BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[DeistPaladin]

Keep dreaming.

Oh, no, no, no. In reality. My point flew over your head in reality. Now can I collect my $200? [/cousin Vinny paraphrase]

Forming some analogy where you arbitrarily chose science to be the method that works and faith to be the method that fails in no way proves that science actually works.

It's not a proof. It's an explanation of the logic. The Bible teaches that diseases are caused by demonic possession. Science discovered that there are these things called "germs". Science works. Faith doesn't. Because science can deliver the goods and faith can't, it means that science has a better grip on reality than does faith.

How do you know science is achieving the “desired results” and who determines what the desired results are? Why does something “achieving the desired results” necessarily mean that it is accurately reflecting reality? So many problems.

I don't see any problems. It does, we do and the results stem from the applied knowledge, indicating the knowledge is correct.

In a purely material universe what is causing this sort of regularity?

Paraphrase: Look! Nothing! That proves something!

Or not?

Or maybe the reason nothing changes is because there's nothing to cause anything to change?

Somebody fetch my Occam's Razor.

You know what would prove the supernatural better than nothing ever changing? Something suddenly changing for no apparent reason.

I can now use this divine revelation to predict the behavior of dropped stones in the future. My faith in Yahweh has now given me predictable capabilities….now what are you going to do?

Feel underwhelmed.

Look! Nothing out of the ordinary! That proves something extraordinary is keeping something out of the ordinary from happening!

Not to our understanding of what the original text says.

and additions are still changes.

…and how do you know these other books are correct? More books? And these books? More books? And these books?

And studies. And evidence. And repeatable tests. And surveys.

Multiple sources breaks the circularity.

How does he know that girls ought to grow up?

Because that was his experience in observing all other children. The lack of consistency in his sensory inputs revealed flaws in his sensory inputs.

I am not seeing how this has anything to do with what we are discussing. You’re still possessing faith that your senses accurately depict reality by the way.

Consistency between multiple sources increases reliability.

Of course without a personal creator who created you and reality you have no reason to actually believe this.

Why?

How do you know that your senses, memory, and reason ought to be consistent?

If multiple sources are inconsistent, it creates doubt in the reliability of at least some of them.

In a purely natural universe there is no reason to think this way.

Why?

Only if a rational god who created the world we live in also created you would you have justification for thinking this way.

Why?

Again, my faith makes your knowledge possible.

How?

Yes, as always you’ll begin whining about me doing things you also do.

Well, we all have our own definitions of whining, I guess. I'm just repeating the point that it doesn't matter who says what or what their qualifications are or whether or not they usually agree with me. What matters is what they can prove. Sorry you think that's "whining".

You can keep asserting that all you like but according to whom?

Every catalog of logical fallacies that includes "appeal to authority".

You seem to be the only one who actually walks into the trap on here though, it’s a shame.

The "trap" only exists in your mind. There is no trap. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Whether or not you have heard an argument before is irrelevant but that’s not even his argument. It’s life. Nobody can argue that life is not present from the moment of conception onward. You’re going to have to deal with that argument.

Trees are alive. Bacteria are life forms. It's not life we value but sentience and sapience. A fetus "could be, maybe, someday" a human but it's not one now. A woman does definitely right now have a right to control her body.

Does definitely right now > could be maybe someday.

Sorry, Hitch. Your point about abortion is completely moot. I do like a lot of what you have to say about religion, though.

Next?

Reality is real? What a tautological statement.

and yet you have doubts unless your imaginary sky daddy assures you it is so.

Of course reality is real but that’s not what we’re discussing. You have to justify that reality is knowable not that reality is real.

I have no reason to doubt it. That's how we operate in all other areas of life. But feel free to indulge in solipsism in your living room. Just don't expect to find that cure for cancer. Oo, deja vu. It's like I keep trying to educate you on the same point.

They are well supported by your complete inability to rationally make sense of any of your beliefs and my ability to easily do what you seemingly cannot.

Actually, I think I've done a good job while all you do is say herp derp GodVerbIt.

you have more than half a dozen (axioms) that I can think of off of the top of my head.

Such as?

Don’t assert it, demonstrate it….I’ll wait.

Done. Re-read previous posts.

I’ve already refuted this with my predictions about future stones dropping.

and you failed.

Absurd how? Do not just assert it, demonstrate it.

Well, for starters, you believe in a god that needed to send himself down to earth to become his own son who was also himself to sacrifice himself because dying on a cross was the only way he could convince himself to change a rule he made in the first place and forgive us all for being such sinful beings which we are because an ancestor of ours ate a magic fruit after speaking with a talking snake and anyone who doesn't believe this story is going to be tortured forever in Hell by the god who loves us so much and love is evil when the body parts are similar. Shall I continue...?

You have no justification for your adherence to said assumptions.

Do so.

***EDIT TO ADD: I've finally grown tired of trying to reason against your bare assertions so from now on, when you make a bare assertion, I'll respond with a simple denial. As Hitchens observed "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".***

Sure you are, there is no reason to believe such assumptions are true in a godless universe. Only in a universe where we are the creation of a personal god who also created everything else do we have reasons for believing in such truths.

Prove it.

I already have, in the universe you espouse such assumptions do not make sense.

Do so.

You’re borrowing from the Christian conceptual scheme in order to argue against it.

Did not.

More precisely, anti-Christian Theism must presuppose Christian Theism and is therefore self-refuting.

Nuh uh uh.

Cute, but wrong.

Nuh uh uh.

You asserted that God said polygamy was “okay”, this verse never says anything like that.

Ya huh huh

It simply is a rule for what to do if a polygamist has children from different wives.

God could have simply addressed the issue with a simple "don't do this."

We have rules concerning what to do with the children of a man who murders his wife; this in no way proves that Americans think murder is “okay”.

Society isn't omnipotent.

Do you have anything else?

A long list of righteous people of the OT who had many wives.

Because people sin, therefore rules need to be set up for when sins happen.

Is your god so weak that he can't even muster the courage to say "don't do this" and "David was wrong for having done it"?

Nope, the Edenic and Adamic Covenants were first established between Yahweh and Adam, not Abraham. Start there.

Fine. Adam had only two wives. And only got the second one after getting rid of the first. Your point? I'm not required to prove that every ancient Hebrew man had multiple wives. I'm only required to show that the practice was part of their culture while Yahweh seethed with anger but could do nothing to change that.

It’s perfectly clear to me; David violated God’s commandments one time. He violated God’s will many times.

1Kings 15:5 ...David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD...

Prove it.

Prove what? That ancient Rome and Greece had traditions of monogamy? That they occupied and controlled Judea? That Jewish traditions on polygamy and monogamy had changed from OT to NT? What part do you dispute?

the entire Bible is God’s word

Malachi 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces...