ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

2/04/2006                                                                                       View Comments

Mike Shermer/Kent Hovind



Here's a video that was produced to promote Creationism, but I thought it interesting, and sad.

The players? Mike Shermer & Kent Hovind. The location? The Physical Sciences Lecture Hall on the campus of the University of California, Irvine. The date? April 29, 2004.

Over 500 people jammed into a 400-seat venue. Shermer was there at the behest of Pastor Jason, of the OMC Youth, a campus Christian organization

For those who don't know, Mike Shermer is the chief editor of Skeptic Magazine (website:www.skeptic.com) and Kent Hovind is a Christian Apologist (website:www.drdino.com).

Disclaimer: Be warned, there is a big fundie salvation pitch at the end of the video.

For Shermer's comments following this debate, click here: LINK

48 comments:

Psychobunny56 said...

A group of fundies showed this video at my campus last fall. I was one of only two skeptics to show up to the event. :)

Just a suggestion to anyone who wants to watch the video: Count "Dr." Hovind's fallacies of reasoning. I guarantee some of the leaps he makes will have you laughing your ass off.

euphgeek said...

Kent Hovind keeps saying that evolutionists would be "laughed out of a court of law". So why doesn't he prove his case before a court of law instead of doing these meaningless debates? Perhaps because he knows he would be the one to be laughed out of a court of law?

Perry said...

The problems are the same and they're inherent in the title, the venue and so on.

The debate should've been "The Creation Myth of the Judeo-Christian Bible vs Contemporary Knowledge & Common Sense."

Let the creationists prove their biblical myths, outside of circular logic. They can't, so they would never debate such a topic.

Amethyst said...

Argh. A computer is not even remotely comparable to the world. It is like comparing a pencil to the moon! And evolutionists don't believe dogs came from rocks, you don't get life from non-life like you do in the Bible. Arrrgh!

And notice how Hovind continually talks fast like a used car salesman, as if he is afraid that by slowing down, people will see his arguments for what they are, logical fallacies.

J.T. Finally Free said...

What garbage!!! I can't believe I used to actually buy into this nonsense and then recite it like a brainwashed ROBOT. I agree with Perry we need to have a debate about all the nonsense in the bible. I'm a bit ashamed of myself for allowing these finatics to brainwash me in to believing their creationist biblical crap instead doing my own independent research. I was "Young". I'll use that as an excuse. LOL.

Anonymous said...

Like it or not Kent Hovind blew Michael Shermer out of the water. He is a far better debater AND was better prepared. I find SOME of his material a stretch, but I think that Shermer didn't present his rebuttals well at all. Hovind definitely has all his ducks in a row and he makes a very convincing arguement. I don't buy the Christian line of BS in the video. Just because I'm an ex-Chrisitan doesn't mean I'm an atheist.

Anonymous said...

Every day the world is inching closer to the abyss. Denial of the true nature of reality as demonstrated by science is deadly. Nuclear weapons cannot exist in the same world with faith based groups ,that see armageddon as a neccessary precursor to the second coming of Christ.

Just Rick said...

This was an interesting debate but I have to wonder if Kent was more interested in making sales than anything else. The guy seemed to push his tapes and products quite a bit.

Kent also likes to avoid using the idea of species transcendance and say "came from a rock" as a misleading notion that some specific species sprang directly from rocks. He beats this point over and over and I think it sad so many people will see only that and not understand all the stages that life has gone thru from the beginning until now.

Oddly enough fundies like to mock the Big Bang theory as if all life sprang out of no where, but ironically creationists are the ones trying to pass that off.

Felden said...

Wow, now this was something interesting! I've never watched a two hour debate on the internet before but it was so worth it. I can't believe some of the arguments hovind uses. Even a 5th grader would know that most are full of lacks. He makes complicated things simple and then laughs at them. But you can't do that. It is so much more detailed and better researched than he makes it look like. Really...I can totally understand Shermer, who sat there chuckling to himself sometimes.

Jim Arvo said...

As always, Hovind is more focused on "hit-and-run" arguments than on discerning what is true. Each of his arguments is clearly tailored to appeal immediately to a lay audience, with a memorable sound bite and illustration. He has each of them down to a minimum of words, which he can rattle off quickly, then move on to the next point without even taking a breath.

The problem is, almost without exception, his arguments are absolute howling fallacies. This is why science is not conducted in timed debate fashion; each point really needs to be explained in detail (not in cartoon form), and objectively tied to the available evidence rather than simply blowing off everything that is contrary as a "lie". Here are a few examples that had me moaning with indignation:

1) Hovind claimed that the Big Bang was impossible because there are moons and galaxies that are spinning "backwards"! This is such a sophomoric argument it shows what a shallow thinker he is. One can construct simple models that show trivially how this kind of thing can arise naturally in systems of mutually gravitating particles. Hovind must be aware of how easily these things are explained, but chooses to ignore those arguments.

