Eric Hovind SCHOOLS Paulogia! (feat. Eric Hovind)

[@johnnythunderschlong3031]

This is the weirdest crossover I never knew I needed Edit: Let it be known also, unlike others with the last name of Hovind, big props for Eric for actually having a calm dialogue instead of trying to “whack” Paul

[@jamesbernadette6216]

The Simpsons "Whacking day" church choir scene with Kent Hovind's head edited in. There's a meme I can get behind :D

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@Ebiegberi Adonkie Eric's strategy is to have his honest interlocutor admit that s/he could be wrong, while Eric maintains that a perfect god (by definition) informs him such that he cannot be wrong and you can't prove him wrong.

[@cookingonthecheapcheap6921]

Give it a few years. It'll happen.

[@joshboydtheactor]

While I definitely think Eric has fallacious reasoning, I can at least respect him for having some civility.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@Ebiegberi Adonkie I liked it. When apologists stop with the hand-waving insistence, the flaw in their 'faith' argument becomes more apparent. Believers are more convinced by zealous certitude than by reason.

[@Tyggs42]

I appreciate the level of civility from Eric that we'd never see from his dad. He's still smug in his wrongness, but he's not a complete jerk about it

[@justrobin8155]

I know plenty of people like this. Many of the kids I grew up with are now apologists. Most people can be civil, even when their points are monstrous. Unfortunately, Kent missed the memo that people are more likely to listen to you if they think that you're a rational human being outside of your arguments.

[@stylis666]

I like it that people compliment him and immediately show that kindness doesn't blind them from the dishonest manipulation tactics he uses nonetheless.

[@justrobin8155]

@@stylis666 well, obviously. He's incredibly, almost impressively wrong about nearly everything he says. He still deserves kudos for not taking after his dad on that front, though. I feel genuinely bad for him. I cannot imagine what growing up in that house is like. There is no way he doesn't have a ton of unresolved trauma.

[@stylis666]

@@justrobin8155 Indeed. And I have worried often about the same thing, that Eric grew up with Kent as his father. We all know how proud the convicted felon is of his abusive behaviour. But that also gives me a reason to say something positive about Eric again. He seems genuinely happy. His eyes aren't filled with anger, sadness or fear. You see him comfortably rehashing his apologetics script, hardly needing to think. He seems relaxed and happy. I still feel sorry for him having gone through living with his father and I think that religion makes it a LOT harder to resolve any trauma, but he seems well and he has himself to thank for that, even though he will probably thank god instead.

[@justrobin8155]

@@stylis666 I grew up in an abusive home, but no one realized anything was wrong except for my psychiatrist. And that was years later. I was an adult doing very well at university with a job I enjoyed and plenty of friends. I certainly appeared happy despite my unresolved issues. Hell - I'd say I was doing exceptionally well by anyone's standards. I still cried like a kid lost in the forest when forced to think about my childhood. The process of realizing that what happened to me was wrong was long and grueling. I am glad that he is doing well, but trauma often lurks many layers below the surface.

[@Jay-tk1zh]

Why is it that when atheists use their thoughts to discern reality somehow they're criticized by theists ...but when theits use their thoughts to discern their god suddenly the argument goes away?

[@Noromdiputs]

Eric thinks his god can give him absolute certainty. Not sure how he gets around the facts that make it obvious to me his god can't do that. At a minimum though it pushes the problem back a step.

[@Jay-tk1zh]

@@Noromdiputs he can certainly claim it. But its pretty usleless as a claim

[@BigHeretic]

@@Noromdiputs I think his god can do that because that's how he's defined it, god can do anything. What Eric can't get round is that this is special pleading and unfalsifiable. The Flying Spaghetti Monster can also do it, they're the same.

[@Noromdiputs]

@@BigHeretic ​ I think you are mostly correct. Though Eric at 13:41 specifies that there is at least one thing his god is defined as unable to do (lie).

[@Noromdiputs]

@daniel letterman It's certainly an element. With a fancy name too AntiCitizenX made a video called "Psychology of Belief Part 8: Need for Closure" if you like philosophy and aren't already familliar with him I reccomend you check him out. I really like his three videos on how logic, free will and omnipotence could be defined. He explores definitions in common use and concludes with what he thinks would be a good definition.

[@Ken-sx6sl]

What hit me as an atheist was how strong some former Christian’s have to be and how little this is acknowledged by believers. It was clear with how emotional Paul became that he is still feeling the hurt. Losing your loved ones (and your God) in pursuit of truth is SO hard. Even if you believe that he’s actually turning his back on God and his loved ones by identifying as an Atheist, you have to admire the strength and conviction it took (and takes) to do it.

[@esbluetheprototype]

The fact that Eric has to start with possibilities as opposed to evidence is alarming.

[@annalourens9077]

The only reason when someone does that is to defend a position, not to prove a position.

[@patrickkirby7612]

TRUTH

[@VictorValiant24]

I think he's trying to lock Paul into a fallacious statement. As civil as he is in this conversation, he's still a Hovind. Dishonesty is the family motto. Either way, I really enjoyed this video.

[@TaeyxBlack]

that’s why rationality rules calls apologists “god lawyers”. their job isn’t to tell you the truth or convince you of a particular position. their job is to cast doubt on any positions that threaten their client. mike winger even said as much when talking about if hell was evil.

[@irone7049]

Eric: Is it possible or impossible? Paul: I don't know. Eric: Are you saying it's impossible? Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[@michaelkierum42]

do or do not there is no try.

[@scienceexplains302]

A lot of theists who aren’t Siths deal in absolutes 😉

[@omega_sine]

Isn't that an absolute? :)

[@irone7049]

@@omega_sine So, you have found me out. Get him, my apprentice!!!!

[@michaelkierum42]

@@irone7049 Always 2 there are.

[@ericsworld4447]

Eric Hovin is ACTUALLY telling Paul that Paul is manipulating conversation...Does he not see the irony in his statement?

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

[@scienceexplains302]

WelcomeToMyBrain No, he probably doesn’t, because he, as he has states, starts with the supposition that [the theology he wants to believe]* is true. *He would say he starts with the Bible, but he cherry picks that, so he doesn’t believe in all of it. Nobody does, given the contradictions

[@Bimbo-Balls]

WelcomeToMyBrain He must not know what manipulation is.

[@infinitedragonbellyx.x]

The Hovinds are the most un self-aware people you will ever come across. I wish Paul called him out on his hypocrisy.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@infinitedragonbellyx.x If Eric is 'un self-aware', as you say, why do you think he's a hypocrite? Perhaps he and Kent are sincerely convinced of their god claim. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

[@theosib]

The thing is, Eric's Christianity isn't "the other side." It's one of *countless* other sides. So Eric hasn't given us a good reason why his perspective is the one "other side" we should investigate.

[@davespond9176]

Great point, my comment to ken ham that there are other creation myths earned me an immediate block many moons ago.

[@MendTheWorld]

Dave M Ha-ha, And Ken Ham picked such an absurd one to tie his boat to. Of all the creation myths, what a ridiculous absurdity is Noah’s Ark. Better believe in turtles all the way down.

[@samworkman7567]

I agree. I can present a Christian apologetics approach which requires no "proofs"--expounding Bible faith based on Matt. 18:1-5. I am a Christian who approaches faith in a way which requires no proofs/facts outside the Bible and my heartfelt belief in it.

[@samworkman7567]

@Never-ending party To be honest, Christians believe in the Bible because they desire to believe in the Bible (with the faith of a child). When a child believes something, there is no need for proof. So, it should be enough for a Christian to say: "I believe in the Bible because it is helpful." Or, a Christian could say: "I believe in the resurrection of Jesus because it gives me courage." Note in those statements there is nothing to be "proven." It is simply a person stating his own desire to believe. You do not need to list reasons why you believe in the Creation of Genesis. Just say: "I believe in Creation because it is inspiring." That is good enough.

