be butthurt about the lack of evidence for creation. Be butthurt that you fell for religious indoctrination!!.
This is a disturbing turn for Eric Hovind. He hopes to convert atheists, but this rhetoric is so bad that I showed it to a Christian friend and she's like "so this is what I sound like to you when I'm trying to convert you?" I said "yes". She said "I'm sorry"
The worst part of this circus is the followers.
@@JamesRichardWiley at least I would like to go to a circus
A Christian who doesn’t try to convert you is a good Christian(they do exist amazingly so 😂)
I showed this to my religious friends and they hit me with a no true scotsman. "My version of religion is much more rational than theirs."
Wow
"Sin is an imaginary disease invented to sell an imaginary cure" (don't remember where i got that from).
Awesome work Paulogia
Awesome quote
SIN - Self Inflicted Nonsense
Like jilly juice to candida.
Hitchens, I believe.
Guitar dog. . 2 years ago. . "Sin is an imaginary disease invented to sell an imaginary cure" (don't remember where i got that from).
Awesome work Paulogia. 7 replies. 127 likes.
Well Jesus certainly did not say sin is an imaginary disease.
Paulogia Is deadly wrong
Proof? *opens Bible* Where we're going, we don't need "Proof"
Masterful.
Nekroz_Of_Super_Dora back to the future 1 and 2 reference just change to make this funny joke 😄
HAH! perfect.
Proof!? I'd settle for an indication of plausibility, as most of their assertions aren't plausible on their faces.
Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence!
"Clean your room"
"but WHYYYYY daddy...?"
"If you would like to eat, live indoors and wear clothes, you'll do as I ask."
God does not have this authority of us... but a parent has this authority (and responsibility) over their kids... very poor analogy young Hovind.
You don't have to turn it into a creepy threat. There are plenty of valid reasons why kids should keep their rooms clean. How about you give one of those? Why shouldn't we teach our kids that requests require reasons?
Also, the kid can see, hear, feel, smell his father. We can't even hear Yahweh telling us to clean our room.
I went to a private Christian school and they would use Kents videos as actual science. At the time, I drank the kool aid and thought I was smarter then those who were taught the truth. When I got in a debate, it didn't not go well for me lol.
But yes, luckily for the Internet has come and easily destroys any argument that religion can try to offer.
Glad we both found our way out, Sam.
Welcome to reality, we have punch and pie.
I went to an ACE school back in the 80s myself. And even though we didn't have Hovind's bullshit to be inunndated with, the curriculum was just as bad, if not worse, especially in the sciences.
Fortunately, I started questioning my beliefs within a year after entering the Air Force. And as I experienced more and more of the real world, my old beliefs started slowly dissolving away,
The final nail in the coffin for God as far as I was concerned happened end of May 2011, when despite many many family members and friends praying hard for her, my second oldest sister finally lost her battle with a cancer she should have never had anyway (it was a super rare type that mostly affected adolescent boys).
I remember on the drive here to see her one last time, I even offered that if she had a full recovery, I would believe and serve God again. A half hour after I got here, we got the call that she was gone. In light of the promise I made if she recovered, I determined once and for all that God was not only dead, but never ever existed, and that any omnipotent being that would allow someone who had done nothing wrong to suffer such a horrific ordeal was nothing but a psychotic cosmic horror unworthy of worship.
I guess I got lucky. I went to a Catholic school almost all of my life and we had religion class every year. BUT, Science was taught in science class and religion was taught in religion class. If the two clashed, Science won and religion was reinterpreted. I was fine with believing in both until my wife (who is a YEC) and brother in law (who is a baptist minister and YEC) argued with me that I couldn’t believe in both. So I studied science more and am now an atheist.
@@aurorafrost288 Peace to you. Not religious peace. Peace.
I'm astounded presuppositional apologetics is a thing. Here is the argument:
Premise A: God exists.
Premise B: whatever. (Literally doesn't matter as long as it doesn't contradict Premise A)
Conclusion: God exists.
Why would anyone spend more than 20 seconds on such drivel?
Unsettled On Purpose Circular reason
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
(edit: "When the fallacy of begging the question is committed in more than one step, some authors dub it circulus in probando (reasoning in a circle)[9][17] or, more commonly, circular reasoning.")
Unsettled On Purpose I was referring to hovind circular reason, not to you. :)
Yup, I was agreeing with you in my round-about way.
Unsettled On Purpose good
"they're two consenting lines, they can do what ever they want" best quote
That line at the end: "Do you care if your beliefs correspond with reality?" hit me pretty hard.
Take the blue pill!
