(December 20, 2014 at 12:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, so you want to take the path of sophistry, rather than factual inaccuracy? Okay...

If this is the way you want to go, then I'll just remind you that in that case, Hovind is speaking in irrelevancies, rather than inaccuracies. He's clearly talking about biological evolution, his early slides were almost exclusively biology textbooks, he quotes Dawkins talking about biological evolution- and then purports to respond directly to Dawkins on that point- before leaping directly to astronomy, which again, has nothing to do with the topic he's talking about.

So which is it, H_M? Is he wrong, or Gish Galloping? Neither says anything particularly positive about his argument against evolution, nor about your desperate need to defend him: "No, you don't understand! He wasn't wrong, he'd just immediately spun off on something completely unconnected to the topic at hand moments after starting the meat of his presentation!"

And I'd remind you, the fact that "cosmic evolution" is unconnected with what he was attempting to debunk was my sole point. You called me wrong, while confirming that I was right.

Oh c'monnnn. Name me a part in the video where he said something that was factually wrong, REGARDING MACROEVOLUTION. You can't, can you?

(December 20, 2014 at 1:31 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Odin, Thor, and Loki are three separate God's..they don't share the same power, knowledge, benevolence, will, etc.

Neither does Jesus with his father.

Quote:But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same power, knowledge, benevolence, and will

No, they don't. See my scripture quotations from an earlier post.

Quote:..all three are of the same essence...the one definition that defines one also defines the others...it is based on that ONE definition which applies to all three that makes them ONE God

No, it doesn't.

My wife and I have much in common. The fact that we share many similar personality features, as well as biological features since we're both human beings, doesn't mean we're the same person.

Quote:"God" is a title that applies to all three beings.

So "God" is a title? Like "president" or "prime minister"?

Or is "God" an essence?

Or is "God" a head?

These goalposts are moving so fast, I can't keep up.

HM Wrote:

(December 20, 2014 at 10:24 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: [*]Is God able to prevent evil but not willing? Then he is not omnibenevolent.

Again, God may have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Non sequitur.

The five year old little girl who's being raped right now, who is about to be killed by the monster attacking her, will be relieved that there's a "good reason" for all this happening. So will the grieving family.

The village being flooded by a tsunami, with infants being drowned in their cribs and mothers having their babies torn from their arms by the force of the waters, will all be relieved to know it happens for "a good reason".

Your god watched from Heaven as Christian leaders through history have committed unspeakable crimes, torturing and murdering in their crusades, inquisitions and witch burnings, all in his name and he did nothing to stop it. I'm sure there was a "good reason".

Do tell. Let's hear these "good reasons". Your god is on trial.

Quote:No, you tell me.

The video is just a few minutes long. Summon the energy to click on the screen and watch it.

Quote:I've already responded to that.

True but while all answers are "responses", not all responses are "answers".

You've utterly failed to answer my objections.

Quote:Yeah, but all we need is for ONE deity to be powerful than either one of them, and that would separate one god from the other..we don't have that with the Biblical Trinity.

Yes, we do. Jesus makes it clear his father is greater than him.

The Bible Wrote:John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

Quote:If you seriously want to offer a defeater of the concept, you have to do better than this. The doctrine is what it is, you don't believe it, you don't accept....that is on you...but it is what it is. You can just continue to deny the doctrine just like you deny the religious altogether...it is a package-deal, ya know.

The burden of proof is not on me. You haven't even coherently explained the Trinity much less offered any reason to believe it.

Quote:Actually, you can...I can certainly conceive the notion of me and two other people sharing the same knowledge, power, benevolence, and presence. It really isn't that difficult to conceive, and no one has given me any reason why such a concept is logically unsound.

That would make you three separate gods.

Shared traits do not mean you are the same being.

Quote:I think it is, you think it isn't *shrugs*

Science isn't a matter of opinion.

Quote:Did science explain the origins of consciousness yet?

