That Awkward Moment When a Creationist Gets Outwitted by a Sixth Grader

Last week, Portland State University played host to a debate on God’s existence between Young Earth Creationist Eric Hovind and atheist Bernie Dehler.

You can watch the entire debate here… or you can check out this highlight, in which an 11-year-old boy challenges Hovind with a question and Hovind implodes with an answer that makes no sense whatsoever:

Apparently, none of us know anything unless God reveals it to us. Good thing the sixth grader is there to play devil’s advocate :)

(via Skeptic Money)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • Sharon Hypatiia

    Huh. Hovind claims he knows the Truth because god knows everything and god tells him what the truth is.  So how does he know that the little voice in his  head is really god?

    • Matt Silverthorn

      It’s circular logic of the worst kind. You can’t know anything for certain unless you know everything or someone who knows everything tells you. How do you know God knows everything if you don’t know everything? Just gonna take his word for it? Of course, it’s irrelevant, since you’re just talking to yourself anyway.

      • tomsans

        I don’t know man, I just don’t know.

      • http://www.facebook.com/bernd.paysan Bernd Paysan

        You can’t know anything for certain, but you can find support for the things you know.  Some people like authority (“I’m your boss/teacher/god, and therefore what I tell you is the truth!  Bow down, or I’ll beat you!”), some people like to find out themselves and make experiments.  Those people usually distrust authorities, as they find out that authorities quite often are wrong.

        I’ve asked some Jehova witnesses how they knew that the Bible was written by God.  They answered “well, it says so”, and I said “No, it doesn’t.  In fact, for most parts it is actually known who’s the writer; for some parts, e.g. ‘Book Moses’, we presume that’s wrong, but for the more recent parts, we know pretty well who wrote what.  And it’s correctly attributed – and there are really only very minor places where the authors actually claim to have God’s direct words, like the 10 commandments – and they always were alone when they heard God.  It’s a collection of smaller booklets written entirely by humans, and it actually says so.” – “But they say they have been inspired by God” – “Yes, that’s all you can know.  *They say* they have been inspired by God.  Given the vast amount of inconsistencies in the book, from God ordering a genocide to ‘turn to them the other cheek.’ you find all and everything.  Maybe there’s a completely different meaning for ‘omniscient’ behind that.”

        The discussion with the 11 year old boy is revealing.  At that age, if you are clever, your knowledge about logic and things should be sufficiently advanced to see behind the circular logic of belief.  When I was about that age, there was an exhibition of Akhenaton in Munich, the inventor of monotheism.  To me, it was pretty obvious that this all was a human invention, and it was an Egypt pharaoh who invented it.  I discussed that with my religion teacher, and she made a few unsuccessful attempts to argue.  The confession of faith of the Akhenaton religion is paragraph by paragraph in the Bible, in psalm 104.  Some wording has been modified, references to Egypt, Akhenaton and the identity of Aton and sun have been removed or generalized.  Given the age discrepancy (there are about 800 years between the two texts, and most books from the Akhenaton time have been burned at least by Ramses II), it is extremely well preserved.

        My teacher told me that Akhenaton was a mad pharaoh, but I couldn’t quite agree.  He was not any more mad than other famous pharaohs, and the Aton belief is in essence worshipping nature, and even under today’s knowledge still correct: The sun *is* the central object here, and life on earth and everything else is a direct consequence of the energy we get from sun.  My conclusion was that there is a direct ancestral line from Christianity to the belief invented by a mad pharaoh.  My teacher didn’t want to agree on that part… and as adults do when they have been argued into a corner by an 11 year old child, they simply stop the discussion.  You know, the “you are wrong, I’m right, because I’m adult.”

        My conclusion was that many adults are self-righteous assholes, and that hasn’t changed when I became adult myself.  They indeed are, sometimes I’m myself, too ;-).  They have fixed points of view, they don’t want to discuss, and they are wrong on quite a lot of things.  And the thing they hate the most is to admit that.  That’s why a belief which tells them “hey dude, you are right about everything!  You just have to say ‘God told me so’” is so comfortable for them.  Fortunately, the idiotic points of view are actually quite those you can easily find in the Bible, no need to change your mindset.  Be homophobic?  God tells you so!  Be a misogynist?  God tells you so!  You can cherry-pick anything you like.  A fully idiot-compatible view of the world.  That’s why it is so successful, even 3300 years after a mad pharaoh invented it.

        And the central part of Akhenaton’s belief, that the sun created life on earth, makes the plants grow and the water flow, is even not counter-factual.  Without sun, we won’t be here.  It’s a lot closer to reality than the successors, who removed the link between God and the sun.

    • http://twitter.com/tekvet Carla Burris

       Silly, that’s the part where the magic happens, and thus your proof that god exists. Isn’t it obvious?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Benjamin-Hamilton/1169648654 Benjamin Hamilton

        I can’t figure it out:  How in the world does a person “know” that a thing that knows everything exists? Starting from a +1 advantage seems to me unfair in debate.  Ontological argument first, please.  Oh, wait! haha.. I forgot…that’s been trashed centuries ago. 

  • Sharon Hypatiia

    And smart kid!

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    Watched this yesterday and it bascily comes down to… Well, kid. You’re wrong.

    • Michael Both

      Within the context of a debate, Hovind’s blathering is obvious. Set within the context of a one-on-one discussion with a religious figure and a less mentally-guarded child, it becomes a more disturbing scenario, and yet this happens all the time, all over the world. Many kids will, trusting the ‘older person’, simply start to believe what they are told.

      Yes, sometimes it’s necessary to lie to kids, but I think you are doing young minds an extreme disservice to give them this kind of warped information (and by ‘this kind’ I mean anything rooted in faith / superstition). I was fortunate enough to escape any religious pressure as a child, but one distant relative was a self-proclaimed psychic and implanted in me a fear of ghosts that gave me night terrors for years (until I turned 10, decided to do some research, and found out it was all b/s).
      Now, if I was surrounded by people who also ‘believed’ in ghosts, I am sure it would have been much harder to ‘break free’. Many children face this in religious families, and it really bothers me a lot that this happens —-> one reason I am an outspoken atheist.

  • http://godlessgirl.com godlessgirl

    According to Hovind, you either have to know everything (in order to know anything as absolutely certain), or someone who does know everything can reveal something to you for you to know that for certain.

    But if you don’t know everything, how can you trust that the other being/person knows everything? You can’t know it for certain, so you can’t trust whatever is being told to you.

    • RobMcCune

      Presuppositionalism falls apart when it tries to make positive claims. The christian motivation for using those arguments ranges from making themselves feel better to just being a dick.