[@G8rfan61]

@Never-ending party Will you define for me the words 'fact' and 'proven'?

[@katcienfuegos8433]

I've been putting off watching this for a while. This was shockingly wholesome and civil. Honestly, despite the fact I diaagreed with you both at certain points (or at least your phrasing Paul) but it was a real decent conversation and not a shitshow. I support this 100% If I had extra percentage points, I'd give them.

[@blacksabbath1022]

I'm suprised by so many comments praising an "honest" and "civil" discussion putting Eric in a good light. He's coming off like a manipulative slime ball rewording his questions to fish an answer out of Paul trying to put him on the spot.

[@Spyder_King]

Because thats the most civility youre gonna get debating a creationist. AT LEAST he is Having the conversation. It's not Much, but you dont see it often

[@umachan9286]

That's because this here is about as honest or civil that Eric gets. He's fine when he's the one doing the talking and is able to control the conversation but put him anywhere where he's not the one with his finger on the editing button and he tends to get a little desperate after a while. And while I will commend him for agreeing to appear with Paul, he's doing it with the hope that his words will reach somebody out there and bring them to Jesus. That's the only reason he would do something like this.

[@AeroZeppelin-rb4pt]

@@Spyder_King where did the materials for the big bang come from ?

[@djmcbratney]

In theory Eric could have been a lot slimier, but I think he (like Paul to an extent) knew the moment this started that this was a conversation happening in the public in front of both of their audiences and that any attempt by Eric to be really manipulative would be ... not without consequence for him, let's say. Paul was also being extremely charitable and avoiding any spots Eric would take him down a rabbit hole, as he implies at the end himself. And Paul, I love everything you do, thanks for this.

[@AeroZeppelin-rb4pt]

Y'all dont know but you continue to believe this fairytale for adults called evolution you can't explain the origins at all but you laugh at others beliefs when yours is by far the most retarded one

[@DesGardius-me7gf]

I really don’t like Eric Hovind. I find his cheery personality to be rather creepy, and disingenuous, even more so than that of Kent.

[@matt8043]

Many Christians are like this tbh

[@douglasharris5216]

I agree, like a snake ready to strike

[@misanthropicmusings4596]

He's just as much a snake oil salesman as his daddy, except that he has this toy "presuppostionalism" that he loves to trot out whenever he can that boils down to one big begging the question fallacy.

[@justinlindfors8512]

I mean he may actually be cheery and nice.

[@ryeclansen7371]

@@justinlindfors8512 cheery maybe but not nice.

[@Locust13]

Congratulations to Eric for ALMOST keeping his dishonesty, sliminess, and rampant, unearned, massive ego to a minimum for a few minutes.

[@WilbertLek]

Unfortunately the video is 1hour5minutes long........................

[@quantumrobin4627]

Hints of his ego and his unpreparedness for Paul’s in depth answers were apparent throughout tho.

[@InterestsMayVary2234]

This is why i don't think i want to watch it. You can only correct a person so many times before they're just lying and Eric past that quota 15 years ago. At this point, he's just smugly lying.

[@WilbertLek]

@@InterestsMayVary2234 My thoughts exactly.

[@Roadstar1602]

While I think Eric is generally very dishonest, I don't think this comment is productive. The fact remains that he had a civil conversation and actually let Paul talk, and didn't try to ridicule him. His father could learn a lot from this. We should be encouraging this type of discussion, rather than throwing jabs.

[@ParanormalEncyclopedia]

I have to give Eric credit. He’s far more civil and reasonable then his father. I always saw him as just a poor clone of Kent but comparing this to any debate Kent has done its a breath of fresh air.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

civil =/= reasonable

[@CommieApe]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b Agreed.

[@DanTheMeek]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Speaking as some one who at least used to believe some of what you describe as "terribly stupid nonsense", being a former christian, I will say, both when I was a christian, and now as an athiest, I'd always prefer a civil kind person who disagrees with me to some one who was belligerent and appeared to be close minded but agreed with me. As a christian I HATED appologists like Kent, and as an athiest I HATE athiests who take a similar antagonistic style to their debating or just conversing with christians (AaronRa or EssenceOfThough immediately come to mind). I happen to believe the same things as Paulogia and ShannonQ do now, but its their civility, wit, and general kindness that keeps me coming back to their videos and wanting to support them and their work. Long story short, I also give Eric credit, I might not believe what he believes, but he interacted with Paul in a way that if he interacted with me, I would at least be open to what he had to say. The same could not be said for his father.

[@CrashingThunder]

Same. You can tell he's trying to poke the typical holes (irreducible complexity, appealing to emotion w/ regard to absolute morality, etc) but for the most part it was a decent and fair exchange. Props to Paul as well for providing pretty good answers on the spot, especially considering that Eric didn't really have to do anything except ask questions (in typical apologetic fashion of course).

[@coolkusti]

@@DanTheMeek This is an interesting perspective. Having once been a Christian myself, I used to prefer the more belligerent atheists: they're the ones who captured my attention and exuded honesty. It's not *enough* to be belligerent, of course: you have to back up your incredulity with good points, which were usually forthcoming. I tend to feel that when a person maintains civility, they're not invested in the conversation they're having, or they're trying to deflect from their inability to defend their ideas. If a person says nonsensical things with fury and passion, it makes them look that much sillier.

[@budster91]

I really appreciate that they demonstrated that having a considerate conversation builds mutual respect. This is something I will continue to do with my family in our conversations about religion. Thanks Paul!

[@MichaelJones-gh4lq]

Wow, round of applause for your restraint Paul, I with my best intent to continue the conversation, couldn't have lasted an hour chatting with him without getting kicked off the air. Also the end was really really good, totally astonished.

[@BrendaCreates]

Hovind, the professional apologist, has never heard of divine hiddenness. LOL

[@d.l.7416]

i think he has heard of it just doesn't think its a thing

[@ericsworld4447]

Oh he has, he just doesn't give it any amusement in his head because his whole world would crumble

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@ericsworld4447 is 'entertain' the word you're looking for?

[@ericsworld4447]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b yes...sorry, english is not my first language.

[@BrendaCreates]

@@NilodeRoock Yes I would. Please educate me about math.

[@briannewton3535]

Is Hovind 19 something that folk should socially distance themselves from?

[@Tyranastrasza]

I don't know about Hovind 19, but Hovind 20, definitly.

[@TheDizzleHawke]

Clever!

[@stylis666]

@@Tyranastrasza I think he wasn't born yesterday though, even though he might as well be with his rigid views.

[@mars_over]

Given what happened at old hovind's camp a couple of weeks back....we should definitely distance ourselves from them

[@Gloomdrake]

Oh, god, they made 17 more?

[@derkylos]

17 minutes in and already Eric has asked 2 questions and got 2 "no"s, then asked the same questions again and manipulated the answers to "yes". Not really a productive way to have a discussion...

[@Xueria]

That was pretty slimy. Disgusting even.

[@NoName-hx4hm]

What's more annoying is Paul allowed him to do it.

[@JGM0JGM]

Exactly. Paul, right off the bat, stated that the God of the bible was impossible, That didn't prevent Eric to claim, a few minutes later: "So, the god of the Bible is possible."

[@malfaro3l]

As an atheist, with a strong Catholic family, I really appreciate the way you handled yourself Paul. It is rare to get to see good open conversation focused on the truth.

[@tickytickytango5634]

"I'm not going to try to do a gotcha" Proceeds to try to do a gotcha for the entire rest of the talk.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

Eric's whole case stands on, "Is it _possible_ the god of the bible exists, and is it _possible_ that the bible is his revelation..." It never fails to amaze, what a mansion they build on that foundation. Paul did really well as usual, explaining the nuance to this. And how UNLIKELY rather than impossible.