No but we do know that the brain is involved. Hormones have no brain. They don't act in any way that indicates conscious will. There is no reason to think they are people.

(December 20, 2014 at 1:31 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(December 20, 2014 at 10:24 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: But they are three different gods. You just said they are three individuals. Earlier, you said "three separate persons". Since they are separate, this makes them three gods.

Polytheism.


I can't misrepresent what's never explained.

Odin, Thor, and Loki are three separate God's..they don't share the same power, knowledge, benevolence, will, etc. If Odin has more power than Thor and Loki, then that would make Odin's mere essence different from the other two, and for the other two, likewise....so that would make them three separate god's. They are three separate individuals, and also three separate god's.

But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same power, knowledge, benevolence, and will..all three are of the same essence...the one definition that defines one also defines the others...it is based on that ONE definition which applies to all three that makes them ONE God

Are we forgetting the fourth Christian godhead? Remember it is only Satan who can fool the all knowing Jehovah. Only He can successfully organize a revolt among the very pantheon of magical creatures conceived by the holy spirit. Without Satan, there is no need to split Jesus off from the xtian godhead so as to save mankind from the ravages of sin which Jehovah is powerless to do else wise.

Well yes of course, satan has been impersonating god for a long time. That's certainly unfalsifiable, therefor true.

(December 20, 2014 at 2:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well yes of course, satan has been impersonating god for a long time. That's certainly unfalsifiable, therefor true.

Hmmm .. maybe they're just playing good god, bad god with us.

Or ..

[drum roll]

.. could it be that Jehovah is but one of the many faces of the great deceiver?

Wow. Blew my own mind.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Finding the doctrine of trinity in the scriptures is an uphill battle. The NT talks of three beings as god: the father, the son, and the holy ghost (or spirit). The divinity is Jesus is not clear in the Gospels, and Jesus even denies it. In contrast Paul proclaims Jesus as a divine being who became human for a time. Neither view of Jesus gets you to the trinity. Stringing the words father, son, and holy spirit together does not a trinity make, just a simple group of three.

Bullshit. We have Trinity-proof texts, all you have to do is ask

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I gave you a number of verses in the Gospels in which Jesus' will appears to be different than god's. That suggests divine or not, Jesus was not the same being as god. To demonstrate that he is the same being you cited Phillipians 2:5-11.

I wasn't demonstrating he is the "same being" or that he is God with Phil 2:5-11...I used that verse to demonstrate the "change of role" that Jesus underwent, which would explain those many verses you used which Jesus made such statements which REFLECT Phil 2:5-11.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: In Philipians 2 Paul says Jesus humbled himself to become a human and that he did not expoit his equality with god. That suggests that Jesus is divine, it does not suggest he and god are one being. The decision not to exploit his equality, also does not suggest that God and Jesus are one being, only that they were equal beings before Jesus became flesh.

Still can't quite grasp the concept, can you? No one is saying that God and Jesus are "one being"....Jesus and the Father are two different beings, both of whom are the same GOD. Just apply the title of "God" to both the Father and Son (and the Holy Spirit), and there you have it.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But, if you merely want to argue that the Epistles say that Jesus was a god, you're right, they do. And yes stopping there is polytheistic. Find me a verse that gets you to one divine being.

John 1:1 says it all, and unless you are a Jehovah's Witness, I don't expect any objections to this...read John 1:1, and then read verse 14 of the same chapter...who is God?

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I gave you the NRSV: The New Revised Standard Version as I said above. I often give the name of the translation. I notice that you NEVER do. Perhaps because you don't recognize that translating the Bible is neither simple nor uncontroversial.

Well, unless you have New World's Translation (JW bible), even though it may not be phrased the same, we should still be able to get to the same place regardless of which version we use.

I normally use the NIV though.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I mean different gods, not one god in three persons. Fine a verse that says the three are one.

I can give you verses where Jesus was worshiped, prayed to, and called God...would that be good enough?

