Negation, this was one of the most beautifully constructed arguments I've ever heard. I've been thinking about this very thing for quite some time and I love the way you framed it and presented it. He really had no coherent response to it whatsoever. It's a great argument that I will be presenting in future discussions with Christians or Believers of an omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God. The bottom line is if you believe in that sort of God then you have no justification for calling anything bad. Where we as non-believers have the justification because we can categorize things as being good or bad as they relate to The Human Condition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks you for the kind words and showing that this argument is at least comprehensible. In short you are dead on with your understanding/interpretation of my argument. As with all my arguments I am flattered and excited to know people like yourself find them interesting and useful enough to incorporate into their counter-apologetics. I would love to hear how your interlocutors respond. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if you feel I can be helpful in anyway. Thanks again Ned (~P)
@@ivin6415 Wow so all I get in response is "Repent and believe the gospel" How original and "convincing" I would say I am amazed at the stupidity of you feeling that statement would have any impact on me. However when you follow someone like Kent it is not surprising at all, BTW, You planning on visiting that jackass in jail? You do realize he will be starting his sentence for abusing a woman 1 week for tomorrow.? You can "keep the faith" no matter how many times he lies and is convicted of beating women. I on the other hand will keep exposing lying POS individuals and let just see which of us is more reflective of Jesus shall we?
Thanks man and to be honest IMO if more people would _"Stay alert and point it out every single time to really slap him down."_ Mr. Hovind would quickly be even more recognized as the irrelevant laughable charlatan that he truly is.
NEGATION of P Thanks for the reply. May I humbly make a suggestion and I could probably make more if you ever want humble opinions from a spectator, as you discuss, write down his fallacies and questions to be asked if able to. Then when you cross examine or during question time, make the opponent admit their fallacy or wrongs or at the very least, show the audience that the opponent is unreasonable, illogical and fallacious.
Tom, I agree and thank you for the suggestions. While I completely agree that pointing out the fallacies would be useful and eve perhaps entertaining my only concern is if/when I have seen people attempt that tact theist seem so distracted by the fallacy they focus most if not all their effort on demonstrating why the did not commit the fallacy ant therefor the conversation get so side tracked that they don't make any headway toward the original topic. That said I again agree I should at the least take note of the errors/fallacies and be able (if not committed) to hammering people like Kent when the opportunities present themselves. Thanks again Ned (~P) P.S. To be absolutely I love to be critiqued so please feel free to challenge any of my arguments. statements, comments, &/or methodologies. I sincerely feel that without being open to exposing and addressing our short comings we have very little room to grow.
NEGATION of P Well we both grow and thanks back. You are right that people do get distracted. Matt Dillahunty is one of best in pointing out fallacies. It isn’t great for everyone but I think that in Kent’s case, he needs to be at least pointed out on the Strawman fallacy. He continues to go on with the dog won’t produce a non dog and we both know that is a Strawman. Kent needs to at least get called out and that he acknowledges what he said was wrong. I think it was Steve McRae who said something so true and it is that whenever anyone talks with Kent in any public conversation or recorded conversation, one needs to kind of direct the discussion to Kent’s audience so that they can actually see how dishonest Kent is and how he inserts so many logical fallacies. You are right again about the distraction but again, not in Kent’s case. Just curious, I found that you did probably as best as anyone has with Kent, do you have any other debates with Kent or anyone else? Also, what is your stronger background? Cosmology, Theology, Philosophy, etc?
I was waiting for him to post that for a while. I think he was hoping it would fade from memory. Kudos to you for this debate! Edit: I loved your opening attitude when I heard the original debate.
i find listening to the Hovind dynasty, Ken Hamm, and other scientifically ignorant individuals trying to influence children painful and worrying for the future of your country...and therefore the planet. It's obscene. Hello again Chaosism!
LOL, You have no idea just how difficult it was for me to allow that to go by without pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy contained in that portion of the conversation. 0_o
I’ve never seen someone so intellectually superior and vastly more scholarly knowledgeable handle Hovind so well. You presented the best argument for secular morality I’ve ever seen and hovind couldn’t even begin to keep up he just resorted to his dishonest tactics. Good on you sir I’m so glad I found this video and I really hope you see this comment after all this time!
Ty, Thank you! As you can tell I rarely check in anymore but comments like yours make me want to come back to RUclips. I am honestly humbled by such praise and am embarrassed it has taken so long for me to respond. Thanks again Ned (~P)
I think the notion that it is "wrong to steal even from a large corporation" is wrong on pragmatic terms without any reference to God, because if EVERYONE did it then major damage would be done. It "not doing any harm" is contingent upon only a few people doing in it, and those few are parasitic - not only upon the corporation, but also on everyone else who is (by necessity) precluded from doing the same.
I thought I did and they should be available for everyone in the in the description box. Please let me know if you cannot use them or they are not showing up. Also I will repost them below as well just incase the description box links are not working. Thanks Ned (~P) Sources: *Human Development Index (HDI)* hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-... *World Happiness Report*: worldhappiness.report/ed/2017/ *OECD Better Life Index:* www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/... Other Links of relevance: Great Debate Community and Steve McRae: ruclips.net/channel/UC1Sz... Great Debate Community: plus.google.com/communities/1... Link to the Great Debate Community web page and forums: greatdebatecommunity.com Link to Great Debate Community Wiki: great-debate-community.wikia.c... Kent Hovind : ruclips.net/channel/UCxiE... AFTER SHOW: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtZyz...
But, god is "all good" therefore the evil he creates must also be a good even though it harms others (us in fact) but that is ok and can in no way be considered evil because....... reasons and the bible tells us it is just part of god's wonderful creation. 0_o
I just found it a bit bizarre that Hovind said god can't do no evil pretty much at the start of the conversation but at the same time the bible says god created "evil". That in itself is pretty contraditionary in my view. To create evil as a vehicle to accoplish a greater good is yet another weird idea - basically that would mean the evil is necessary to achive a better "result" as would be possible if there would be no evil at all? Hmm...it must be very difficult to believe in such things...
Yep, I could not agree more. The hoops one must continually jump through and the contradictions they must ignore just in order to "remain faithful" is amazing.
