I like how Rocky Kent’s “early warning” system is already alerting him to a potential “gotcha” and he’s trying to find ways to backtrack or leave a back door open desperately!! 😆😆
Of course, the "trick" consists of demonstrating how people contradict themselves. In regard to young earth creationists contradicting themselves, I'm all the time pointing out how they not only contradict other young earth creationists (such as when some young earth creationist promotes the "species don't evolve into new species" argument, after which I'll always immediately point out the fact that many young earth creationists promote "baraminology," which contradicts them), but also how a young earth creationist contradicts some of his own premises that he has used when he does so. Self-contradiction is a powerful form of disproof - and a powerful form of proof as well. It's actually routinely used in mathematics to prove various mathematical theorems. It's done by assuming the proposition you want to prove is false, and then demonstrating that that opposite proposition leads to a self-contradiction, which thus proves that its opposite is true, which is the original proposition that we actually wanted to prove in the first place. It's literally called "proof by contradiction." I remember this from a Number Theory course I took many years ago, in which the technique is used quite often, and when I first consciously caught on to what the technique was, it really stood out to me how powerful it was. Assume the opposite of the point you want to prove, and prove how the opposite leads to a self-contradiction - and Voila! - you've proved your point. A colloquial term for this is "hoisted by his own petard."
What amazing is that you did this for everyone else to use in the future. He didn't see it coming and probably still doesn't understand that. Excellent work.
I thumbed up this video and found it so interesting that you got the concessions that you got. You are a lot of fun to watch. FYI: I don't actually understand the concept of presuppositions, but I understood what you were doing in the video - getting everyone (or just Kent) to agree to a set of basic understandings so that the rest of the conversation could get somewhere. At least that's how I saw it. Your comments below were super helpful, re: > "The important part is establishing that the existence of logic, and the uniformity of nature are themselves assumptions that are not derived from anything, and that you don't have to justify, because reasoning requires premises as it's starting point." and > "If you admit that things like being able to trust your senses, and the uniformity of nature, and the existence of physical reality are assumptions, life is easier." and > "You see, class, this is the reason you need to be clear about what your presuppositions are, and that they are presumptions, because if someone like this comes along and asks you to justify them with logic, you don't have to do it, and that doesn't make you illogical. These are fundamental assumptions we make about the world. Nobody can prove that reality is reality, we assume it without evidence, and without logic, and that's ok. Everybody does it. If someone tries to tell you different, you can tell them to take a hike." Even so, I want to put in a vote for this!: "I'll do more presuppositional stuff in the future to expand on that side of things if this video gets sufficient interest..." You have my interest! :-)
I also don't understand how the presupposition of the uniformity of nature can be an "assumption itself that is not derived from anything, and you don't have to justify, because reasoning requires premises as it's starting point." The uniformity of nature is the assumption that the laws of physics will remain the same in the future as they have been in the past. How can that propositional content not be derived from anything? And it makes no sense to say that propositional content doesn't need to be justified because reasoning requires premises as it's starting point. That's completely incoherent and unintelligible. Because, as I explained, the uniformity of nature is an assumption about the laws of physics and that they remain the same over time.
@@АпологетикаБазинского If you have no need to justify your imaginary friend’s existence, I have no justification to justify your imaginary friend’s supposed existence.
this is a masterclass in building the octagon around the fighters (one of whom is a bit slippery imo). ngl pretty jealous of your incisiveness and precision
@@TheGreaser9273 they ARE the same thing , dumb person , just different frequencies of motion of the atoms , still the same composition ... The chemical composition of any substance does not change as the physical state of the substance changes , all THREE states of ice , there are MORE THEN THAT actually , but lets keep it simple , shall we ... , all three states have the same composition
The counter to presups is a basic understanding of Kantian philosophy. You can cut it off through understanding Kant's categories and how they lay the foundation for all mental function. From there you just point out that neither the proposition "God exists" nor "God does not exist" is in that set (so there's no bias), so already we have an account of knowledge without reference to God. From there, the proposition "God exists" does not follow from that set either by analysis of the a priori Kantian categories or through the kind of empirical observation the categories allow.
It's hilarious how hard he worked to leave a backdoor open for himself to invoke undetectable miracles any time he would have to concede a point. It sounds like you're just trying to rule out the modern equivalent of "Satan buried fossils in order to shake our faith." And he's trying so hard to leave that as a possibility.
I like the way you gained a consensus. Subscribed. One thing that really bugs me is when people focus on meaningless details while missing the bigger picture. With that in mind -- and demonstrated by you here -- I also grant everything that is not required (even if tentatively) so that the next bigger step in the conversation can be reached. Ideally, at the end of the conversation often those details come back as a result of the more important steps.
It's always amused me how strongly kent feels he has to affirm that he understands the reality of the other crazy biblical conspiracies he doesn't believe in, like the moon landing or that the sun doesn't actually rise.
So as a presuppositionalist a big problem with this vid, off the bat, is that Dr. Hovind isn't a presuppositionalist. His son Eric, famously, has accepted a sort of modified approach to the method but his father hasn't. Dr. Hovind is actually hostile to the Reformed systematic theology that underlies and motivates the entire method. You ought to amend the title of this video accordingly. Moreover, your "October Protocols" are too obtuse and the listener often gets confused as to whether you're meaning to grant Christian theoretical assumptions, or operate on your own. I commend you for trying to be clear (at the outset) about your assumptions but stake a flag then clearly stand on your hill, rather than waffling around. (Maybe you do keep the dialectical lines clear as the discussion progressed?)
Mr Anderson says, "I like to ask difficult questions & insist on the answers." Alright, let's see how you fare when held to this standard you've set. How did you determine your particular non-theistic worldview is true?
@АпологетикаБазинского Well, to be fair, he has responded to other difficult question that I've asked him before in the comments. He didn't answer them... and he tried many redirection tactics - but when he realized that I know virtually every form of sophistry & redirection (and how to justify that they were used) he eventually gave up. By the end of the threads, there were something like 50-70 replies and no answer to the question asked.
7:57 "If a miracle does happen that violates the laws of physics, it's GOING to leave a trace," "well now I didn't agree with that one, if a miracle happens it's ONLY to leave a trace is what you said" no sir, it's not what he said
The presupposional arguments normally try to show that God exists because He is necessary for intelligibility, among other things. Granting that God exists as part of your "protocol" concedes to those arguments.
That's true. I was using this specifically to attack some of the issues with his evidentiary arguments, and I didn't want to get side tracked by the issue of the existence of God. You can remove it from the protocol if that is what you are debating and it still works. The important part is establishing that the existence of logic, and the uniformity of nature are themselves assumptions that are not derived from anything, and that you don't have to justify, because reasoning requires premises as it's starting point. This kind of steals thier thunder and they don't have a lot left in the tank once you acknowledge that there are philosophical underpinnings to empiricism. I'll do more presuppositional stuff in the future to expand on that side of things if this video gets sufficient interest, so make sure to like and share if you want that!
@@Mr.AndersonCrossesYou can't justify the uniformity of nature or the universal laws of logic without God, that is the whole point. If you remove the existence of God from your protocol you have removed your justification.