Thanks for doing this Paul! I was once a Christian. Grew up mostly as a non-practicing Catholic. In my teenage years, I found myself being part of a Christian cult. After 5 years of daily Bible studies, i quit and took my little sister with me. I really wanted to believe like the others. I gave it 5 whole years. I just could never suspend my disbelief enough to truly commit, or ignore the blatant misogyny, racism, classism and homophobia. I just couldn’t. That experience did me in. I have been enjoying your videos so much. Had I had access to content like your back in the day, I would have walked away sooner.
Can you describe this misogyny, classism, and racism defined in the NT, or is this with the non-christian catholic church taught you?
" with the advent of Google, RUclips, and a pause button" What a great line!
Wait, wait....WAIT! These guys are PROUD of their inability to show evidence for their claims and their presuppositions? So..... what is the point of their show then? If you are just going to make empty claims then your empty claims have no more weight than any other empty claim.
I would agree all around... and the point I was hoping would come across.
They're creationists. They could as well just show a fixed screen for half an hour with the words *"believe in God! Sent us money!"* and a mesmerizing inward-rolling spiral around it... The result would be just as good for their target audience.
An empty claim is no more useful than an empty paper bag, easily blown away by the wind of falsification.
IKR? They should just make one single episode with both of them shouting at the camera "JUST BELIEVE IT! SERIOUSLY, COME ON! IT'S TRUE! IT SAID SO RIGHT IN THE GODDAMN BOOK!!" *credit roll*
Flevir At least you can put things in an empty paper bag.
this is probably the 3rd time i've watched this video... and i still laugh out loud each time i hear you say "the federal government invited him to take mandatory 9 year time out from society". amazing.
love you, Paul. keep it up brother.
I can't tell if Eric believes what he's saying OR he's lying through his perfect teeth to keep that dolla dolla bill rolling in.
That's the million dollar question.
I honestly think he had it beaten into him and, even if he does know better, is too scared to say otherwise. The money is just a bonus, a consolation for that sinking fear he probably feels every time he thinks about questioning what he says. (Senior has a video where he proudly talks about how he beat the shit out of his kid for being afraid of the dentist, and then threatened to beat him even worse if he did not stop being afraid. I have no doubts these beatings went to anything else Hovind did not like his son feeling.)
Paulogia It's the multi-million dollar question
He's lying. He's been around his old man long enough to know this is a money scheme without having to get a real job. Like on Dogma Debate when Sye Ten brought up taking a polygraph test about his belief in god, the host shoots right for Eric and asks him. Eric is obviously disturbed by the proposition. If he's asked if he really believes the earth is 6,000 years old etc.. he fails miserably. He and his old man have been refuted too many times by intellectually honest people. Presuppositional belief is one thing, YEC is demonstrably false and he knows it.
His father was Kent. His life was already terrible before he was born.
It may be a circular argument and you are your children's ultimate authority but at least they can see you, hear you and know that you exist.
Two parallel lines never meet. Except in non-Euclidean geometry.
Which Einstein found very useful in his development of his General Theory of Relativity. Correct implementation of the implications of both Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity are essential to the GPS system now foundational to the operation of modern society.
Evidence? Evidence? WE DON'T NEED NO STUNKING EVIDENCE!
3:30 Wait a second Paul. Haven't you said that you were a young Earth creationist and it was Creation today that convinced you the God does not exist?
It seems to me that Eric is a bit incompetent if he is convincing True Believers of the opposite of what he is trying to convince others.
Another excellent video. Your calm, yet questioning tone is soothing and helps a listener focus on the words you speak rather than the emotion you or they may feel about those words. I was very impressed that you stepped outside of "pure science" and noted variations in translations of the Bible. I, personally, have read 3 translations of the Bible - Bishop's, KJV and NIV (NIV is an abomination LOL) - each with it's own "adjustments", additions, subtractions and tinkering. One mistranslation or intentional change can alter the interpretation widely. So, bravo for noting that and pointing it out so concisely and clearly. I can tell that this will be a channel I will be returning to again and again and I will look forward to each visit. Thank you, sir.
In high school, I memorized most of the New Testament in the NIV, so you'll have to forgive me if I slip into abomination mode now and again.
Paulogia LOL All is forgiven.
+Paulogia wasn't there something about how it was harder for a rich man to get into paradise than for a camel to crawl through a needles eye?
think about this question: if a robot that its identical to a human need a designer- why not a human if they are both identical
If a bicycle were identical to a fish would it still be a bicycle?
Just a friendly reminder - as someone who has served the armed forces as a commissioned officer.
There are 2 people leading
People who are authorities and authoristic people.
I hate the latter becuase they need to pull rank (such as "I'm a priest and therefore know better than you who red and studies the bibel)
A true authority comes with knowlage, somesort of wisdome and experiance of said field he/she is an authority in.
