Conversations with "true believers" - contacting Eric Hovind.
So I recently watched a video of Eric Hovind (son of creationist Kent Hovind) debating YouTube celebrity atheist Tunderf00t. The entire debate really came down to the nature of "assumptions", "assertions", and "truth".Unfortunately the debate didn't cover that area robustly enough, as the energetic Eric kept evading or completely missing the very scientific mind of Thunderf00t (who is actually a scientist of some discipline I'm not aware of).
Curious, I decided to contact Eric (or at least someone who could satisfy my curiosity) - where I met Paul, who is currently displaying some fancy footwork himself. So far, this is how he's doing!
TOMO:
I'm including 2 definitions here so that we can be on the same page.
as·ser·tion [uh-sur-shuhn] Show IPA noun 1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion.
as·sump·tion [uh-suhmp-shuhn] Show IPA noun 1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory. 2. the act of taking for granted or supposing. Synonyms: presumption; presupposition.
fact [fakt] Show IPA noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
What makes everything you claim about God and your religion a fact (by definition) rather than just an assumption or an assertion?
PAUL:
Dear Sir,
I doubt if dictionary definitions can get us “on the same page”. Your question refers to truth.
By what standard can you determine whether or not something is true? How can you know whether something is true?
Here’s an example, so you can see what I am getting at. a) 2 + 2 =5 b) 2 + 2 = 5million
Which incorrect equation is closer to the truth?
Paul Taylor, BSc MEd
Director of Ministry Development
TOMO:
Paragraph 1 is accurate, but you are missing WHY it is accurate.
I know for sure that 2+2=4 because it has never NOT equaled 4.
You say that God exists, but unlike 2+2= 4, you have no demonstration for this. You have no experiment, you have no proof. All you have is your assertion that God exists.
This is an assertion that is NOT based in fact, it is based on the assumption that what you believe is true.
Interestingly enough, I'm willing to bet that you don't even know how to define God, let alone prove his existence. Again, we should have a common ground in order to have this discussion - so when you say "God", what do you mean? How do you define God (e.g. what are the primary attributes of the subject you are referring to)?
Based off of the context of your statements, you have said that god is "presuppositional" - which is a logical fallacy of "begging the question", or making an assumption that is not necessarily true.
You have also said that God is all knowing. How do you know this is true? How can you PROVE this to be true? How do you KNOW- how can you establish the fact - of "God's" presuppositional nature? What evidence can you provide that God exists, let alone is an assumption that MUST BE MADE in order to understand the world around us?
Secondly, we DO have a system in place for learning about the Universe without the need for god - it is called SCIENCE and it works remarkably well. Certainty has no place in Science because Science does not make the arrogant claim of certainty without proof.
What you do have in Science is something called provisional assent. This means that you can agree something is true within the given limitations of the observable evidence. For example, I easily give my provisional assent to the fact that the "Sun always rises in the east" because I have no evidence to the contrary.
However, if you were to provide some evidence to the contrary- and a conjecture or philosophical premise is NOT evidence - then I would have to adjust my provisional assent to reflect the new evidence. However, because the Sun has always risen in the east, and it always will, I can rely on the predictive ability of that statement.
Point of fact, you don't need a god (of any definition) for that to be true either, and I didn't need god to tell me its true as this is an observable fact of the world we live in.
Another point, in response to your straw man about the only way to know 100% of the knowledge in the universe - If as you say there is no knowledge without god, then there is no IGNORANCE without god as well.
As you have asserted, god has only revealed the knowledge that he wants us to have, so how is it that YOU have knowledge that says god exists and I don't? After all, if god wanted me to know he exists, all he has to do is give me that knowledge in a way I can comprehend - which if he is all knowing he should be capable of doing.
Please keep in mind, you CANNOT answer this question without making assumptions about me unless you ask god directly. I will caution you, logically speaking you know NOTHING about me and if you were to get to know me you might be surprised about what I believe, how I was raised, and what I have gone through to be where I am at today.
So, to review, in addition to my "bonus" question, would you please answer the following?
1. If you agree with the definitions I have proposed, then again I ask you, What makes everything you claim about God and your religion a fact (by definition) rather than just an assumption or an assertion?
ALTERNATE - If you do not agree with those definitions, then what definitions WOULD you agree to in order that we can establish a common ground so that we can avoid a semantic debate.
2. When you say "God", what do you mean? How do you define God (e.g. what are the primary attributes of the subject you are referring to)?
3. How do you KNOW- how can you establish the fact - of "God's" presuppositional nature?
4. How can you establish God's alleged omniscience?
5. What evidence can you provide that God exists, let alone is an assumption that MUST BE MADE in order to understand the world around us?
Please answer these questions first before making further arguments. These are simple questions regarding the claims you have made. We can hardly call it a discussion if the questions you leave unanswered keep growing exponentially.
PAUL:
Your arguments are fallacious. Without the existence of God, even your arguments against His existence have no basis. I have no need to prove the existence of God. His existence is self-evident. The burden of proof is on you to prove that he does not exist, even though His existence is self-evident. Yet you cannot offer such proof, because if He did not exist, then you would have no basis on which to rest your proof.
I think you require a course in logic.
Paul Taylor, BSc MEd
Director of Ministry Development
TOMO:
As you have just shown, being a Christian believer does not necessitate you being "Christ like".
Since you like and value the Bible so much, let me answer your insult with some "Biblical truth".
Now sanctify the Lord God in your hearts (minds); and always be prepared for (presenting) a logical defense to everyone who requests a reason from you concerning the hope which is among you, (doing so) with meekness and fear . . . – 1 Peter 3:15
Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. – Colossians 4:5-6
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; – Ephesians 4:14
Whom shall [God] teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; – Isaiah 28:9-10.