@@peterw1642 I don't think so. Thiests can't justify the uniformity of nature or the laws of logic with God either. They are just pure presuppsitions that both sides share. Sometimes Theists insert some extra steps between these and thier assumptions, but it amounts to the same thing. For example, Theists just assume that God is logical, and gave them logic, which is the same as assuming it exists, but with extra steps. By the same token, theists assume nature is uniform because God made it that way, and that we can trust our senses because god made them that way. They might assume reasons why he made them that way, but again those reasons are just unjustified assumptions. Either you assume a God that gives the world those properties, or you assume them directly, but either way there is no logical basis for those assumptions. Does that make sense to you?
The last two questions are distinct. "You're comfortable with this set of assumptions, correct?" "You're comfortable agreeing to it (this set of assumptions)?" The way they are answered could have been subject to that the process in getting to that point was boring, or seemingly irrelevant, etc. For Kent to have said "Again.." as a preface to his second answer would seem to imply that he; either felt like the second question wasn't distinct and he'd already answered it or, he did recognize it and the level of nuanced clarity isn't something he's used to and frustrated him. Maybe he just doesn't like lawyers, I've seen quite a bit of animosity in comment sections on your videos or where you're featured expressing how parasitic they are. I think you were being more than charitable with your clarity, and his suspicion prevented him from saying simple things like "yes, any miracle we've recognized has left a trace of its occurrence." When instead he tries to protect himself with something like "if God performs a miracle in a forest and no one's around to witness it.. can we say god didn't?" If the two Kent debates have shown anything it's that; if lawyers are parasites, they are parasites that came from humans so are still human in kind, and so we shouldn't call them parasites because that would be unkind.
As a Christian, I agree, when there are far better arguments Cosmological (Something must have caused something else, but there needs to be an initial starter; the uncaused causer) Moral (Good and Bad are only real if God is real, Objective Morality is real, therefore God is real. Is Cannibalism bad? Any human raised properly will say cannibalism is bad, therefore it is an objective morality. Without God there is not good or bad because everything is subjective, therefore you cannot say something is good or bad.) Teleological (Stuff seems to have purpose in this universe, therefore it had to be created by something. If you saw a machine, you wouldn't say it just appeared) Mind (Consciousness cannot be explained in the natural world, you cannot measure it, you cannot explain it outside of your own. Therefore, it has to be something unique and purposefully created) Personal Experience (There are recorded documents of miracles, possessions, and acts of God. More hearsay but if one person claims something versus 100, how many until you start to entertain the thought?) Pascal's Wager (If you believe in god, and there isn't a God, nothing happens, but if there is a god, you are rewarded. If you don't believe in God, and there isn't a god, nothing happens. But if you're wrong, you are punished. Therefore, it is the most logical assumption to believe in God, as it is the only choice that has potential real benefit) Transcendental (Logic, Consistency, and Truth are all things we accept as reality, but cannot be proven outright)
@@wet-read What point are you trying to make? Theology is just the study of religion, which religion is just a system of faith based on agreed upon ideas of the Universe (Creation, purpose, afterlife or the lack thereof) Metaphysics is a philosophical stance on the matter of existence and the universe that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology. You have google to confirm this bud, stop saying words like you have a clue what they mean
@@gorgeousfreeman1318 I do know what they mean; I know theology is the study of religion, or more specifically, the effort to discern and map God's attributes, motives, etc. Teleology is like metaphysics, which is controversial enough by itself, but seems to be even more ambitious. What I commented is just my melodramatic way of saying what I think of the viability of both of these, at least on a practical level. If you want to discuss it further, I am up for it.
@@wet-read Theology isn't just one faith, it's the study of a faith from the perspective of someone within that faith. Teleology is not metaphysics, Teleology is that things seem to exist for a reason, so there must be a creator. It's an argument for a creator. None of these are stronger or weaker than the other because all still are based on the foundation of trust, Faith.
@@gorgeousfreeman1318 I know teleology is not metaphysics. I think it is similar to metaphysics in that it posits things empirical methods of verifying may not be able to confirm (if they are true at all, that is), but worse IMO. Maybe I'm off base, but it seems to me that teleology could be considered a beefed up metaphysics: not only do things behave a certain way or exhibit a certain nature, they do so for reasons related to some intent or purpose.
It's honestly surprising if he's not, given that Eric Hovind is, and that Kent loves being an asshole. I guess it would have been better if he had been primarily a presup instead of a creationist, as people wouldn't have been sucked into his orbit.
Exactly. This was embarrassing to watch. If they don't even understand Presup on a basic enough level to recognize Kent isn't a Presup, then how on Earth can they possibly believe they've rebutted it like this? It's absurd
At the 6:36 time mark he essentially gave up the free will argument. WIth God traversing space and time and standing at your funeral he already knows how everything turns out. Its predetermined in God's eyes.
That's not actually a good argument against free will. Whether or not a god knows what choice you are going to make doesn't contradict the idea of you making a choice and having had the free will to make a different choice at the time you made the choice. I'm merely pointing out that it's not a logical contradiction of an "all-knowing" concept of a god. I'm not arguing for free will.
@@steveg1961 An all knowing God decides to make a universe. Being an all knowing God any universe he makes is going to be entirely known. Beginning to End. And he has a choice in what universe he makes. Including everything that happens in it. Including all choices made by everyone in it. God has the only choice in this scenario. All free will is gone in a universe created by an all knowing God.
@@hurin1the element of omnipotence is important to include as well, that’s what makes the overall argument ironclad At the beginning of everything where it was just god, the fact that he can do anything while also knowing everything means that nothing happens without his say so and without him knowing what will happen. By acting in any particular way he is solidifying all events in the causal chain because any causal influence he adds to the sequence of events is done with complete foreknowledge and with no opposing force (other potentialities and their consequences are known as well, and god effectively chooses one of these potentialities when he invokes any causal force) Since he is the one who instantiates everything and has deciding to invoke a causal force, then that must mean that all sequences of events are predetermined and by consequence means freewill is not possible (freewill is the ability to do otherwise but if gods power cannot be challenged and if he cannot be wrong about what he knows, then all actions are predetermined the moment he influences the sequence of events with causal force. This causal force occurred at the beginning of time, so at no “time” has freewill been a possibility)
I'm not a fan of Kent Hovind in particular, but why wouldn't he qualify as a doctor? What makes the accreditation organization that granted his credentials less able to make that determination than the accreditation organization you prefer? What is the specific difference that makes the particular accreditation organization you prefer the ultimate arbiters of who is or isn't an "expert" or "doctor?" And why do they have a monopoly on this ability to dictate who deserves these titles?
@AsixA6 Alright and how did you determine that the flying spaghetti monster has all the attributes needed to be the correct ultimate authority? What are the attributes and why do those attributes entail that it's the correct ultimate standard for truth over competing options?
@AsixA6 or are you just arbitrarily asserting its the ultimate authority... entailing it's a bare assertion fallacy... because that's what you imagine Presups do (as a form of mockery) even though Presups clearly justify WHY the Biblical God is the correct ultimate standard for truth deductively by use of transcendental argumentation
What you won't be able to do is give a rebuttal for why the actual argumentation isn't correct. Of course people won't emotionally like argumentation against their pre-existing beliefs (aka worldview). That's a given. What matters is whether or not that argumentation is valid & sound. If you want to argue that what Presups are arguing isn't valid & sound, that'll require a justification. Not just emotional outbursts that you can't stand people who question your worldview.