Just a little example. When I was holding the rank of 2nd lieutendant I "bowed" to a private frist class becuase she was a medic and I was attending a medical class where she was teaching. (something which is normal in the german army having lower ranks teaching higher ranks in different fields due to expertiese - same as I tought a few generals and admin staff about mines and explosives). I bowed to her becuase she held true authority over the topic and I respect it. The same way as she bowed to me as soon as class was over and she was no longer the authority over the exercise.
Yet I had a captain who was authoristic who always had to pull his rank to make a point even about electronics which he had no idea over but one of my soldiers was a Master of engineering in electronis.
As with religious authorities, I have no problem talking to my former pastor because he helped me through quite a rugh patch of my live, funnily enough at that time I was catholic and he was a protestant and it was barly about god. Yet I respect him and now as an atheist I love arguing with him about the different philosophies and am able to admit that some of my understandment of scripture might be off and I need to look deeper into a specific topic. BUT he does that not by an authoritarien behavior but by knowing the literature better at some points which I respect.
In that way yes I do trust authoriteis but dispise authoteristic people.
I feel those people from answers in genesis as well as creation today is more about beeing authorsistic.
A true authority doesn't hate to have his/her statement questioned (if allowed by the sitaution) but uses it to check the decision making cicle and come to a better conclusion.
I hope I made it clear what I meant as english is not my first language.
Hey, here is something that might be interesting for your religious discussions with your pastor ^^ :
If in the torah, bible and quran it was written :
"Hell is a place where you'll experience every pain and sadness you ever caused, unless the victim forgave you.
Heaven is a place where you'll experience every pleasure and joy you ever caused, unless you refuse it.
When you die, you'll first go through hell once, then go through heaven once, and finally choose whether you want to live in my kindom."
How much better would the world be?
Or in other words :
If every jew, christian and muslim believed that hurting and helping other will ultimately result in hurting and helping themselves, how many wars and crimes would have been avoided, and how many people would go around trying their best to make as many people as possible happy?
"You did good." Sincerely. Thumbs up.
Jesus... these people are literally a parody of themselves.
Welcome! Good to have some new blood, you are right that there was a need for someone to take the mantle from those insightful-but-now-inactive predecessors. I very much enjoy your low key style and you phrase some things in ways that I hadn't heard before - a tough feat in this subject. You earned a new subscriber.
One request: would you mind turning the intro/outro music down? It's one thing for those bits to be a little louder, it's another when you have to scurry for the volume controller so as not to bother people in the office next door. :)
I'm not taking a mantle... just pitching in to help. I'll be working to keep that sub... thanks.
I'd like to second the request regarding the intro/outro. If not for having a volume wheel on my keyboard, I'd have to pause the video long enough to turn down the volume, and then turn it back up again after the intro. As it is, I keep the volume at 70 for most of the video (love the low-key voice), but have to turn the intro/outro down to 20 so it doesn't leave my ears ringing.
Eric Hovind " FAITH LITERALLY is the EVIDENCE."
Showing that Eric does not know the definition of Faith, LITERALLY, or EVIDENCE.
Good luck to anyone that believes this guy( or, has FAITH in him).
Great Video. But your intro music is way too loud!
Hanno Nymus Totally agree. I appreciate the soft spoken calm narration, so I turn up the volume to hear it clearly, then at the end my ears are ripped open with the loud outro music at the end.
Wanted to write comment about subject, went to comments, and was surprised to find issue in top comment.
Otherwise fine intro, but too loud. Please.. I sometimes watch videos late at night, and can fall asleep.
Well, cant if something all of the sudden drills ears and brain
shut up
I like it!!
Agreed! Very annoying!
Presupposition: My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts.
It's so nice of them to right out tell us, that they don't care where the evidence truthfully leads. Thank you this was so great. I laughed and scratched my head a ton. And Logicked changed my life as well.
LOL at 14:32 where calling it "maths" is apparently the most ridiculous thing Eric Hovind has ever heard, while talking about Creation.
in future videos, I will be exploring the popular creationist-made-up word "evidences"
Also could you cover the creationist term "information?"
absolutely!
Paulogia Thank you. Your channel is young but already enjoy it. It's channels like yours that help gullible people not be gullible anymore. :)
I am also a former YEC.
Maths...plural...is quite commonly used in the UK where they consider each branch of math a separate subject and Eric (the creatard that he is) finds this laughable!! What a goober.
"Though my mom IS an excellent cook, thanks mom"
LOVE IT!
Keep this up, and we're permanently going to expect professional grade content from you, buddy.
That being said, am I the only one who thinks Eric Hovind is a bad parent? "Clean your room because I said so"? Really, he couldn't come up with just one good, non-circular reason for cleaning your room?
