When Eric Hovind's Presuppositional Apologetics FAILS 

1GodOnlyOne dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

1GodOnlyOne I was taking to you

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Any claim. IF you claim god is real, you assume the burden. IF you don't claim that god is real, we are free to go on our way without think about your god further. This is why most atheists don't claim there is no god. Because we don't care. We don't have to do anything to justify our position. We just wait for you to fail to present evidence, and then continue.

The burden or proof is 100% on the believer in atheist Dogma, not on us Theists.

1GodOnlyOne wrong.

Totally agree 👍

lol... that made my morning. xD thxs

Lol

Why can i totally imagine that? XD

J.K. Wow. I think I need to print that. Shellac it. Then frame it. Then light it up real good on a humungous billboard outside fundy XXXian buy-bull churches.

D: Actually on second thought, you're right you're totally fine. God told me. Good luck! 👍😅😉

Dr Shaym Just follow the consistent argument: 1. Assume that "without God, you cannot know anything at all." 2. Conclusion: "without God, you cannot know anything at all." So brilliant and indisputable! XD XD XD

By demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary. By getting people who deny God to admit that they don't know anything. I'd be glad to explain more if you could tell me how you can know anything(without appealing to God).

You're assuming/believing your senses aren't deceiving you. What is your justification for that assumption/belief?

I didn't get an answer. I won't be holding my breath but let me ask you again. You're assuming/believing your senses aren't deceiving you. What is your justification for that assumption/belief?

Hey Markus, since your debate here has cooled down, maybe I can hijack this and have a little conversation. I will answer your questions if you want, but I'd like to try and ask a question first: Do you know what schizophrenia is? I'm not saying you are mentally ill, but schizophrenia serves as a fantastic example here. Two hallmarks of schizophrenia are: 1) you can't reason a schizo out of his delusions. 2) the schizo is totally unaware of his loss of rationality. Now, please tell me. How can you be certain of Christianity when you can't be certain that you might be schizophrenic right now? How would you ever know you're not suffering from some form of delusion? PS: I wanna elaborate a tiny bit more. Take Sye Ten Bruggencate for example. He is willing to reconcile *every* logical inconsistency in the Bible, while thinking that he has an obvious disproof of the Quran. He is completely unaware that his disproof is easily refuted. He seems to willfully shun that possibility. What is this, if not delusional? (I'm not a muslim, btw.)

They laughed at Galileo. And he was right. They're laughing at me, so... rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

This is a textbook appeal to ridicule fallacy

Or creation research? Creation scientist? All oxymoron, mainly MORON.

BUT the words "Bible" + "College" = "brainwashing". That does go together.

What can you actually learn in a bible college anyway? Ok god created everything now lets sing amaizing grace

Ehh, it can go together. It is just normally called theology and doesn't prescribe a belief in the religion in question.

Ahhhh! The fart from Rutgers!

To be a presuppositional Evangelist, you have to be selling bullshit. If you weren't selling bullshit, you wouldn't have to be a fucking presuppositional Evangelist. I mean really.

It's a lucrative family business, even after tax no doubt.

If a person says they could be wrong that is irrelevant to the validity of the claim, all that does is measure how confident the person is in the claim. Honestly I was on the edge of theism and atheism for a while then I learned what creationists actually think and that solidified my atheism.

@@spaceace4387 I don’t want to come across in an attacking manner, but you seem to be missing the point. It isn’t a gotcha question. The statement “I can’t be certain about anything” refutes itself. Think of it this way. Can you be certain about your claim that you can’t be certain about anything? By your own admission, the answer would be no. The logical conclusion then the statement becomes “I can be certain about something.” Let’s try it from a probability standpoint. “I’m 99% confident in claim A” -Ok, are you 100% confident about your claim that you’re 99% confident in claim A? “Well, I’m 99% confident.” -So you’re 99% confident that your 99% confident in claim A. So in other words you’re 98% confident in claim A. (This line of questioning would take forever to ask and answer but taken to its logical question, you have next to no confidence in anything you claim.) It’s not a play on words, it’s a philosophical absurdity to claim you could be wrong about everything you know, and that’s why it’s being brought in.