      • Baal

         For the longest time I thought “Presuppositionalism” was used instead of “idiocy” as a kind of politer substitute.  I was shocked that Hovind and others willing wear the label or make presuppositionalist arguments, “we’ll let’s just assume the conclusion is right and then ask if the conclusion is right.”  “Why yes, yes it is.  damn I’m good.”  <–I tend to look on folks who argue like that with equal parts confusion (wait, what? that's total fail) and pity (oh, you thought that was compelling, there there).

        • Brian Scott

          Presuppositionalism is due, from what I’ve seen, to a far more basic failure mode in reasoning: assuming independent existence of model structures outside of the media maintaining the model. That’s why we get all the memebot Calvinists in here talking about objective morality like it were a thing that reacts physically with the world like atoms.

          • Kevinmbruce84

             simple reply to the presupposition argument:
            do you presupose that the fewer presuppositions one hold the more likely they are to have less wrong beliefs

        • Michael Appleman

          I felt the same way when I first heard about ‘apologetics’. My first instinct was that it was a derogatory label.

          • Unindoctrin8ed

             My first thought was ‘It’s about damn time they apologised’ Then I looked the word up and found the definition was “reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine:” then laughed out loud. Reasoned? Yeah, right.

    • http://freeaudionetwork.wordpress.com/ secular1

      godlessgirl, Peter Pan refuses to grow up and you’ll never convince the Peter Pan believers with verifiable evidence, common sense, reason, logic or experimentation. They simply believe because they choose to believe and they believe that makes their belief True. It’s wishful thinking and abandonment of Reality. 

      • EVC

         if you think this way your target population is the wrong one, there are those who can be convinced  and you need to figue out who and how to reach them.

        i deal with these “choose to believe and they believe that makes their belief True” types all the time, and i know while i can refute them ten ways to sunday i will not convince them, but in doing so there are those that are questioning that will see the goings on and will realize that our logic is sound, and that we are right to lack belief for lack of evidence.

      • amycas

         I’m living proof that your assertion is not true.  People can and do change their minds about these subjects.

        • http://freeaudionetwork.wordpress.com/ secular1

          you are the exception not the rule. It is wasteful to expend your energy toward Superstitious Wishful Thinkers. As an atheist antitheist I put my energy toward convincing those living in the closet, cowering, conforming, and complying to go alone to get alone with Superstitious Wishful Thinkers. It’s more useful to convince the atheist, humanist and antitheist who are attending church going along to get along than try to get a Superstitious Wishful Thinker to adopt rational common sense. If a wishful thinker happens to hear the evidence and is finally convinced by the verifiable evidence we take that as a bonus but imho we shouldn’t focus on the wishful thinkers rather focus to get the closeted critical thinker to reveal themselves. 

    • http://profiles.google.com/sfjetland Serge Fjetland

      came here to say this. If i cant be sure of anything, than i cant be sure that someone who knows everything.. knows anything. therefore you reenter into the circular argument hes trying to say doesn’t exist.

      • Baal

         The ancient Greeks knew that anyone who made a circular argument (infinite regress) were to be laughed out of the conversation.

        • Deven Kale

           Are you implying that you believe that infinite regression is what circular means? I hope not. Just to be sure, a circular argument is one which relies on itself in order to be true, such as: The Bible is true because God wrote it, and we know God wrote it because the Bible says so.

          Infinite regress on the other hand is insisting that everything has a cause, which eventually runs into a problem of what the first cause was. This one’s a bit trickier to wrap one’s head around, but it’s not nearly as problematic as the circular argument.

    • anuran

      Shoot the arrows.
      Draw circles around them.
      Congratulate yourself on your aim.

      • willi0000000

        and the smaller the circle, the better your aim.  Q.E.D.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=773692362 Jansen Waddell

        I think I’ll be using this analogy a bit more, thanks!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=587576525 Alex Botten

      I’ve pointed out to Eric’s bff Sye Ten Bruggencate that the ONLY way (by the very argument Hovind and Ten Bruggencate promote) he can be certain that the revelation he’s received is genuine would be if he were omniscient himself. When pressed on this point he admits that he is not omniscient.

      I’m so glad that presup has made it out into the wider community, as Sye and Eric have fewer and fewer people that are unprepared when they drop their ‘is it possible that you’re wrong about everything you know?’ nonsense.

      • brianmacker

        That was the point of one of the kids questions, but it is even more absurd when applied to knowing simple things. Ask the guy, “Well then you are saying that if I were to kick you in the balls then you are claiming that you couldn’t know for a fact I did it unless you knew everything it is possible to know about the universe? That you’d be lying when you claimed to know I did it to the police, and lying on the witness stand? You are saying that all testimonial claims of knowledge of any kind are in fact false because no one except god is omniscient?”

    • Brian Pansky

       ya, they actually multiply the problem.  They start with one problem (how can we know about outside reality or something) and wind up with more unanswered questions:

      1  How can we trust our sensing of the bible?  (basically same as initial problem)
      2  How can we trust the god being? (like you said, that the person actually does know stuff, and is communicating honestly)

      So they say a certain message is the answer.  So how do you verify outside sense etc?  By sensing a communication outside of you that says its alright!  So now the problem has not been solved, and a new one (was the person communicating honest?) has been added.

    • J K King

      A sixth grader can beat a Christian believer in a debate in the United States, not because atheism is axiomatic or logical, but because believers take what they believe for granted because they are in the majority. Consequently, even their debaters are weak.

      The rhetoric of six grade atheists is sophisticated and polished because their atheist parents pound that stuff into their head to combat the status quo. It’s their parents talking, using their children like puppets.

      In certain areas of Russia where atheism has dominated, six grade Christian believers have clobbered atheist adults, probably for the very reasons I just stated.

      This is simply a variation on that old “Nah nah I’m smarter than you” or “My father can beat your father”stuff.   Can we all just mature and face the issues head on without the posturing and propaganda?

      J K King, author of Shocked by Truth: Exploding our Notions of Humanity and “God”          
      http://www.shockedbytruth.com

       

      • amycas

        Why do you assume that the arguments against god’s existence have been crammed into the kid’s head? Could it be that the parents simply taught them logic and reason? I know quite a few children with atheist parents, and none of them had anti-god arguments crammed into their heads, in fact, a few of them actually go to church (or temple) when they want to.

        • J K King

          Amy,

          because some atheist parents don’t cram their arguments into their children and okay their religion is no reflection on the fact that all children who vociferate atheism had that crammed into them by their parents.

          Reversing my supposition changes its meaning. For example, all elephants are big. That doesn’t mean that things that are big are elephants.

          How about a Christian becoming such through logic and reasoning? On this blog I’ve noticed the idea that science=logic; if something is not scientific,” it’s not logical.” That’s like shooting arrows and painting bulls eyes around them.