But the simplest and shortest versus are my favorite:
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. – 1 Thessalonians 5:21
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. – Proverbs 14:15
You seem to be making no effort to answer my courteous questions with courteous replies. You have also failed to answer my clearly stated questions.
I am NOT making the claim that god doesn't exist, I am simply asking for your evidence for your claim that he does. You also seem to be afraid to answer me point by point, even though I have been EXTREMELY candid and forthcoming with answers to your questions.
If you do not have answers to my questions, if there is something SPECIFICALLY FALLACIOUS about the questions I have proposed, kindly show me where I am in error SPECIFICALLY. Otherwise "I don't know" is a valid response.
Just because you ASSERT that existence of god is "self-evident" doesn't make it so. A "self-evident axiom" is something that IS, such as the world we live in, your existence, my existence, the sun, the moon, the stars, and any other materially present "thing" you can point to.
Immaterial concepts or subjects do not enjoy the same "assumption of existence" that physical and observable subjects have.
Additionally, you seem to be conflating laws of argumentation with the physical laws of the universe. It is true that what we do with Science follows logical laws, but an axiom is not a scientific truth.
To put it another way, we both agree that reality exists. This is an axiom.
We both agree that you and I exist. This is an axiom.
We both do NOT agree on the existence of YOUR god - you have also failed to provide a definition we can both agree on - thus God and his/her/its existence is NOT an axiom.
Since this is a point of contention between us, this is where our discussion must necessarily start from, so that we can establish some common ground. This is the way civilized people understand the world around them better.
If something is "self-evident" that means no one will reasonably argue its existence.
Why is it unreasonable for me to not believe in this thing you have proposed that you haven't defined, explained, demonstrated in any way, which you also cannot point to and refuse to provide me evidence for?
What have I proposed to you under similar restrictions that you have willingly accepted or would be willing to accept?
So, I claim to have no knowledge of what you are talking about (the existence of God). If this concept is as you claim, self-evident, it should be child's play for you to tell me why. The onus of proof is on YOU to provide evidence and a definition for the concept you are talking about.
It is impossible for me to prove something false or disagree with something that you can't properly define or explain. All I can do is either agree with you or disagree based on the evidence you provide.
So once again, I ask you (with yet ANOTHER addition to the litany of questions you have left unanswered): 1. If you agree with the definitions I have proposed, then again I ask you, What makes everything you claim about God and your religion a fact (by definition) rather than just an assumption or an assertion?
ALTERNATE - If you do not agree with those definitions, then what definitions WOULD you agree to in order that we can establish a common ground so that we can avoid a semantic debate.
2.When you say "God", what do you mean? How do you define God (e.g. what are the primary attributes of the subject you are referring to)?
3. How do you KNOW- how can you establish the fact - of "God's" presuppositional nature?
4. How can you establish God's alleged omniscience?
5. Of the above definitions and points - what makes "God's existence" self-evident? **NEW** :-)
6. What evidence can you provide that God exists, let alone is an assumption that MUST BE MADE in order to understand the world around us?
I have included a link for your review that may be useful in keeping this discussion productive, enlightened, and respectful.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/how-to-have-a-rational-discussion
Respectfully,
Tomo
PAUL:
As an unbeliever, you have no concept of what it means to be Christ-like. And as for biblical truth – what is truth? You have no foundation for your truth.
Do you consider yourself to be a good person?
Paul Taylor, BSc MEd
Director of Ministry Development
TOMO:
Does being Christ-like mean making assumptions about people Paul? Did I miss the biblical passage where Jesus states the "parable of why assumptions are awesome"?
Whether I know or not is something else we could debate, but YOU are the one that has to reconcile your actions with the scripture from YOUR bible.
As for what is truth - we've already covered this ground Paul - or did you want the dictionary definition?
noun, plural truths [troothz, trooths] Show IPA.
1.
2.
conformity with fact or realit
3.
a verified or indisputable fac
4.
5.
actuality or actual existence.
We can measure the truth of something by its predictive reliability. If something is true, then any predictions that rely (e.g. could not happen otherwise) on that thing being true would occur.
As for whether I'm a good person, I certainly try to be. I make mistakes, but I'm only human, and I can forgive myself the "bad" things that I do as long as I do my best to make things right.
However Paul, you are once again avoiding my questions. *Tsk tsk*. You didn't read the flow chart I sent you on the rules for a rational discussion, did you?
Please, answer my initial questions... they are important to the discussion. Even more importantly, In spite of OBVIOUSLY disagreeing with you, I have answered every single point and question that you have given to me.
I haven't avoided them.
I haven't talked around them.
I haven't equivocated or retreated by a wall of speculation.
You have asked questions and I have answered. Please do the same.
For easy reference, here are the questions I have asked you:
1. If you agree with the definitions I have proposed, then again I ask you, What makes everything you claim about God and your religion a fact (by definition) rather than just an assumption or an assertion?
ALTERNATE - If you do not agree with those definitions, then what definitions WOULD you agree to in order that we can establish a common ground so that we can avoid a semantic debate.
2.When you say "God", what do you mean? How do you define God (e.g. what are the primary attributes of the subject you are referring to)?
3. How do you KNOW- how can you establish the fact - of "God's" presuppositional nature?
4. How can you establish God's alleged omniscience?
5. Of the above definitions and points - what makes "God's existence" self-evident? ***NEW*** :-)
6. What evidence can you provide that God exists, let alone is an assumption that MUST BE MADE in order to understand the world around us?
I have included a link for your review that may be useful in keeping this discussion productive, enlightened, and respectful.
*** To be continued? *****
I wonder if he actually WILL answer my questions, or if he's just another close-minded pseudo-intellectual who is better at deflecting than analyzing. :p