2) He made a really bizarre argument about stellar evolution being a "chicken-and-egg" problem; i.e. stars produce the heavy elements, but yet heavy elements are needed to form them. What garbage! That entire process has been extremely well understood for over half a century. There is only a chicken-and-egg problem if you choose to ignore half of the stellar processes; i.e. those that synthesize the lighter elements from helium and hydrogen. Again, it is Hovind who is (apparently) being dishonest here.

3) He continually claims that "No fossils can count as evidence for evolution" because "All we know about that animal is that it died", we do not know that it "had any kids". Well, I might expect such an argument from a six-year-old, but not from a grown adult. The entire argument is a red herring, as the issue is NOT whether *that* animal had offspring, but rather which types of animals were living at the time. If we apply Hovind's deny-it-at-all-costs reasoning to forensics, we would insist that no ballistics tests could ever be used to convict a criminal because, even if a retrieved bullet exactly matches the peculiar markings of a specific gun, we cannot infer that the bullet was actually shot from a gun at all--after all, god may have chosen to create the bullet in its present form.

4) Hovind, like nearly all creationists, still refuses to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I wish Shermer had simply addressed it by asking Hovind to 1) state the 2nd law, and 2) show how each of the conditions of its application is met. More specifically, I'd like for Hovind to explain which closed (i.e. thermally isolated) system he is referring to. That would be the end of that.

5) Hovind continually refers to "kinds" of animals, as if that were a well-defined concept. The problem is, he never defines it; he simply gives a few examples that are clear to him, and to an average five-year-old. But if "kind" is more meaningful than "species", for example, then it ought to be able to make sense of gray areas in which the term "species" is inadequate, or at least contentious. This is a tactic that Hovind uses continually: generalization from a trivial example. That is, claim that the answer is really simple and obvious (and that scientists are "lying"), and "prove" it with a trivial example. While a lay audience may find that appealing, among more critically-minded folks (e.g. scientists), it's just hot air.

6) Hovind claims that because tailbones in humans have muscles attached that perform necessary functions, that the structure is not vestigial. He makes a similar argument about snake and whale pelvises. These arguments are specious; just because there is a use for a structure, it does not imply that the structure had no "prior" use (i.e. in ancestral species). What Hovind ignores is the independent evidence that such structures once had other uses; e.g. homologies with other species, and the developmental stages of the structure (i.e. often they are more fully formed in the embryo, then get "absorbed" before birth--such as chicken teeth). There are hundreds of such examples in nature; goose flesh in humans is a good one.

I found it very telling that Hovind's answer to what his best evidence was, was "The impossibility of the alternative". As Shermer pointed out--that is simply not an answer. Shermer should have gone on to explain that there is actually a continuum of explanations, not the sharp dichotomy that Hovind claims. The "creator" may have been an idiot savant, or the goddess of some other religion, or simply a whole collection of physical principles that we do not yet understand, or nothing at all. The choice is not between the god of Abraham and science as we know it. Without DIRECT evidence for a specific alternative, there is simply no reason to believe it.

Steve said...

Read Dr. Shermer's comments following the "debate". Click the LINK just below the video. He knows he blew it. He also shows where he made valid points and Hovind's fallacies. Hovind was able to obscure any point that Dr. Shermer made with his clever fallacy arguments.

Further research shows that the IRS didn't buy into Hovind's cleverness. One site that I found said he was sentenced to 13 years for fraud and tax evasion.

His masters and PhD degrees are phony.

I wouldn't buy a used car from this guy, but some are relying on his words for their core belief systems. Sad.

boomSLANG said...

A couple of points(with examples) for people to either consider, or completely ignore:

1) Disproving evolution does NOT make creationism true by "default".("Gee...there are gaps in the fossil record.....therefore, 'magic' must be true.) Not.


2) One person may be a better debater than another, but that may have no relevance as to what is actually "true".(A bigfoot tracker presented a better argument than a zoologist when debating the existance of bigfoot......therefore, bigfoot exists...."ARrrrrr!!!") Not.

3) Likewise, operating under time constraints has no relevance as to what is true, or not.("What?...you cannot define and make clear the law of gravity in under 4 minutes? Well, gravity must not exist, then.) Not.

4) "Truth" is not determined by popular vote.("Hey...did you see that there were more of us creationists in the audience, tonight? Praise the Lord!....creationism must be true.) Not.

...Not, not, not, NOT.

Anonymous said...

What really ticked me off was Hovind's arrogance. His "I'm right, you're wrong" approach and even his "I don't care what the Pope says, I care what THE BIBLE (trademark here) says". He'd then just used Bible quotes (that awful Romans 1:18 quote) so that he could accuse Shermer of being "vain in his thinking".