          I’m not saying that you’re saying that, however. It’d be interesting to read your other comments.

          • http://www.facebook.com/connie.c.cook Connie C Cook

            Atheists do not cram atheist arguments into their children. Atheists are not anti-Christian as much as they are anti-idot. Atheists have reasonable and accurate fears of being injured or somehow social restricted by Christians because they do not wish to be forced into adopting that ridiculous ancient religious belief system. Why not, everyone else does? Because atheists realize that all religion lacks the necessary empirical proof that would take religion from a social system of faith based belief into the realm of reality. In 2,000 years, no factual and reasonable proof of any type for the tenants of their religion have ever been found.

            Of course the strange dogma considered proof by Christians is only proof of the Christian inability to find factual, empirical proof of any God, anywhere, at any time.

            The Bible is not proof because we do not know who wrote it, and because any evidence of reality surrounding the Bible is completely lacking. When Christians can drop the fears, they can see reality. When the closet atheists realize the speed with which America is becoming a secular nation, they will begin to lose the fears that peer pressure always provides. Then they will begin to join their fellow atheists by the millions.

            That will be the beginning of the end of religion for everyone except the hateful Westboro Baptist Church fools. They don’t have a clue, and I doubt they ever will.

          • http://www.facebook.com/connie.c.cook Connie C Cook

            Atheists do not cram atheist arguments into their children. Atheists are not anti-Christian as much as they are anti-idot. Atheists have reasonable and accurate fears of being injured or somehow social restricted by Christians because they do not wish to be forced into adopting that ridiculous ancient religious belief system. Why not, everyone else does? Because atheists realize that all religion lacks the necessary empirical proof that would take religion from a social system of faith based belief into the realm of reality. In 2,000 years, no factual and reasonable proof of any type for the tenants of their religion have ever been found.

            Of course the strange dogma considered proof by Christians is only proof of the Christian inability to find factual, empirical proof of any God, anywhere, at any time.

            The Bible is not proof because we do not know who wrote it, and because any evidence of reality surrounding the Bible is completely lacking. When Christians can drop the fears, they can see reality. When the closet atheists realize the speed with which America is becoming a secular nation, they will begin to lose the fears that peer pressure always provides. Then they will begin to join their fellow atheists by the millions.

            That will be the beginning of the end of religion for everyone except the hateful Westboro Baptist Church fools. They don’t have a clue, and I doubt they ever will.

    • http://reasonjunky.tumblr.com/ Reason Junky

      Also, in Epistemology, there is a big debate about whether any testimony of the senses can really be used to justify a true belief. This flies in the face of Hovind’s transparent attempt to validate Revelation. How do you know that any divine revelation is really divine revelation and not just a brain fart?

  • RobertoTheChi

    That was priceless! What a smart kid. And Hovind made absolutely no sense with his answer, but then again I am not surprised.

    • ReadsInTrees

      I thought his answer was great! I don’t know the name of my mail man, therefore I don’t know everything, therefore I can’t know anything for certain. My world is crumbling!!!

      • Juice

        Can you even know if you have a mail man?

        • ReadsInTrees

          *look of speechless confusion*

        • brianmacker

          Not unless you know everything else there is to know, like how many brain cells died just listening to this guy.

      • brianmacker

        His argument was at a deeper level of stupid than that. He stated you cannot know any single fact unless you knew every possible fact. If you knew everything it is possible to know except whether Hovind masterbated last night well then according to him you know nothing.

        • Willy Occam

           I’m gonna take a stab and say that yes, he did… though he did it in the dark so God wouldn’t see him.

  • Stev84

    It’s no coincidence that he uses the 2+2=4 example, since he wants to convince everyone that 2+2=5

  • http://deusxed.wordpress.com/ jcdenton40

    The problem with Hovind’s argument is that even if it WERE logically sound (which it isn’t), it fails miserably because by the Bible’s own admission, God not only CAN lie, he does so on a recurring basis.

    As Jeremy Beahan of the Reasonable Doubts podcast pointed out in his debate against Cliff Knechtle :

    “If God will tell his prophets to lie as he did to Samuel in 1st Samuel 16:2, if he puts lies into the mouths of prophets as he does in 2nd Chronicles 18:22, or will send a spirit of delusion so that people will believe in what is false and not be saved as in 2nd Thessalonians 2:11, then we have no basis on which to trust what God says about himself or any of his supposed messengers.”

    • Sharon Hypatiia

      Hovind’s assertion that you cannot question the truth of his claims
      because it was revealed to him by god omits the fact that the Bible expects a
      little due diligence from believers.
      15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
      16By their fruit you will recognize them. ”  Matthew 7: 15-16Hovind’s (and his fellow CreoIDers) spread lies and misinformation about evolution, geology, cosmology and scientists. They are false prophets – bad trees bearing bad fruit.

    • Quintin

      On the basis of evidence we can conclude that the young earth creationist’s god is either a liar, a deceiver or a false god anyway.

  • http://freeaudionetwork.wordpress.com/ secular1

    It is sick that a University sponsors a debate with a creationist which gives the creationist the semblance of credibility for his nonsense. This is showing respect of a fairy tale. Do we now debate someone who believes Batman is real or that Mother Goose was a real talking Goose?!!? It seems this stance now have a reasonable basis to demand such a debate be sponsored by our Universities. 

    • http://IAmDanMarshall.com/ Dan Marshall

      I don’t think that PSU sponsored the debate, but just merely provided facilities.

    • Thin-ice

      I know Bernie who organized the debate, and it wasn’t a university event. Besides, so what if it was? University education is about exploring and the exchange of ideas. It didn’t give Hovind any credibility at all: it made him look stupid.

      • http://freeaudionetwork.wordpress.com/ secular1

        I see, Universities are suppose to give every superstition a forum? How many people have to believe I have an Invisible Pink Talking Unicorn in my backyard before it is deemed acceptable that a University give a forum to a debate on such a delusion? What next, a forum to debate whether Santa Claus is real? There are plenty of asinine Christian Universities for the  ignorant to attend and offer a forum to such superstitions. 

  • Writegurl

    Notice that Hovind continues to attempt to discredit the child by pointing out his age several times. (You’re only 11, right? Then by default, you don’t know as much as us adults.)

    • ReadsInTrees

      Ugh, that irritated me too.

      • brianmacker

        It had me laughing because he kept drawing attention to the fact that an 11 year old had more smarts than him.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Adam-Patrick/100000027906887 Adam Patrick

      I’ve had that happen to me before. Annoys me to no end.

  • BeasKnees

    Ridiculous.  Kudos to the kid.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Eric Hovind makes Ken Ham look like a genius.
     

  • Maleekwa

    Bravo, young man!

