Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Musicmatters

Good atheist/agnostic rebuttals for kent hovind's answer in this video.

Recommended Posts

Good day to you all. My Christian friend sent me a very short video of a Kent hovind debate where he seems to have destroyed the other atheist debater with his answer. The question is basically: "If God created the universe then who created God?"

 

Hovind's answer was very good and intelligent, and would leave any new atheist speechless in a debate. So do you know of any videos of great Atheist/agnostic debaters like hitchens, Sam Harris, etc. That give a good rebuttal to his answer? Here is the YouTube link to his video: 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not planning to watch Hovind's video.  Kindly sum up his key points in text form.

 

I give it a 95%+ probability that it's a PRATT (point refuted a thousand times) and that it is not up to the Ex-C standard for evidence.

 

(My own standard, by the way, is that I require a physical encounter with any purported god-like being, in the physical world.  I reject all scripture and all apologetics, as they are mere philosophizing and not actual evidence.)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply. The video is very short. Only 3min long. So please watch, he does better than I could in text. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Musicmatters said:

Thanks for your reply. The video is very short. Only 3min long. So please watch, he does better than I could in text. Thanks. 

 

Sorry, but no.  The length of the video is not relevant.  I simply am not interested in watching it.

 

Perhaps ask your "Christian friend" to sign up here to tell us why he or she finds Hovind convincing, if you are unwilling to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The questioner asks how god can effect matter if his himself is not matter.

       (Now to MOHO this does not matter)

 

The answer came as a series of slides flashed too fast for the audience to even realize what they were - followed by some bullshit pseudo science that was rattled off far too fast for anyone to follow. Audience erupts in laughter and applause (laughter directed at questioner), speaker "acknowledges" that he just "shut down" the questioner.

 

The question/answer scenario was, apparently, a setup but it is not clear to me if the setup was to spew propaganda for the case for the existence of god or to make fun of our would-be apologist.

 

The speaker who attempted to answer a question put to him was so quick and slick with his reply that an old episode of I Dream of Genie comes to mind. Jeanie was buying a car and asks the salesman if the care was in good condition. His reply (very quickly) "If it's not, I'll be the first to admit it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a memed clip from a 2004 debate.  Hovind gish gallops through some pseudoscientific gibberish where the central point is that god is bigger than the perceivable universe...because he says so.  Q.E.D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Musicmatters said:

...

Hovind's answer was very good and intelligent, and would leave any new atheist speechless in a debate.

...

 

Hovind's "answer" was not an answer at all.  It was simply a collection of (i) mere assertions, (ii) the disingenuous parlor trick of defining his god into existence, (iii) a series of unsupported Gish Gallops/strawman fallacies, all of which are PRATTs and (iv) a convenient, tortured and resulting ad hoc interpretation of Genesis 1:1.

 

His statements were quite irrational, at least to rational thinkers.

 

I suggest you consider arming yourself with Carl Sagan's "Bologna Detection Kit".

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the "brilliant" reply was machine gunning eh? Yup that sounds like hoover.

 

I've listened through his audio "seminars" years ago, out of curiosity. I'll grant him one thing, he's kind of funny. But other than that, his babble has the intellectual "quality" of any given pile of steaming stinking fecal matter. I remember that around the same time some cretinist website (AiG I think) had an extra page "Arguments we thing creationists should NOT use". If even other cretinists consider a given point bullshit it's MINDBOGGLINGLY BAD. And guess what, about 95 % on that list were hoover's talking points.

 

Spending even half a second on his stuff (except for pointing at it and laughing) is a waste of your life.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone who did watch the video and took the time to comment on it.  I've got an unusually low tolerance for BS, and my boss would have looked at me funny had I put my fist through a perfectly good 23" flatscreen monitor.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confusticating is a favorite with Christian apologists. It gives them that ultra intelligent aura especially in a debate format. William Lane Craig loves that approach.  Putting your finger on exactly what mistakes are being made can be much more difficult than showing how to arrive at the most sound conclusion. Then when you choose an audience to be half Christians you create what looks like a stimulating debate even if the quality of the answers are completely unequal. (Not used in that clip but another Christian favorite is name dropping - so and so who heads the department of such and such at such and such prestegious university wrote extensively on this complex subject and came to exactly the opposite conclusion that you are stating here. This is an excellent tactic for replying to audience questions following a debate.) Luckily tricks don't work nearly so well in a court setting where all the time necessary to present an argument and refute one is given (days in this case) so the creationest, masquerading as ID, were stunningly outmatched by the scientists presenting for evolution and consequently defeated and even reprimanded by the judge in the 2005  Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. There is no truly logical supporting evidence for Christianity and the more fundamental the beliefs the more illogical they necessarily are.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanForsman said:

There is no truly logical supporting evidence for Christianity and the more fundamental the beliefs the more illogical they necessarily are.  

 

Truer words were never spoken.

Of course mine is a personal observation that, by no means, would stand up to scientific observation - even though there is strong supporting evidence opinion. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the old joke "How can you tell when Kent Hovind is lying? His lips are moving" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Good atheist/agnostic rebuttals for Kent Hovind's answer in this video." ?

 

That God is above and superior to "all" of physical and biological reality is not an intellectual answer. It relates to the argument of the "God of the gaps" whereby whatever cannot be otherwise explained, "God did it,"  which is neither intellectual nor scientific.

 

Although he stated that God created time, space, and matter at the same time gives some detail to his answer, but the primary question given to him of "where did God come from?" was not addressed or answered by Kent Hovind.  He implied that God is outside of physical time and space and has existed for an eternity within the spiritual realm.

 

Saint Augustine had two answers to those who asked the question of what was God doing before he created the heavens and the Earth. He said that God was preparing Hell for those who asked such questions. But on a more serious note he said that God was eternal and that his existence before our universe was that of heavenly pursuits beyond our understandings of a spiritual existence without time.

 

Science can never prove the non-existence of such a spiritual realm or of a God of any kind no more than it can disprove the Easter Bunny. Science simply asks where is the evidence for the existence of such entities? Real science would never seriously address such questions concerning the spiritual realm since they are neither intellectual nor scientific.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2019 at 9:07 AM, Wertbag said:

Reminds me of the old joke "How can you tell when Kent Hovind is lying? His lips are moving" 

 

That's not a joke. It's a fact.

 

:fdevil:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.