[@ShiningDarknes]

"Theology is a fortress; no crack in a fortress may be counted small." The fact that their only defense is to get rational people to admit that something is not IMPOSSIBLE, is laughable.

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

Extremely!

[@2girls1cuphead]

Is it possible that the God of the Bible does not exist and the Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories made up by sheepherders though?

[@A-Milkdromeda-Laniakea-Hominid]

@@2girls1cuphead It is LIKELY that's the case, I would agree.

[@avi8r66]

Religion needs apologetics training to keep the coffers flowing with donations. And they hold such training to protect the incomes of people like the hovinds.

[@justinlindfors8512]

Proof that Eric hovind is more sporting and respectful than his father. (Actually nevermind. Why do we even do this?)

[@OMC-WILDCAT]

@Sunnypsyop very low bar indeed

[@hobosorcerer]

@@OMC-WILDCAT Practically playing limbo

[@roqsteady5290]

He is just adopting a different strategy, but is no more open to other points of view than his father is.

[@justinlindfors8512]

@@roqsteady5290 at least It's better than Kent hovind strategy

[@stylis666]

@@hobosorcerer By digging a 20ft. deep trench under the bar. That said. I agree that Eric is a good sport. I fear that it's likely because Eric is just that confident, experienced and comfortable in his manipulations, but it's nice to see a friendly conversation like this regardless.

[@philswaim392]

"You could be in a psych ward thinking theres a door when theres not and you alwo believe a 3rd party has validated your model of reality about the door" He literally just described his own situation. He believes a god exists because he believes a 3rd party has revealed that to him. God. But how does he know hes not in a psych ward?????

[@LcdDrmr]

That's the whole problem with Eric's "how can you be sure of anything" argument; he's a human asking another human how any human can be sure of anything, so it applies just as well to him. It's like pointing at an armless person and saying that he can't pick up a hammer, when you're an armless person, too, and can't really point at anything to begin with.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

because his 'perfect' god 'perfectly' revealed its truth, will and intention to him, so he is not relying on fallible humans minds but on his god-given ability to 'perfectly' interpret the revelations of a 'perfect' god.

[@gravitywaves2796]

It's not possible I'm in a psych ward because my imaginary friend tells me I'm not in a psych ward. That definitely doesn't seem like the strongest argument to me, but that's pretty much the entirety of presuppositional apologetics in a nutshell.

[@CteCrassus]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b Problem is, he's using his imperfect human mind to evaluate the perfection of the entity his imperfect human mind has come to believe exists. If Paul can't be 100% sure he isn't in a psych ward trippin' balls, Eric cannot be 100% sure he's not trippin' balls about God either.

[@Tyranastrasza]

@@CteCrassus That's why, to his question "Is it possible that God has allowed me to know in such a way that I 100% know that god exists ?" the answer is a flat "No".

[@jkgecko]

Eric admitted he's following a script, that was beautiful.

[@graham9454]

At the beginning of the video they mentioned that the course usually involves going out and talking to people on the street (0:55-1:10). The script was in relation to that. He started to count off the script questions at 10:13. When having an intentionally confrontational conversation of this type it make sense to have bullet point style questions that seek to learn about what the other person actually thinks. People like talking about themselves far more than being preached to. The questions seek to set up the conversation that way for the students.

[@jkgecko]

@@graham9454 Regardless of how the questions are formatted, the fact that he admitted he uses a script is amazing because it goes to show that he's found a grift that works and repeats it over and over again. Wait, my bad, he mostly uses his dad's grift.

[@jkgecko]

@@graham9454 Eric and Kent use the same script over and over and over again, it was just nice he finally admitted it. They're both scam artists so that little bit of truth is worthwhile.

[@ZiggyBonham]

@@jkgecko I am an atheist (and a bit intoxicated), but I don't think them following a script is a particularly strong reason for their wrongness.

[@MacabreEruditon]

@@ZiggyBonham Perhaps not wrongness, but lack of having a real back and forth. As Eric stated: Once he "knows" something he doesn't want to deny it. That seems pretty closed-hearted/closed-minded.

[@brentverc]

I loved this. Paul was generous and pulled his intelectual claws but for a good reason. He was aware he ' crashed a party ' and gave respect to the host. Well played mate.

[@shadowsrose4978]

Plot twist: Paul turns out to be god, born as a human to debate thiests cause they got it all wrong.

[@lostwizard]

That would be *epic*. :)

[@jerelull2619]

How 'bout: "Just about *everything* ? The Bible's unreadable, self-contradictory, and any time it purports to reflect reality, it fails miserably. It doesn't even do a good job at history, which should have been be trivial: Describing what actually happened as the stories were being written, or the things happening in the greater society/societies when the stories supposedly happened. Most of the time, the contemporary historians disagreed with the bible fables.

[@CommieApe]

@Never-ending party Christians typically believe in magic, resurrection of the dead, talking animals, prophecy that never comes true and the bible is littered with historical inaccuracies including the shaky evidence of a historical Jesus.

[@casychapin4647]

@Never-ending party it's hard to say what Christians have wrong when they can't agree on what they think is right. The bible has plenty wrong.

[@casychapin4647]

@Never-ending party never ending party, evolution is our understanding of how animals came to be. If you can try to understand how we actually see it happening, rather than the straw man you wrote about random chance then we can talk about how plausible a creator god is by comparison.

[@yeehaw693]

Throughout this entire video I just kept thinking to myself: "Stfu Eric Hovend!" Honestly, the intentional not understanding of what Paul says and also bringing him to say yes to every question he asks is so frustrating. It's so slimy and dishonest. Whenever Paul answers a question in a way that Eric doesn't like, he rephrases the question until Paul says yes. It just makes me angry.

[@LcdDrmr]

@Ebiegberi Adonkie - Paul was just acting as a good guest in another's domain. It's not like he hasn't heard Eric's questions before, but he tried to take them at face value rather than the scripted, manipulative boiler-plate that they were. It's too bad that Eric had all those students (and camera) there, or he might have been more willing to honestly discuss things. But I kind of doubt it.

[@ryeclansen7371]

@Ebiegberi Adonkie Exactly! Eric keeps changing the nuance of the questions, tries to imply or suggest another meaning, - manipulating and changing the positions, any kind of tactic possible to avoid admitting he is wrong or doesn't know - totally dishonest. This is not a class on how to defend and support a position or to advance evidence but a class on how to dishonestly attack an unprepared, unsuspecting non-believer and how to confuse issues and when somebody then doesn't come up with an answer they deem satisfactory, it's gotcha. Thus they feel they have defended their faith.

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

It appears Eric has never really recovered from thunerf00t getting him to accept that atheism is true 8 years ago.

[@lukostello]

gunna need a link for that one

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

@@lukostello kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2qll6Z-qLt6hMk

[@carlfrups948]

@@lukostello Why did you run...

[@lukostello]

@@carlfrups948 I'm an atheist I wanted to watch him get creamed. Mostly was just an annoying display of someone incapable of listening.

[@carlfrups948]

@@lukostello This was not directed at believer or non-believer, it was just that people ask for references here on YT, but seldom give feedback or say "thank you".

[@jordanstacy3228]

I loved this. The “gotcha” agenda is toxic and regressive.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

And it works.

[@inthecrosshairs4480]

But, Hovind tried more than once to pull the "gotcha" agenda. He even admitted he was using a script. I know it's been a year, but can you explain what you're talking about? Maybe I should ask you, how do you define the "gotcha" agenda.

[@jordanstacy3228]

@@Lobsterwithinternet it works in promoting tribalism, not in providing actual understanding to either side. It gives off the appearance of correctness without demonstrating if they’re logically correct.