> Clean your room because it's easier to trip & hurt yourself in this mess.
> Clean your room so you stop losing your toys.
> Clean your room because you don't want to look like a tool when your friends visit.
> Clean your room because otherwise your mom is going to donate everything in it to charity.
Those are off the top of my head, none of them are circular.
Finally, it's not much of an offer, but if you want a stab at a broader audience, I'd love to have you on my channel as a guest sometime. I'm enjoying your content & finding it to be some of the best in the "genre" from us smaller channels.
Well, it's my intent is to get better, but your praise is high and welcome. My rest-of-the-year is tight, what with baby Jesus season... but I'm very open to working with you. Message me and we can figure it out.
At least he didn't say, "Clean your room or I'll break the other arm this time."
You forgot the most important reason. "Clean your room, it's a fire hazard. We don't want to be telling the fireman, our son is trapped in there. I told him to clean it, but he refused."
hey, I feel it necessary to point out that 'because I said so' isn't a circular argument. the rest is telescopic, saying 'because I said so' is just giving up and falling back to arguing from authority.
Paulogia
Great Scott, I predict Fun times ahead. I can't wait to see what you two will do. 😺
"We need to taint the scientific method to accept the evidence. " -creationists.
It shows why he never got on with Scientists, they knew the risks of observer bias hundreds of years ago and he's trying to teach it as a position to start picking and choosing from....
Imagine if courts gave the verdict before hearing the evidence. This is madness.
"How do we know that God's word is true?" is a silly question. If it is God's word or course it's true, that's one of the main attributes of God, his infallibility. Sensible questions would be "how do we know that God exists" and, if He does, "how do we know that the Bible accurately represents His opinions?" And the answer to both is - we don't.
How do you know one of the attributes of God is infallibility?
@@victorhiggins2118 We don't
@@richardmooney383 you claimed we do
@victorhiggins2118 Sorry. I should have written "putative attributes". All His attributes are putative because he doesn' exist.
Hey man, I was part of the round table group that skyped with you a few weeks ago. Thank you for sharing your story, it meant a lot to me.
thanks, Gon. welcome!
Using the Bible to prove God is real because the Bible says so is circular reasoning. However, a kid continually asking his father why he needs to clean his room is not circular reasoning. It's a series of questions that all happen to be similar. It's a circular "argument" in that it's ultimately pointless to continue--because the answer won't change. There's no chain of dependency in the logic.
This line of reasoning stumped me when an apologist at my college used it, but after thinking about it for half an hour at home, I realized the flaw.
"You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room" would be circular reasoning and your kid would be justified calling you moron for saying it.
+Fred Derf
If a parent said "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room," that parent would be implying "Clean your room because that's what I want you to do and I don't want to argue," which is not circular reasoning. The child can ask as many times as he/she wants and the answer is still "because that's what I want you to do."
Do you think parents would literally mean "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room" in a circular way? That's silly. Anyone should understand that a parent saying "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room" just doesn't want to argue. The ultimate reason is "because I say so," which isn't circular reasoning.
This is not the same as reasoning that God is real because the Bible says so, while also believing the Bible is true because it's God's inspired word. The truth of the first statement is dependent on the truth of the second, and the truth of the second is dependent on the truth of the first. In the parent/child example, the parent's desire for the child to clean his/her room is not dependent on what the child asks.
+Chris Collins, writes _"If a parent said "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room," that parent would be implying [...]"_
I really don't care what you infer from the statement, the reasoning being stated is circular.
_"Do you think parents would literally mean "You have to clean your room because you have to clean your room" in a circular way? That's silly."_
Of course it's silly, circular reasoning is always silly. "The bible is true because the bible says it's true" is equally as silly.
You're arguing semantics over an analogy... [sigh]
+Fred Derf
My point was: The parent and child argument is not circular reasoning. It's a series of questions (instances of the same question) that get the same answer. The father's reason for wanting the room clean is not dependent on the child's answer. When an argument doesn't seem to go anywhere because the same points are being made, we call that a "circular argument" even though the logic isn't necessarily circular.
Whereas, if you say "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because it's God's word," then God's existence is dependent on the Bible being true, and the truth of the Bible is dependent on God's existence. This is a paradox. The father/child argument is not.
There is a difference.
You're still arguing semantics over an analogy... [double-sigh]
I’ve been following your videos for years but only stumbled across this one now. It truly is exceptionally good! Completely devastating to young Hovind and his enablers. They really have no shame.
I can't stop thinking about playing chess with a pigeon.
Should any creationist who cares about the truth stumble across your video, I don't think they could honestly continue to hold their views.
best. comment. thank you. my goal.