    The presuppositional argument is the most intellectually corrupt piece of shit argument apologists have come up with. To me, the very fact that they have to stoop to such rhetoric shows their position is laughably weak. How many believing parents have trusted their children to church leaders, who all shared “absolute knowledge” that the children would be in safe hands, only to find that their children were molested by these people they trusted, people they were sure God told them they could trust.
    I’m not saying that all Christians are corrupt or child molesters; but ANYONE that claims some absolute knowledge via some supernatural source is full of shit, plain and simple.

  • http://www.facebook.com/StrangeCandee Candee Bell

    So, just because Eric Hovind is an adult this kid is suppose to take his words as logical and correct when he himself didn’t even think it through before opening his mouth? Guess he didn’t expect a kid to think for himself and ask important questions. I’m surprised he didn’t throw the “You just have to have faith” nonsense statement that most Christians throw out there when cornered. Kudos to the 6th grader! 

    • Cara Coleen

       I’d say Hovind’s response was a very convoluted of saying just that: “You just have to have faith… that someone out there knows everything, and you can only know anything because of that.”

  • drakvl

    Technically, he is right; but this is exactly why science is honest about its uncertainty. It also reminds me of a commercial that aired not too long ago:

    “I’m 99.9% sure.”
    “So, you don’t know.”
    “Okay, I’m 99.9999% sure.”
    “If you don’t know, you don’t know!”

  • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

    AAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!

    That kid was GREAT! Hovind came across as a condescending ass who was hoist by his own petard. I laughed hard enough that I think I squeezed out a drop.

  • http://twitter.com/IAmSimonDell Simon Dell

    ‘Proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing,’ said God.
    But Creationism proves God exists.
    So by his own argument, God doesn’t exist and disappears in a puff of logic.

    (apologies to Douglas Adams and the Babel Fish there)

    • http://www.facebook.com/gurubobnz Bob M Brown

      Pleased to see this reference :)

  • jflcroft

    LOVE!

  • viaten

    Does Eric really believe what he says or does he know he’s playing a game?  I can’t tell.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-De-Fleuriot/611844223 Mike De Fleuriot

       I think Eric has little skill or talent elsewhere and knows a good deal when he sees it. That is why he is taking his con artist father’s business and running with. Just like every other public theist out there with a website.  None of them believe the nonsense they peddle, they do not have to, all they need to is feed the sheep what the sheep need.

      • viaten

        I tend to agree but still wonder what’s going on in his mind that makes him present such dumb arguments.  I wonder if he could in some way believe his own arguments.

        • Reginald Selkirk

           I think you should consider the obvious explanation: that Eric Hovind is genuinely stupid.

          • viaten

             The term “genuinely stupid” doesn’t mean anything.  It’s like saying someone is “pure evil” (or “totally awesome”).  I can understand people using such terms out of frustration, but they are labels that allow people quickly dismiss others without trying to understand them.  Something made him turn out that way or drives him to do what he does.  Under different circumstances he may have been very different.  It’s easy to see what is wrong with what he says and it’s important to call him on it, but what is going on with his mind and the different minds of those that go along with what he says is a much more complicated question.  There isn’t any “obvious explanation” such as “genuinely stupid”.

            • In

              Actually the meaning of “genuinely stupid” seems crystal clear and perfectly appropriate here.  I don’t view Mr. Selkirk’s comment as derogatory or pejorative, particularly coming as it does with video evidence of Mr. Hovind making a fool of himself.  There are innumerable logical inconsistencies in both the bible (lowercase intentional) and the views espoused by its adherents.  If a person is unable to follow simple logical arguments that demonstrate he/she is wrong and not _at least_ reconsider their position, it does strongly suggest mental ineptitude.  Ergo, “genuinely stupid.”

              • viaten

                 You may think it’s clear and appropriate and maybe I’m hung up on the term “genuinely stupid”, but I don’t want to consider him “genuinely stupid” as Selkirk suggested I do.  At some level he might know he is conning people and doesn’t care because it’s his ticket.  He might even be kidding himself and wants to or does believe what he is saying. I’m not sure. To me it seems that he is counting on others being misinformed, manipulable, and not clear thinking or else wanting to go along with what he says, and that he knows he only has to make things sound good to them and be seen putting up a fight with evolutionists and atheists.  It seems to me he is capable of having a change of heart and would not have too much problem understanding the error of his statements but refuses to do so.  I don’t qualify him as genuinely stupid based on those things.  If there is any stupidity, it’s in his career choice which he might someday realize.

                If he genuinely tried to see his errors even when putting aside his beliefs, and then is not capable of seeing his errors even from skeptic’s point of view, then I might consider him stupid, but I am not sure that is the case.  It might be he just won’t let himself try to do that.  I might say that he is being stupid rather than say he is stupid, but I would more likely say that he is deceitful and unethical.  As De Fleuriot mentioned earlier, I think he might just be latching on to his father’s gimmick for the money.  If that’s the case, I’d expect him to stick to his tactics.  But I prefer not to say he is genuinely stupid for the same reason I wouldn’t want to say he’s clinically insane, an exaggeration sometimes used on both sides.  Others can use those terms if they like, but I prefer not to.

            • brianmacker

              The phrase “genuinely stupid” certainly does have meaning in this context. It means that he wasn’t acting when he made those stupid claims, and actually believes them. He’s not faking his stupidity.

  • TnkAgn

    From the mouths of babes…

  • more compost

    I will say something confusing, that is impossible to understand.  Did you understand that?  No?  Well, there is your proof of God!  I win!

    • ReadsInTrees

      Haha, exactly! I watched the whole FRUSTRATING video, and then saw this graphic:
      https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/252292_386414318106261_1276680829_n.jpg…and I burst out laughing

      • http://www.summerseale.com/ Summer Seale

        I just saved that in my favorites graphics iPhoto library forever and reposted it on G+. Thank you for that. =)

    • http://twitter.com/Spawn_of_Santa Spawn of Santa

       no, no, no.. I think that’s fair.  The kid asked him to provide a proof for his ridiculous argument and then refused to be swayed by his ridiculous support for his argument.  The kid wasn’t the one being badgered here, it was the “young earther” who was being OWNED!

  • Baal

    Also – wtf with trying to brow beat an 11 year old.  The kid stood up just fine but Eric kept blathering and badgering.

    • Reginald Selkirk

       At some point, even the incredibly dim Eric Hovind had enough wits to realize that he had been pwned. At that point, he had to blather on a while longer in an attempt to obscure the pwning from the other people in the room. It was mostly unsuccessful, but is is probable that a few others present 1) may have been motivated by believe to give Hovind every benefit of a doubt or 2) were quite dim themselves. After all, half of the people out there have below average intelligence.