Hello everyone , It has come to my attention that the links that I provided in the description box may not be working so I am attempting to repost them here. *Human Development Index (HDI)* hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-... *World Happiness Report* worldhappiness.report/ed/2017/ *OECD Better Life Index:* www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/... Other Links You May Find Useful:: Great Debate Community and Steve McRae: ruclips.net/channel/UC1Sz... Great Debate Community: plus.google.com/communities/1... Link to the Great Debate Community web page and forums: greatdebatecommunity.com Link to Great Debate Community Wiki: great-debate-community.wikia.c... Kent Hovind : ruclips.net/channel/UCxiE... *THE AFTER SHOW:* www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtZyz... Please let me know if you are having trouble using them or they are not showing up. Cited indexes/reports: Thanks Again, Ned (~P)
I could not agree more in your description of Kent and you can rest assured I will (given any opportunity) expose him and others like him. Also you may find it surprising that I share your desire for an after life and beliefs that any "god" that would allow the suffering we have (and continue to) see/n could not be what most (myself include) would consider to be an omni-god. The driving force behind my desire to converse with people like Hovind is in the hope that they, ("Knowing" god) will be able to enlighten me to that fact. However like I mentioned in the debate I have been "doing this for over 25 years" with no indication of any god existing let alone the one prescribe by Christianity. So don feel bad about being a "confused individual" ;~) that said I will continue to seek truth (not "Truth") with the hope of living my life in a way that maximizes my and the people around me happiness regardless of what reality we happen to live in. Thanks for viewing and commenting Ned (~P)
To play devil's advocate - or rather diety's advocate in this case - what if God allows evil to give humans the chance to do right in attempting to alleviate the evil? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe there is a god. Mankind can be either profane or sublime. We have free will to decidethese sort of questions. With an omninicient God, we can not have that.
2 Kings 2:23, And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24, And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. God sent these bears to kill these children. If I had been there with a rifle I would not have shot the bears because I would have surly missed and been eaten myself.
Which is exactly the point of the GNOM argument. Namely a decision as simple as protecting children from bear attacks becomes not only an unknowable moral issue but (as you have so correctly pointed out) by a person even attempting to take action in a way they honestly feel to be morally correct they may be acting in opposition of god's will. Which could of course not only cost them their life here on Earth, but even perhaps their eternal life as well.
@@NEGATI0NofP So if you are a true believer in Jesus Christ then you are born again meaning the Holy Spirit now resides in you. The Holy Spirit guides you into all truth and comforts you. If you make a mistake God treats you as father not a tyrant there is not a sword of Damcoles hanging over your head that God ends you with if you make the wrong move. 2 Samuel 7:14 “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:” Hebrews 12:6 “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” Revelation 3:19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”
@@NEGATI0NofP Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. So this answers your question about what do if you are in a situation you are not sure. Do what you would want someone to do you. If you are about to be attacked by a bear you would want help so you should help them.
@@uncommonsense7471, So, like with Abraham and Jephthah (and their actions resulting from their faith in god) the correct answer is to kill your son/daughter, (&/or or whoever) if you believe god/Jesus is directing you to harm. Thanks for the honesty and directness. Ned ( ~P)
@@NEGATI0NofP Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
In my humble opinion, Kent is right on the point that if God does not exist, then there are no basis for ANY moral standard. I mean, any basis could go, therefore none actually can work. Mine or someone else's moral basis, who can pick the best, majority, the US constitution, the Taliban's...?
That is great so with your "god given" ability to objectively "Know" right and wrong please demonstrate where the GNOM argument is flawed. In short I would ask you to review my 2 short (~3 min. long) videos regarding the GNOM argument (liked below) in order to pinpoint the error/s I have made. You see (as stated in my opening to this debate) I honestly want to know if I am wrong and welcome any input you (or anyone) may have that would allow me to find truth (not "TRUTH"). Thanks again Ned (~P) Links to GNOM 1 & 2: "PROOF that Christian Morality is Subjective (GNOM 1of 2)": ruclips.net/video/EMF4aRIOytI/видео.html & "Part 2: Knowing Right from Wrong (a Christian Dilemma)": www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tox20...
NEGATION of P first of all thank you for your contribution and reply as well as the tone, polite and assertive. Also, and for the record I used to be an agnostic then an atheist but following with years of soul searching now a full-fledged Christian believer. I want to also state for the record that I no longer believe in the theory of evolution and that if arm-wrestled I would chose to be in the YEC camp (I do follow bible reading and the scientific dissertation of many PhDs). Some of them have in fact thoroughly convinced me that Darwinian evolution cannot explain life on earth. Well, onto your reply and position. I will try to be brief but it is hard to be given the topic. Sorry in advance for the length of my reply. Your argumentation regardless of how you came to it basically boils down to judging God (the Jewish-Christian God of the bible) according to YOUR own morality. This is an important aspect to consider. Your morality is one of millions on earth. But this is laughable at face value. To begin with, you must assume a standard, an anchoring point (your own judgment) to judge God but if you are nothing but “molecules-in-motion” how can you trust anything at all that comes out of your chemical plant? Secondly, you assume that you can judge God from your limited knowledge but if you could include God’s mind in your 3-pound brain, it would not be God! By definition, you could never in a million years understand God with your faulty apparatus. Would be like wanting to search for water in the woods, blind, deaf and paralyzed. It’d be pointless. Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that God killed the infant child you referred to in your analogy to punish someone. To teach them a lesson. Now let’s assume that the child was automatically taken away into heaven or maybe assigned to a different family in time. A better family for him. Let’s also assume that the bad parents were taught a good lesson and from henceforth they raised a great family. Let’s suppose that the entire accident you based your baseless morality turned out to be a good thing down the road. Then what? Still a bad thing then? My point is that you cannot have the full scope and visibility if the Christian God of the bible is true and indeed exists. By definition you must not begin to grasp an infinite wise and all powerful God because you are not my friend. Neither am I of course. Passing judgments and criticism on the bible then (in my opinion) becomes a futile argument that poses no real value. The way I see it is as such. If God of the bible is alive and well and passed onto us laws that says do not do such things, it goes without saying that He must apply a penalty to those that break those laws. It’s like breaking the posted speed limit. You can do it but when caught there are consequences. So there is my response to your point. It won’t change your mind but this is how I see it. Cheers