Btw, Kent Hovind (Mr Anderson's interlocutor in this video) isn't a Presuppositionalist. If you thought he was, that would entail to me that you cannot possibly understand even the basics of what Presups argue. Because, if you did, you'd notice right away that Kent Hovind isn't a Presup. So, you're saying that you can't stand something that you clearly don't comprehend even on a basic level. A common phenomenon among atheists objecting to Presup.
It's a good question actually, if you are really interested in the answer, you should probably look it up. Much ink had been spilled on the subject. If you are just trying to engage me in a presup debate, I'm trying not to debate too much in the comments. If there is sufficient interest, I might do an open mic though, and you would be free to bring the thunder at that time. :). Either way, thanks for the comment. I'll let you have the last word.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses I've asked this question to nonbelievers for years and most say ultimately truth can't be known (which is self defeating). But I understand not wanting to debate in a comment section. Have a good one!
@@Theology_Mattershello! I have never talked to a presuppositionalist, and don’t know much about it. This is one of the first videos I’ve heard about it, so I would be happy to learn more about it with you. To answer your question, I would say that it’s most likely not possible to known ultimate truth. But I do believe we can have higher and lower confidence something is true, and that’s through using our senses to gather information for deductive and inductive reasoning and testing its effectiveness and repeatability. I’m curious what the “self defeating” thing is about
@@renocicchi7346 Hi! To say truth can't be known is itself a truth claim would be self defeating, because that statement itself is a truth claim. It contradicts itself.
@@Theology_Matters but I said I’m not sure if Truth can or cannot be known. I said “most likely” which is a confidence claim, which means I don’t claim to know the truth of this position with absolute certainty, so how is that a truth claim?
As I see it, Presup goes in tandem with TAG. It’s an internally consistent attempt at applying Hume’s objections to his own fellow atheists, and giving those grounding. It is indeed purely philosophical but how is philosophy a pseudoscience if I may ask?
Of course! Thanks for the comment. You are right, philosophy is not a pseudoscience, nor, strictly speaking, is presuppositionalism. It's just that presuppositionalism is often employed by pseudoscientists, and that's why you have to know how to deal with its attacks in this arena.
Everyone has a presuppositional framework....everyone. If you believe in evolution, you have a built in defeater for the existance of rational thought.
@@sparkyy0007 sure, I am pretty clear about what my presuppositionalist framework is, but I don't see how it defeats the existence of rational thought. In fact I really quite a bit on rational thought.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Good grief, a named reference to a philosophical argument is now justification for censorship ? Little point in trying to have a discussion my friend. I'm off to make a cat video.
I don't see the point is debating like this. The evidence for evolution is well understood, and has been since Charles Darwin proposed the theory 160 years ago. It can be measured. It is massively corroborated by other branches of science, it's the central theory of biology, not only because it explains so much, but because it works. You can question the validity of newtonian mechanics, or Bernoulli's equations, by questioning the validity of the reason on which they are based, but planes still fly! Even if you show them to be fools then win. They want you to argue with them, because it implies a parity between the two "sides", and they get the oxygen of publicity.
It has to do with debating in regard to logic. In logic, it's about propositions. In regard to an argument, there are two aspects of a logical argument - one has to do with whether or not the argument is logically valid, and the other has to do with whether or not the argument is a sound argument. Validity has to do purely with the logic of the argument. Soundness has to do with empirical considerations (like science). Here's the key: If an argument is not a logically valid argument, then it's automatically a false argument on its face - and that's before even having to deal with any empirical considerations in regard to soundness.
Please, before you you follow whatever this guy is trying to say (if he ever gets to his point), recognize that Mr Laywer hand and fist lost this debate. this would be a good guide on how to make enemies during a friendly debate.
@@AsixA6 Hovind is, in the end a christian entertainer. thats what you gotta realize. anyone who watches hovind on the YEC side is probably not doing it because they need information on YEC or are undecided. we have already made up our minds and just enjoy seeing hovind dunk on people who are so confidently wrong. im sure you think we are confidently wrong too, but watching hovind will not be the way to find good info on YEC. Bryon Nichols hydroplate theory presentation, or answers in genesis, creation ministries international would give you more accurate insights. though just with secular dogma, Most creationists do not agree with each other about things like how the flood happened. to me the buck stops at c14 in diamonds, coal and dino bones. you just cant had wave that away
@ Ahahaha!!! AIG? Creation ministries? Are you insane? Those are science deniers. Why would you recommend such obviously biased sources? None of their anti-evolution nonsense gets published in legitimate, peer reviewed scientific journals. It’s just sad that you don’t see how duped you’ve been by your fellow magic believers.
Two sides arguing about who actually knows something, all the while, bandying about the word 'believe' like it's going out of style. Methinks thou doth project too much.
Unless you have outstanding evidence that empirically contradicts scientific understanding of the natural world, it is not unreasonable to presuppose the factuality of established scientific knowledge. The neat thing about science, as opposed to other branches of philosophy, is that "facts" can change with new evidence; for example, we used to treat transgender people as having a mental disorder, but when we switched from diagnosing transgender people as having "Gender identity disorder" to having "gender dysphoria" we saw a dramatic improvement in the lives of transgender people. We therefore no longer treat transgender people as having a mental disorder, but rather a physical ailment. So, once there is enough evidence that can alter the scientific discourse about evolution, the "fact" of evolution can change; but, until then the only honest position to take is the presupposition that the evidence we have is true to the best of our knowledge.
Evolution is literally just descent with inherent modification. Do you deny that that exists? It's trivially observable by noticing that children aren't identical to their parents. Don't confuse the fact of evolution with the theory that explains biodiversity through evolution. The theory is correct, too, but no presupposition is needed to accept that.
@@henryschmit3340 Depends on what you mean by creation; if you mean the story as told in Genesis literally, then no, that's not compatible with evolution (humans didn't originate from just two people, and we weren't separately created). It is possible there's a deistic god of some sort that put the ball rolling and then let nature take over, but there's more than enough evidence to conclude that there's no intelligent force actually driving evolution. Just the human body alone has a number of stupid features that are perfectly explained by their evolutionary history, but contradict the idea of even a reasonably intelligent designer, never mind a divine one.
@@nio804 Aren’t you the one who believes humans descended from a microbe? There is no reason to believe that humans did not descend from just two people. There is no reason to believe that evolution ever happened.
I think Kent has a script that he follows…but he IS sincere. I’ve watched hundreds of hours of his videos (and others) and he is also consistent. I’ve watched CIA interrogations (on tape) and sleezy lawyer techniques to get people to say something that they can use against them later… by that i mean twisting the truth to make a statement mean something that was never intended…that, Mr. Anderson, appears to be you! Don’t be to pompous or stuck on yourself, your tactics are quite transparent. (My opinion of course). I may be totally wrong of course, but I get the same feeling watching congressional hearings, when it’s obvious that people are using legalese to twist the truth (ie, Bill Clinton and the definition of “sexual relations” or “what is is”). I’ve come to be VERY distrustful of lawyers…I hope creating a leaglese smokescreen isn’t your motive.