[@dvklaveren]

​@@Lobsterwithinternet If you think that you can convince someone with a gotcha, you have a more biblical view of yourself than Eric Hovind, apparently. Life just doesn't work that way. It 100% doesn't work, because gotchas are cheap and they feel cheap. It doesn't make someone question what is real, it makes them question the next best response. It also makes people feel like you see yourself as the protagonist of their story, rather than approaching them on equal ground. You can talk circles around someone, but if they simply don't believe that your arguments prove anything other than that you're more prepared, you accomplish nothing.

[@Lobsterwithinternet]

@@dvklaveren I know. But it works.

[@nejcstepancic8125]

This is way too wholesome, it just made me smile... i love how 2 people of such different world views can talk so respectfully to eachother... just fills me with hope for humanity

[@StatedClearly]

Rad! This is too freaking good.

[@darklogic6998]

I just would like everyone to acknowledge how civil this actually is. If two humans with opposing views can come together like this, maybe humanity isn't that bad...or maybe God will flood the world again 50/50.

[@cyansloth1763]

Ikr???? 😂😂😂😂😂

[@TazPessle]

There were no succint blows to make the debate heated. I feel Paul let too many points go here and didnt press in the way many atheists would.

[@jamestor6700]

if only his dad was so civil

[@Shylade]

I was surprised.. then disappointed.... then pleased with the outcome. Emotions are labile in age of quarantine

[@matt8043]

Well he is Canadian

[@jondough76]

When I read the title, I assumed Paul had been late on posting a video meant for April 1st..

[@delenaisrealbithes]

This is so beautiful! Thank you for doing this, both of you. It is so rare that our two sides collide, much less in this civil, kind, and completely inspiring way. Wishing everyone the best. All the love

[@thelyrebird1310]

I just find it hilarious Eric says I'm not going for gotcha questions and then launches into a whole series of them...

[@DanTheMeek]

Thank you for not posting this on April 1st, I never would have believed it other wise. Also, as some one who usually reserves my likes until the end of the video, I don't think I've ever liked a video so fast/early on before this one. My mind is genuinely (but not literally) blown right now that this is real.

[@NVRMTmotion]

Paul: "God isn't a good tie breaker for morality" Holy crap, that little snippet roundabout 47:25 was probably the best expression of the morality issue I've ever heard. Well done sir!

[@sandakureva]

This and the classic "If this this (God's actions) is good, is there anything left to call evil" are my favorites.

[@Twentydragon]

@Never-ending party So only if it's the opinion of this "transcendent being"?

[@NVRMTmotion]

@Never-ending party and ones choice of transcendent being and interpretation of that beings moral "absolutes" is.... opinion

[@Jay-tk1zh]

@Never-ending party it hasn't been. No god has been proven. I dont even know if a transcendent existence makes any sense. Can something exist for -1 seconds? Existence is temporal

[@RickinHKG]

@Never-ending party Could you explain this further? First, your claim regarding morality. Second, your claim that a transcendental God has been proven. Thanks.

[@DemmyDemon]

This makes me sad. It shows the openness and honesty of Paul, and the singleminded salesmanship of Eric. He doesn't care what is true or valid, he just wants to arrive at the predetermined destination that just so happens to be a product he is selling.

[@mikeekim242]

"the singleminded salesmanship of Eric." That one sentence crushed it!

[@jerrylong6238]

Yeah, Eric and his old man Kent would make great used car salesmen.

[@jerrylong6238]

Theists can't worry much about truth, because they live in a make-believe world full of Gods, Demons, ghosts, gobblings, talking plants, and animals. The truth would just screw up their whole way of thinking. When in Rome do as the Romans do. If you live in La-La land truth just doesn't fit.

[@smartalecatheist]

This was very wholesome. If you taught those students anything, I hope it's that atheists are not their enemies and that love and tolerance is far more constructive than fighting. You don't have to change your minds, and you don't have to change the other side's minds. But having a conversation with someone who will challenge your point of view is not a bad thing. As a U.S. citizen, I'm watching as this country is tearing itself apart because of people disagreeing. And currently, politics is doing nothing but fanning the flames. And depending on the results of the election in November, this country may end up destroying itself. Hate begets hate. Treat others how you would want to be treated. Better yet, pay it forward.

[@danettejeffries8181]

Eric introduced Paul by saying "He claims to be..." How dishonest can you get?

[@BornOnThursday]

I fucking hate that. I get that it might've been treated like a joke at the time, but I can imagine him believing that because he later goes down that "knowledge" rabbit hole.

[@jbreymers8346]

whats wrong with that?

[@mattf5935]

@@jbreymers8346 It is an insult of the same type as if Paul had introduced Eric as someone who "claims to be a Christian." By using the word "claims" it suggests there is a gap between what is claimed and what is real. You don't say "John claims to be a human" unless you want to highlight the possibility that perhaps he is not human.

[@jbreymers8346]

@@mattf5935 in a Christians worldview atheism and atheists don’t exist. Everyone knows The God exists(Romans 1)..so Eric was consistent to his worldview....otherwise he would be saying “god is lying “.

[@azophi]

I mean I’m not offended, it was common trope in *my* own church to view everyone who left Christianity as not a true Christian. So … yeah 🤷‍♀️

[@sammeier3469]

I never thought I'd see this crossover, and definitely didn't expect it to be so calm and mutually respectful. I'm so glad that this happened.

[@scienceexplains302]

“Truth comports to the mind of [a being I can’t demonstrate is even possibly existing]” Eric Hovind

[@stylis666]

Yeah, well, God could be strapped to a table in a psycho ward. I think Eric should start thinking instead of rehashing his script.

[@scienceexplains302]

Setekh I was thinking of writing a little “play”, called “Eric Hovind’s Psych Ward”. EH and young Paulogia are in the Ward and EH is trying to convince people that there is a special door out of the ward that he uses when nobody is looking, you just have to believe it is there. And when your time comes, you can exit permanently thru the door to a verdant, clean, free world. Young Paulogia believes him at first and bashes himself on the wall trying to get out. EH asks him, “Is it possible you’re wrong that you just bruised your body on the wall? Is it possible you actually did get out to the beautiful free world?”

[@stylis666]

@@scienceexplains302 LOL That's a great idea and even if you leave it with comments such as that one, I think it's still a lot of fund and good food for thought.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

That is why Eric can play hard and dirty with "Truths". and his own truth is so malleable. Nobody there to tell him it's not true.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Eric never puts enough work into showing circularity, when it comes to his 'you are using your reasoning to validate your reasoning' apologetic. Those aren't necessarily the same thing. 'My reasoning' can refer to a specific argument I'm putting forth and considering. It can also refer to my thinking skills in evaluating arguments. Eric regularly tries to make these two sound identical and the assessing of one's reasoning as circular, when it's not. e.g. 'You say you're using your hammer to create your hammer! That must be impossible because the hammer would have to exist already for you to use it in creating itself!', he says to a blacksmith using one hammer to craft _a different hammer._

[@garret1930]

*hammer time*

[@vulcanus7127]