Meanwhile, Mike just humbly approached the subject rationally and without launching personal attacks about Hovind being "crazy" or "lost".

J.T. Finally Free said...

Just because someone is intelligent and a great debater does not mean that they are correct. You will meet alott of very intelligent people in Christianity and it does not mean that they have the correct worldview or are moral people. No one really knows what the motives of others are. It may be for show and it may be that they are simply trying to sell something. Look at Hank Hanegraff the Ceo of the Christian Research Institute. He is the host of a radio program called "The Bible Answer Man" heard everyday on christian Radio stations across the Country. This Man I consider to be very intelligent. But guess what I also feel this man is a complete fraud!! This is a guy that laid off half his staff at the Christian Research Institute because of "financial Reasons" while at the same time goes out and buys a home in one of the most private and exclusive gated communities in America and then he accepts a large raise for himself. We're talking $300,000. Its just funny how a good moral christian can lay off hard working people and then go out and buy expensive cars and homes. What a complete fraud these people are. And like I said just because someone sounds intelligent and is a good debater does not give their argument any credibility. None of us can be sure what the motives of others truly are. I agree with all the previous comments that a great debater could make Santa Claus sound real.

freedy said...

If by chance hell is real,..these
smooth talking preacher/con artists
will be selling igloos to their former sheep there!
Hey J.T.F.F.,does'nt Hank
Hanagraff constantly attack other ministers for their greedy and lavish lifestyles?..WHAT A FREAKIN
HYPOCRYTE!

J.T. "Steeler Fan" Finally Free said...

Yeah Freedy Hank is the one who attacks everyone else in Christianity when he himself is doing basically the same thing. If anyone wants to see this for themselves just Google Hank Hanegraff's name and you can see all of his greediness has been well documented. The guy is a phoney. What a joke!!! P.S. I'm in complete shock right now after watching my Steelers win the Super Bowl.

J.T. Finally Free said...

Hey Freedy Getting back to Christians being Good Debaters and Salespeople. I often think back to all the Christians I met in the church who were caught up in some sort of pyramid get rich quick scheme. I'm not sure if you had this same experience as a Christian but I used to always get asked by several christians if I wanted to join their little pyramid sales scheme and "make alott of money" like they do. It got so bad at one point that I actually asked my pastor at the time to talk to this guy about him pushing his little scheme and products on others. Looking back I guess if you can really sale christianity to people you could probably sell just about anything.

freedy said...

J.T,....Yeah we had all of them,..Amway,Avon,Shackley and the lastest "Liquidity"..& many, many more,..(by the way my ex-wife got sucked into almost all of them.)
I use to think how similar those
pyramid schemes were to evangelical
churchianity.You get your friends and family to join your church,&
then the pastor takes all the money.
Those money scams fit like a glove inside the modern-day church,
.........SUCKERS!!!
P.S. Congrats on the Steelers,... great game!

airdave said...

As long as idiots like this keep justifying their opinions with ridiculous concepts like these...we will have no trouble convincing the world of the truth. Dinosaurs are real...and lived with humans?...Dragons!!!?????????

Anyway, is there a location to download a copy of this video?? I have a friend who really wants to view this but has a poor internet connection and cannot.

Anonymous said...

What a shame. Some must angst around here. Find a good bible based church. Its sad a lot of "so called Christians" ruin int for True Bible Believing ones. It will all be revealed in the end.

Anonymous said...

You can download the video here
http://www.reitstoen.com/shermer.php

boomSLANG said...

One of Bible Bo-Peep's lost fundy-sheep said:

"Ba-a-a-ah....what a sha-a-a-ame. Some must a-a-a-agnst around h-e-e-e-ere. Find a good bi-i-i-i-ble based chur-r-r-r-ch. It's s-a-a-a-a-a-d...blah, blah, blah."



Disclaimer: No, this isn't my argument for the non-existance of the X-ian biblegod. This is my argument for how appropriate it is for X-ians to be metaphorically refered to as "sheep"---and even better, knowing that it's derived from right out of their own belief. Ba-a--a-ah!

lol!

Amethyst said...

What some people fail to understand, because they don't read the anti-testimonies, is that we CAME from Bible based churches. Very few people on Ex-C are from liberal, peace, lovey-dovey churches. I was brought up in a very strict Mo. Synod church in the Midwest. Lots of people on Ex-C were brought up Lutheran and Baptist.

People who were raised conservative fundamentalists are more likely to deconvert than people who were raised to be liberal cherry-pickers.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Kent Hovind is a MaterDebater!

Farris

Anonymous said...

Correction: MasterDebater

Farris

Anonymous said...