Kent Hovind is absolutely not "consistent". He can't even consistently settle on what a "kind" is. And the dishonest interrogation techinque you describe is literally the only trick presuppositionalists have. Without it, it would be trivially easy for even unprepared people to just expose the core of the presuppositionalist argument as what it actually is, that is "I'm right because I say so".
clarifying terms and definitions is most definitely not sleazy, if you can't even agree on what a miracle is, what it means and the implications of miracles in the context of evidence, then a debate or discussion is not going to be productive. This Guy s doing is what all people who debateSHOULD do before they get into the weeds of the debate topic. If more people actually approached debate this way, it would be far less convoluted and more common ground and clarification and clearer conclusions could be achieved, which is really the point of these debates to begin with.
@@brianbridges8124 - I’d have to watch it again to remind myself what my post was… I’m responding to tell you how much I appreciate your cordial tone. It’s apparent that we disagree, but I feel engaged with, not attacked. Perhaps I’ll go back and give it another watch. - take care.
Kent Hovind is bad example of pressupositional apologetics. Darth Dawkins too. Mr. Anderson is fighting with low hanging fruits and behaves like he is done something badass. Debate Jay Dyer for example. That is pro debater.
False premise. Not every miracle made by God must or should leave a trace. God reveals only what we need to know. This arguments comes to the realm of epistemology or in our case limited epistemology. If you go with that reasoning to a presup like Jay Dyer or Greg Bahnsen (RIP) you would be eaten from the start.
Well, the problem if they want to have invisible miracles is that it stops being very scientific, and young earth creationists are very tied to the idea that they are doing "science'" so there can't be too many miracles. That's why this approach works in this context. If the person is committed to the idea of copious miracles, then they are abandoning there uniformity of nature and therefore they own ability to understand the world to any degree.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Im agree with you about the miracle machine gun fallacy. 🤣 Throwing miracles for anything is not a good discussion. The problem is you called that presuppositionalists. Im not agree with that.
@user-dy3uh in normal conditions it is. Miracles are contained in the Bible. But as Mr. Anderson did, he doesn’t want Hovind invoking miracles for everything. And I’m agree with that, but! If you ask for avoiding a miracle machine gun. Then don’t use well known evolutionary philosophy to save the day.
Hmm…. As a presuppositionalist, I would have differed on a few points. First, God hates everyone outside of Christ, with a complete and holy hatred. Second, I very much believe that God misleads many. He is sovereign over our very thoughts themselves, and is free to direct them to false understandings (and has done so in the case of all false beliefs). This does not amount to lying. Third, God is in no way more bound to act upon His creation in one way than He is to another. What we call “miracles” are only those ways which God has been most pleased to direct His creation for His glory, differing from the way in which He is usually pleased to direct it. Whether or not we see what is occurring has no impact on whether it has occurred. And God has no obligation to leave any evidence of such a thing.
Again another embarrassing video for Mr. Anderson Why would you think asking a bunch of arbitrary questions that Kevin didn’t agree to would end you getting presupped? You still have no justification for knowledge, ethics, or metaphysics in your atheist worldview but attempt to use all 3 Complete incoherence Wouldn’t expect anything less from the atheist religion
@@BigGoon5783 I have as much justification as presuppers do. That's the point. If you missed that you are being deliberately obtuse... Not that I mind of course... Thanks for commenting!
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses presuppers would have the transcendental argument as justification… You rely on sense data which can’t tell you what is true and false, moral or immoral. You should take a philosophy class This is braindead
@@BigGoon5783 lol. The transcendental argument doesn't work as justification. Watch more of my content and you will find videos of me trashing it, or if you think you have a special version that can stand up to me, send me an email and we can set up a discussion. My email is in the channel description.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses the transcendental argument is justification you must not understand it due to your lack of philosophy. I saw jimbob catch you with some pretty brutal fallacies and circular logic when trying to give justification for knowledge. Maybe reach out to Jay Dyer or go on his live for debate if you think the transcendental isn’t justification. I’m sure he can clarify lol
They do, and it is important to acknowledge them at the start. If you admit that things like being able to trust your senses, and the uniformity of nature, and the existence of physical reality are assumptions, life is easier.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Yes I quite agree - but denying your ability to know the world around you is the only rational conclusion that an atheist can come to.
@@JoBo301This is a presumption, not a rational conclusion. One does not justify presumptions with reason. The Athiests get to decide thier own presumptions, all non-athiests can do is say whether they share them. Are you suggesting that you do not believe in the reality of the world around you or the uniformity of nature?
I like how Rocky Kent’s “early warning” system is already alerting him to a potential “gotcha” and he’s trying to find ways to backtrack or leave a back door open desperately!! 😆😆
Yep, and then he had the nerve later to accuse me of taking too much time in this section. I wouldn't have dude, except you made me!
A good used car salesman, lawyers too, have a good weasel clause! 😅 Hi Ian
Because he uses gotchas all the time
"not *yet* trying to trick you" lol
I'm an honest trickster...
Of course, the "trick" consists of demonstrating how people contradict themselves.
In regard to young earth creationists contradicting themselves, I'm all the time pointing out how they not only contradict other young earth creationists (such as when some young earth creationist promotes the "species don't evolve into new species" argument, after which I'll always immediately point out the fact that many young earth creationists promote "baraminology," which contradicts them), but also how a young earth creationist contradicts some of his own premises that he has used when he does so.
Self-contradiction is a powerful form of disproof - and a powerful form of proof as well. It's actually routinely used in mathematics to prove various mathematical theorems. It's done by assuming the proposition you want to prove is false, and then demonstrating that that opposite proposition leads to a self-contradiction, which thus proves that its opposite is true, which is the original proposition that we actually wanted to prove in the first place. It's literally called "proof by contradiction." I remember this from a Number Theory course I took many years ago, in which the technique is used quite often, and when I first consciously caught on to what the technique was, it really stood out to me how powerful it was. Assume the opposite of the point you want to prove, and prove how the opposite leads to a self-contradiction - and Voila! - you've proved your point.
A colloquial term for this is "hoisted by his own petard."
@Mr.AndersonCrosses that's the best way of trickster. Cards on the table.
What amazing is that you did this for everyone else to use in the future. He didn't see it coming and probably still doesn't understand that. Excellent work.
Saw you on Dr. Dan's. Subbed. Cool material.
I don't know how those video and voice distortions made it into the final video, I was sure I took those out... That's a bit meta...
It's probably due to TH-cam compressing the video to tryi to save data storage space and bandwidth.
It wouldn’t be a Kent Hovind video without technical problems. It’s a force of the universe and cannot be circumvented.
Presuppositionalism is the philosophical equivalent of putting a hat on a hat and claiming it makes one more fully dressed.
Is that because Presups are adding the presupposition of God to reality?
@lightbeforethetunnel Oh bore off, Lightbeforethetunnel. If you're so keen to evangelise, go convert the people of Sentinel Island.