_Your argumentation regardless of how you came to it basically boils down to judging God (the Jewish-Christian God of the bible) according to YOUR own morality._ This (as well as everything you assert afterward) has nothing to do with GNOM and its conclusions. Ironically in GNOM I argue for the ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE of your assertions and in fact mirror your sentiments regarding ones ability to know &/or judge god. So while I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, given your response, I find it highly unlikely you bothered to even take ~6min to watch the videos I linked. Therefore unless you will put forth the effort to actually attempt to understand the argument and address it I see no reason to reply to you further. To be clear I do wish to continue this discussion but ONLY if you are willing to address the argument and not the laughable straw-man you posited above. Thanks Ned (~P)
NEGATION of P my apologies. I did watch the first but not the second link. I did hear the argument about bears during your debate with Kent Hovind and I assumed I could just skip it. Anyway, I just watched it. Ok so if God exists there cannot be objective morality you say. I find this line of reasoning weak and flawed but also dangerous because it leads to moral despair and disconnect from others and their own morality. The bible states very clearly that God wrote His moral laws in the heart of every human beings. So even without a bible we know whether we are inherently evil or good. This is validated (to me) by my personal observation of folks around the world and conversation with fellow human beings. Ironically, a famous speech from JFK comes to mind about all people basically wanting the same things in life. But according to centuries of theological studies, it appears more or less validated that God gave us instructions (rules) and free will. Up to us to obey or disobey but we know in our hearts when we do. At first was a simple denied action. You shall NOT eat from the tree of knowledge and evil. There simple. And we couldn’t even do that. Then came the warnings via prophets, then finally God said enough of you and according to the bible he flooded the earth to start anew with 8 folks, considered worthy. Finally came the bible and the many rules from the book of Moses. According to Judaism they have 613 rules plus the 10 commandments. So we started easy and we failed. Then God dismissed ancient humanity and started again this time demanding directly (in person) to act appropriately (Noah and his generation). Then came Moses and all the laws about rites in the temple, food, cleanliness etc. So in essence we have a creator that set everything in motion and wrote the moral code in our hearts, then warned us directly and via prophets, then codified everything in a book. I think this pretty much sums up my viewpoint. We have no excuse. None. On judgement day we won’t be able to say we did not receive plenty warnings. Not a chance. So in essence we can have objective moral grounds and God at the same time. IMO of course. To prove otherwise I would like to know of a culture anywhere in the world where folks adopt opposite or very different moral codes than the God of the Judaism and Christianity and thrive. Show me please a totally corrupt society that thrives on stealing, cheats, liars, assassins and the likes. And I do not mean to say our society is perfect. Of course not. But we could not function is every marriage was based on cheating, every cop was corrupt, every neighbor evil. I think I made my point. Back to you
NEGATION of P I forgot to address the point about the bears. God, the example you bring up from the bible, basically states very clearly to not intervene. He sent the bears. Clear and coincise. But if God does not instruct you or someone else to not intervene to save a life, it is assumed that we all should jump into action to save a life. I mean we celebrate folks like that as heroes. We write songs about them etc. This is true here in the US and around the world. Again, an indication that something in our hearts (soul, spirit whatever) tells us what is good and when to jump into action.
I think Kent sounded the most reasonable in this discussion. We will never be in the place of God. His ways are so much higher than ours. Our minds can't even wrap around his ways. You are using an English word "good" to describe things that are way and well beyond what we fully understand. It sounds like you want to simplify something just for the sake of simplifying it. Why do that?
People can't just decide on their own, Kent was right for believing the God and there should be an absolute standard of right and wrong, you stutter and is all over the place because you have no basis for your moral values if you think that there's no God....
Sorry Michael but just asserting something because the converse proposition makes you feel icky is not a refutation. So while I completely understand your dependance on "god's existence" that need of yours in no way demonstrates that god exists let alone negates the problems that come about due such an entities existence.
Hope you have exhausted yourself in listening to many preachers talking about the existence of God, like Ravi Zacharias, Kent Hovind, John McArthur, Ken Ham, RC Sproul, John Lennox, etc., some of them have even debated atheists on this matter and just like you, these atheists are running like headless chickens in their explanations on why they don't believe in God and why do they believe on what they believe in. All of them believe in big bang and evolution which were invented around 200 years ago, actually both are nice science fictions except that they are constantly changing because both are not matching with what we actually observe now in the universe...while the Bible never change because that's the actual and true story of what had happened and what we observe in the world now....
Without God, moral standards are as we deem fit. Kent hasn't said anything wrong so far. I just say, you cannot assert our logic as men onto the mind of God if indeed he does exist. But without an ultimate authority, morals will just be a concept and ultimately nothing matters because there'll never be someone to answer to... Perhaps we'll all find out someday.
i'm not really sure what you mean by morals. do you mean empathy and a reasoned analysis of the consequences of your actions? if that's what you mean, then the christian version of the god of abraham is not necessary for that, and "ultimate authority" seems like mean obedience to authority.... so what do you mean by morals? do you mean empathy et al? do you mean obedience to authority? or what exactly?
texxtrek No they're not facts my friend. All evidence for evolution is merely assertions or somebody wanting... In fact, you couldn't even prove evolution, even though you think you could .
texxtrek Ok thank you for proving what I said. Evolutionists only assert that evolution is true. There is no real evidence. What you did was merely assert evolution is true. You didn't provide evidence when asked.
texxtrek So you responded to my post why? Now you're saying you won't give evidence for evolution even though you asserted it to be 100% true... *clap clap clap* You continue to prove me right. Evolution is bunk
texxtrek And the name calling begins... when ALL I ASKED WAS FOR YOU to provide EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM Of THE TRUTH OF EVOLUTION. Now you claim you won't provide it because of something I did wrong. What a joke. Prove your claim if you can
texxtrek Once again, YOU MERRLY ASSERTING EVOLUTION IS TRUE IS NOT evidence. Why do you not understand this? When somebody talks to you and say the earth is flat without providing evidence, do you just accept it like you accept evolution?