Answering Eric's questions for fun: 1) Could God possibly exist? -Modifying the omnis as maximally powerful, knowing, etc., I don't think I can say God is impossible, but I don't know enough to say he would be possible either. 2) Could the bible be revelation from God? -Much like Paul, I struggle to see how a benevolent and competent God would prefer to hand us revelation in this particularly flawed and confusing way, but I see no reason to deem it impossible. 3) Can God give us certainty? (I.e., revelation in such a way that we know we cannot be wrong) -No. I don't think that kind of certainty is logically possible (even for a god). How do you distinguish between a benevolent God granting you absolute certainty on a true revelation and a malevolent God granting you absolute certainty on a false revelation? Can you still call it absolute certainty after considering that possibility? 4) Can you be wrong about everything you think you know? -I think so, lol. Without the laws of logic, I don't think I can get to any truth with any level of confidence. If I can assume the laws of logic, I can get to things like "I am not God" and "I know the contents of my own conscious thoughts." If you allow induction, I can live my life. For most, normal reasoning, I assume logic, and I cannot comprehend what it would mean for logic to be wrong. I don't know if it is possible or impossible for logic to be wrong--I don't understand what it means. But, the problem of induction on the other hand means that I could be wrong about a LOT. (I can't say confidently that a brain in a vat scenario is biologically possible, but it is certainly logically possible). 5) Are you circularly validating your thoughts using your thoughts? (In reference to knowing the contents of your own thoughts, I think?) -Can I think I am typing and be wrong? Yes. Can I think I am typing and not actually think I am typing? No (assuming you grant me logical identity). I can misinterpret my perceptions, but I am still percieving them, there is no justification possible because it is direct observation from my perspective. 6) Are your thoughts just byproducts of brain activity? -I might have problems with the wording--I would say that my thoughts are brain activity or maybe brain patterns; and I don't personally know enough about neuroscience to give a solid answer here--but generally, relying on scientific consensus, sure 7) Does it make sense to call one chemical reaction true and another false? -Given the intended context, I don't think the meaning here is something like taking one molecule of H2O, mixing it with 56 carbon atoms and getting one neon atom (which given my limited knowledge of chemistry I would call false), but rather this question is more a jab at brain fizz. I can write down 1+1=2, and I think we would all call that "true," but most would roll their eyes if I said "how can graphite smudges on paper be true or false?" It's what it represents (or is interpreted as) that is true or false, not the physical stuff itself. 8) How would you validate that you know what is real? (How do you know you're not in a psych ward?) -If "know" is confidence, then induction, independent confirmation, and predictive power, like Paul. If "know" is absolute certainty, then I would say I don't know anything (see (4)). (Side note, if the conceptual possibility of being in a psych ward with a detailed, consistent, persistent delusion is enough to get you to say "I can't confidently call my perceptions reality" then how is God going to fix this issue? Reality is that which comports to the mind of God? How do you know God isn't in a psych ward? My experience is consistent and persistent enough to call it 'a reality,' and I don't particularly care if it is 'ultimate' or 'top level' until a 'higher reality' is revealed to me.) 9) How can you get logic, science, and math (which are universal, immaterial, and unchanging) without God? -I view each of these as descriptive, not prescriptive. Reality doesn't behave like math. We wrote math to behave like reality. I can't write down 3*3=9 and expect to take six coins and get nine out of them somehow--you build your equations around accurately *modeling* reality. "They are one person, they are two alone, they are three together..." Yes, math has a surprising amount of 'universal' application to it, but it's only a model, and it doesn't apply to everything. Anyone that has gotten a math word problem wrong because they misread the text *but still did all their math right* should be able to understand this. (and similar with logic and science) 10) Is it possible that before the universe came into existence that there was no logic? -Like Paul, I struggle to make sense of "before the universe came into existence," but if you changed it to "before there were any logic-capable minds" then absoluetly--logic is a descriptive construct minds use to make sense of the universe. 11) Is logic material in nature? -Is red material? Paul and Eric both quickly agree that red is not material and I just kindof had to double-take. I can't find a way to slice it so that it's not material--waves of light if you are talking about that, or an experience in a physical brain if you are talking about that. Maybe if you're just talking about the word? Sure, words are social constructs, and I suppose logic could be viewed as a construct of human minds and in that sense it wouldn't be material, but it is still based on the behavior of material stuff? I don't know. Maybe they just mean you can't touch it? I would need some clarification on how they are using the term material, I think. 12) How do you feel about the "Hold your feet to the fire" tactic? How should a "trained" athiest respond to that? -This kind of questioning was much harder for me to deal with as a christian, personally, because I didn't know why I believed, I just did. Now, I'm much more comfortable delving these kinds of questions and even enjoying them. I don't understand the tactic from Eric's perspective though--has this ever converted anyone to christianity? I think any rational responder to this line of thinking should readily admit when they don't know, and admit when they are assuming something. We aren't used to those kinds of responses in everyday life (someone asks if there is a coke in the fridge, we just usually hand them one, we don't stand there holding it and saying "I don't know, maybe we're in the matrix...", and we don't say, "Yes, but only if we assume this is an ultimate reality we are perceiving correctly") but if you can get comfortable admitting when you don't know and presenting your assumptions, then the presuppositional schtick becomes more bark than bite. ((If they are the type that will try to nail you down with yes or no answers only and don't accept "I don't know" as an answer, then you are in a bad faith conversation and you should bail or switch topics.)) And admit when you make a mistake. 13) Are there absolute, universal moral facts? -Nope. I didn't believe in absolute morality as a Christian. Not even the Bible endorses this moral theory--God gives commands that contradict past commands or are context-sensitive. Context sensitivity (you can kill in self defense, for example; or God is allowed to murder everyone except Noah and his family because God is God, for another example) is enough to convince me that morality is relative. Now Eric might mean to be asking if morality is objective (mind-independent) and that also seems to not be the case--Eric believes that reality is entirely what comports to the mind of God, so in his view it sounds like all of reality is subjective (to the mind of God) and I would think that morality would be no different here? 14) What have you experienced from the christian community after coming out as an atheist? -My dad was a pastor, and when I came out to him I was kindof hoping for a new argument that would pull me back in. Instead all I got was the same old same old: Pascal's Wager, God of the Gaps, etc.. Most of my interactions with him are now centered around Romans 1:20, "You should pray/read the Bible/read this apologist book," "You would have made a great pastor," or (my favorite) "God is making you miserable." I've been out for I guess around two years now and things are still like that. I haven't really come out to any other christians, mostly just separated myself out from that community--I had been struggling to find a church since I moved, so it wasn't a big life change in that regard. 15) What do you think about christians who are afraid of other ideas? -I love Paul's answer, but I also want to add some thoughts I got from Pine Creek: Is the gospel not going to sound like foolishness to nonbelievers? Why are you worried about sounding foolish? Your own bible told you this would happen. Embrace it. 16) Have you thought about why you are arguing? -Because I think that christianity is harmful.

[@mobiusstripper7279]

This makes me happy. We need more of this. Thank you Paul... and Eric.

[@chrisfromsouthaus2735]

Ha, and here I was thinking this year couldn't possibly get any crazier!

[@romithromith]

Eric here is going crazy too, not able to sell his snake oil on the street corner.

[@shanen8031]

Eric holding Paul’s feet to the fire!!! “How do you know, how do you know?” Hey Eric, how do you know? No evidence WHATSOEVER

[@kevinwheesysouthward9295]

Yes Eric, it is hard to debate someone who is intellectually honest about our ability to know truth. It’s much easier to “get” someone who misrepresents reality.

[@richardwilliams2475]

I'm not in the matrix. You are in the matrix! I mean, god said we all exist.

[@kca_randy]

This is impressive Paul. Many nonbelievers ,including myself, would benefit being more charitable & patient like you are here with Eric. Well done.

[@jarodstrain8905]

Paul, I did not see that coming. Mad respect for your patience and civility.

[@matthewdennion6477]

Wow I have to say it’s really cool in this day and age to see two people with opposite view points talking in a civil manner to each other. Hats off to both of you!

[@WilbertLek]

Calm does not necessarily imply civil....

[@matthewdennion6477]

Wilbert Lek That’s true. I may be overly charitable with my comments from being cooped up to long. I think with the current state of the world I may be trying harder than normal to find a positive outlook

[@WilbertLek]

@@matthewdennion6477 Fair enough ;-)

[@Revanbzn]

Civilly putting up so many points you can’t address them all

[@vinx.909]

"i'd just keep holding your feet to the fire with 'how do you know? how do you know? how do you know?'" if only you realised that we can do the exact same with you, and that you seemingly has nothing other then some book(and since nether of us can proof reality is real and reality includes all the printed bibles we know of you don't even really have that).