I thumbed up this video and found it so interesting that you got the concessions that you got. You are a lot of fun to watch.
FYI: I don't actually understand the concept of presuppositions, but I understood what you were doing in the video - getting everyone (or just Kent) to agree to a set of basic understandings so that the rest of the conversation could get somewhere. At least that's how I saw it.
Your comments below were super helpful, re:
> "The important part is establishing that the existence of logic, and the uniformity of nature are themselves assumptions that are not derived from anything, and that you don't have to justify, because reasoning requires premises as it's starting point." and
> "If you admit that things like being able to trust your senses, and the uniformity of nature, and the existence of physical reality are assumptions, life is easier." and
> "You see, class, this is the reason you need to be clear about what your presuppositions are, and that they are presumptions, because if someone like this comes along and asks you to justify them with logic, you don't have to do it, and that doesn't make you illogical. These are fundamental assumptions we make about the world. Nobody can prove that reality is reality, we assume it without evidence, and without logic, and that's ok. Everybody does it. If someone tries to tell you different, you can tell them to take a hike."
Even so, I want to put in a vote for this!: "I'll do more presuppositional stuff in the future to expand on that side of things if this video gets sufficient interest..." You have my interest! :-)
If you have no need to justify laws of logic, then I have no need to justify God's existence.
Can you tell me what the concessions were, specifically?
I also don't understand how the presupposition of the uniformity of nature can be an "assumption itself that is not derived from anything, and you don't have to justify, because reasoning requires premises as it's starting point."
The uniformity of nature is the assumption that the laws of physics will remain the same in the future as they have been in the past.
How can that propositional content not be derived from anything?
And it makes no sense to say that propositional content doesn't need to be justified because reasoning requires premises as it's starting point.
That's completely incoherent and unintelligible. Because, as I explained, the uniformity of nature is an assumption about the laws of physics and that they remain the same over time.
@@АпологетикаБазинского
If you have no need to justify your imaginary friend’s existence, I have no justification to justify your imaginary friend’s supposed existence.
@@AsixA6 then you had no need to post this low IQ comment
this is a masterclass in building the octagon around the fighters (one of whom is a bit slippery imo). ngl pretty jealous of your incisiveness and precision
The thumbnail ROFLMAO🤣
‘God can do whatever he wants, he can walk on water’……well so can I, I can walk across a frozen pond no big deal.
That’s a fallacious argument. Water and frozen water are not the same thing. Typical logic of an atheist.
Wow good job buddy you're so smart
@@Pibblepunk Easy on the praise! The bar in this case isn’t that high.
@@TheGreaser9273 they ARE the same thing , dumb person , just different frequencies of motion of the atoms ,
still the same composition ...
The chemical composition of any substance does not change as the physical state of the substance changes
, all THREE states of ice , there are MORE THEN THAT actually , but lets keep it simple , shall we ... , all three states have the same composition
@@TheGreaser9273 Yes it is the same thing, go to school sometime past 4th grade.
The counter to presups is a basic understanding of Kantian philosophy. You can cut it off through understanding Kant's categories and how they lay the foundation for all mental function. From there you just point out that neither the proposition "God exists" nor "God does not exist" is in that set (so there's no bias), so already we have an account of knowledge without reference to God.
From there, the proposition "God exists" does not follow from that set either by analysis of the a priori Kantian categories or through the kind of empirical observation the categories allow.
You mean transcendental categories?
What joy to have made your acquaintance at Dr. Dan's, Sir! 😁- Now I am subscribed to two lawyers (you and LegalEagle).
It was adorable how desperate Ken was to get onto his well-worn script!
This was good work, keeps him from torpedoing the conversation later.
It's hilarious how hard he worked to leave a backdoor open for himself to invoke undetectable miracles any time he would have to concede a point. It sounds like you're just trying to rule out the modern equivalent of "Satan buried fossils in order to shake our faith." And he's trying so hard to leave that as a possibility.
That's exactly what's going on. And we are getting it out of the way at the start so that he doesn't pull it out when he is cornered.
I like the way you gained a consensus. Subscribed.
One thing that really bugs me is when people focus on meaningless details while missing the bigger picture.
With that in mind -- and demonstrated by you here -- I also grant everything that is not required (even if tentatively) so that the next bigger step in the conversation can be reached. Ideally, at the end of the conversation often those details come back as a result of the more important steps.
It's always amused me how strongly kent feels he has to affirm that he understands the reality of the other crazy biblical conspiracies he doesn't believe in, like the moon landing or that the sun doesn't actually rise.
Perhaps I should have invited him to our game of "Um, Actually" ?
So as a presuppositionalist a big problem with this vid, off the bat, is that Dr. Hovind isn't a presuppositionalist. His son Eric, famously, has accepted a sort of modified approach to the method but his father hasn't.
Dr. Hovind is actually hostile to the Reformed systematic theology that underlies and motivates the entire method.
You ought to amend the title of this video accordingly.
Moreover, your "October Protocols" are too obtuse and the listener often gets confused as to whether you're meaning to grant Christian theoretical assumptions, or operate on your own. I commend you for trying to be clear (at the outset) about your assumptions but stake a flag then clearly stand on your hill, rather than waffling around. (Maybe you do keep the dialectical lines clear as the discussion progressed?)
Really? You’re a presuptard? Why would you take such an unconvincing approach to try and convince someone your imaginary friends are real?
Is Mr. Anderson open to debating other theists? If so what’s the best method to reach out and set one up?
Mr Anderson says, "I like to ask difficult questions & insist on the answers." Alright, let's see how you fare when held to this standard you've set. How did you determine your particular non-theistic worldview is true?
He is not going to answer you. There is no money in it for him.
@АпологетикаБазинского Well, to be fair, he has responded to other difficult question that I've asked him before in the comments. He didn't answer them... and he tried many redirection tactics - but when he realized that I know virtually every form of sophistry & redirection (and how to justify that they were used) he eventually gave up.
By the end of the threads, there were something like 50-70 replies and no answer to the question asked.
Please time stamp where is said that he determined his worldview is true.
@@AsixA6 are you implying that Mr. Anderson's worldview isn't true therefore he just talks out of his ass?
@@АпологетикаБазинского Obviously not.
7:57 "If a miracle does happen that violates the laws of physics, it's GOING to leave a trace,"
"well now I didn't agree with that one, if a miracle happens it's ONLY to leave a trace is what you said"
no sir, it's not what he said
Thank you for posting this one, good job.
I love watching Kent squirm. Although, credit where credit is due, he’s extremely good (read frustratingly) at it.
less squirming and more just "holy crap man, will you EVER get to your point? at least thats how i saw it 45 minutes in to this debate
My favorite aspect of Kent Hovind's schtick is that he believes dinosaurs were on the ark.
The presupposional arguments normally try to show that God exists because He is necessary for intelligibility, among other things. Granting that God exists as part of your "protocol" concedes to those arguments.
That's true. I was using this specifically to attack some of the issues with his evidentiary arguments, and I didn't want to get side tracked by the issue of the existence of God. You can remove it from the protocol if that is what you are debating and it still works. The important part is establishing that the existence of logic, and the uniformity of nature are themselves assumptions that are not derived from anything, and that you don't have to justify, because reasoning requires premises as it's starting point. This kind of steals thier thunder and they don't have a lot left in the tank once you acknowledge that there are philosophical underpinnings to empiricism. I'll do more presuppositional stuff in the future to expand on that side of things if this video gets sufficient interest, so make sure to like and share if you want that!