@@scottsponaas I’m not missing any point and all I said was a persons certainty to a particular claim holds no weight as to whether the claim is valid or not. You can be absolutely certain that the world is flat and that doesn’t make it so. That is literally all I said

@@spaceace4387 are you certain about that?

@@spaceace4387 lol the point is that you lose all credibility and refute your own position when you take such a stance. You’re just guessing and nobody should listen to you.

Knowledge of God is revealed, and is not based on fallible human facilities, actually.

1GodOnlyOne Except the only way you know that, is with your fallible human mind. Same issue. Except with the rest of us, we can check our senses with other people: "Hey, do you see a rhino over there?" "Shit! A rhino!" "Not just me then. Thanks."

@@antediluvianatheist5262 As the late great Mark Twain said, "Never argue with fools, they will drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

Pretty much. It is an entirely dishonest argument.

If you think Eric is bad take a look at Eric's buddy Sye Ten Bruggencate. A really slimey peddler of presupposistional apologetics. Thats where Eric learnt some new tricks.

You wrote, "They layout a set of preconditions that must be in place in order for the world to be intelligible. Then they simply say, "well no one else I've talked to can give an account for these things so it must be God".". Well.... I guess, that I would like to know is.... Is their argument true? Are there preconditions that exist that make experience meaningful? The theist says that there is..... An absolute ethical standard. Likewise, he says that he see the uniformity of nature (induction), that allows for learning, science, and much more. Maybe is this is not the case..... the atheist only needs to show how these are possible from his non-teleological perspective. You wrote, "They claim to have absolute knowledge that God exists so they can't be making arguments from ignorance to support their case.". This is not the foundation to the theistic argument at all. All parties on both sides of this issue "believe" in his/her position. Of course the theist believes his position to be correct. You wrote, "In order to have absolute knowledge, one must have absolute foundations.". Does the Atheist have absolute knowledge that his worldview comports with reality? DO YOU? Well..... I'm listening. TAG-you're it!

They're not using semantics, they're using dishonest arguments. It's not like they're making arguments that depend on semantics, they're making arguments that just don't depend on anything.

Because they haven't proven that that preconditions are necessary, or indeed sufficient or helpful.

You don't get it, Who does the dictator, soldier,the Don, and the husband and mugger fear? NO ONE!!! JUST LIKE YOU!!!! You fear the beast from the pit, who is king over you, You can find him in Revelation 9:11 AND, CALL HIM, WHEN YOU DIAL 911, get it yet??? YOU. FEAR. THE LAW!!!! JUSTICE , AND PUNISHMENT!!!!! AND YOU REALLY HATE , THE VERY IDEA, OF A ULTIMATE JUDGE!!!

thumbs1964 "YOU REALLY HATE , THE VERY IDEA, OF A ULTIMATE JUDGE!!!" Maybe I do, and that's my freedom of thought and freedom of speech to do so. If I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to SAY it LOUDLY OVER AND OVER AGAIN... so that the people who can EDUCATE me properly might hear. Are you someone who might be able to educate me properly? Or do you think torture and hell and power are the only ways you and your version of God have to communicate with a lost sheep like me?

arthurjeremypearson He is real, you don't need anyone else to show you or teach you..talk to Him yourself..

thumbs1964 I tried that. So far, the "responses" I get are indistinguishable from random chance. The resposnes that theists claim to get FROM God do not stand up to close scrutiny. Some thiests claim "valid" responses include "no answer at all" which they INTERPRET as God saying "no" when no such thing has actually demonstrably happened. Some theists claim "valid" responses include coincidences and very rare but completely natural events which they INTERPRET as God saying yes or no, when no such thing has accurately been shown to be happening. Studies done on prayer have shown its "response" rate equal to random chance. All of this leads me to conclude that God just isn't "interested" in me. He's just not "into" me. It's silence I get when I honestly and earnestly ask questions. I don't even ask for much. I don't ask for ridiculous things like money or fame or fortune. Right now, I'm just asking for a call back. A real dialogue. What's your opinion on my opening question: "Are buttons evil?" I heard once the Ahmish think buttons are evil, so I'd like to know for sure. From the source. Not from an interpretation made by a human using human language translated from other human language. Thank you.