2 Arguments were presented.
Neither can be taught as science.
Evolution or Creation. If God does exist and did create everything, then Science will never be able to explain how it started. If evolution is true, then science should be able to prove it. Mike had a lot of observations but no evidence. Every challenge that was presented about evolution could not be explained. It was just stated that science keeps changing as new information arises. I wonder how long it will take them to realize ALL of evolution does not make sense and they need to stick to science that can be observed and tested and away from guessing how the world started. When they have actual facts, then teach it, not teach guesses as facts.

.:webmaster:. said...

Copernicus was persecuted by Christianity - both Catholic and Protestant versions - for teaching that the Earth revolved around the Sun in a circular orbit. Christians screamed in horror at his improvable theory, a theory that attempted to supplant the central place of God in the Universe.

As it turns out, the Christians were right! The Earth does not revolve in a circular orbit - the orbit is elliptical! ELLIPTICAL!!!

Copernicus was no scientist! He made a mistake! There were HOLES in his theory! What he taught wasn't science! It was just another religion - a SECULAR religion!

Therefore, God exists...

Anonymous said...

So sad. The anonymous creationist writes that evolution cannot be proven-- and then conflates evolution with the origin of life. This is a popular gimmick with the creationists. They read the scientific journals to see where research is still underway and then say-- "see, the scientists can't answer the question [because they haven't yet] so it must have been God." Did any of them read the bible as far as the ten commandmnts, "thou shalt not lie; thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"? Did they read the part where Jesus says "let your yeas be yeas and your nays nays"? [in other words, don't twist words!] Did they, in fact, read any part of the bible to understand its history and ethics, or did they skim through the first chapter of genesis and then get bored and switch to the Super Bowl? I'm betting, the latter. Evolutionists may not know the Bible, but they don't treat it with the total contempt that creationists do.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Kent Hovid for changing my life!

John said...

If evolution is real then how do we discern right from wrong, good from evil?

Did we make it up as we evolved?

Why are most(if not all) countries' laws so close to the ten commandments which have been around far before evolution was ever thought of.

To discern right from wrong we have to have absolutes. The Bible has absolutes which cannot be proven wrong.

I'll admit that while I can't prove scientifically that there is a God, I do understand that it is impossible for the created(us) to ever fully understand the Creator(God).

Many of you laugh at Christians because you say they're hypocrites. We(Christians) don't claim to be perfect in fact that is the exact reason why Christ came down to earth to die for all our sins and also to teach us how to live.

You can't possibly believe that our vast universe that operates with amazing precision and order came to be out of an infinitesimal dot(basically nothing) and because of that there is "NO MEANING FOR OUR EXISTANCE".

There is just so much to talk about in this topic that it would be impossible to cover all the things I would love to cover.

My hope is that everyone who reads the Bible will find the "Truth" that they are looking for. The Ten Commandments are just a fraction of things people take from the bible but never give credit to God who is the one that reveals those things to us.

If it takes people getting angry at me, mocking me, spitting on me, killing me for them to see the Absolute Truth that can only come from God, than so be it!

J. C. Samuelson said...

"If evolution is real then how do we discern right from wrong, good from evil?"

It's a mistake to conflate evolution with moral development. Evolution has nothing to say whatsoever about morals because it deals with natural, biological processes rather than philosophical truths.

Morality had nothing to do with the Galapagos finches' beaks changing (see here) as a result of competition for food. Morality has nothing to do with DNA, or cellular mitosis, or abiogenesis.

"Did we make it up as we evolved?"

It may have been just that simple, yes. We like to think of our moral instincts as absolute, and to some degree they are. The moral truths we adhere to have had millenia to develop.

There are animals even today that exhibit altruistic (read: moral) behavior. Of course, no one credits these animals with any moral sense in the way that we understand it. Instead, we attribute it to the survival instinct. A mother protecting her cub at the expense of her own life seems altruistic to us, though the reality is that it perpetuates the species; the youngling has a better chance to continue and propagate.

"Why are most(if not all) countries' laws so close to the ten commandments which have been around far before evolution was ever thought of."

The Ten Commandments can be credited with contributing in some way to many countries' legal systems, yes. However, it is not the sole source. Look up the Code of Hammurabi for one. The philosophy and practice of law has evolved (for lack of a better term) to the point it is today.

As an exercise, read the Ten Commandments and find for me the prohibition against rape and/or sexual assault. Find the prohibition against child abuse. Find the one governing incest. Find the one against slavery and/or human trafficking. How about the one on kidnapping or the one criminalizing drug use. Not finding these? Gee, maybe the Ten Commandments isn't that great after all.

Yes, some of these are addressed in other places (Leviticus comes to mind). However, just taking one example (rape), the Bible doesn't criminalize this in the way we do today. Instead, the rapist is to marry his victim. Personally, I'm much more comfortable with the thought of punishing my daughter's rapist than with his marrying her.

"The Bible has absolutes which cannot be proven wrong."