[@KellyDVance]

This was a lovely and mature conversation. And while I found some of Eric's arguments redundant, I appreciate that both of you remained calm and kind throughout. Thank you!

[@wolfblade]

Thank you for this. It really helps me rethink conversations I have with people on many topics related to science and how to approach them differently. It is always good to be reminded that finding common ground is how to explain to someone why you believe something, and that seems more helpful if you are trying to get them to hear what you believe.

[@Tejyasn]

Massive points to both of ya, Paul and Eric! Definitely want to see more of this!!!! This has upped my respect for both of ya by quite a bit, and I'm all for that free market of ideas. Nobody here is forcing a view or belittling another, but having a rather civil debate as friends would. Keep it up, y'all!!!

[@peregrinef3203]

I appreciate that Eric actually seems to want to understand Paul's views. Somehow, Kent raised a good person. I did like how Eric actually said he didn't like how his father had answered something.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

Except he doesnt at all. It's a slimy tactic

[@JayMaverick]

Eric keeps conflating "I know my thoughts" with "I know the content of my thoughts." Small difference, but essential in understanding the type of obfuscation he does. Great conversation, Paul. You are a patient guy.

[@Natorz111]

This was not a conversation, it was an interview.

[@stylis666]

Well, both people talked. That's a conversation, elevating pitch, question mark. :p And one of them listened. That's something that happens in conversations. The other was just looking for trigger words to give apologetics for to the students. Sounds like the average conversation I have with JW's. You know... maybe you're right. But it's still fun :)

[@Natorz111]

@@stylis666 yeah, but I don't really see the point of this "everything you know can be wrong and you could live in a matrix" talk.. would be better if both took turns asking questions so people could realize what Eric is actually believing and dig into that.

[@stylis666]

@@Natorz111 There is no point to it. It's just mental masturbation and one that should have been slapped down by Paul by saying that Eric's god could be a person who's tied to a table in a psych ward and Eric has no way of knowing if his or his god's certainty about that not being the case is justified. I agree it would've been more fruitful if it was an actual discussion, but let's not forget that the setting was Eric's class and Paul volunteered to help out and it's entirely reasonable for Paul to let the format be dictated by Eric in this setting. You could view it as an olive branch from Paul to Eric that was accepted by Eric, if you will. I'd love to see Paul inviting Eric to honour Eric's proposal to have an in depth back and forth, so we can see an actual conversation between the two in a more casual format.

[@brandonwells1175]

@@stylis666yes I think they came super close to revealing that all arguments are inherently (and for some, eventually) self-defeating. Eric went beyond the Bible in the depth of his questions, and I hope he knows it and ponders the implications.

[@stylis666]

@@brandonwells1175 hahaha Don't count on it. Apologists have promoted rationalizing to an art. Any doubt and pondering is blocked or waved away faster than you can blink your eyes. Some people train to become something and some people train to prevent that.

[@marcshunky1681]

Man. This was beautiful. So deep and so much was spoken that I feel. The last thing Paul said was so profound

[@sgt.wolfenstein0818]

"Why do I argue?" I believe I argue because I want to weed out the bullshit, I want to demolish the things that can be tested as being false, I want to keep and collect everything that can be tested as true and then I want to formulate a set of rules that I can use to live a full and happy life. Basically I want a code of honor that I can truly believe in.

[@ParanormalEncyclopedia]

When did I jump track and land in an alternate universe where this was a thing? Is Trump President in this universe, is Kent still unable to understand grade school science? Lol

[@david2869]

Well I will say that Eric has "softened the blow" from his father.

[@lucifers.morningstar3805]

Yes President Trump is real, Kent is still unable to understand basic elementary science taught in grade school, people get famous for nothing (mumble rappers, Kardashians and others).

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Don't be a Dramaqueen. Eric was personable, but still used the same dishonest tactics of demanding standards of Paul that he himself NEVER would submit under. Paul has to have a method to determine truth, Eric simply presupposed "god did it". That is no way to debate a subject. Eric cannot provide ANY evidence beyond his stating it is the truth for any of his "explanations". But he demands that Paul has very precise reasons for any of his positions. Double Standards and fallacious as fuck.

[@CaptFoster5]

I'm genuinely shocked that Eric took the time to actually have this conversation with Paulogia ... here's hoping the seeds of doubt take root in Eric and those other folks in on this class.

[@ricardojohnson4513]

@david Stoll AMEN! whoops!

[@markgamache6377]

This will not change minds. Eric made sure the conversation was one sided and Paul is not a debater like Matt Dillahunty. He also took advantage of Paul’s good nature and desire to help.

[@1970Phoenix]

No chance for Eric to change his mind, as to do so would potentially greatly impinge on his lifestyle. He makes a very good living from his "ministry", and so why would he give that up?

[@ChadbourneZitek]

mark gamache Don’t underestimate the effect Paul has on Christians, whose only exposure to atheists is in their own propaganda (where they exist as evil angry professors and evil dictators and evil devil worshipping punk rocker druggies). The respectful, kind, likeable Paul wins over many by way of his openness and thoughtfulness.

[@MMAGamblingTips]

“Eric Hovind and Paulogia in the same room? What is this, some kind of crossover episode?”

[@samworkman7567]

I'm okay with it as long as they stay 6 ft. apart 😷🤒🤧🤮🤢

Who doesn't love a good crossover story? ;-)

[@brooksbennett6506]

Such a beautiful conversation. I would absolutely love to see more of this, because I think it’s where real progress happens. I do find it really interesting to see the direction Eric takes his arguments, and the way that Paul gently grounds the conversation back to a place of mutual understanding, despite how in the weeds and confusing that conversation is. He doesn’t mock or dismiss or become frustrated, but gently meets Eric where he’s at and answers his questions in the most intellectually honest way, despite the way Eric keeps trying to sort of twist his words underneath him. But I think it’s encouraging that Eric is at least willing to have the actual conversation at all!

[@TaeyxBlack]

36:17 eric says he would just continue to hammer paul with “how do you know?”, but the same could be done to him. he could claim god is the stopping block for that, but again, you’d have to ask “well how do you know that?” the problem with pre-supposing a god is that it requires all of paul’s pre-suppositions and pre-suppositions about a spiritual realm and an eternal being with at least 3 omni-attributes. it’s not parsimonious in the slightest. it actually adds more possibilities that what is going on in eric’s mind does not match up with reality.

[@BenjaminSteber]

Apologists: You were never really a true believer if you left the faith. Also apologists: Everybody actually knows what we believe is true, they just deny it.

[@stylis666]

@daniel letterman And the sad part is that most theists don't even see how dishonest and contradictory that is and just rely on their experience with rationalizing their cognitive dissonance away with some delusional placebo comfort.

[@lucifers.morningstar3805]

28:36 Eric hovind: what's invisible can clearly be seen. Me: so what you're saying is that which cannot be seen can be clearly seen? Eric Hovind: yes. Me: so you're saying what is impossible to be seen can clearly be seen? Eric: yes absolutely!!! Me: you do realize that what is invisible (impossible to be seen) cannot be seen at all? Eric: what is invisible can clearly be seen for the Bible tells me so. Me: the very definition of invisible completely disproves that particular Bible verse.

[@ShiningDarknes]

How do you know that the invisible pink unicorn is pink if it is invisible? Because the unicorn told me so.

[@cannotwaittoseedavanteadam4301]

I found Hovind to be really dishonest and disingenuous.

[@jackdaniels9179]

It is the hovind way.

[@carnivorehitman]

Surprise.

[@cannotwaittoseedavanteadam4301]

@@jackdaniels9179 Yea, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree but he still isn't nearly as bad as his dad. Good grief, that man is an asshat!