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Luke does not claim to have talked to eyewitnesses.

But he said the story ORIGINATED from eyewitnesses!!!

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And given how long after the events he was writing, that makes sense.


What he says is this:

Quote:Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

Luke 1:1-4 NRSV

He says that: (1) many people have tried to write an orderly account of the events handed down by eyewitnesses; (2) he too will write and order account; (3) he has investigated everything carefully. From which you have a picture that rather than reading past accounts, or recording oral traditions, he went out and interviewed witnesses. That passage means no such thing. And the Gospel that follows reads like what it is, a compilation of oral tradition.

Oral tradition from a oral generation.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I think what you are missing here is the difference between want to and can. An omnipotent being by definition can do anything. Whether it would want to is not part of the definition.

And I think what you are missing here is the "logically possible" part...an omnipotent being can do whatever is logically possible.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: You cannot have two omnipotent beings because to be omnipotent they must be able to everything including controlling each other, yet to be omnipotent they must also each be uncontrollable. Therefore you can't have two omnipotent beings.

If one could control the other, then there should be a possible world at which one WOULD control the other...but there is no possible world at which would control the other, so therefore, the other cannot be controlled.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Frequently. That's why I tend to begin with text free of preconcieved traditions like the trinity. Try it sometime.

I do the same thing with evolution.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Hovind does have a long history of debating evolution and very badly too. And he begins in your video by discussing star formation. That is why I did not bother to listen further. The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with star formation.

He is talking about evolution in general, not JUST macroevolution. Hovind is a young earth creationist and a critic of things like the big bang theory, carbon dating, macroevolution, etc.

(December 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Now, go listen to Thunderfoot's rebuttal.

Who?

(December 20, 2014 at 1:45 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Dude, when he went against those three evolutionists, that was one of the worse intellectual spankings I've ever seen.

Like Stimbo said earlier, I'm in agreement with you on that.

Quote:No shit. My point was some people on here are making it seem as if Hovind doesn't know what the hell evolution is or he is making up his own version of evolution, and I am just pointing out that this can't be the case since he is actually using text books and EXPLAINING why he believes it is false.

He doesn't. His explanations are fatuous drivel.

Quote:Of all the debates I've seen him in, no one has ever accused him of being ignorant of the issues...they may accuse him of being WRONG in his interpretation and vice versa, but he doesn't get accused of being ignorant or misinformed.

If they haven't, they probably should have. I guess they could send him a letter to federal prison telling him as much.

Quote:He has ever right to dismiss evidence that he thinks is insufficient...kinda reminds me of atheists, right?

I don't know where you get the idea that only atheists can dismiss evidence...Creationists can do it too.

And therein lies the problem. The creationists will always dismiss the evidence as insufficient if it contradicts their absurd theory. I don't see how it can remind you of atheists. Present us with actual evidence of a young earth or creationism. You have none.

Quote:Mike Tyson was convicted of rape, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a damn good boxer in his prime.

Ignorant comparison. How does Tyson's violent crime have anything to do with boxing? It doesn't. Hovind is a dishonest person, shown to have lied and cheated, and his work was based on making people believe what he claimed. If you can't see how those two are connected then you're not trying.

Quote:Judge not lest ye be judged (Matthew 7:1). Hovind also points out lies in the text books, too. So how about you try to reconcile those lies?

Fuck your bible verses (Strider 6:9). I'll judge a lying con artist on his merits, thanks. I'm not going to watch his entire video because I'd like an appetite later so I can't address the textbooks. Even without watching, I'm fairly certain that his statements can be attributed to his ignorance.

Quote:Blinders my ass, heaven is the destination.

I'm not even referring to heaven. I was referring to your blind adoration and belief in a charlatan with a history of blatant lies and untruths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smYQeWxa5wg

126 jesus-free pages. Good stuff.

I haven't been holding my breath for the case or any proof. I decided well.