Some of which are patently immoral. Or perhaps you agree with the Bible that homosexuals and adulterers should be stoned to death?

"Many of you laugh at Christians because you say they're hypocrites. We(Christians) don't claim to be perfect..."

Evangelicals often gush about the transforming power of the Holy Spirit and the superior morality of their faith, yet cannot seem to prevent themselves from committing some of the worst "sins," all the while decrying the lack of morals among atheists/non-believers. Conversely, I seem to have no problem telling the truth, not stealing, and keeping my sexual impulses in check when necessary and appropriate. Furthermore, if you were to study the prison population, you'd find that most claim faith in one of the "Big Three" religions in the world.

Where is the morality in your faith if you don't practice it?

"You can't possibly believe that our vast universe that operates with amazing precision and order came to be out of an infinitesimal dot(basically nothing) and because of that there is "NO MEANING FOR OUR EXISTANCE"."

Actually, yes I can. I don't need some God to give me purpose in life. I find my own. Life, love, and the pursuit of happiness, baby.

And as for where the universe came from, let's assume your God did create it. Who's to say he didn't start with some infintesimally small dot? He's omnipotent, right? Perhaps he just didn't see fit to describe that to the author of Genesis, who could not have understood the process anyway.

I think you should take your dogma to the vet.

boomSLANG said...

Christian guest said:

"You can't possibly believe that our vast universe that operates with amazing precision and order came to be out of an infinitesimal dot(basically nothing) and because of that there is 'NO MEANING FOR OUR EXISTANCE'."

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

Okay, first, "Amazing precision and order".

Yeah, I would LOVE to see the look on our guest's face after an asteroid the size of Alaska slammed into Earth...especially considering how a meteorite only a few miles wide would cause global devastation. But of course, it would be impossible to see such an "eat-crow" look in the event that the Earth had just been demolished with such "amazing precision". LMAO!!!!!

Next---"NO MEANING FOR OUR EXISTANCE".

Meaning in life is derived by content, not duration or cause. Did someone who died at age 99 have more purpose in life than someone who died at age 79? No. BTW, if it had not been for two adults, one of each sex, engaging in sexual intercourse, you would not be reading this. In other words, we know for a fact that "people" come from "people", not Gods. So if anything, PEOPLE give people meaning in life.

Now, if you want to sit around and waste the only life you'll ever know that you FOR SURE have(this one)--- by hypothosizing about where "people", and everything else came from, then have it.......but if you're going to conclude that because the universe is so complex, and it operates with such "amazing precision" that a God MUST have "caused" it, then by that very "logic", something MUST have "caused" God, thus, the cirular argument starts, and you have really "answered" NOTHING.

Anonymous said...

boomslang said:

.......but if you're going to conclude that because the universe is so complex, and it operates with such "amazing precision" that a God MUST have "caused" it, then by that very "logic", something MUST have "caused" God, thus, the cirular argument starts, and you have really "answered" NOTHING.



You are right, almost.
EVERY un-perfect "thing" needs something to "cause" it. for example, if there is rust on your bike, there must have been rain and steele, causing the rust. And if there is rain, there must have been clouds and gravity causing the rain. And if there are clouds, there must have been water and heat causing the clouds. And if there is water, there must have been hydrogen and oxygen causing the water. And if you continue, you'll find out, that every material in the universe either is perfect and eternal, or must have a cause. And as we,who are material, know, material isn't perfect. So, logically, material must have a cause. And as we know, water is not caused by water, but two other things, which both arent water. clouds are not caused by clouds, but by water, which isn't clouds. So, logically, material must be caused by something which isn't material. natural things must be caused by non-natural things. And, logically, non-eternal things must be caused by eternal things.

Does this sound illogigal to you?
Think about this:
if your ever make a computer game, the game will never be able to understand how you made it. Because, the game will never be able to sit at the table and write the game code. It will not even be able to be outside the computer, and it won't know how it feels not to be made out of code.

In the same way, things made of material will not even be able to pretend how it is not to be material. Therefore it's hard to believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. And, in the same way, we won't be able to understand eternity at any time in this life. But that DOESN'T make it less true.




And, at last, many of the comments say that dr. Hovind is making mistakes. CORRECTION everybody who is made out of material makes mistakes, and you can't trust any human. The only thing you can trust, is the one who is not material, who is not uneternal, and who is not un-perfect. Listen to HIS words.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

God bless you

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
boomSLANG said...

'Nonny-'Nonny: "So, logically, material must have a cause."

Okay.

'Nonny-'Nonny: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son"

Jesus: "I and my Father are one"

If begotton Son = Jesus, and Jesus = God(per God)....then Begotten Son = God. God then, is at the very least, partially "material", or else Jesus never existed in the flesh, and thus, never did any of the things the Bible claims he did.