[@cannotwaittoseedavanteadam4301]

@@carnivorehitman Can you imagine how shocked I was that he was like his father?

[@PunkZombie1300]

@@cannotwaittoseedavanteadam4301 After hearing about how Kent used to beat the shit out of Eric then brag about it to his audience, I don't know whether I should be surprised that he's just like him or not. It is sad, though.

[@jb888888888]

"I want to have a conversation, I'm not gonna ask a bunch of gotcha questions." _(proceeds to ask a bunch of gotcha questions)_

[@JacobP81]

Great job Eric and Paul. I admire your openness. You had a great discussion without attacking each other. Kudos to the both of you.

[@evietrivithic42]

This was the most interesting and informative discussion I have watched in years of watching Atheist vs Theist stuff. I would love to see a Q and A discussion where Paul asks Eric next. Thank you to both of you for this. More please

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

Eric's whole shtick seems to be, "You can't rely on unreliable human mind(s) to 'K'now anything, but my god informs my (and my dad's) 'K'nowledge perfectly...because the god I believe in is perfect by definition, therefore I can't be wrong and you cannot prove me wrong." Islamic jihadis make the same claim before blowing up buses and airplanes

[@belgarath6388]

Exactly! And what really makes me scream at the computerscreen and facepalm at the speed of light is that the moron somehow thinks he's somewhat outside of the "unreliable human mind" schtick. He and his followers are as far as i know humans as well, with godamn human brains as well. So god or no god, they as well are stuck in said unreliability.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

​@@belgarath6388 Not so, say they. They're 1000% certain and nothing can change their divinely informed mind, so there...it's settled...you despicable heathen...burn the witch!

[@belgarath6388]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b Not gonna lie, for a second or two i thought you were serious, still someone should remind them that according to the bible "god" have a habit of creating delusions in peoples minds.... Wait a minute.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@belgarath6388 Do you think they'll hear or accept your point? Every believer represents a religion of 1 that has little or nothing to do with the scripture, doctrine or dogma of the religion they claim.

[@belgarath6388]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b It's like chipping at a granite slab with a stone axe. Tiresome as heck but every swing chip away more and more and with enought swings that damn thing might break. I dont think my points might necessery break throught to them but then again i'm not the only one swinging that axe.

[@TheLuckySpades]

This is surreal Really surreal

[@potdragon8091]

Is it possible it is real?🤔

[@TheLuckySpades]

@@potdragon8091 well it is definitely hyperreal

[@ChibiRuah]

i found the intro to be very surreal. It only be more surreal if Eric came out as a non believe and started mocking his old videos.

[@elainejohnson6955]

Paul's story of the cost of the loss of his friends and family when he lost his faith was incredibly moving.

[@nepocrates]

Thanks For posting this I was very enjoyable as I took it in and listened to Civil discourse. I never expected this at all from Eric and I was pleasantly surprised by the interaction

[@xxsageonexx8910]

It’s equally possible the god does not exist. What a senseless question Eric

[@stylis666]

I know I'm being pedantic, but the possibility of a god existing is either 100% or 0% and nothing in between, so it's not equally possible. You see, the possibility of god's existence is a thing that is not only in the future. It's in the present and past as well and those are already determined and probability does not apply to present and past - only to the future. I hope that makes some sense. It is indeed a senseless question and as great as Paul was in this conversation and he just is in general and in other discussions about philosophical and theological topics, probability is definitely not his strong suit. If it were anything in between a 0% and 100% chance of a past event or a fact that is factual throughout the past present and future, then there is also a chance that the fact whether or not you put on shoes yesterday is different from the 0% or 100% chance you remember it to be. The uncertainty here is negligible. Even if you're strapped to a table in a psych ward, your verifiable reality is effectively real and verifiable, even if the verifying is imagined. Your reality is the reality you have to deal with and any reality you can't verify is useless to you, even if it's a comet coming through the roof of the spych ward and wrecks your perceived reality by ripping your legs off, giving you unknown alterations to your reality with causes unknown to you. It's effectively no different from us experiencing our reality. The gravitational constant could flip and we'd just have to deal with it, regardless if we're a brain in a vat. So, the only correct answer is: we don't know if it's possible for a god to exist. Believing that it is or isn't is not justified and we have to deal with reality as we perceive it, regardless of the possibility of a god existing and regardless if one exists. And there is no equal chance of something in the past and/or present being the case. Chance simply does not apply.

[@stylis666]

@Never-ending party And an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, not an argument. Good luck and good bye.

[@xxsageonexx8910]

Setekh The 0 % and 100 % does not apply, as possibility can not be measured or quantified. Those would reflect probabilistic values. If one can assert it is possible...without demonstrating then one can assert it is not possible on equal grounding. They are both meaningless assertions.

[@agimasoschandir]

@@stylis666 We might say with certainty that such a thing as a Pegasus could not exist, but a god can be defined in such a way to make it impossible to show it does not exist. In that respect, it is Carl Sagan's dragon. The providing of evidence lies with those making the claim as long as the one asking for the claim never claims that for sure, a god does not exist

[@agimasoschandir]

@Never-ending party What does it mean "RATIONAL POSSIBLE atheist explanation for what exists"? In other words, where does the rejection of the claim that a god exists entail needing a rational explanation of existence?

[@PaulSmith-fi1vg]

"Is it possible" seems to me to be the weakest possible way to start a question but Eric Hovind used it repeatedly.

[@SchiwiM]

Yes, especially when nobody has ever demonstrated this possibility, how should we know it's possible

[@akamesama]

Yes, it's generally a bad faith argument since the questioner know that their interlocutor either answers the way they want or they can press them on their answer. The best option, which Paul takes, is to expand out your response. But this can look like an evasion from an audience perspective.

[@simongiles9749]

I assume he's equivocating "possible" and "probable". That's a paddlin'.

[@joe19912]

@daniel letterman Exactly. And asking questions that an honest person will say "we don't know, or can't know for certainly", then slips in his own fake certainty with unfounded beliefs and feelings.

[@leeheishman5422]

Viced Rhone

[@pooperscooperltm6312]

I think Eric is a perfect example of evolution. He's basically Kent with a more *reasonable disposition to discourse

[@Marconius6]

So it's a beneficial mutation?

[@CelticShae]

I didn't really want to be an atheist, Eric. It happened when I went looking for the truth.

[@jkgecko]

I've never given a thumbs up to a video that any Hovind was a feature in but this one was very amicable. Paul, the hoops you jumped through to not openly insult Eric or his class was so humble and at the same time almost heroic, I trust Shannon is proud.

[@vincebuckley1499]

Hovind literally said "God is all powerful" and "God can not lie" in the same sentence. Wow.

[@traceyjohnson760]

Right, he is acknowledging that "all-powerful" has some limitations built into it. Another example might be the old question of whether God could make a rock so heaving that even he couldn't lift it. One has to say "No," which seems like he's not all-powerful then, but a "Yes" answer would mean the same thing.

[@vincebuckley1499]

@@traceyjohnson760 I know that, and you know that. Most apologists now say "most powerful being imaginable" or some other such nonsense, that's why it's amusing to me that he doesn't.

[@Pie3.1]

An All-powerful being cannot lie because lying shows weakness....

[@vincebuckley1499]

@@Pie3.1 You don't understand "all powerful".

[@Pie3.1]

@@vincebuckley1499 you dont understand perfection...

[@bibulousape]

This was awesome. Yes, there was a part of me that wanted Paul to lay into Eric on certain points, but I don't think the conversation would have been able to continue if he had.