  • C Peterson

    He claims the superior position because he “deals with certainty” whereas the others “admit they might be wrong about everything”. If that doesn’t just about sum up the entirety of his (and his cohorts’) intellectual bankruptcy, I don’t know what does.

    • EVC

       pride goeth be for the fall.
      it is his pride that leads him here to the edge of the cliff, and it is a long way down….

  • http://www.last.fm/user/m6wg4bxw m6wg4bxw

    It doesn’t matter if we stipulate to the existence of “god,” and to its ultimate knowledge. We remain without confidence that we can’t be misled by it. Who could deceive more convincingly than an ultimately powerful and ultimately knowing being?

  • viaten

    Eric seems to be saying, “You can’t be sure that I’m not sure.”

  • Quintin

    Silly Eric, presupposition is only useful to prove something false. Here’s one. Presuppose that God exists and does not lie nor deceive. God says (fill in creationist claim here). We observe that (fill in creationist claim here) is false, therefore the presupposition is false, therefore either God does not exist or lies at times and/or deceives at times.

    • RobMcCune

      Presuppositionalism is an inconsistent standard, blind, submissive faith in chrisitanity, and radical skepticism towards anything else.

  • ReadsInTrees

    It seems like most of his response was saying words in a mystical way. The word “god” has to be said sort of strained and breathy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

    I was waiting for the kid to say, “Oh, sure, I accept that my dad could be wrong about everything. Obviously.  Sure.  Not me, though.:-)

    • brianmacker

      I don’t think it likely his dad is wrong about everything. There is a possibility that he is wrong on particular facts though considering he is fallible like everyone else, including Hovind.

  • ReadsInTrees

    Advice: Don’t watch the full video. My head is sore from banging it on my desk.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Benjamin-Hamilton/1169648654 Benjamin Hamilton

    I back the kid here…Hovind asks the kid if there is no “proof” that god doesn’t exist (or something like this) and the kid answers affirmatively.  There is no “proof” logical or otherwise that one exists.  Pretty cool from an 11 year old if you ask me. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/carl.etheredge Carl Etheredge

    Solipsism is stupid.

  • http://friendlyatheist.com Richard Wade

    Wow. Hovind restated his “argument” over and over in roughly thirty second bits. The first thirty seconds, he was silly. Building on that, the next thirty seconds was inane. Continuing to elaborate, the next half minute was half witted. By the time he’d stumbled over his own buffoonery for that full three minutes, he resembled a comic parody of a con artist trying to sell snake oil to the Dean of  Harvard Medical School. 

  • Aaron Scoggin

    Being certain about things that you can’t be certain about is the mark of an idiot.

  • Robster

    Was Hovind there?

  • http://www.facebook.com/kalleoskar.isaacson Carl Oscar Isaacson

    Mr. Hovind’s epistemological confusion is sad. He seems to be stuck with some sort of misunderstanding of Kantian epistemology. Hovind’s desire to be certain is pathetic. Hope that “Chad” gave him a false name. Hovind is creepy.

  • Daniel Froman

    I stopped watching the video about a minute into it because I could no longer tolerate Hovind’s blithering stupidity.

  • Hellboy

    Has anybody here ever seen the movie “Kung Pow”? Basically it’s gag-dub/martial-arts comedy that parodies the old kung-fu flicks from the 60′s and 70′s.

    I’m bringing this up because in the film the protagonist has a rival named Wimp-Lo, who it turns out was intentionally trained wrong by his sensei “as a joke.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d696t3yALAY

    So basically, watching folks like Eric Hovind argue their points makes me wonder if the origins of pressuposationalism lie in something similar happening involving a bored Philosophy 101 professor and one of his students.

  • Eww

    1984 anyone?

  • http://www.facebook.com/barnaby.wallace.1 Barnaby Wallace

    People really sit around and make websites about this? Why? When I see someone who is wrong, I just think “There goes a person, they are wrong, I don’t care”

    • Coyotenose

      It’s very important that you speak up to talk about how superior you are. So important that the need to do so has pushed out the part of your brain that lets you grasp that religion harms everyone.

    • brianmacker

      You just broke your own rule so now you are inferior like all the rest of us who like to share our knowledge to better others. Of course you are wrong, but I’m not the kind to just let you wander around ignorant. You might stub your frontal lobe.

    • Sven2547

      This particular person-who-is-wrong is actively trying to get that wrongness taught in schools as scientific fact.

    • amycas

       http://xkcd.com/774/

  • Jack D. Ripper

    That was the biggest pile of quasi-metaphysical clap-trap I’ve heard since the LAST huckster….

    Thank Cthulhu for kids like Chad.

  • Thin-ice

    Eric Hovind’s education puts his blathering in context:

    “After completing his high school studies at Pensacola Christian Academy in 1997, Eric graduated from Jackson Hole Bible College in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Co-founded by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and Dr. Don Landis of Jackson Hole Community Bible Church, Jackson Hole Bible College was designed to give students a solid biblical foundation with a special creation emphasis.”

    What a spectacular scientific educational pedigree!

  • CloudchaserSakonige

    Being a lifelong believer myself, I wish that other Christians would get it that we can’t really prove that the God we believe in does exist.  And that atheists would get it that God’s existence can’t be proven, it also can’t be dis-proven.

    • http://twitter.com/the_ewan Ewan

      Oh no, we get that. It’s an old and very well worn idea known as “Russell’s teapot” – the principle that not being able to disprove something isn’t grounds for believing it to be true.

      Over the years people have postulated a great many gods, spirits, demon djinn, ghosts etc. How many can you prove don’t exist? How many do you believe in?

      • CloudchaserSakonige

        Good point, I’ve got to remember that I also can’t prove that other deities don’t exist.

        • http://twitter.com/the_ewan Ewan

           OK, but why not take that one step further – what reasons do you have to believe in the one that you do, rather than any other(s), or none at all?

          • CloudchaserSakonige

            That is something I never have been able to put to words in a way that can’t be otherwise explained.  For example, I say something like “I believe because…” and I get a response something like “here’s a scientific explanation for that.”  Yet I still believe.  It’s just something I feel in my heart.  I don’t know how to explain it any more than a small child can explain why adults do the things they do.

            • Drakk

              I feel in my heart that there’s no such thing as a god, as described by any of the major religions of the world.

              My heartfeel is just as valid as yours, right?

              • CloudchaserSakonige

                Good point.  I probably never will stop wondering why neither side can prove who is truly right.

                • Drakk

                   See, I disagree. If someone were to actually make a coherent proposition regarding god (like, say, how to get in contact with him), then that proposition could be tested. If it doesn’t work, then whatever god is, it isn’t THAT.

                  Do this enough, and eventually there won’t be anything left to propose.

                  Essentially, god becomes another name for ignorance. Why worship ignorance?