Negation of p, do you u understand what the Bible says about sin, and how Jesus came to be our savior? If so, how can you say that every act is essentially good because it's going according to god's plan? You obviously have no clue what you're talking about on this subject.
Thanks for viewing and thanks for the constructive criticism. As for my understanding of scripture I feel I am fairly well versed and do understand what the bible says about sin and how Jesus is claimed to be "our savior". However I feel I must point out the GNOM argument address those "facts" in its opening primacies and IMO is reflective of scripture as it is understood. However I am willing to be corrected and would love to hear where you feel my argument falls short. Please feel free to describe in better detail why you feel it fails. I ask for better clarification because as I assume you very well know and understand just asserting _"You (I) obviously have no clue what you're talking about on this subject."_ Is not a rebuttal and does nothing to better clarify things nor will it allow the discussion to move forward in any way. I sincerely hope you will take up this challenge and are much more capable than Mr. Hovind in defending your faith. In order to help clarify my position and comprehension of your scripture Ill provide a brief synopsis of my understanding including the most relevant scriptural citations. Sin: 1st IMO we need to define “sin. from the biblical perspective. ” First John 3:4 says, “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” Sin, therefore, is any violation of God’s holy law. Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” According to this verse, sin is anything (words, thoughts, actions, and motivations) that falls short of God’s glory and perfection. All of us sin. Romans 3:23 also teaches that we must know the character of God before we can accurately define sin, because His glory is the standard by which we measure it (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17). Jesus as Savior: Man, as he is born into this world, needs a salvation, needs that wholeness, because as natural man he is lost and has no eternal life. All men do have this possibility of salvation, of being saved and receiving eternal life - but this is related to a certain condition: „whosoever believeth in him [Jesus Christ] should not perish“. Those who do not believe are already under the sentence of condemnation which puts him in the category .of being condemned; but those who believe on him will not be lost but will have eternal life. God has sent His only begotten Son as savior of the world, but that does not mean that automatically all the world will at one time attain to salvation. No! Salvation is available to all the world, but it is a matter of decision on the part of each individual to appropriate it by believing on Him. Only those who believe on Christ will receive everlasting life and will not be lost. A few Scriptural citations for the basis of this assertion 1 John 4:14: And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. John 3:16-18: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved [attain wholeness]. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Philippians 3:20-21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. With all that established I ask you to address the argument because IMO it has nothing what so ever to do with GNOM and god's omni-powers nor god's ability to use sin/evil to bring about his plan/will. Thanks Ned (~P)
lol, Never let it be said that I am not accommodating and thorough when responding to my opposition. Seriously though, what I find telling is the fact that the vast majority of the time people like mike jones cuddly go silent as soon as a "clueless atheist" (like myself) responds to their childish baiting tactics with anything other than the ridicule and vitriol the expert (an may deserve), but hey what can we expect from people with no moral compass (or even the existence of morality)l due to their GAWD's existence . ;~)
Well all we can do is try to hold rational conversations but if people like mike jones choose to drop comment and then disappear IMO that does as much (if not more) to prove they have nothing to offer as having a 2000 word comment "battle'.
We have been "relaxed" for over a week now mikey. I suggest you turn off the beat and "groove" to some type of response before you are considered nothing more than an inept "christian warrior" troll. Thanks
Oh here we go right/wrong don't exist without god... sigh. Oh my word... watchmaker (painter) analogy... really? REALLY?! "things get better on there own with evolution..." what? No. Stop. LOL if you can get away with stealing is it wrong... I DONT KNOW KENT WHY DONT YOU ASK THE TAX PEOPLE ABOUT THAT??!!! >_
What about natural disasters? Those are no ones "fault" free will has no play there - if you do not know it is coming - then you have no chance to run away.... Kent wants it both ways - free will negates god but god's plan is not on that can be negated but it is. also it isnt. Kent always wants to bring it back to evolution (of course) so he can weezele out of answering the damn questions.
+Deconverted Man The typical response to natural disasters is that they are a result of a corrupted/fallen world, which is ultimately the result of the conscious actions of Adam and Eve. So, free will is still at the core of the matter. But yeah, Kent is so tangled up in his choice details that he doesn't see the internal inconsistencies.
If you bothered to actually watch my debates you would see I go out of my way to not only be respectful but also honestly present my own beliefs while (most importantly IMO) attempting to understand my interlocutors positions. Furthermore I hope even in this debate my motivation is made clear (see: time index ~3:00 to 4:05) and in no way indicative of a person driven or feed by hate but instead is reflective of an honest individual with a desire to know truth (not "Truth") . However, I do agree that my frustration does show a certain points and I did plan on confronting Mr. Hovind at some point because when in a discussion with someone as deceitful and dishonest as Mr. Hovind I feel it not only important to investigate the topic at hand but IMO one should also point out those traits to the listeners so they can be forwarded and hopefully avoid being influenced by the lies of such individuals. Thanks for watching and commenting, Ned (~P)
Negation, this was one of the most beautifully constructed arguments I've ever heard. I've been thinking about this very thing for quite some time and I love the way you framed it and presented it. He really had no coherent response to it whatsoever. It's a great argument that I will be presenting in future discussions with Christians or Believers of an omni-benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God. The bottom line is if you believe in that sort of God then you have no justification for calling anything bad. Where we as non-believers have the justification because we can categorize things as being good or bad as they relate to The Human Condition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks you for the kind words and showing that this argument is at least comprehensible. In short you are dead on with your understanding/interpretation of my argument. As with all my arguments I am flattered and excited to know people like yourself find them interesting and useful enough to incorporate into their counter-apologetics. I would love to hear how your interlocutors respond. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if you feel I can be helpful in anyway.
Thanks again
Ned (~P)
@@NEGATI0NofP how can I contact you. I'd like to run something by you on why I think Catholicism is the most irrational form of christianity.
