Eric Hovind vs. 6th Grade Atheist

This is a video except from a Christian/atheist debate at Portland State University on 11-15-12. The Christian is Eric Hovind (young earth creationist), and atheist is Bernie Dehler (former evangelical Christian, and now secular humanist).

Feel free to leave comments, but no personal attacks allowed. Also, any comments with the f**k word will be deleted (keep it rated PG-13).

11-29-12 Update:
---------------------------
Hovind's team tries to counteract this video. see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qitIRG...

...... For more of the same ...........................
See this website for more local Christian/atheist debates in the Portland Oregon area:
http://www.meetup.com/WestsideTalk/

...... More info on what "null hypothesis" means .........
The video comment section has some dialogue on "What does 'null hypothesis' mean?" I would like to refer readers to this link:
"Null Hypothesis"
http://explorable.com/null-hypothesis

See esp. the sub-section called "Development of the Null"

• Category

  Education

[rscape311]

I also enjoy this conversation, a breath of fresh air from the normal name calling YouTube comments. "I know there is a difference but I must admit I'm struggling to find the general rule." It is a matter of definition. Categorization is a human construct. It is like digitization on an analog world. That is why a lot of argument can be resolved by clarifying the terms used and why philosophy deals a lot with language and its use.

[rscape311]

(Continue) Also, even an argument is proven to be valid. Its conclusion may not be true. There are many valid arguments in religion but the their conclusions are still wrong because their premises do not correspond to reality.

[rscape311]

I agree with your points above but they are not arguments against "It is possible to prove a negative". As long as there is one true dichotomy, then that is enough to support my point.

I am not too happy with the word "prove". You can only prove validity in logic and mathematics, i.e, deductive. In inductive reasoning, you never proves things. Rather, you provide evidence to support the soundness and increase the confidence of your arguments but it is never a 100% proof.

[rscape311]

If you assert that "god exists" or "god does not exists", you have the burden of proof in both cases. If I assert that "the omnipotent, omniscience, benevolent god does not exist", then the burden of proof will be on me even that is an attempt to prove the negative.

To further clarify, "can't prove a negative" argument sounds too much like running away from theists' perspective that I never use it.

Whoever wants to make the sale should make the sales pitch. Negative or positive is irrelevant.

[rscape311]

"the Bible-god is described in such a way that it can be logically disproven." Agree.

[SecHummer]

"I'm starting to see that the more I think about it. I really enjoy these discussions. It forces me to rethink my previous notions."

Awesome comment, thanks!

[SecHummer]

Also, Bigfoot might be unproven either way; but the Philosopher's god is easier to refute because of the claims made for it (all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.). The facts of the world go against such a god. The bible-god is even easier to refute.

[SecHummer]

RE: "If that is true, then what is the difference between saying, "There's no plane in my sock," and, "Bigfoot doesn't exists"?"

The better the assertion is defined, the easier it is to prove/disprove. For Bigfoot, the assertion could be clarified. Also- there is evidence for Bigfoot, but then evaluate it to see if it is logical fallacy or bad evidence. For example, a single video is not good; well known they can be faked.

[Ripley747]

I'm starting to see that the more I think about it. I really enjoy these discussions. It forces me to rethink my previous notions. Ok. If that is true, then what is the difference between saying, "There's no plane in my sock," and, "Bigfoot doesn't exists"? The obvious difference is the former is a negative with limitations. That is saying there is not plane is different than saying there's no plane in this location.

[Ripley747]

I enjoy this discussion. I'm learning a lot and I feel like I really need to think and reconsider what I thought of as a negative claim. It appears there are different types of negative claims. Saying "An adult blue whale exists in my office at this instant in time - the same blue whale that biologists consider the largest animals" in the world is a MUCH different claim that saying aliens are visiting us. I know there is a difference but I must admit I'm struggling to find the general rule.