            • http://twitter.com/the_ewan Ewan

              “It’s just something I feel in my heart.  I don’t know how to explain it”

               It’s important to realise that you don’t know anything in your heart – you know things with your brain, and the human brain has some serious problems.

              We are completely unparalleled at pattern recognition – we can pull the signal out or the noisiest, messiest, most incomplete data imaginable. From our earliest prairie ancestors, to dealing with the information flood of modern life, we cannot be beaten at pattern recognition. A human brain can pull meaning out of anything.

              Unfortunately, that’s also our biggest weakness – we can pull meaning out of things where there is no meaning. We hear voices in the wind in the trees, see faces in the clouds, and gods in everything we don’t understand.

              When you understand your own limitations you understand that what you ‘feel in your heart’ is a useful guide to the truth, but it’s an unreliable guide, so you need to check what it tells you – and you already do. When you feel like someone’s watching you, you look round, to check. When you think you recognise a friend in the distance, you get closer, to check. And when you feel that there’s a god, you poke at the universe, to check, and you find that there’s really no evidence there to back up the feeling, and then, hard though it might be to admit when you’re wrong, you do it anyway, and get on with your life knowing that while your brain’s ancient, slowly evolved, hunter-gatherer heritage sometimes steers you wrong, you’re still smart enough not to let it mislead you.

            • Brian Scott

              As what Ewan said, there are alternative explanations for religious feelings that are part of the causal execution of the universe. Now, one could possibly take that such an adaptation was planned and, thus, is evidence for gods, but the other possible explanation – that the utility for pattern recognition was sufficient and detriments of false positives insufficient favoured the selection of an overactive pattern recognition executor – is valid. Atheists take the latter to be the more likely explanation, going by Ockham’s razor.

    • NotTHATguest

      I don’t go around trying to dispprove deities. But until one or more is/are proven, I don’t see why should waste my time/money/peace of mind over it.

      What irritates me is when one religion tries to impose its beliefs on the whole of society. Religion is a private matter.

      • CloudchaserSakonige

        I irritates me too when other Christians can’t be satisfied with banning something from their own households and lives, they have to try and get laws passed imposing their beliefs on other people.  They think they’re doing the right thing, but non-Christians see it as beliefs they don’t agree with being imposed on them.

      • CloudchaserSakonige

        Oh, and I’m glad you feel that way about disproving deities.  It also bothers me that some atheists spend so much time (Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous one) disproving the existence of something that they don’t even believe exists to start with.

        • http://twitter.com/the_ewan Ewan

          Dawkins doesn’t do that. There was a bit of media kerfuffle (e.g:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html ) just a while ago when he explained that since he can’t ‘disprove’ the existence of any particular god, then strictly he’s agnostic.

          However, as with the teapot, practically you don’t believe it’s there without some evidence, so you actually live your life as if it’s not, which is what most of us (Dawkins included) mean when we say we’re atheists.

          • CloudchaserSakonige

            I was under the impression that he did.  But I have been wrong before.

            I see your point there

            • brianmacker

              Some notions of God are disprovable, those that are contradictory, for example the Christian god as described in the bible. It doesn’t take much time to disprove such a god so I’m not sure why you are so upset about any time we spend pointing out simple facts. You can’t be all loving and murder most of the human race the way Yahweh does in that flood the bible. That wasn’t so hard was it?

    • Marshall Cypress

       You can’t prove that you exist.

      • CloudchaserSakonige

        I think it’s also a matter of what one wants to believe whether they’ll admit it or not.  I’ve seen people insist they’re right even with clear evidence right there in from of them that they’re wrong.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Murray-Brown/1415568389 Murray Brown

        That’s what I used to think, but the IRS proved otherwise.

      • brianmacker

        I just did.

        • Marshall Cypress

           sorry still do not believe you.

          • brianmacker

            Not true. If you didn’t believe me then you would not have replied or called me “you”.

            • Marshall Cypress

               just throwing “you” a bone…
              As far as I know “you” are an AI setup by the website. I still have no proof that “you” exust. I prefer the term “you” over the more descriptive “dumb@55″.

              • brianmacker

                You are just getting yourself in deeper with every reply.  How could you be throwing me a bone if I don’t exist?   It’s ridiculous to claim to be throwing a bone to an AI program because such a program is in no need of charity.     Plus even if I am an AI program that is responding to you then I still exist as a separate entity that you are arguing with.  

                Did you think it would hurt my feelings to be called dumb by someone  who is either  trying to convince me that I’m an AI program, or that he actually believes I am one.   You may not be able to know my gender but you have sufficent proof that I exist.   Perhaps I’m a talking cat that types.  Perhaps I’m a superintelligent AI program.  Perhaps I’m a voice in your head.   Regardless of what you think I might be, the fact that I am responding proves that I exist.  The fact you respond affirms that you don’t think you are talking to yourself.

                • Marshall Cypress

                   still no proof of “your” existence.

                • Brian Macker

                  Not only is there conclusive evidence that I exist from your perspective, there is also conclusive evidence that you are not working with a full deck of cards. … and people like you believe in invisible all powerful deities based on mere rumor in books. What amazingly twisted and backwards thought processes.

                • Marshall Cypress

                  You cannot prove you exist and I do not believe in a skyman.

  • CloudchaserSakonige

    And that both sides would get it that being insulting to the other side instead of calm and logical like those two were will never get anyone to change their mind.

    • Stev84

      Both approaches have their uses. Some theists are either too stupid, too willfully ignorant and/or too offensive for the rational approach to be of any use. Insulting them is the only way to deal with them.

    • Coyotenose

       Hovind is anything but calm and logical.

    • brianmacker

      Hovind was illogical, agitated, and insulting. Not sure what video you watched.

  • Msironen

    Presuppositionalism is about as valid piece of philosophy as creationism is legit science.

  • David B.

    “You have to know everything to be sure of anything”
    :
    “If I knew everything, and I could never lie, and I told you 2+2=4, could you be absolutely sure of that?”

    By his own argument, no.

    If absolute certainty demands omniscience, then you cannot acquire it second-hand by revelation, since you can’t yourself be absolutely certain of that revelation without being omniscient.

    Even if I was receiving direct revelation from an all-knowing and perfectly truthful deity, I could not be certain that I really was, hence could neither be absolutely certain of what was ‘revealed’.

    • Coyotenose

       Worse yet, even if you are omniscient, you can’t be certain of it.

    • brianmacker

      The kids reply was correct. I already know 2+2=4 so the rest doesn’t matter.

  • Cheryl G

    I don’t know everything, but I know Hovind is an idiot. God told me that.

  • http://twitter.com/Spawn_of_Santa Spawn of Santa

    You know, here’s the thing.  I believe in God (not the Christian God, but God none-the-less).  BUT, I DO NOT need scientific, or “scientific” proof of Gods’ existence.  I know it in my heart, I’ve seen the existence of the Gods around me.  Therefore, my argument is simply;  I believe in the Gods, because I know the Gods exist.  Logic, plays NO PART in it.  Nor does science.  IT IS UP TO YOU to decide whether the Gods (or God, or Allah, or Jehova, or Yaweh, or Shiva, or Kali, or Buddha, or….ad infinitum…ad naseum) exist for you.

    IF YOU try to prove to me that God exists… i.e, provide EXTERNAL PROOF that God exists as opposed to INTERNAL (personal) proof, I WILL Take you to task for it.  BECAUSE YOU CANNOT PROVE IT!  Not by any intelligent standard.

    THOSE who try to PROVE, or..forgive me…”prove” the existence of  God merely show their own lack of faith (in addition to their own lack of understanding of the nature of God).

    Hovand’s particular argument is just plain ignorant.  We are MORTAL, there is no way for us to know EVERYTHING (I guess, unless we become “enlightened” somehow..ala Buddhism or Taoism??? Dunno – I’m NOT enlightened and know no one who is so I have no one to ask about this…maybe the Buddhist Temple in town has a Bodhidharma I can ask???).  But his argument is that we can’t know anything unless we know everything isn’t PROOF that there is (or isn’t) a deity, in fact, LOGICALLY, it’s just the opposite, it’s a statement that we HAVE NO PROOF that there is a deity because we, as mortals CANNOT know everything, therefore there is no proof at all that God exists.

    It’s one of the worst arguments for belief in a God (or anything else for that matter) that I’ve ever seen.

    • Marshall Cypress

       wharrgarbl much?

    • brianmacker

      You forgot to mention the Easter bunny, Santa and unicorns. They can exist in exactly the same fashion.

    • Brian Scott

      One of the things I think gets lost in this conversation is: what happens given this? I ask this in earnest: given that you are affected by the world, is there a meaningful distinction between “internal” and “external” proofs you posited?

      I run on the negative result of that question. Ignoring that, however, I am curious as to what, exactly, input you received such that you evaluate the existence of gods to be true.

  • Bobbie Jo Justice

    the christian bible, written by superstitious cave dwellers and goat herders, not a god 

  • Cmloebel

    That eleven year will likelydesign a srug that saves the life of the creationist, who will then give glory to god fir saving his life.

    I think any creationist should banned from using medicine or calling police or fire. Ro do so is to thwart Gods will and crearion.

  • Jcowden42

    Someone shoulda warned the fool 11yr olds won’t let you get away with squat!?!

  • Brian Pansky

     watch first minute and 20 seconds, then stop :)

  • Brian Pansky

     ya, his sudden smiling “how old are you buddy” inquiry was quite unsettling.

  • Brian Pansky

     uh, rational thinking is important.  If belief in a god is a widespread warping of rational thinking, people are allowed to be concerned about that.  It can have an impact on their reasoning in other areas.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tncdel Tnc Del
  • http://www.facebook.com/tncdel Tnc Del

    I’m not into mysticism. So I deem all religion utter nonsense. And I don’t accept the “atheist” label, for it wrongly implies “theism” is a legitimate starting point, since “a-theism” in effect means “away from a belief in god.” And it should be the reverse; namely: a belief in mysticism is “alogical” or “arational” [to distinguish it from irrational]. 

    Someone who believes in mysticism is “alogical” or “arational,” no matter how logical and rational he or she may be in other areas. 

  • NixManes

    Proof of anything, not just one or another deity, is completely independent from any human. This idea that the existence of anything depends on what any human has to say about it is just silly. The believing mind is such a waste.

  • Whiterc

    I always like the “why couldn’t god lie? Knowing everything includes knowing how and when to lie.” Shame the kid wasn’t old enough to pound on the “so how can you know that there is a god and that you are talking to him if you cannot know anything” bit.

  • Whiterc

    One wonders how they would deal with “God already told me you are wrong.”?

  • AxeGrrl

    I try to avoid reading youtube comments, but I appreciated this one:

    “Its unfair to argue against a believer. They can make up shit whenever they want. Insert anything else in for God and it is a highly illogical statement. Without fruit you can’t know anything. Without Mr. Brown you can’t know anything. Without Play-dough you can’t know anything. But as soon as you put the word God in there it becomes perfectly logical to some people.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=653643948 CatDeville Llewellyn

    I’m sorry… as a philosopher, who has studied epistemology (that’s the study of knowledge and understanding – i.e., questioning what it is to “know”, what we “know”, how we “know” things, etc.) I disagree heartily.

    As a person of faith, I recognize that my belief in the Divine is an *interpretation* of my personal experience. As a philosopher, and a smart person with an understanding of logic, I realize that while one may not have empirical evidence of the Divine with which to convince others (which wouldn’t be faith, it would be *science*), that the absence of something does not *ever* create data, therefore you can’t ever provide evidence for the *non-existence* of God either.

    one

    It is rational to take a position that all knowledge contains a level of uncertainty since our knowledge, and how we know things *changes*.  It is not rational to say that one must know *everything* to assume that one knows anything.  It is also not rational to assume that “revealed” knowledge is superior knowledge – that’s a *religious* viewpoint. The assumption that “someone” could “know everything and never lie” is not a rational assumption to begin with… in other words, he’s *assuming* that God exists as his evidence that God exists (circular knowledge.)

    As someone who understands math, I also do not have to “know absolutely everything” to be certain that 2+2=4.  As long as we’re talking real numbers and euclidean geometry I can easily both demonstrate, via illustration (1, 2 apples plus 1, 2 oranges, equals one, two, three, four pieces of fruit) or via mathematical proof that 2+2=4.

    What this man is elucidating (very poorly, I might add) makes no sense at all, from either a philosophical (logical argument) or mathematical viewpoint.

    Which means that the *logical* position, if one has no direct *personal* experience (which one *defines* as “religious experience”) is to doubt – to have that uncertainty – to say, I can’t place my belief in “God” because I see no evidence of “God”, but I can’t be certain that “God” does not exist because I cannot know everything. It may not be logical to accept the proof of one’s senses

    • http://www.facebook.com/Casey79 Casey Anderson

      There the theists go, attempting to shrug off burden of proof again.  You make the claim, you substantiate it.  Period.

      I can no more disprove the figments of your imagination than you can disprove that I have an invisible, undetectable imp named Steve that sits on my shoulder. Both claims are equally credible.

  • ConureDelSol

    I hope I end up with a kid like that!  I would be SO proud.