@@NEGATI0NofP repent and believe the gospel
@@ivin6415 Wow so all I get in response is "Repent and believe the gospel" How original and "convincing" I would say I am amazed at the stupidity of you feeling that statement would have any impact on me. However when you follow someone like Kent it is not surprising at all, BTW, You planning on visiting that jackass in jail? You do realize he will be starting his sentence for abusing a woman 1 week for tomorrow.? You can "keep the faith" no matter how many times he lies and is convicted of beating women. I on the other hand will keep exposing lying POS individuals and let just see which of us is more reflective of Jesus shall we?
Let’s not forget KH petaling vitamins as a cure for cancer.
Haha listening to Hovind dodge when his (non) degrees are brought up. Haha he has 2 semesters at a community college only. Just fukn admit it Kent
Haha. You body slammed Kent. Kent is a master of the Strawman. Stay alert and point it out every single time to really slap him down.
Thanks man and to be honest IMO if more people would _"Stay alert and point it out every single time to really slap him down."_ Mr. Hovind would quickly be even more recognized as the irrelevant laughable charlatan that he truly is.
NEGATION of P
Thanks for the reply. May I humbly make a suggestion and I could probably make more if you ever want humble opinions from a spectator, as you discuss, write down his fallacies and questions to be asked if able to. Then when you cross examine or during question time, make the opponent admit their fallacy or wrongs or at the very least, show the audience that the opponent is unreasonable, illogical and fallacious.
Tom,
I agree and thank you for the suggestions. While I completely agree that pointing out the fallacies would be useful and eve perhaps entertaining my only concern is if/when I have seen people attempt that tact theist seem so distracted by the fallacy they focus most if not all their effort on demonstrating why the did not commit the fallacy ant therefor the conversation get so side tracked that they don't make any headway toward the original topic. That said I again agree I should at the least take note of the errors/fallacies and be able (if not committed) to hammering people like Kent when the opportunities present themselves.
Thanks again
Ned (~P)
P.S. To be absolutely I love to be critiqued so please feel free to challenge any of my arguments. statements, comments, &/or methodologies. I sincerely feel that without being open to exposing and addressing our short comings we have very little room to grow.
NEGATION of P
Well we both grow and thanks back.
You are right that people do get distracted. Matt Dillahunty is one of best in pointing out fallacies. It isn’t great for everyone but I think that in Kent’s case, he needs to be at least pointed out on the Strawman fallacy. He continues to go on with the dog won’t produce a non dog and we both know that is a Strawman. Kent needs to at least get called out and that he acknowledges what he said was wrong. I think it was Steve McRae who said something so true and it is that whenever anyone talks with Kent in any public conversation or recorded conversation, one needs to kind of direct the discussion to Kent’s audience so that they can actually see how dishonest Kent is and how he inserts so many logical fallacies.
You are right again about the distraction but again, not in Kent’s case.
Just curious, I found that you did probably as best as anyone has with Kent, do you have any other debates with Kent or anyone else? Also, what is your stronger background? Cosmology, Theology, Philosophy, etc?
I was waiting for him to post that for a while. I think he was hoping it would fade from memory. Kudos to you for this debate!
Edit: I loved your opening attitude when I heard the original debate.
Thank you, and yes I was/am very disappointed in Kent's actions/responses to this discussion.
i find listening to the Hovind dynasty, Ken Hamm, and other scientifically ignorant individuals trying to influence children painful and worrying for the future of your country...and therefore the planet. It's obscene.
Hello again Chaosism!
Ironic Mr. Hovind starts out by making references to 'stealing from a large corporation.'
LOL, You have no idea just how difficult it was for me to allow that to go by without pointing out the stupidity and hypocrisy contained in that portion of the conversation. 0_o
I’ve never seen someone so intellectually superior and vastly more scholarly knowledgeable handle Hovind so well. You presented the best argument for secular morality I’ve ever seen and hovind couldn’t even begin to keep up he just resorted to his dishonest tactics. Good on you sir I’m so glad I found this video and I really hope you see this comment after all this time!
Ty, Thank you! As you can tell I rarely check in anymore but comments like yours make me want to come back to RUclips. I am honestly humbled by such praise and am embarrassed it has taken so long for me to respond.
Thanks again
Ned (~P)
I think the notion that it is "wrong to steal even from a large corporation" is wrong on pragmatic terms without any reference to God, because if EVERYONE did it then major damage would be done. It "not doing any harm" is contingent upon only a few people doing in it, and those few are parasitic - not only upon the corporation, but also on everyone else who is (by necessity) precluded from doing the same.
You need to add the links you promised at the beginning of your debate, NofP.
I thought I did and they should be available for everyone in the in the description box. Please let me know if you cannot use them or they are not showing up. Also I will repost them below as well just incase the description box links are not working.
Thanks
Ned (~P)
Sources:
*Human Development Index (HDI)*
hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-...
*World Happiness Report*:
worldhappiness.report/ed/2017/
*OECD Better Life Index:*
www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/...
Other Links of relevance:
Great Debate Community and Steve McRae: ruclips.net/channel/UC1Sz...
Great Debate Community: plus.google.com/communities/1...
Link to the Great Debate Community web page and forums: greatdebatecommunity.com
Link to Great Debate Community Wiki: great-debate-community.wikia.c...
Kent Hovind : ruclips.net/channel/UCxiE...
AFTER SHOW:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtZyz...
So God can't do evil but "he" creates evil??? Sounds a little bit like god can do evil by creating it?
But, god is "all good" therefore the evil he creates must also be a good even though it harms others (us in fact) but that is ok and can in no way be considered evil because....... reasons and the bible tells us it is just part of god's wonderful creation. 0_o
I just found it a bit bizarre that Hovind said god can't do no evil pretty much at the start of the conversation but at the same time the bible says god created "evil". That in itself is pretty contraditionary in my view. To create evil as a vehicle to accoplish a greater good is yet another weird idea - basically that would mean the evil is necessary to achive a better "result" as would be possible if there would be no evil at all? Hmm...it must be very difficult to believe in such things...
Yep, I could not agree more. The hoops one must continually jump through and the contradictions they must ignore just in order to "remain faithful" is amazing.
When ever Kent tries to explained or defend himself he gets interrupted or the subject change. In my opinion Kent wins..
Hello everyone , It has come to my attention that the links that I provided in the description box may not be working so I am attempting to repost them here.
*Human Development Index (HDI)*
hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-...