By your own crumbling logic---if Jesus was partially material, then God is/was partially material, then God cannot be perfect, and therefore, would require a creator.

My original question still stands: Who created God?

God 'less = )

Anonymous said...

God is not material by definition.
Jesus: "I and my Father are one"
= one in nature
Of course that doesn't mean that Jesus' body and God are of the same 'stuff'.

Maybe Jesus' body wasn't perfect in every sense of the word, but his spirit was (is), because it was (is) the Spirit of God in Him.

Crumbling logic? I don't think so.
As for Jesus being created... God spoke and Jesus was 'created'; that's the way the Bible says it. The Word became flesh. Meaning God's words came to us through His perfect Representative.

God was not created because 'to create' as we know it is a concept that exists only in our space-time domain and the 'layer(s)' of 'heaven(s)' around it, which God created. He looks 'down' on this realm. Everything we can observe or measure is either a part of our world or an effect of something that happens in His. In other words: He invented creation itself, and we can observe only what He does, not Who He is, nor are we able to understand. That's why He left us His Word, so we could get to know Him.

AndRay

Alan said...

Hi AndRay, thanks for your post. I hope you will answer my question: can you please point to something, anything, apart from what is described in the Bible, that is an effect of something happening in God's realm? You state: "we can observe only what He does," can you please point out something that God did, hopefully within the last 100 years? If what you say is true there has to be some proof somewhere of God's existence outside of the Bible.

boomSLANG said...

Anonymous/AndRay: "God is not material by definition."

If said deity is of a supernatural, or "meta-physical" realm.("meta"..literally meaning, BEYOND physical)..then "God" HAS no definition. Don't you get it?(Rhetorical) It's impossible, even in concept. If Jesus existed in the flesh, then he was at the very least, partially made up of "matter". You cannot have it both ways, despite trying. A square circle cannot exist.

boomslang: "Jesus: 'I and my Father are one.' "

AndRay responds: "= one in nature"

If "God" occured only .999999999 % in "nature", then said deity would STILL be partially material, to some degree. We know this is not the case, however, as there is zero physical evidence for the biblical God, and/or his "Son", yet, you say we can "see" the way God works. Notwithstanding, if "God" is "supernatural", we could never varify the existance of said "being" in this natural realm, anyway.

Anon/AndRay: "Of course that doesn't mean that Jesus' body and God are of the same 'stuff'."

"Stuff"? What you are doing, is you are subjectively taking biblical dogma---ideas which defy natural physics---and weasle-wording it to fit your own agenda/conclusion, a conclusion that you have deduced, a priori, to be absolutely true. Nothing new.

Anon/AndRay: "Maybe Jesus' body wasn't perfect in every sense of the word, but his spirit was (is), because it was (is) the Spirit of God in Him."

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. If "God" is "perfect", then all subsets of god's attributes would have to be perfect, as well. Furthermore, when you speak of "Spirits", you introduce immaterial ideas into the discussion. Please define "Spirit", in a theological sense. In other words, we all know about "keeping the team *spirit", etc...but explain it as that which commonly describes this "thing" that is used in theology.

Anon/AndRay: "Crumbling logic? I don't think so."

As I've shown, and what we know by physics/science, a supernatural being existing in nature is a CONTRADICTION, again, like a "square circle", or "married bachelor".

Anon/AndRay: "As for Jesus being created... God spoke and Jesus was 'created'; that's the way the Bible says it."

That's the way, whaaaaa?...the bible says it? Immaterial conclusion. Unless you can varify that this document, "the Bible", is inspired by a "God", and you can logically explain it's gazillions of inconsistancies and contradictions, quoting from said document means jack'.

Anon/AndRay: "The Word became flesh. Meaning God's words came to us through His perfect Representative."

Not that it'll be "true", but please provide the biblical verse that even remotely resembles this.

Anon/AndRay: "God was not created because 'to create' as we know it is a concept that exists only in our space-time domain and the 'layer(s)' of 'heaven(s)' around it, which God created. He looks 'down' on this realm."

To "cause" something can only take place temporally..i.e.."IN time". Also, if "God" is "omniscient", then there's no need for he/she/it to "look" anywhere, because "God" is presumably EVERYwhere. More contradictions from the apologetic community, but nothing shocking.

Anon/AndRay: "In other words: He invented creation itself, and we can observe only what He does, not Who He is, nor are we able to understand. That's why He left us His Word, so we could get to know Him."

Let's see, we cannot understand "God's ways", but there exists a document 3 inches thick attempting to delineate, justify, reconcile "His ways". Yeah, that makes "perfect" sense.

freeman said...