The comment about Euclid and parallel lines is probably a poor recollection of Euclid's Fifth Postulate (the best known of his axioms/postulates). It is true that in mathematics we do use axioms as a starting point, but considerable effort is put into ensuring they are basic, minimal and independent. And it is just (pure) mathematics, not science.
If you want to mess with your mind some time, try reading the ZFC axioms of Set Theory.
And the parallel postulate was hotly contested because many DIDN'T consider it sufficiently obvious and removing it is necessary to work with geometry on a sphere or hyperplane.
+Josh White
"Hyperplane" seems like a bad term to refer to the hyperbolic plane, because it sounds more like something related to higherdimensional space, like how a tesseract is also known as a "hypercube".
Math is inherently an abstract concept. Maths exists as logical constructs because of the presuppositions made about them. That's why maths can be proven. Maths can be used to describe reality, but maths aren't real.
A two doesn't actually exist (other than conceptually), you can't get a box and fill it with a bunch of two, you can't make a pile of equals and I can't go to my neighbour's and borrow a cop of square roots.
BTW: I have no problem accepting god as an abstract concept.
Extra history had a really great series on postulate 5 and how non Euclidean geometry came about, I highly recommend a watch for the cliff, cliff notes.
@@fred_derf on the point of mathematics not existing outside of as a conceptual thing, that is a rather, unique, debate that has been going on for quite a while in the intersection of mathematics and philosophy
To my knowledge there isn't a broad consensus, but overall it bears little to no effect on how math is performed
Had I just wanted to "live in sin" as they so claim, I would have stayed a Christian. Back then all I had to do was feel guilty and apologize to God and all was forgiven no matter what I did. Whether I hurt someone's feelings, stole money, broke something, or whatever. Apologize to Jesus and feel bad about it was all I needed and I knew all was forgiven. Now as an atheist, if I do wrong then I have to own up to what I did and make amends with the person I hurt. Leaving the faith didn't give me a free ticket to do all the bad I wanted. As a matter of fact it made me morally accountable for my actions. Their attempt at claiming all unbelievers just want to sin is a failed attempt at putting themselves up on a nonexistent moral pedestal when they represent the antithesis of morality. They in fact believe in a total perversion of it. Who would ever accept a system in which we actively punished innocent people for the crimes of others? Would we think justice is served by putting away someone who never murdered someone, even if they volunteered, so that the murderer can remain free? If not, then why do theists insist that is an all good gods plan for the universe?
There's one flaw in demanding "evidence" before believing something: You didn't specify that the evidence must also be _valid,_ verifiable, testable, tested, and related to the subject in question.
When you just say that you need "evidence" to believe something, that's when people like Eric come and show you a boatload of stuff, claiming for it to be "evidence", and when you refute that evidence, these people like Eric think "he asked for evidence, but when I gave him tons of it, he just ignored it; therefore he isn't _really_ asking for evidence, he's just giving an excuse not to believe."
Skepticism is not only about demanding evidence, but more importantly, requiring a certain _standard_ of evidence. As said, it's not enough to have "evidence", but for it to be valid, verifiable, testable, and so on. And the thing being proved must be falsifiable as well (in other words, it must be possible to give evidence and perform tests that, if positive, would disprove the claim).
But how to make people like Eric understand that? Maybe it's impossible.
+WarpRulez, writes _"There's one flaw in demanding "evidence" before believing something: You didn't specify that the evidence must also be valid, verifiable, testable, tested, and related to the subject in question."_
That's why I demand sufficient good evidence.
Great video Paul, one of the most important yet but what's with that loud cheesy music?
It sounds like there has been some kind of marketing conference. Evangelicals are slowly coming to the same conclusion academics have known for a long time. There is no reasonable argument for Christianity. Perhaps more significantly, they've failed to make any significant in-roads to sell stuff to the mainstream. So, they're changing up marketing strategy. They're going to have to focus on making money from the already-converted.
Just goes to show, this is entertainment. It never was about any kind of truth. It's about selling stuff. The problem is they can only really hope to sell you one Bible. So, you need to buy all these other books, DVDs, and whatever other stuff you'll buy. Can you imagine Ray Comfort or Eric Hovind giving away all their money to a charity to feed hungry children? In the Bible, which they claim to believe, it's the merchants of religion who were thrown out of the temple.
It is not just that there is no valid argument for Christianity. There is no valid argument for theism of any kind, especially not for *monotheism.* “On Human Suffering and the Concept of God”- the psychological nature of religions.
neomodernistpoetry.blogspot.com/2018/11/on-human-suffering-and-concept-of-god.html
currently being revised at
homoeroticpoems.blogspot.com/2018/06/on-human-suffering-and-concept-of-god.html
great video but please control the music volume. Turning up the volume to hear then being blasted at the end is disturbing.