*World Happiness Report*
worldhappiness.report/ed/2017/
*OECD Better Life Index:*
www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/...
Other Links You May Find Useful::
Great Debate Community and Steve McRae: ruclips.net/channel/UC1Sz...
Great Debate Community: plus.google.com/communities/1...
Link to the Great Debate Community web page and forums: greatdebatecommunity.com
Link to Great Debate Community Wiki: great-debate-community.wikia.c...
Kent Hovind : ruclips.net/channel/UCxiE...
*THE AFTER SHOW:*
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtZyz...
Please let me know if you are having trouble using them or they are not showing up.
Cited indexes/reports:
Thanks Again,
Ned (~P)
Thanks, I had been "saving" that line for quite some time and was very happy to use it on Kent. ;~)
I could not agree more in your description of Kent and you can rest assured I will (given any opportunity) expose him and others like him. Also you may find it surprising that I share your desire for an after life and beliefs that any "god" that would allow the suffering we have (and continue to) see/n could not be what most (myself include) would consider to be an omni-god. The driving force behind my desire to converse with people like Hovind is in the hope that they, ("Knowing" god) will be able to enlighten me to that fact. However like I mentioned in the debate I have been "doing this for over 25 years" with no indication of any god existing let alone the one prescribe by Christianity. So don feel bad about being a "confused individual" ;~) that said I will continue to seek truth (not "Truth") with the hope of living my life in a way that maximizes my and the people around me happiness regardless of what reality we happen to live in.
Thanks for viewing and commenting
Ned (~P)
Hey Negation of P, are you for or against abortion?
A qualified for. Specificity I feel abortion should be an option up to the point where brain activity is present in the fetus.
To play devil's advocate - or rather diety's advocate in this case - what if God allows evil to give humans the chance to do right in attempting to alleviate the evil?
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe there is a god. Mankind can be either profane or sublime. We have free will to decidethese sort of questions. With an omninicient God, we can not have that.
2 Kings 2:23, And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24, And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. God sent these bears to kill these children. If I had been there with a rifle I would not have shot the bears because I would have surly missed and been eaten myself.
Which is exactly the point of the GNOM argument. Namely a decision as simple as protecting children from bear attacks becomes not only an unknowable moral issue but (as you have so correctly pointed out) by a person even attempting to take action in a way they honestly feel to be morally correct they may be acting in opposition of god's will. Which could of course not only cost them their life here on Earth, but even perhaps their eternal life as well.
@@NEGATI0NofP So if you are a true believer in Jesus Christ then you are born again meaning the Holy Spirit now resides in you. The Holy Spirit guides you into all truth and comforts you. If you make a mistake God treats you as father not a tyrant there is not a sword of Damcoles hanging over your head that God ends you with if you make the wrong move.
2 Samuel 7:14
“I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:”
Hebrews 12:6
“For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.”
Revelation 3:19
“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”
@@NEGATI0NofP Matthew 22:37-40
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
So this answers your question about what do if you are in a situation you are not sure. Do what you would want someone to do you. If you are about to be attacked by a bear you would want help so you should help them.
@@uncommonsense7471,
So, like with Abraham and Jephthah (and their actions resulting from their faith in god) the correct answer is to kill your son/daughter, (&/or or whoever) if you believe god/Jesus is directing you to harm.
Thanks for the honesty and directness.
Ned ( ~P)
@@NEGATI0NofP Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
In my humble opinion, Kent is right on the point that if God does not exist, then there are no basis for ANY moral standard. I mean, any basis could go, therefore none actually can work. Mine or someone else's moral basis, who can pick the best, majority, the US constitution, the Taliban's...?
That is great so with your "god given" ability to objectively "Know" right and wrong please demonstrate where the GNOM argument is flawed. In short I would ask you to review my 2 short (~3 min. long) videos regarding the GNOM argument (liked below) in order to pinpoint the error/s I have made. You see (as stated in my opening to this debate) I honestly want to know if I am wrong and welcome any input you (or anyone) may have that would allow me to find truth (not "TRUTH").
Thanks again
Ned (~P)
Links to GNOM 1 & 2:
"PROOF that Christian Morality is Subjective (GNOM 1of 2)": ruclips.net/video/EMF4aRIOytI/видео.html
&
"Part 2: Knowing Right from Wrong (a Christian Dilemma)": www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tox20...
NEGATION of P first of all thank you for your contribution and reply as well as the tone, polite and assertive.
Also, and for the record I used to be an agnostic then an atheist but following with years of soul searching now a full-fledged Christian believer. I want to also state for the record that I no longer believe in the theory of evolution and that if arm-wrestled I would chose to be in the YEC camp (I do follow bible reading and the scientific dissertation of many PhDs). Some of them have in fact thoroughly convinced me that Darwinian evolution cannot explain life on earth.
Well, onto your reply and position. I will try to be brief but it is hard to be given the topic. Sorry in advance for the length of my reply.
Your argumentation regardless of how you came to it basically boils down to judging God (the Jewish-Christian God of the bible) according to YOUR own morality. This is an important aspect to consider. Your morality is one of millions on earth.
But this is laughable at face value. To begin with, you must assume a standard, an anchoring point (your own judgment) to judge God but if you are nothing but “molecules-in-motion” how can you trust anything at all that comes out of your chemical plant?
Secondly, you assume that you can judge God from your limited knowledge but if you could include God’s mind in your 3-pound brain, it would not be God! By definition, you could never in a million years understand God with your faulty apparatus. Would be like wanting to search for water in the woods, blind, deaf and paralyzed. It’d be pointless.
Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that God killed the infant child you referred to in your analogy to punish someone. To teach them a lesson. Now let’s assume that the child was automatically taken away into heaven or maybe assigned to a different family in time. A better family for him. Let’s also assume that the bad parents were taught a good lesson and from henceforth they raised a great family. Let’s suppose that the entire accident you based your baseless morality turned out to be a good thing down the road. Then what? Still a bad thing then?
My point is that you cannot have the full scope and visibility if the Christian God of the bible is true and indeed exists. By definition you must not begin to grasp an infinite wise and all powerful God because you are not my friend. Neither am I of course.