ANDRAY,

"God was not created because 'to create' as we know it is a concept that exists only in our space-time domain and the 'layer(s)' of 'heaven(s)' around it, which God created. He looks 'down' on this realm. Everything we can observe or measure is either a part of our world or an effect of something that happens in His. In other words: He invented creation itself, and we can observe only what He does, not Who He is, nor are we able to understand. That's why He left us His Word, so we could get to know Him."

How did you come to know this? Did God tell you this? You make up as much BS as your mythological book!

AndRay said...

Thanks guys, your vote of confidence is overwhelming!
I love the way you (like most ppl in this thread) trip over yourselves and wriggle and writhe in all directions to get where you want your supposed logic to go. But then again you would say the same thing about me, so I guess that makes us even. :-)

Alan:
Proof of what God does is all around you. Miracles happen all the time and even if they weren’t, nature itself would be proof enough. But it all depends on how you look at the evidence. (I like the simple way http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp puts it)
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing, both to Jew first, and to Greek;
I personally know several people who were diagnosed with incurable diseases who were healed while praying to Jesus. I was with some of them when it happened. When I accepted Jesus as my Lord, I was completely set free from my fears.
Rom 1:20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.

Boomslang, Freeman:
I don’t feel compelled to convince anyone of you if you’re not willing to at least consider the possibility of the reliability of the Bible. The Bible convinced me, just by studying it (for more than 20 years now), and that’s what it’s all about: personal conviction. God wants us to get to know Him personally. That’s why He made this universe understandable and gave us His Word. By introducing ‘God’ in a discussion you automatically introduce ‘spiritual’ matters. For if we are talking of the God of the Bible it says: Joh 4:24 God is a spirit, and the ones worshiping Him must worship in spirit and truth
And as for the Word becoming flesh: Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

The existence of God, ofcourse, has been debated so many times, it is almost silly to do this again in this thread. To me it is so obvious, and again it depends on how you look at things. Mostly it comes down to whether or not there is an Ultimat Cause. I know (for myself) there is. He is called God and is represented by Jesus. Question: do you want to spend the rest of your life trying to prove He doesn’t exist, only to find out in the end that He does. Then it might be too late. Then see if your arguments are of any use when He asks you: Why didn’t you believe in Me? “Well, God, it was kinda obvious … you see … uh…. Well…”
I’m not trying to dis you or anything but this is the last post I will be adding to this thread, cause if you don’t take this seriously, all you’ll do is laugh at my “ignorance” anyway… I just hope you wil give God a chance to prove Himself to you … personally.

Check out: http://www.tektonics.org/ it’s got some helpful insights into many supposed contradictions in the Bible.
Some other great resources: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200610.htm http://www.ex-atheist.com/games-skeptics-play.html

(Before you go [sic]: maybe my English is not perfect, but give me a break, I’m Dutch :-)

Jim Arvo said...

AndRay said "Thanks guys, your vote of confidence is overwhelming!"

And thank you for the sarcasm. Looking throught the responses to your posts, it looks as though you've been treated quite fairly; even gingerly, I'd say. In your opinion, is it okay that disagree with you, and then explain why? Is it okay that we ask you to explain your point of view? Was it a shock to you that your views were not be embraced and lauded at a site called EXCHRISTIAN.NET?

AndRay: "I love the way you (like most ppl in this thread) trip over yourselves and wriggle and writhe in all directions to get where you want your supposed logic to go..."

That's a very interesting perception you have there. Could you elaborate a little? You speak of an omnipotent omniscent invisible being who created everything, leaving abundant evidence, yet you cannot tell us what that evidence is, nor how you came to "know" any of it. You cannot explain why we should believe ancient fables in an acient book, which is one of many texts that is allegedly inspired by some invisible deity, most of whom you (presumably) agree do not exist. Is that wriggling? Am I "tripping" over myself? In my neck of the woods, when somebody makes a fantastic claim, they are expected to support it with something factual. Oooops, there I go tripping over myself again... Sigh.

AndRay: "Proof of what God does is all around you. Miracles happen all the time and even if they weren’t, nature itself would be proof enough..."

If miracles happen all the time, then you should have no problem pointing to unequivocal documentation; not just stories of "miraculous" cures, but events that directly contradict our understanding of the physical universe. You can no doubt produce a long list of such events that have been meticulously documented by dispassionate observers, right?

AndRay: "...But it all depends on how you look at the evidence."

And that "evidence" is what?

AndRay: "...To me it [god's existence] is so obvious, and again it depends on how you look at things..."

It's probably also "obvious" to you that you have a continuous visual field, that matter cannot come from nothing, that the shortest distance between two points in space is a straight line, that every event has a cause (except, of course in your hypothetical "supernatural" world, where you can make up any rules you want), that time is absolute and continuous, etc. etc. I submit to you that the more "obvious" something is to you, the more likely it's a subjective construct of your brain, as are all of the aforementioned "facts" (which appear to be false based on what is known today).