I have read bits of the Bible over the years. There is nothing in it to convince me that there is a God. I have read many a Better Book written by authors .The only God in the Bible are the Gods people make up themselves. If you threw out the Bible and all the Science we know to date for one thousand years. And start again with Science and Religion. Science will always be the same, whereas who knows what will happen to religion. ( Thanks Ricky Gervais)
"They're consenting lines they can do what they want." My favorite line, can I use that on my channel?
Eric, you stand in front of your child to tell him to clean his room. He can hear you, see you, smell you, touch you. You're real. Yahweh, on the other hand, is invisible, inaudible, untouchable, unsmellable. We can't even hear him telling us to clean our rooms. So, how is that a good analogy?
Eric:"Faith doesn't *require* evidence."
Corrected statement:"Faith doesn't *allow* evidence. It requires ignoring all evidence that //might// weaken your faith."
I wonder what Eric Hovind thinks about the Qur'an and other religious books saying that they are the infallible word of God, just like the Bible does.
Also and please responds this: Where did you get that music? very energetic to keep the workflow!
Started watching your "Ham & Eggs" videos and I can say that I do not regret it. Have my sub and a like as thanks for your videos
The REAL issue regarding whether Batman would beat Wolverine or vice versa is not that they're fictional characters. It's that they belong in entirely different fictional universes, both of which operate according to their own sets of rules, and both of which are owned by a different company...
Why does Eric as a grown up man not know a better reason for cleaning a room than "because i say so"? Maybe because Kent never bothered to give any better ones???
I can come up with lots of stuff... because we like it when the house is tidy, because your stuff has cost a lot of money and there is no reason to let it go to waste, because it is a hygiene and safety risk to have shit lying all around (it could hurt you or make you sick to just have everything lie anywhere) or even "because you've done something we did not like and now you have to do something so earn back your privileges as a punishment and bringing a bit of order back into your personal stuff seems something even a 9 year old can do" ;)
Eric really IS a single giant disappointment, regardless of what he tries to do. It never ends well.
Ouch... "Why" do parallel lines never meet? Because the world Parallel already MEANS "lines that do never meet but stay at a constant distance for their common length". Yes it is axiomatic and cannot be proven, but being true by definition isn't the same thing in math, where we NEED to put down definitions or nobody would know what "multiplied by" means or "equal" as it would be in Logic when you say "a universe is created and therefore needs a creator" (while the thought "IF the universe is created it needs a cause for being created" is logical, assuming a personal creator isn't and presupposing creation isn't either)
Well their logic also doesn't hold water if they axiomatically presuppose the AUTHORITY of god... There are lots of situations where "i create" and yet still wouldn't have the right to "judge", because i already did the creating against law and order... like building an extension to my house breaking zoning laws and not getting a permit first or siring a child through rape or "tuning" my car illegally... nothing of these "creations" does make me owner of the shit i've done with the exclusive power to judge, they make me lawbreaker and probably also charged and convicted. Also human moral understanding tends to go from "a parent has ultimate authority" to "a child has rights of their own and a parent can't just do what they want with the child, especially if it hurts or harms the kid and might kill it". WHY would god be any better off in regards to his "creation"? And where are his responsibilities to HELP the creation go along fine? Natural Disasters, Plague, Satan roaming freely to corrupt everything even worse than it already is... God is a pretty negligent landlord for all this authority he supposedly enjoys. It's just a one way deal? Why would we care if he LOVES us? He brought us in the world and SHOULD be culpable to not casually bring us out of it again, especially with his Calvinball rule aka "sin" that seems pretty harsh with its eternal consequences ;)
if you discount those parts of the bible that aren't literally true, then the rest (about 12 words, i believe) are 100% true.
There's some decent history in places. There's tons of obviously made up crap (pretty much everything in Exodus and earlier), but a lot of the events later in the Bible seem to have a general basis in reality, like the Assyrians taking over Israel.
poppa smurf. . 2 years ago. . if you discount those parts of the bible that aren't literally true, then the rest (about 12 words, i believe) are 100% true.. 2 replies. 7 likes.
why then did jesus often quote the old Testament prpphets
Web Flotsam. . 2 years ago. . There's some decent history in places. There's tons of obviously made up crap (pretty much everything in Exodus and earlier), but a lot of the events later in the Bible seem to have a general basis in reality, like the Assyrians taking over Israel.. . 1 like.
ok you are clueless...!!!
first there would absolutely be no Isreal today if Moses had not left Egypt with his poeple
the recent archeology finds of real mt Sinai in Saudi Arabia is just one of many reasons to support the Biblical History
Loving this channel. I just finished all your videos! Can you please change the theme music the next time around though?
the audio levels? yeah... i got that fixed after the first few, I think. let me know if not.