Passing judgments and criticism on the bible then (in my opinion) becomes a futile argument that poses no real value.
The way I see it is as such. If God of the bible is alive and well and passed onto us laws that says do not do such things, it goes without saying that He must apply a penalty to those that break those laws.
It’s like breaking the posted speed limit. You can do it but when caught there are consequences.
So there is my response to your point. It won’t change your mind but this is how I see it.
Cheers
_Your argumentation regardless of how you came to it basically boils down to judging God (the Jewish-Christian God of the bible) according to YOUR own morality._
This (as well as everything you assert afterward) has nothing to do with GNOM and its conclusions. Ironically in GNOM I argue for the ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE of your assertions and in fact mirror your sentiments regarding ones ability to know &/or judge god. So while I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, given your response, I find it highly unlikely you bothered to even take ~6min to watch the videos I linked. Therefore unless you will put forth the effort to actually attempt to understand the argument and address it I see no reason to reply to you further. To be clear I do wish to continue this discussion but ONLY if you are willing to address the argument and not the laughable straw-man you posited above.
Thanks
Ned (~P)
NEGATION of P my apologies. I did watch the first but not the second link. I did hear the argument about bears during your debate with Kent Hovind and I assumed I could just skip it.
Anyway, I just watched it.
Ok so if God exists there cannot be objective morality you say.
I find this line of reasoning weak and flawed but also dangerous because it leads to moral despair and disconnect from others and their own morality.
The bible states very clearly that God wrote His moral laws in the heart of every human beings. So even without a bible we know whether we are inherently evil or good. This is validated (to me) by my personal observation of folks around the world and conversation with fellow human beings. Ironically, a famous speech from JFK comes to mind about all people basically wanting the same things in life.
But according to centuries of theological studies, it appears more or less validated that God gave us instructions (rules) and free will.
Up to us to obey or disobey but we know in our hearts when we do. At first was a simple denied action. You shall NOT eat from the tree of knowledge and evil. There simple. And we couldn’t even do that.
Then came the warnings via prophets, then finally God said enough of you and according to the bible he flooded the earth to start anew with 8 folks, considered worthy.
Finally came the bible and the many rules from the book of Moses. According to Judaism they have 613 rules plus the 10 commandments.
So we started easy and we failed. Then God dismissed ancient humanity and started again this time demanding directly (in person) to act appropriately (Noah and his generation).
Then came Moses and all the laws about rites in the temple, food, cleanliness etc.
So in essence we have a creator that set everything in motion and wrote the moral code in our hearts, then warned us directly and via prophets, then codified everything in a book.
I think this pretty much sums up my viewpoint. We have no excuse. None.
On judgement day we won’t be able to say we did not receive plenty warnings. Not a chance.
So in essence we can have objective moral grounds and God at the same time. IMO of course.
To prove otherwise I would like to know of a culture anywhere in the world where folks adopt opposite or very different moral codes than the God of the Judaism and Christianity and thrive. Show me please a totally corrupt society that thrives on stealing, cheats, liars, assassins and the likes. And I do not mean to say our society is perfect. Of course not. But we could not function is every marriage was based on cheating, every cop was corrupt, every neighbor evil. I think I made my point.
Back to you
NEGATION of P I forgot to address the point about the bears. God, the example you bring up from the bible, basically states very clearly to not intervene. He sent the bears. Clear and coincise.
But if God does not instruct you or someone else to not intervene to save a life, it is assumed that we all should jump into action to save a life.
I mean we celebrate folks like that as heroes. We write songs about them etc.
This is true here in the US and around the world. Again, an indication that something in our hearts (soul, spirit whatever) tells us what is good and when to jump into action.
I think Kent sounded the most reasonable in this discussion. We will never be in the place of God. His ways are so much higher than ours. Our minds can't even wrap around his ways. You are using an English word "good" to describe things that are way and well beyond what we fully understand. It sounds like you want to simplify something just for the sake of simplifying it. Why do that?
There is no evidence to support a belief in a god(s) or any afterlife.
Hovinding.
Oh dear.. I got as far as 7:48 before my mind went BLANK!
Listening to KH make a fool of himself will never get old. He has once again failed miserably.
People can't just decide on their own, Kent was right for believing the God and there should be an absolute standard of right and wrong, you stutter and is all over the place because you have no basis for your moral values if you think that there's no God....
Sorry Michael but just asserting something because the converse proposition makes you feel icky is not a refutation. So while I completely understand your dependance on "god's existence" that need of yours in no way demonstrates that god exists let alone negates the problems that come about due such an entities existence.
Hope you have exhausted yourself in listening to many preachers talking about the existence of God, like Ravi Zacharias, Kent Hovind, John McArthur, Ken Ham, RC Sproul, John Lennox, etc., some of them have even debated atheists on this matter and just like you, these atheists are running like headless chickens in their explanations on why they don't believe in God and why do they believe on what they believe in. All of them believe in big bang and evolution which were invented around 200 years ago, actually both are nice science fictions except that they are constantly changing because both are not matching with what we actually observe now in the universe...while the Bible never change because that's the actual and true story of what had happened and what we observe in the world now....
What exactly do your assertions have to do with my argument?
Michael Jordan not very convincing.
Without God, moral standards are as we deem fit. Kent hasn't said anything wrong so far. I just say, you cannot assert our logic as men onto the mind of God if indeed he does exist. But without an ultimate authority, morals will just be a concept and ultimately nothing matters because there'll never be someone to answer to... Perhaps we'll all find out someday.
i'm not really sure what you mean by morals. do you mean empathy and a reasoned analysis of the consequences of your actions?
if that's what you mean, then the christian version of the god of abraham is not necessary for that, and "ultimate authority" seems like mean obedience to authority....
so what do you mean by morals?
do you mean empathy et al? do you mean obedience to authority? or what exactly?
Does anybody here have any real evidence for evolution besides just some guy saying that its true
texxtrek
No they're not facts my friend. All evidence for evolution is merely assertions or somebody wanting...
In fact, you couldn't even prove evolution, even though you think you could .
texxtrek
Ok thank you for proving what I said.
Evolutionists only assert that evolution is true. There is no real evidence.