arthurjeremypearson ASK, HIM SPECIFICALLY..BY HONEST, IF YOU HAVE DOUBT, DON'T FAKE IT TO YOU MAKE IT, CAUSE THAT'S BULL,,,TELL HIM YOU HAVE DOUBTS...DON'T LIE TO YOURSELF...QUIT LISTENING TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE TOLD YOU ABOUT WHAT AND HOW TO PRAY, HE KNOWS YOU EVERY THOUGHT...OTHER PEOPLE , AND THE POWERS THAT BE DO NOT...YES, YOU MUST PATIENTLY WAIT.. SILENCE IS A TEST OF RESOLVE,, ARE YOU SERIOUS? OR HAVE HEARTED? IF NOT, STAND ON YOU RESOLVE, THAT YOU WERE HONEST, IF HE IS GOD, AND HE IS...AND HAS ANSWERED YOU BEFORE YOU OPENED YOU MOUTH, OR EVEN THOUGHT TO ASK.. BE RESPECTFUL,,BECAUSE THE WORLD POWERS WANT TO BE GOD, THEY WANT PEOPLE TO AT LEAST THINK THIER BEING WATCHED ALL THE TIME, WITH THEIR ALL SEEING MONEY EYE PYRAMID CRAP... GOD IS THE REAL, ALL SEEING EYE..HE KNOWS THE END FROM THE BEGINNING, HOW IS A STINKING DEVIL, A CREATED BEING, GOING TO MAKE WAR WITH HIM? HE CAN'T .....REBELLION, IS NOT WAR... IN A WAR BOTH SIDES HAVE A CHANCE OF WINNING A BATTLE...GODS ENEMIES HAVEN'T GOT A CHANCE...THEY ONLY GATHER MORE REBELS BY GETTING MEN TO AGREE WITH THEM...AND THEREFORE MEN SHARE IN THEIR DESTUCTION...ALRIGHT.... SORRY FOR THE CAPS, THERE JUST EASIER FOR ME TO READ...I'M NOT YELLING... MANS RELIGIOUS HORSE SHIT, HAS CLOUDED THE SIMPLEST OF TRUTHS, AND THEREFORE, THEY GO ABOUT DECEIVING, BEING DECIEVED THEMSELVES...DON'T TRUST THEM, YOU HAVE A BULL SHIT DETECTOR, its called common sense. The parameters are set in the KING JAMES BIBLE, sorry if that offends, but it's true, Just don't let someone else tell you what it says. Read it for yourself.....repentance is a gift from God... This in a nutshell, is the church today, He is done with their mass churches...He's knocking on the door of the hearts of individuals like you and I. Revelation 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing: and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18. I counsel of thee to by gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich, and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. 20. Behold , I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to Him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne. 22. He that hath an ear, let him here what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

Sye ten is worse.

His argument would be that God was there, and they knew it in their hearts, but they didn't believe it (or something like that). Presuppositional apologetics doesn't provide an answer to the only question that matters in this context: how do you know God exists?

***** 1, No... example; North Korea, Iran, USA. 2, Yes, it is an intellectually hard nut to crack, no question. But the scientists working on that problem actually already found that it was not "nothing acting upon nothing". The reason for it is... moot, because it can be different for person to person, religious or not. And the universe is absolutely not fine tuned to support life. The universe is a horrible place for life to exist.. extremes all over the place with heat and cold, acidic rain, black holes, no oxygen or water, radiation, meteors the size of Europe, supernovas... the list goes on. And lastly; it is not the atheists that should have to ask these questions. It's scientists (who do ask them, and actually tries to solve them), and the religious (who asume god in everything and think they have solved it). If you think otherwise, you need to read up on what atheism actually is... you gigantic moron.

Presuppositional apologist's modus operandi: 1) Make unfounded, unsupportable claim about religion. 2) Avoid question by asserting as truth something that is not evidently true. 3) Provide no evidence. 4) Ask questions that have no simple answers instead. In other words: not a logical argument.