@@Mr.AndersonCrossesYou can't justify the uniformity of nature or the universal laws of logic without God, that is the whole point. If you remove the existence of God from your protocol you have removed your justification.
@@peterw1642 I don't think so. Thiests can't justify the uniformity of nature or the laws of logic with God either. They are just pure presuppsitions that both sides share. Sometimes Theists insert some extra steps between these and thier assumptions, but it amounts to the same thing.
For example, Theists just assume that God is logical, and gave them logic, which is the same as assuming it exists, but with extra steps. By the same token, theists assume nature is uniform because God made it that way, and that we can trust our senses because god made them that way. They might assume reasons why he made them that way, but again those reasons are just unjustified assumptions.
Either you assume a God that gives the world those properties, or you assume them directly, but either way there is no logical basis for those assumptions. Does that make sense to you?
@@Mr.AndersonCrossesNo. You are assuming uniformity of nature and universal laws of logic without any explanation for how they could be.
@@peterw1642 so? So what? So does everybody.
The last two questions are distinct.
"You're comfortable with this set of assumptions, correct?"
"You're comfortable agreeing to it (this set of assumptions)?"
The way they are answered could have been subject to that the process in getting to that point was boring, or seemingly irrelevant, etc.
For Kent to have said "Again.." as a preface to his second answer would seem to imply that he; either felt like the second question wasn't distinct and he'd already answered it or, he did recognize it and the level of nuanced clarity isn't something he's used to and frustrated him.
Maybe he just doesn't like lawyers, I've seen quite a bit of animosity in comment sections on your videos or where you're featured expressing how parasitic they are.
I think you were being more than charitable with your clarity, and his suspicion prevented him from saying simple things like "yes, any miracle we've recognized has left a trace of its occurrence." When instead he tries to protect himself with something like "if God performs a miracle in a forest and no one's around to witness it.. can we say god didn't?"
If the two Kent debates have shown anything it's that; if lawyers are parasites, they are parasites that came from humans so are still human in kind, and so we shouldn't call them parasites because that would be unkind.
As a Christian, I agree, when there are far better arguments
Cosmological (Something must have caused something else, but there needs to be an initial starter; the uncaused causer)
Moral (Good and Bad are only real if God is real, Objective Morality is real, therefore God is real. Is Cannibalism bad? Any human raised properly will say cannibalism is bad, therefore it is an objective morality. Without God there is not good or bad because everything is subjective, therefore you cannot say something is good or bad.)
Teleological (Stuff seems to have purpose in this universe, therefore it had to be created by something. If you saw a machine, you wouldn't say it just appeared)
Mind (Consciousness cannot be explained in the natural world, you cannot measure it, you cannot explain it outside of your own. Therefore, it has to be something unique and purposefully created)
Personal Experience (There are recorded documents of miracles, possessions, and acts of God. More hearsay but if one person claims something versus 100, how many until you start to entertain the thought?)
Pascal's Wager (If you believe in god, and there isn't a God, nothing happens, but if there is a god, you are rewarded. If you don't believe in God, and there isn't a god, nothing happens. But if you're wrong, you are punished. Therefore, it is the most logical assumption to believe in God, as it is the only choice that has potential real benefit)
Transcendental (Logic, Consistency, and Truth are all things we accept as reality, but cannot be proven outright)
Theology is Ontology *ON BLACK ICE*
Teleology is Metaphysics *ON BLACK ICE*
@@wet-read What point are you trying to make?
Theology is just the study of religion, which religion is just a system of faith based on agreed upon ideas of the Universe (Creation, purpose, afterlife or the lack thereof)
Metaphysics is a philosophical stance on the matter of existence and the universe that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.
You have google to confirm this bud, stop saying words like you have a clue what they mean
@@gorgeousfreeman1318
I do know what they mean; I know theology is the study of religion, or more specifically, the effort to discern and map God's attributes, motives, etc. Teleology is like metaphysics, which is controversial enough by itself, but seems to be even more ambitious. What I commented is just my melodramatic way of saying what I think of the viability of both of these, at least on a practical level. If you want to discuss it further, I am up for it.
@@wet-read Theology isn't just one faith, it's the study of a faith from the perspective of someone within that faith.
Teleology is not metaphysics, Teleology is that things seem to exist for a reason, so there must be a creator. It's an argument for a creator. None of these are stronger or weaker than the other because all still are based on the foundation of trust, Faith.
@@gorgeousfreeman1318
I know teleology is not metaphysics. I think it is similar to metaphysics in that it posits things empirical methods of verifying may not be able to confirm (if they are true at all, that is), but worse IMO. Maybe I'm off base, but it seems to me that teleology could be considered a beefed up metaphysics: not only do things behave a certain way or exhibit a certain nature, they do so for reasons related to some intent or purpose.
Kent is not a presuppositionalist
It's honestly surprising if he's not, given that Eric Hovind is, and that Kent loves being an asshole.
I guess it would have been better if he had been primarily a presup instead of a creationist, as people wouldn't have been sucked into his orbit.
Exactly. This was embarrassing to watch. If they don't even understand Presup on a basic enough level to recognize Kent isn't a Presup, then how on Earth can they possibly believe they've rebutted it like this? It's absurd
At the 6:36 time mark he essentially gave up the free will argument. WIth God traversing space and time and standing at your funeral he already knows how everything turns out. Its predetermined in God's eyes.
That's not actually a good argument against free will. Whether or not a god knows what choice you are going to make doesn't contradict the idea of you making a choice and having had the free will to make a different choice at the time you made the choice. I'm merely pointing out that it's not a logical contradiction of an "all-knowing" concept of a god. I'm not arguing for free will.
@@steveg1961 An all knowing God decides to make a universe. Being an all knowing God any universe he makes is going to be entirely known. Beginning to End. And he has a choice in what universe he makes. Including everything that happens in it. Including all choices made by everyone in it. God has the only choice in this scenario. All free will is gone in a universe created by an all knowing God.
Good catch!
@@hurin1the element of omnipotence is important to include as well, that’s what makes the overall argument ironclad
At the beginning of everything where it was just god, the fact that he can do anything while also knowing everything means that nothing happens without his say so and without him knowing what will happen.
By acting in any particular way he is solidifying all events in the causal chain because any causal influence he adds to the sequence of events is done with complete foreknowledge and with no opposing force (other potentialities and their consequences are known as well, and god effectively chooses one of these potentialities when he invokes any causal force)
Since he is the one who instantiates everything and has deciding to invoke a causal force, then that must mean that all sequences of events are predetermined and by consequence means freewill is not possible (freewill is the ability to do otherwise but if gods power cannot be challenged and if he cannot be wrong about what he knows, then all actions are predetermined the moment he influences the sequence of events with causal force. This causal force occurred at the beginning of time, so at no “time” has freewill been a possibility)
Please don’t refer to Hovind as ‘Doctor’.
Thank you!