What you did was merely assert evolution is true. You didn't provide evidence when asked.
texxtrek
So you responded to my post why? Now you're saying you won't give evidence for evolution even though you asserted it to be 100% true...
*clap clap clap*
You continue to prove me right. Evolution is bunk
texxtrek
And the name calling begins... when ALL I ASKED WAS FOR YOU to provide EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM Of THE TRUTH OF EVOLUTION.
Now you claim you won't provide it because of something I did wrong. What a joke. Prove your claim if you can
texxtrek
Once again, YOU MERRLY ASSERTING EVOLUTION IS TRUE IS NOT evidence.
Why do you not understand this? When somebody talks to you and say the earth is flat without providing evidence, do you just accept it like you accept evolution?
Negation of p, do you u understand what the Bible says about sin, and how Jesus came to be our savior? If so, how can you say that every act is essentially good because it's going according to god's plan? You obviously have no clue what you're talking about on this subject.
Thanks for viewing and thanks for the constructive criticism. As for my understanding of scripture I feel I am fairly well versed and do understand what the bible says about sin and how Jesus is claimed to be "our savior". However I feel I must point out the GNOM argument address those "facts" in its opening primacies and IMO is reflective of scripture as it is understood. However I am willing to be corrected and would love to hear where you feel my argument falls short. Please feel free to describe in better detail why you feel it fails. I ask for better clarification because as I assume you very well know and understand just asserting _"You (I) obviously have no clue what you're talking about on this subject."_ Is not a rebuttal and does nothing to better clarify things nor will it allow the discussion to move forward in any way. I sincerely hope you will take up this challenge and are much more capable than Mr. Hovind in defending your faith.
In order to help clarify my position and comprehension of your scripture Ill provide a brief synopsis of my understanding including the most relevant scriptural citations.
Sin: 1st IMO we need to define “sin. from the biblical perspective. ” First John 3:4 says, “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” Sin, therefore, is any violation of God’s holy law. Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” According to this verse, sin is anything (words, thoughts, actions, and motivations) that falls short of God’s glory and perfection. All of us sin. Romans 3:23 also teaches that we must know the character of God before we can accurately define sin, because His glory is the standard by which we measure it (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17).
Jesus as Savior: Man, as he is born into this world, needs a salvation, needs that wholeness, because as natural man he is lost and has no eternal life. All men do have this possibility of salvation, of being saved and receiving eternal life - but this is related to a certain condition: „whosoever believeth in him [Jesus Christ] should not perish“. Those who do not believe are already under the sentence of condemnation which puts him in the category .of being condemned; but those who believe on him will not be lost but will have eternal life. God has sent His only begotten Son as savior of the world, but that does not mean that automatically all the world will at one time attain to salvation. No! Salvation is available to all the world, but it is a matter of decision on the part of each individual to appropriate it by believing on Him. Only those who believe on Christ will receive everlasting life and will not be lost.
A few Scriptural citations for the basis of this assertion
1 John 4:14:
And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
John 3:16-18:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved [attain wholeness].
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Philippians 3:20-21
For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
With all that established I ask you to address the argument because IMO it has nothing what so ever to do with GNOM and god's omni-powers nor god's ability to use sin/evil to bring about his plan/will.
Thanks
Ned (~P)
lol, Never let it be said that I am not accommodating and thorough when responding to my opposition.
Seriously though, what I find telling is the fact that the vast majority of the time people like mike jones cuddly go silent as soon as a "clueless atheist" (like myself) responds to their childish baiting tactics with anything other than the ridicule and vitriol the expert (an may deserve), but hey what can we expect from people with no moral compass (or even the existence of morality)l due to their GAWD's existence . ;~)
Relax my friends as I groove to the sound of the beat. I will be back with you momentarily... or later, promise.
Well all we can do is try to hold rational conversations but if people like mike jones choose to drop comment and then disappear IMO that does as much (if not more) to prove they have nothing to offer as having a 2000 word comment "battle'.
We have been "relaxed" for over a week now mikey. I suggest you turn off the beat and "groove" to some type of response before you are considered nothing more than an inept "christian warrior" troll.
Thanks
Oh here we go right/wrong don't exist without god... sigh. Oh my word... watchmaker (painter) analogy... really? REALLY?! "things get better on there own with evolution..." what? No. Stop. LOL if you can get away with stealing is it wrong... I DONT KNOW KENT WHY DONT YOU ASK THE TAX PEOPLE ABOUT THAT??!!! >_
No man, I argue that you got it backwards. In short WITH an omni-god _" right/wrong don't exist"_ Enjoy ;~)
What about natural disasters? Those are no ones "fault" free will has no play there - if you do not know it is coming - then you have no chance to run away.... Kent wants it both ways - free will negates god but god's plan is not on that can be negated but it is. also it isnt. Kent always wants to bring it back to evolution (of course) so he can weezele out of answering the damn questions.
41:38 time for a break.
+Deconverted Man
The typical response to natural disasters is that they are a result of a corrupted/fallen world, which is ultimately the result of the conscious actions of Adam and Eve. So, free will is still at the core of the matter. But yeah, Kent is so tangled up in his choice details that he doesn't see the internal inconsistencies.
You talk a lot but say nothing.Dr Hovind wiped the floor with you.
I saw him debate a Mr Hovind but not a Dr Hovind. Is that a different video?
Why are the atheists so HATEFUL
If you bothered to actually watch my debates you would see I go out of my way to not only be respectful but also honestly present my own beliefs while (most importantly IMO) attempting to understand my interlocutors positions. Furthermore I hope even in this debate my motivation is made clear (see: time index ~3:00 to 4:05) and in no way indicative of a person driven or feed by hate but instead is reflective of an honest individual with a desire to know truth (not "Truth") . However, I do agree that my frustration does show a certain points and I did plan on confronting Mr. Hovind at some point because when in a discussion with someone as deceitful and dishonest as Mr. Hovind I feel it not only important to investigate the topic at hand but IMO one should also point out those traits to the listeners so they can be forwarded and hopefully avoid being influenced by the lies of such individuals.
Thanks for watching and commenting,
Ned (~P)
They are reprobates .