  • trevolution

    I know God exists because I felt his presence. During a time of tribulations and struggle, God revealed his great mercy and made my heart feel extreme peace and warmth. I instantly felt like I knew I would be okay and I knew that had to be God. It is foolish to believe a perfect spherical planet that sustains life, to come from an accident of matter turning into life over millions of years. There’s only one way to heaven folks, through the lord Jesus Christ.

    • phantomreader42

       Your hallucinations do not magically make reality go away.  The voices in your head are giving you bad information.  Jesus is a myth, so is heaven.  You clearly have no idea at all what you are talking about. 

      • trevolution

        I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s reality for me and that’s what matters. I hope one day you see the incredible power and understanding the lord can bring to your life.

    • amycas

      I have a Muslim friend who had a similar experience, but she attributes the feeling to Allah. How do you know it was Jesus and not Allah?

      (Also, the earth is not a perfect sphere)

  • http://www.facebook.com/steve.matz Steve Matz

    Is Mr. Hovind suggesting that there is somebody on this Planet that knows everything there is to know?Is he related to Kent Hovind by chance? The Charlatan Intelligent Design Proponent who went from having “NO” college degree of any kind to receiving his Masters degree in about 8 months?The same Kent Hovind who is serving 10 years in federal prison?And this is the same Kent and Eric Hovind who conspired to hide Property Deeds and Vehicle Deeds from the IRS while Kent was on trial?

    For somebody who claims to have a lot of answers, he certainly is stupid <- and I mean that in its definitive meaning, not as some emotionally motivated grasp at an insult.

  • Savedbygrace

    Though I agree that his argument isn’t valid b/c humans can’t know everything, that does not disprove the existence of God. Not sure why so many people say there is no proof of God when the scientific laws of this world prove his existence. The law of cause and effect prove that the creation of the universe didn’t just happen, something existing outside of the universe (I.e. time, space, matter, and physical energy) had to start it. The law of teleology states that when an object has a purpose, goal, or design, then it must have a designer. Well, that “object” includes the universe itself, meaning it had to have a designer. The earth not only is positioned, but orbits at the exact distance it needs to allow life to neither freeze nor burn to death. How likely is it that this happened by chance/coincidence as a result of the spontaneous existence of the universe without any true cause (big bang). The bible has 1093 prophecies that refer to Jesus and his church, with each one being fulfilled. Now the probability of one man (Jesus) fulfilling just 8 of those prophecies at or around the same time are nearly beyond the realm of coincidence being that prophets from different communities over a span of 1000 years made their predictions hundreds of years before the coming of Christ. That, along with the historicity of the Bible, speaks for itself. These are just a few examples, but the most important factor is faith. My purpose is not to argue or even berate anyone who is not a believer or anyone in this post. My hope is that people will search to find the truth that our own hearts and mind know but reject, that not only is there a God but that he created and loves you. And the point of it all is to bring us back to live with him and love him as we were created to do. And the only way to get back to him is accepting his gift of salvation by grace through his son Jesus. Pray that all of you will be blessed.

    • Deven Kale

       Do you honestly think we’ve never heard these argument before, or that they’ve never been refuted? I’m going to save myself a lot of time and trouble and just send you to a site that has all the refutations for these arguments and a lot more: http://www.ironchariots.org Spend some time there with all the arguments you can find (since you obviously didn’t come up with these on your own). If you can find one that hasn’t been refuted, then come back here and vomit it at us all you like, I’d like to see something original for once.

      • Savedbygrace

        I actually did visit the site and although there are points that may seem acceptable to human understanding, I found a common flaw in everything I read. That is human reasoning was the base for every refute, which I think we would all agree that human reasoning can and will fail b/c no person is perfect. That is exactly why I stated that faith is the factor that stands above everything, because there are clearly things which exist that cannot be explained by any means of our own. Those who say there is no proof of God’s existence have the same argument against them because you cannot prove that there isn’t a God. It’s a matter of faith, and this message is not for myself. If anyone one person may look at this and for whatever reason seek God and find him, then the time I spent writing was worth it. Again, I’m not here to cause argument but to merely share God with someone who might read this and be blessed.

        Ps. The men of Judah were not able to drive out the inhabitants with the iron chariots, not because God had failed them or wasn’t strong enough, but because the men of Judah were intimidated by the iron chariots and therefore lost their faith in God to help them. (Referring to the reason from which the website gets their name).

        • Dan R

          Well, you’re certainly living proof that human reasoning can and will fail. If I were you, I’d stop using it and just stick with the “faith” part.

        • amycas

           “That is exactly why I stated that faith is the factor that stands above
          everything, because there are clearly things which exist that cannot be
          explained by any means of our own.”

          Are you able to justify this faith of yours? Or is it no different than the faith Muslims have in Allah, Hindus have in their various gods and so on? Why should I accept that your faith is true, and disregard all others?

    • amycas

       Savedbygrace, is everybody saved by grace automatically? Or did you do something special to receive this grace? If you did something, then you were saved by works, if you didn’t do anything, and it’s automatic, then there’s no Jesus belief needed, and everybody is saved anyway. In which case, everybody goes to heaven.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1432900701 Serenity Ann Love

    I tried to share this webpage on Eric Hovind Page.  It was instantly removed and banned for sharing more.

    http://www.facebook.com/creationtoday

    Typical, only want the patrons to hear only one side!

  • Frednotfaith2

    What gibbering balderdash.  Hovind is a simpleton who thinks he is profound.

  • Bernie Dehler

    The sixth grader is at it again:
    “Atheist 6th Grader asks Pastor about Noah’s Ark ”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yAeUW8RisA

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.hinchliffe Jason Hinchliffe

    He’s trying to ask a philosophical question, and he’s playing fast and loose with terminology. He asks “Could something in the other 99% contradict the 1% you know?”. The answer is categorically no. If it did, then that 1% was never “knowledge” because if it were knowledge it would be necessarily true. Therefore its an idiotic question from a complete moron.

  • scott

    Can’t listen to this frickin moron.

  • meowzda

    i would love it if there was a transcript!!

  • Brian Forbes

    FYI, the argument goes a lot deeper than that. He just didn’t have the time to expound on it, which made it sound illogical. I don’t agree with the logic, but it is relatively sound if you have it laid out start to finish. Jason Lisle wrote a book on it called The Ultimate Proof of Creation, and I’m not going to do it justice in this little blurb. I personally thing that we choose our paradigm when we think about it, but we accept the often illogical paradigm of our senses and our parents if we don’t think about it. We can’t know anything. We can only believe things with varying degrees of confidence. In the Ultimate Proof, Lisle makes the case that we can know what is revealed by the Omniscient One, who knows all and cannot lie. I wager you wouldn’t be convinced by the argument, but you might find that it’s more logical than it seems in the video.

  • le

    Pretty weak video on a pretty weak site!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X