I'm not a fan of Kent Hovind in particular, but why wouldn't he qualify as a doctor? What makes the accreditation organization that granted his credentials less able to make that determination than the accreditation organization you prefer?
What is the specific difference that makes the particular accreditation organization you prefer the ultimate arbiters of who is or isn't an "expert" or "doctor?"
And why do they have a monopoly on this ability to dictate who deserves these titles?
@ Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster said so and she is the ultimate authority on everything.
@AsixA6 Alright and how did you determine that the flying spaghetti monster has all the attributes needed to be the correct ultimate authority? What are the attributes and why do those attributes entail that it's the correct ultimate standard for truth over competing options?
@AsixA6 or are you just arbitrarily asserting its the ultimate authority... entailing it's a bare assertion fallacy... because that's what you imagine Presups do (as a form of mockery) even though Presups clearly justify WHY the Biblical God is the correct ultimate standard for truth deductively by use of transcendental argumentation
I can't stand presuppositionslists. Couldn't stand them when I was a Christian and despise them now I am.an atheist.
What you won't be able to do is give a rebuttal for why the actual argumentation isn't correct.
Of course people won't emotionally like argumentation against their pre-existing beliefs (aka worldview). That's a given. What matters is whether or not that argumentation is valid & sound.
If you want to argue that what Presups are arguing isn't valid & sound, that'll require a justification. Not just emotional outbursts that you can't stand people who question your worldview.
Btw, Kent Hovind (Mr Anderson's interlocutor in this video) isn't a Presuppositionalist.
If you thought he was, that would entail to me that you cannot possibly understand even the basics of what Presups argue. Because, if you did, you'd notice right away that Kent Hovind isn't a Presup.
So, you're saying that you can't stand something that you clearly don't comprehend even on a basic level. A common phenomenon among atheists objecting to Presup.
Sounds like you've read Kant 👍
What is truth and how can you know it outside a Christian worldview?
It's a good question actually, if you are really interested in the answer, you should probably look it up. Much ink had been spilled on the subject. If you are just trying to engage me in a presup debate, I'm trying not to debate too much in the comments. If there is sufficient interest, I might do an open mic though, and you would be free to bring the thunder at that time. :). Either way, thanks for the comment. I'll let you have the last word.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses I've asked this question to nonbelievers for years and most say ultimately truth can't be known (which is self defeating). But I understand not wanting to debate in a comment section. Have a good one!
@@Theology_Mattershello! I have never talked to a presuppositionalist, and don’t know much about it. This is one of the first videos I’ve heard about it, so I would be happy to learn more about it with you.
To answer your question, I would say that it’s most likely not possible to known ultimate truth. But I do believe we can have higher and lower confidence something is true, and that’s through using our senses to gather information for deductive and inductive reasoning and testing its effectiveness and repeatability.
I’m curious what the “self defeating” thing is about
@@renocicchi7346 Hi! To say truth can't be known is itself a truth claim would be self defeating, because that statement itself is a truth claim. It contradicts itself.
@@Theology_Matters but I said I’m not sure if Truth can or cannot be known. I said “most likely” which is a confidence claim, which means I don’t claim to know the truth of this position with absolute certainty, so how is that a truth claim?
As I see it, Presup goes in tandem with TAG. It’s an internally consistent attempt at applying Hume’s objections to his own fellow atheists, and giving those grounding. It is indeed purely philosophical but how is philosophy a pseudoscience if I may ask?
Of course! Thanks for the comment. You are right, philosophy is not a pseudoscience, nor, strictly speaking, is presuppositionalism. It's just that presuppositionalism is often employed by pseudoscientists, and that's why you have to know how to deal with its attacks in this arena.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses gotcha, understood! What’s your opinion on Dr Greg Bahnens employment of Presup/TAG?
Mister Kent Hovind*
Such a slippery fish.
Everyone has a presuppositional framework....everyone.
If you believe in evolution, you have a built in defeater for the existance of rational thought.
@@sparkyy0007 sure, I am pretty clear about what my presuppositionalist framework is, but I don't see how it defeats the existence of rational thought. In fact I really quite a bit on rational thought.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses
Thanks for that.
Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses
Did you delete my response ?
@@sparkyy0007 nope. I haven't even seen it. Must be the algorithm. Try again.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses
Good grief, a named reference to a philosophical argument is now justification for censorship ?
Little point in trying to have a discussion my friend.
I'm off to make a cat video.
I don't see the point is debating like this. The evidence for evolution is well understood, and has been since Charles Darwin proposed the theory 160 years ago. It can be measured. It is massively corroborated by other branches of science, it's the central theory of biology, not only because it explains so much, but because it works. You can question the validity of newtonian mechanics, or Bernoulli's equations, by questioning the validity of the reason on which they are based, but planes still fly!
Even if you show them to be fools then win. They want you to argue with them, because it implies a parity between the two "sides", and they get the oxygen of publicity.
It has to do with debating in regard to logic. In logic, it's about propositions. In regard to an argument, there are two aspects of a logical argument - one has to do with whether or not the argument is logically valid, and the other has to do with whether or not the argument is a sound argument. Validity has to do purely with the logic of the argument. Soundness has to do with empirical considerations (like science).
Here's the key: If an argument is not a logically valid argument, then it's automatically a false argument on its face - and that's before even having to deal with any empirical considerations in regard to soundness.
Please, before you you follow whatever this guy is trying to say (if he ever gets to his point), recognize that Mr Laywer hand and fist lost this debate. this would be a good guide on how to make enemies during a friendly debate.
Is telling people that they are "morons" if they trust science way to conduct a friendly debate?
Hovind, the clear loser in this debate, is not a lawyer.
@@AsixA6 Hovind is, in the end a christian entertainer. thats what you gotta realize. anyone who watches hovind on the YEC side is probably not doing it because they need information on YEC or are undecided. we have already made up our minds and just enjoy seeing hovind dunk on people who are so confidently wrong.
im sure you think we are confidently wrong too, but watching hovind will not be the way to find good info on YEC. Bryon Nichols hydroplate theory presentation, or answers in genesis, creation ministries international would give you more accurate insights. though just with secular dogma, Most creationists do not agree with each other about things like how the flood happened.
to me the buck stops at c14 in diamonds, coal and dino bones. you just cant had wave that away
@ Ahahaha!!! AIG? Creation ministries? Are you insane? Those are science deniers. Why would you recommend such obviously biased sources? None of their anti-evolution nonsense gets published in legitimate, peer reviewed scientific journals.
It’s just sad that you don’t see how duped you’ve been by your fellow magic believers.
Two sides arguing about who actually knows something, all the while, bandying about the word 'believe' like it's going out of style. Methinks thou doth project too much.
"Pressuposition" ... you mean like "Evolution is a fact!" ?
Unless you have outstanding evidence that empirically contradicts scientific understanding of the natural world, it is not unreasonable to presuppose the factuality of established scientific knowledge.
The neat thing about science, as opposed to other branches of philosophy, is that "facts" can change with new evidence; for example, we used to treat transgender people as having a mental disorder, but when we switched from diagnosing transgender people as having "Gender identity disorder" to having "gender dysphoria" we saw a dramatic improvement in the lives of transgender people. We therefore no longer treat transgender people as having a mental disorder, but rather a physical ailment.