[@shanen8031]

What Eric calls teaching, we call brainwashing

[@shanen8031]

@Salvaged History you sure? I would call telling people to believe OR ELSE, is in the same ballpark to the dark room you speak 😛

[@Mrsmiley291]

Can I personally add my appreciation of you both. I watch a lot of sceptic videos and this really was a great conversation between two people with the opposite world views. Hopefully we can see more of you both exploring the opposite view point without trying to 'win'. Understanding is the true goal.

[@TheGrassdawg]

No apologies necessary! Off the cuff conversations are difficult to bring all that we know to the forefront in that moment. Well done in keeping it civil!✌️

[@malirk]

"Does it make sense to call one chemical reaction true or false?" *RESPONSE* - If I take a car and break it down to the parts of a car, I'd have leather, foam, glass and many other components. Would those pieces of glass then be a car? No. Eric is taking a thought and breaking it down to the bits of information it is. The sum of it is greater than the parts of it. The way in which our minds organize these chemical reactions turn them in to thoughts which can evaluate reality. No thought itself is true/false, a thought allows us to evaluate a truth claim about reality.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

Ah-hah!, Eric would say. But you're relying on admittedly fallible human reasoning, whereas he (Eric) is informed by a 'perfect god', by definition, so he can't be wrong and no one can prove that he is.

[@malirk]

@@notwhatiwasraised2b Read the second post :-). Eric's God can send people strong delusions. Can Eric's God send what is perceived by us to be special revelation but is really a strong delusion? Is his God not powerful enough to do this? It also wouldn't go outside God's nature because God's nature is what God does!

[@goldenalt3166]

Yes, it makes sense to call one chemical reaction true and one false. If you take them in context.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@malirk But Eric's god is perfect, by definition, and therefore wouldn't do him like that. And look at the trees...logic...duh.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

@@goldenalt3166 Chemical reactions tend to vary depending on local conditions (temperature, pressure, other chemicals, etc). 'Context' is the acknowledgement that there is no 'true' or 'false' but a set of possible results that depend on variables known and unknown

[@kenchristiansen2080]

Is it impossible for the God of the bible to exist? An all knowing being is NOT possible. Why would anyone waste energy to create a human that it knows in advance is going to hell. Is it impossible an all loving God that allows someone to be tortured for eternity? Yes it is.

[@chadd990]

I think those are just opinions though. You can’t measure love.

[@chadd990]

Anyways, there are better contradictions that prove the god of the Bible is impossible.

[@kenchristiansen2080]

@@chadd990 you don't have to measure love. Allowing any person to be tortured for eternity with no chance of redemption, is NOT love.

[@kenchristiansen2080]

Before anyone complains that I am defining the God of the bible wrong, I am using the definition that Eric uses in the video. So it is not me defining anything, but the Christian.

[@TazPessle]

@Boris R. Cuduco literally the only verse that says "God is" reads "god is love". I'd say that the bible depicts a tyrant and paints the words love over the bloodshed. But the bible does say that "god is love" that he is the good shepherd who cares for his flock. To me this contradiction along with all the others are the best evidence for yahwehs nonexistence because no entity can be self-contradictory, 'yahweh is a' and 'yahweh is not a'. The question of god(s) more generally though is still open.

[@sannakji]

Every question he asks could be turned around on him. On his home turf he never seems to need to answer them himself.

[@sammenard81]

Exactly... and that feels dishonest...

[@Jingleschmiede]

I thought the same thing and I wonder why Paul didn't turn his questions around. "Is it possible that a god exist ?" "Yes, but so is Darth Vader. It's even more likely." :)

[@lostwizard]

I think that was addressed in the conversation itself and the postamble. While Eric was, I think, genuinely trying to convert Paul, both of them had a different goal for the conversation than conversion. It was about the style and mechanics of the conversation rather than the outcome. A demonstration of a respectful conversation rather than hellfire and brimstone or shrill preaching or whatever. I got the impression that both of them are amenable to a more detailed conversation in the future, but that would not have been appropriate in the context, nor for the time they had. That conversation has the potential to quite interesting since outside the context of Eric's classroom, it would put them on equal footing and Paul could easily hold Eric's feet to the same fire Eric holds his to.

[@samworkman7567]

@@Jingleschmiede I am a Christian. I keep waiting for a Christian apologist to just say: "I believe the Bible because I want to believe it." By listing reasons, intellectual "proofs" and whatnot, a Christian apologist undercuts the most important aspect of faith . . . "belief." When you believe something, no proof is required. Or in the words of Darth Vader: "I find (their) lack of faith disturbing."

[@Jingleschmiede]

@@samworkman7567 Exactly. Believe and be quiet about it ! :) The world would be a better place. The real problem with religion is the manipulation of people. Make people do things that are not reasonable. Harmless things like "Not having sex before marriage" to "Suicidebomber" . I'm pretty sure, a guy as wise as Jesus, would never order anything like the second thing and does not car about hte first one. :) I'm pretty sure, nobody will ever prove any religion, any god etc. . So stop annoying us with trying.

[@DaileyWoodworks]

Thank you for posting this. Civility and respect are so lacking. It says a lot for both of you to be willing to discuss your ideas not debate your idea. Y’all should do this again.

[@xipheonj]

I can't believe this happened. Well done Eric for being open enough to have these conversations, and very well argued Paul. This is the way for us to move forward.

[@michaelvout7813]

Although this is a good debate, the material which Eric promotes is disingenuous and hurtful.

[@traceyjohnson760]

Was it even a debate? It appears to me to have been more a questioning of Paul by Eric according to Eric's roadmap. So Eric wasn't as pushy as usual, he is supposed to get credit for that?

[@Thezuule1]

"Normally at this point in the class I would start acting like an obnoxious pain in the ass like Sye Ten and refuse to acknowledge what the other person is saying until they get back on script." -Eric Hovind

[@jacobherrington1524]

Painful to watch leading questions go on and on.Paul, good job staying calm and respectful.

[@twig8523]

I feel it's important to note, particularly with Eric's opening line of questioning... That "possible" is next to worthless. What's probable? Whats likely? What's true?

[@CharlesHuckelbery]

Well done. Thanks for sharing this with us. Your efforts are appreciated.

[@awencuhathain8745]

The epic vesus that Batman V Superman should have been.... Paul, the respect you show when speaking to anyone of faith is amazing. Thank you for being an example of how to have manners during the discourse.

[@zacbranagan8939]

There is this weird problem amongst people willing to debate evangelical Christians. They are either too respectful and willing to act like it's an honest discourse allowing important points to be lost or too dismissive and disrespectful which puts the Christian audience and doesn't help them to question their faith. That balance is hard and I couldn't tell you where it is.

[@roqsteady5290]

@@zacbranagan8939 It is the point that Richard Dawkins was making when he refused to debate Craig, you shouldn't give their position respectability, in the same way that it hardly helps to debate holcaust deniers, flat earthers or other such damaging beliefs.

[@PA1606X]

Roq Steady Exactly, this guy's whole family business is lieing for god.

[@Number0neSon]

Gotta say, props to Eric for engaging with you for almost an hour. Once he realized who you were he could have easily blocked you and used you as an object lesson to the rest of the class on how atheists are trying to disrupt God's work. So on this one issue, props Eric. And thanks, Paul, for continuing to be an example of the "non-scary" kind of atheist to the Christian world, lol.

[@kmasse81]

I am not comfortable with this.

[@sharpnail8806]

@@potdragon8091 Wtf

[@stylis666]

@@potdragon8091 XD That did me good! Thanks! :D There's a lot of funny shit in these comments, but yours definitely wins :D

[@abigailmathews8509]

Well this was well worth my time I think. It's always great to see healthy conversations between people of opposing viewpoints. Without this type of conversation being available it can be so easy for us to simply fall into echo chambers.

[@richardholloway7546]

Paul, I really love your channel, and I would pay money to see (or hear - podcast) you and Eric discuss epistemology. Please make this happen!!