***** 1) The second you said "only the atheist believes," you set up an argument that could not be true. Since North Korea is supported by nations which are largely religious, as well as ones which are not, this whole premise is bunk. 2) Divorce rates are higher among the most devoutly religious and lowest among atheists, more "liberal" churches, non-denominational believers, and agnostics. Look it up. Premise #2 is bunk. 3) Many of the nations with lower crime rates than the U.S. are largely secular (to an extent far surpassing America). You should also read Pinker's book, The Better Angels of Our Nature (I think that's the exact title), which argues, quite convincingly, that we (humans) are quickly becoming a less violent culture in the aggregate, which is correlated positively to secularization. You also misunderstand secularization as atheism (by implication), which is a false understanding of the term. 4) Your last segment is garbledeegook. It asserts more things it cannot logically support (what do you do with all the non-believers who _do_ solve things with science, just like their believer counterparts? Exactly). Try again.

***** You do realize you didn't _actually_ ask a question, right? There is no ? in your previous comment. How do you expect me to answer a question you yourself didn't ask? 1) Most of Western civilization has become rapidly secular post-enlightenment. Most of Western Civilization is doing just dandy. 2) The United States began as a secular nation. This is well documented. The only historians who argue otherwise, such as Barton, have been largely discredited by actual and trained historians. As far as I can tell, the U.S. isn't going to collapse anytime soon. 3) History doesn't confirm your version of reality. Non-belief has no discernible impact on the success of a given society. You can point to exceptions in everything. I could show you failing religious societies. You could show me failing non-religious societies. Neither proves anything about the validity of faith or non-faith as a singular determination of success. Societies really aren't that simple. Try again.

Their counterpoint to that is "God has given me a self authenticating form of knowledge that he exists". Then the fallacy of virtuous vs vicious circles comes out and they assert they have have high ground. Its the most dishonest position imaginable because while they claim the possessions of said self authenticating knowledge they deny you the same capacity. Sophistry at its finest

So self-authenticating knowledge exists. I have such knowledge that says there is no god. Prove me wrong. That simple. Just like the negative proof demand. Frame it positively, and reverse the demand. There is a scroll in space that enforces a rule of the universe that prevents gods from existing. Prove this scroll doesn't exist. How do I know about the scroll? First prove the scroll doesn't exist. Then ask any question you want. Sooner or later they either have to protest the argument that was directly built to mimic their logic and thereby admit their fallacy, or they have to move on to someone who is "open minded" enough to "convince." It is tempting to advise people not to even talk to these jerks, because they make no secret that they will absolutely not consider the possibility that their information is incomplete. However, I think we should talk to them, slap down every single fallacious argument they make and refuse to entertain their arguments for even a second. Maybe in addition to finding out how stupid they sound, they will realize how obnoxious they are. Probably not, but I try to stay positive!

But if he's about to treat something that exists in my world view as false he can't very well make an argument using it now can he? Well, he _is_ insane, so he could I suppose, but it won't hold any water even with retards.

James Whitcomb However, you can turn this statement back on them. "God has given me a self-authenticating form of knowledge that he exists." can be replied with: "If you don't know everything in the Universe, how can you know that the "self-replicating knowledge" God gave you is accurate? How can you know that you're not just delusional? Did your imaginary friend tell you that, too?"

Justin Jossart I dont think that has any validity really. If the first set of knowledge is self-authenticating via an infinite authenticator then you cant demand a second proof from them. Their position isn't held on more than one plank so you must attack their god directly. Their position starts with "God is infallible and perfect and etc etc etc." so trying to punch holes in what their god has given to them is really playing into their games.

You're confusing Eric with his daddy Kent. Kent is the one in jail for tax fraud. Eric is trying to carry on daddy's "ministry". Kent may learn some "street smarts" in jail but Eric will never have the intelligence to disguise his deceptive attempts at knowledge & honesty.

kerryn67 Thank you for that. Yes, I made a mistake t, so I have edited that comment. I appreciate the good observation . peace

***** No problem, have a great day :)

***** Hey, Mr. White, when is Ol' Kent getting out of the slammer?

PrometheusLoire About a year yet, according to the wiki page.