AndRay: "...Mostly it comes down to whether or not there is an Ultimat Cause...."

And how do you go about determining whether, in fact, there is an "Ultimate Cause"? Wait, let me guess... You perform a thought experiment, while sitting in a comfy armchair. You imagine everything running backwards, and you ask yourself what started it all. Then it becomes "obvious" that there had to be something that purposefully set it all in motion. Then it becomes "obvious" that that something is the Christian god! Am I close? Is that your methodology? If not, please elaborate so we can all follow your iron-clad reasoning.

Oh, and please do be careful not to wriggle, writhe, or trip over yourself. I'll try to do the same. Deal?

freeman said...

ANDRAY,

I have considered the possibility of the reliability of the Bible and found it impossible to believe it as the word of god. Been there, done that!

www.tektonics.org is as bogus as the bible.

You are allowed to believe what you want, but allow us that same freedom! Do not push your unicorn theory on the people of the earth!

Mythology is mythology is mythology!

Alan said...

Hi AndRay

It looks like we will have to agree to disagree. I would say that it is not up to atheists to prove that God does not exist, as Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nature can be very beautiful but also very ugly, I used to think the way you do but I came to realize that any positive feelings one may have when looking at nature, while very nice, are also subjective and could be due to human psychology rather than divine creation. If evidence is all around us, and God's work is so obvious, why isn't there any scientific proof of God's existence? We should have found that centuries ago. Does God hide when he sees a scientist coming? The theory of evolution explains a great deal of what we see in nature, is constantly being expanded, and is testable. A recent study of prayer found that it had no effect on patient's medical outcomes, if what you say is true why wasn't any effect seen? Why aren't devout Christians more healthy than the rest of the population? And again, being set free from your fears could be entirely a psychological phenomenon. What if when you die you are dead, and that's it? You will have spent your life believing in a comforting fantasy, hopefully no harm done in your case, but plenty of harm has been done by others in the name of religion.

boomSLANG said...

AndRay: "Thanks guys, your vote of confidence is overwhelming!"

It's not about "votes", it's about evidence for one's beliefs, and we're confident that you have nil.

AndRay: "The existence of God, of course, has been debated so many times, it is almost silly to do this again in this thread. To me it is so obvious, and again it depends on how you look at things."

If God's existance were "obvious", there wouldn't be this thread, and hundreds of thousands more just like it, bursting with people who are skeptical of such a "being" as "God". Furthermore, is the existance/nonexistance of Toth, Osiris, Mithra, the Great Pumpkin, Bigfoot, etc....influenced, depending on "how you look at things"? Answer: No. How you look at things doesn't alter reality. This is not to say that believing a myth cannot work as a placebo. In that case, enjoy your Sweet Jesus("sugar pill")

AndRay: "I love the way you (like most ppl in this thread) trip over yourselves and wriggle and writhe in all directions to get where you want your supposed logic to go."

AndRay--It's not about where we "want logic" to go--it's about using logic to objectively search for truth, and accepting the result, regardless of how it makes us feel. BTW, do you "trip", "wriggle", and "writhe in all directions" to deduce that Allah doesn't exist? How about Buddha? 'Didn't think so.

Bentley said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bentley said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bentley said...

What we have here is a little boy running scared, he's afraid of the boogie man and that Jesus is going to spank him and send him to Hell, so he wet his pants.

AndRay, got caught in his own web of apologetic deception and is backing down and headed for the covers, praying to Jesus.

What we see is the typical tactics used by preachers to scare people to conform to the Bible teachings, it's just like the Jim Jones cult, what is so sad is that I see it in 90% or more of all people in the USA.

America is a nation of scared little bunnies running to the fence wherever it says Jesus loves me.

America is a nation of mindless brainwashed knee trembling fools, from the lowest politician all the way to the president.

America is basically doomed, it is slowly becoming a third world country, because it considers religion a fact and it over-rides all common sense and reasoning.

America will be destroyed by it's turn the other cheek policy and love thy neighbor.

The concept of Jesus and his (Pauls) passive teachings has already literally destroyed America as a strong nation.

Jesus what ever Jesus was, his teachings was of an idiot.

America, a nation Jesus cult idiots!

Headlines - America Completly Destroys Itself By Belief In Eastern Arab Religion!!!!

Anonymous said...

The end of this video, I remember someone asked Hovind what the best evidence for creationism was. His answer was the impossibility of the opposite (He may have said it differently). That goes to show that creationists have no real evidence for creation, so they think by attacking "holes" or unexplained things in a fraction of evolution, they can win an argument and prove their nonsense is somehow true.

Also, I find it ironic that Hovind said evolutionists would be laughed out of a court of law. The reason it is ironic is because every court of law so far has sided with the evolution side and "laughed" at the creationist side. Kent Hovind can't even get his goddamned lies straight.