Anyone else think Eric looks nothing like Kent?
I listened to this video and it sounds like the arguments that I have with my bible-thumping relatives.
Finally, I ask them, “would you be a Christian today if you were born into a family of another faith?”
This is when the personal attacks generally begin.
I like your educated speech.
Is it original writing or are you quoting?
Thanks, Elco! It's original writing. I make sure to put any quotations up on the screen with attribution.
''We don't need evidence. We have the word of God.'' That's a nonsensical statement. Of course you need evidence. And you don't have it.
Not really, if he doesnt want it hd doesnt need it
The only thing I approved of from these two Christians was when the Brit told the American that we say "maths" and not "math".
Incidentally, if mathematics is plural, why shouldn't the abbreviation be?
I laughed so hard at did Kim Jung Un get 12 holes in one in a single round of golf? That man is something.
Great channel. I'll be subscribing. But you're intro/out-tro music is WAY too loud!
I did fix that after the first couple of episodes, thanks to feedback like yours. Give one of my newer a try?
Awesome. I'll check them out. Keep up the good work.
I love your videos man!
Thanks, Tiger... !
your intro/outro music is too loud in comparison to the rest of your video (which always kicks ass) :)
good video. i feel that you do a good job of shredding up there flawed thinking. anyways keep up the good work
Thanks for the sub and the kind words...
Paulogia yourwelcome
Eric is right about one thing. When they leave the Bible out of a debate they have already lost. Because the argument they seem to always fall back on is "because the Bible says so". So when you take away that one point, they have nothing.
They are either con artists or just crazy.
Here we go a lowly WOMAN PREACHING AND FORGETTING THE PART IN THE BUY BULL THAT TELLS HER TO SHUT THE HELL UP!!!1
Very well done. I am a computer programmer and use logic all day long. I wonder what code written by these geniuses would look like.
I bet Eric never watched any AronRa videos.
Probably not... though the two of them have met in person.
That Ark Encounter protest / debate with Eric caused me physical pain.
Eric was in a AronRa anti Ham Ark protest and Eric was destroyed.
But all Eric says is "I'm saying if you don't know everything then you can't know anything to be absolutely true."
it's physically painful to try to wrap my brains around their arguments
Eric doesn`t look that human in real life.
amazing to me that a human being can say “the faith in those things isn’t evidence because they’re not true, but our faith in our thing is evidence because it’s true” with all sincerity and not implode with the sheer levels of intellectual dishonesty.
They claim the only reason people reject the Bible is that they want to sin? I once considered joining a seminary. I was in a catholic school and a recruiter came around. I thought about it. I decided that if I were going to take this seriously I should read something more substantial than a children’s bible.
Then I discovered that I couldn’t take what I was reading seriously. I couldn’t differentiate what I was reading from mythology. It certainly seemed to contradict what I knew about science. That’s pretty much where my Christianity ended. I think I was around 12. I wasn’t even thinking about sinning yet. I just couldn’t reconcile the Bible and reality.
Maybe if I were older or asked questions about what I read, maybe I would have had a more nuanced response. Maybe even remaining catholic. I don’t know. I’ve often wondered if creationists have a similarly simplistic response to reading the Bible and worry about thinking as I did. That’s why they fight science so hard?
It is amazing how the way that the defense has changed over the years. However, there is one thing that is consistent, Paulogia has not changed. Thanks for keeping them up over the years.
"Because I said so" is never a good enough reason for anything. Even as a child that line pissed me off. Because it doesn't tell me anything. Eric loves that line because the people that follow it dont have to think then.
They gnaw on and on without arriving at any good reasons for faith in their god and their last resort to convince people is: "disbelievers just want to sin". Thanks Eric, that's very mature of you.
There's a pause button? I'll have to check that out.
It's a simple and flawless formula.
Believer: " The Bible is the word of God."
Non believer: How do you know that?
Believer: "The Bible says so."
Non believer: I thought the Bible was written by men.
Believer: "God told them what to write."
Non believer: How do you know that?
Believer: "The Bible says so."
The reasoning is flawlessly circular.
Creation today is an excellent program to learn about different types of biases, the main one being confirmation bias.
Anyone know the music at the beginning of this video?
You have been a consistently intelligent influencer, Paulie. Thanks.
If we ever figure out whether religion is the cause...or the result...of insanity, maybe we'll be able to cure both of them.
I don't think my parents ever said "because I said so" to me. It turns out it's possible to parent without that phrase. The trick is to not make arbitrary rules.