***** Heh....."Junior". I agree that he's "inserting" his god into the hole that he himself has carved by claiming that there is no knowledge without god. But even if it follows logically that only a perfect god can have/create perfect knowledge, he still has a long way to go. He must then 1) demonstrate that any god exists, 2) demonstrate that god has revealed something, 3) demonstrate that anyone has perfectly understood the revelation. I won't hold my breath. ;)

Christians don't have absolute knowledge either, is the thing. They just pretend to.

The answer to that I've seen from them is "God reveals himself to us in such a way that we know it is him." *facepalm*

"We just know!!!" And that how far it goes when pushed hard enough to get to the bottom of it. Thanks for this :D FreeHomeBrew

***** You mean like how god and jesus tell you to hate other people? Yeah sounds like a good plan to me. I'd rather not hate people at all. And yes I do set my own standard from an outside measure. We know some things are bad for us because they demonstrably lead to suffering. Like drinking bleach. Therefore forcing others to drink bleach is immoral. The basic measure is that if something gets us further away from the maximum amount of suffering for the greatest amount of people then it's good, otherwise it's not good. No need for a god that tells us to hate people. It's not a small thing either. Luke 14:26 says you cannot become his follower if you do not hate others or even yourself.

***** So tell me, is it good or bad to own slaves? Is it good or bad to beat slaves? Is it good or bad to stone gay people? Hmmm.. dilemma!!! If you answer good, then you are a bad and immoral person, but when you answer bad, you contradict your own God. What's it gonna be?

Eric Hovind. Worse than his papa.

Wrong context, Fear means respect. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, or the best students are good listeners

Mark Wise < Fear means respect. > In what dictionary? Disrepect means burning in hell forever. Did you look up the Stockholm syndrome?

Fear does *not* mean respect. On the contrary: I have *zero respect* for those who rule by fear. Those people are called *dictators*.

Is that what you all a parent child relationship? Stockholm syndrome.

Mark Wise So, you feared your parents? Too much information, dude. And very sad. You know, it's not supposed to be that way? We have this thing, called *child protection services*! But, now I can understand where you're coming from...

two point. first, what if they are passing a law right now, that changes the speed limit, and you are not aware of it? see? you're "knowledge" is wrong, but you don't know it. second, god (if there is one) is a pretty smart and powerful "guy". if he wanted to, he could have made earth with diamonds in it, 6000 years ago. more over, god (according to the bible) has created fully growen trees (not planted a seed, and let them grow), and adam and eve were fully grown (20 year old?) adults. so if god can make living things that are old, couldn't he have made a 4.5 billion year old earth, 6000 years ago?

Eyal Lev >you're you simply do not comprehend the sheer scale of the evidence. the observable universe is 13 billion light-years across in every direction. in order for god to be involved and for young-universism to be accurate, he would have to have created the universe 6018 years ago, with the ILLUSION of being 6018 years old. do you realise that there are objects in space that MORE than 6018 light years away? do you realise that light has a finite speed and that if the universe is 6018 years old, we should only be able to see 6018 light years away? are you honestly saying that your god is a massive, massive prankster that has positioned everything, even the photons from galaxies _13 billion_ light years away _in situ_? that is fucking absurd. why would god deliberately try to trick us? how can you not see through this?

Volound not "trick:, but demonstart his awusomness. god is so smart and powerfull that he created everything to look as if it wasn't created by god. now I suggest you reread my first comment, carefully, before making your reply

Eyal Lev you are hopeless.

YogaFire now you're getting it. As for volound, I didn't claim to hold the position you assigned to me (notice where I said "god, if there is one ...")

Brent Arnesen _ no shit does not fall far from the ass

How does your imaginary fiend even figure figure into anything?

What's wrong troll? Don't you have any more lies to tell?

+Tim King As long as he means Zeus then I agree.

God is not effected by Time, matter, and space.

sandromnator I didn't say anything abut that, did I? Also, how would you know that? The bible doesn't say that, as far as I know. And what does it mean to not be *affected* by time, space and matter?

sandromnator Sand, interesting comment. How do you know this is true?