So, once there is enough evidence that can alter the scientific discourse about evolution, the "fact" of evolution can change; but, until then the only honest position to take is the presupposition that the evidence we have is true to the best of our knowledge.
Evolution is literally just descent with inherent modification. Do you deny that that exists? It's trivially observable by noticing that children aren't identical to their parents.
Don't confuse the fact of evolution with the theory that explains biodiversity through evolution. The theory is correct, too, but no presupposition is needed to accept that.
@@nio804 That also fits creation.
@@henryschmit3340 Depends on what you mean by creation; if you mean the story as told in Genesis literally, then no, that's not compatible with evolution (humans didn't originate from just two people, and we weren't separately created).
It is possible there's a deistic god of some sort that put the ball rolling and then let nature take over, but there's more than enough evidence to conclude that there's no intelligent force actually driving evolution. Just the human body alone has a number of stupid features that are perfectly explained by their evolutionary history, but contradict the idea of even a reasonably intelligent designer, never mind a divine one.
@@nio804 Aren’t you the one who believes humans descended from a microbe? There is no reason to believe that humans did not descend from just two people. There is no reason to believe that evolution ever happened.
I think Kent has a script that he follows…but he IS sincere. I’ve watched hundreds of hours of his videos (and others) and he is also consistent.
I’ve watched CIA interrogations (on tape) and sleezy lawyer techniques to get people to say something that they can use against them later… by that i mean twisting the truth to make a statement mean something that was never intended…that, Mr. Anderson, appears to be you!
Don’t be to pompous or stuck on yourself, your tactics are quite transparent. (My opinion of course). I may be totally wrong of course, but I get the same feeling watching congressional hearings, when it’s obvious that people are using legalese to twist the truth (ie, Bill Clinton and the definition of “sexual relations” or “what is is”). I’ve come to be VERY distrustful of lawyers…I hope creating a leaglese smokescreen isn’t your motive.
Kent Hovind is absolutely not "consistent". He can't even consistently settle on what a "kind" is.
And the dishonest interrogation techinque you describe is literally the only trick presuppositionalists have. Without it, it would be trivially easy for even unprepared people to just expose the core of the presuppositionalist argument as what it actually is, that is "I'm right because I say so".
clarifying terms and definitions is most definitely not sleazy, if you can't even agree on what a miracle is, what it means and the implications of miracles in the context of evidence, then a debate or discussion is not going to be productive. This Guy s doing is what all people who debateSHOULD do before they get into the weeds of the debate topic. If more people actually approached debate this way, it would be far less convoluted and more common ground and clarification and clearer conclusions could be achieved, which is really the point of these debates to begin with.
@@brianbridges8124 - I’d have to watch it again to remind myself what my post was… I’m responding to tell you how much I appreciate your cordial tone. It’s apparent that we disagree, but I feel engaged with, not attacked.
Perhaps I’ll go back and give it another watch. - take care.
Kent Hovind is bad example of pressupositional apologetics. Darth Dawkins too.
Mr. Anderson is fighting with low hanging fruits and behaves like he is done something badass.
Debate Jay Dyer for example. That is pro debater.
False premise. Not every miracle made by God must or should leave a trace. God reveals only what we need to know.
This arguments comes to the realm of epistemology or in our case limited epistemology.
If you go with that reasoning to a presup like Jay Dyer or Greg Bahnsen (RIP) you would be eaten from the start.
Well, the problem if they want to have invisible miracles is that it stops being very scientific, and young earth creationists are very tied to the idea that they are doing "science'" so there can't be too many miracles. That's why this approach works in this context. If the person is committed to the idea of copious miracles, then they are abandoning there uniformity of nature and therefore they own ability to understand the world to any degree.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Im agree with you about the miracle machine gun fallacy. 🤣
Throwing miracles for anything is not a good discussion.
The problem is you called that presuppositionalists. Im not agree with that.
@user-dy3uh in normal conditions it is.
Miracles are contained in the Bible. But as Mr. Anderson did, he doesn’t want Hovind invoking miracles for everything. And I’m agree with that, but!
If you ask for avoiding a miracle machine gun. Then don’t use well known evolutionary philosophy to save the day.
"God reveals only what we need to know. " LMAO. How do you know those are not just delusions?
@@LGpi314 let me respond in a Socratic manner. How do you know everything you know is not a delusion?
Both sides have presuppositions, that is the point of debate!
Hmm….
As a presuppositionalist, I would have differed on a few points.
First, God hates everyone outside of Christ, with a complete and holy hatred.
Second, I very much believe that God misleads many. He is sovereign over our very thoughts themselves, and is free to direct them to false understandings (and has done so in the case of all false beliefs). This does not amount to lying.
Third, God is in no way more bound to act upon His creation in one way than He is to another. What we call “miracles” are only those ways which God has been most pleased to direct His creation for His glory, differing from the way in which He is usually pleased to direct it. Whether or not we see what is occurring has no impact on whether it has occurred. And God has no obligation to leave any evidence of such a thing.
Gods that you will never have to admit being wrong about are the best gods.
Again another embarrassing video for Mr. Anderson
Why would you think asking a bunch of arbitrary questions that Kevin didn’t agree to would end you getting presupped?
You still have no justification for knowledge, ethics, or metaphysics in your atheist worldview but attempt to use all 3
Complete incoherence
Wouldn’t expect anything less from the atheist religion
@@BigGoon5783 I have as much justification as presuppers do. That's the point. If you missed that you are being deliberately obtuse... Not that I mind of course... Thanks for commenting!
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses presuppers would have the transcendental argument as justification…
You rely on sense data which can’t tell you what is true and false, moral or immoral.
You should take a philosophy class
This is braindead
@@BigGoon5783 lol. The transcendental argument doesn't work as justification. Watch more of my content and you will find videos of me trashing it, or if you think you have a special version that can stand up to me, send me an email and we can set up a discussion. My email is in the channel description.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses the transcendental argument is justification you must not understand it due to your lack of philosophy. I saw jimbob catch you with some pretty brutal fallacies and circular logic when trying to give justification for knowledge.
Maybe reach out to Jay Dyer or go on his live for debate if you think the transcendental isn’t justification.
I’m sure he can clarify lol
@@BigGoon5783I'll look into it. The argument certainly hasn't impressed me so far.
But atheists have their own pre-suppositions
They do, and it is important to acknowledge them at the start. If you admit that things like being able to trust your senses, and the uniformity of nature, and the existence of physical reality are assumptions, life is easier.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Agreed it may make life easier, but doesn't mean that these pre-suppositions are correct
@@JoBo301 maybe, but if you reject those presuppositions, you are denying your own ability to know anything about the world around you.
@@Mr.AndersonCrosses Yes I quite agree - but denying your ability to know the world around you is the only rational conclusion that an atheist can come to.
@@JoBo301This is a presumption, not a rational conclusion. One does not justify presumptions with reason. The Athiests get to decide thier own presumptions, all non-athiests can do is say whether they share them. Are you suggesting that you do not believe in the reality of the world around you or the uniformity of nature?