I love how Paul is using other apologist to cancel other apologist assertions!! That is my new favorite.
great video, thanks for summarizing them so we don't have to watch. I just wanted to point out a correction on your list of Christians who accept old earth and/or evolution. Biologos was founded by Francis Collins (who has stepped down from leadership) and Hugh Ross is with Reasons to Believe. RTB rejects evolution but accepts old universe science. (RTB has some odd ways to accomplish this through progressive creation and "soulish" animals).
That doesn't fundamentally change your point just FYI. There is a video on Thomistictheist's channel that has Hugh Ross, Eric Hovind, Ken Hamm and Ray Comfort discussing their differences. it's worth a watch.
And again, thanks for the video, I'll be sure to watch your other ones.
Yes... I realized the mixup once the video was posted. You're exactly correct. I actually had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Ross since then and I hope to have more chances to do so. Very smart man, with calming demeanor... despite our disagreements.
Thanks for watching. Please spread the word!
I really liked the video. Very well spoken. My one and only complaint would be my lack of eardrums when your outro started. ;)
Yes... that's a regrettable mistake that I've fixed in subsequent videos. Sorry about that.
...I wasn't expecting you to respond to that. I have been noticing that, though, thank you.
Best comment ever: “They don’t want to look at the RIGHT evidence”. All these years practicing law, I’ve been screwing up by trying to deal with ALL of the evidence instead of ignoring the WRONG evidence and looking at the RIGHT evidence.
Every time creationists say "we don't need evidence" I always respond with "great...we don't need to believe you."
Paulogia Please consider the following: Belief = The acceptance of a claim without evidence. Faith = The acceptance of a claim despite the evidence.
That excited "Thanks for watching, everyone!" so early in the video really got me xD
Good stuff. Balance between intro music and the audio of the show is off tho bro.
You had me scrabbling for the volume at the start to turn it down then soon as it was over turning it up to hear what you were saying
That's nasty music by the way, almost anything would be better.
Apart from that. Great stuff.
I was expecting an insert on their screen, clocking-up the number of conversions during their show.
So as a Christian who believe the story of the flood a myth, according to the Hovind's do I not believe the flood because of my sin? Isn't accepting Jesus enough to remove my sin? Their theology is an affront to the gospel of grace.
Why should I clean my room?
Because it's my house, I pay for your room, therefore I get to decide if I want it cleaned up, or I want it messy. I want it cleaned up, therefore you will clean it up.
This is NOT a circular argument. This is an answer to the WHY. It may not be an answer the kid likes or even agrees with, but it is, in fact an answer.
If you won't clean your room I will. And everything I find that is not in its' proper place will go into the garbage.
I agree that this is not a circular argument, but it's still an argument from authority. I always wanted an argument from logic, or at least from contrasts.
FYI, "two parallel lines never meet" is actually an assumption in Euclidean geometry, not a definition (strictly speaking he misstated the assumption, but it's clear he's referring to Euclid's 5th postulate - given a line and a point not on that line there is exactly one line passing through the given point which does not intersect the given line). You can negate it and still get a consistent geometry (projective or hyperbolic geometry, depending on what it is replaced with). In no Platonic sense then is "two parallel lines never meet" objectively true without specifying a context about which we are more specifically speaking.
So yes, you did assume it in math. Not on the "authority" of Euclid, but because it gave interesting and useful results as an assumption and it is consistent with the preceding assumptions.
I am going through and watching your videos in order, lol the music was way too loud in the intro and outro
Junior's honesty is both amazing and nauseating...
Better or worse than senior?
Oh, the context of "better or worse" regarding the Hovinds, lol. Almost makes my head hurt. Daddy definitely is the smarter, more clever of the two. Junior's initial parroting added nothing and in some cases even took away And Eric's weaselish looks and shouting delivery don't help.
I'd say senior is the con man, and junior the con artist.
Paulogia And that's why I subbed. Thanks for the great videos.
Paulogia, I too am an atheist. I was trying to point out the contradictory nature of King James Version of this verse: it invokes the concept of evidence while also claiming that we need this non-sensory faculty of faith to obtain that evidence. I hope this makes my statement clear, where I failed to do so in my initial comment.
Good job your videos. Do these creationists shows have really significant audience there? If so, it looks scary from here.
I just want a couple of questions answered: If the Bible is infallible because it is the word of God, which Bible are we talking about? Is it the King James Bible? Is it the Amplified Bible? Is it The Beloved and I: New Jubilees Version of the Sacred Scriptures in Verse? And is the version written in Aramaic, English, Greek, or any of the other languages? There is no question I that there are differences based on translations, so we can’t say the translators were infallible. It is also true the the Catholic Church, which has been rejected by most of these Protestant denominations, did the job correctly when they chose the books that would be included and those that wouldn’t? And while we are at it, how can you say the Catholics were right about the Bible, but wrong about other aspects of Christianity?