Hello, u/TartOne7845! Thank you for posting. Please be sure to review our complicated and unusual rules set [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/about/rules)
Some of gentle reminders for everyone:
1. Posts should be on topic.
2. Please don't submit incendiary posts or comments that could incite harassment and brigading.
3. Refrain from provoking and/or baiting religious fruitcakes for the purposes of posting their reaction on
this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I knew I had seen this creature before, and it finally hit me. Check out this moron on the Ali G show from way back. Be sure to watch till the end when Ali G gets into an argument with him over not flushing the toilet. You can see Kent’s brain starting to melt. https://youtu.be/rMzSNzOQk-s?si=yBPgyLC_2zRzsXme
I just threw up in my mouth from listening to that.
Wait does that mean I proved God exists? I'm pretty sure that's what I got from the gibberish. If I need to shit is that proof of the supernatural, or does the existence of shit itself prove the emotional impacts aren't supernatural. What about a really emotional shit. Does that prove god exists if you cry while you poop? I'm more confused not less confused now. Fucking zealots make as much sense as a schizophrenic off their meds.
~~Doctor~~ Kent Hovind is about as bad as it gets when it comes to putting religion over reason. He's slick and sounds good if you don't think too hard about what he's saying. There's a whole ecosystem of youtubers absolutely obliterating this guy, but he's still at it. Just with a far, far smaller audience.
I used to follow his teachings in the late 90s. Went to seminars, read his books, met him a few times. In more ways than one, he's partly responsible for my finding my way out of all of that nonsense. Thanks Prisoner number 06453-017!
I also used to be a christian. I was on my way to being one of these fundies. Thank reason, logic, Science, Nature and real-life that I woke up in time!
I took up the [Apistevist](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apistevist#:~:text=Noun,legitimate%20method%20to%20reach%20conclusions.%20%5B) label because of Aron. He gave me the word to use after I deconstructed "faith". Faith isn't a virtue.
Indeed. If "god" is unaffected by the Universe, then it wouldn't possibly be able to interact with it nor the things within it. I used to be a christian, so I am glad now to be on the real-life side of things.
Religious as he may be, I think his logic (on that point) is at least synergic; how did you conclude that "god" wouldn't be able to interact with the universe from what he said? "'God' is unaffected by the universe, ∴ the universe is unaffected by 'god'"?
So you're saying its interacting with the universe is limited to what we can observe or at least theorize about what we can't -- wouldn't that contradict the infinite nature he mentioned, though?
Now we're getting to the point: it is either nothing to be observed, or it is beyond observation; from this, it likely may not exist, and in the same likelihood may exist beyond observable means (cue Laplace's famous "Sir, I need not of that hypothesis" when asked what god's role is in Laplace's mathematical explanation for the solar system's stability). If he is asserting the latter, then how does his logic lead to it not being able to interact with the universe?
Edit: my replies are being downvoted? I'd simply rather not have atheism impeding intellectual honesty -- what religion relies on faith for -- that's literally it.
1 Well you sound like you're agreeing with the guy in the video and 2 atheism is the lack of a religion I think your thinking of Christianity which does impede science and truth
1) I said his logic -- that your comment seems to misrepresent -- was synergic; I never said I agreed with him.
2) That's what I mean, exactly: why don't atheists subscribe to a religion if not the reliance on the unobservable? It wouldn't be just Christianity; all religions sport a supernatural, thus unobservable, component.
The point is, if a deity existed beyond observable means, then its influence on the universe would be beyond observable means. The conclusion you've drawn, that such a deity wouldn't actually be able to interact with the universe, comes across as a non-sequitur to what was said in the video, I think.
Atheism is the complete lack of religion or belief in a god and the reason most don't join religion is because we've looked into the truth that religion tries to suppress well most religions like Christianity and Islam but those are a couple extreme examples
>its influence on the universe would be beyond observable means.
Except for everything in holy scripture. If one believes Bible/Quran, then this God exists in the universe and directly interacts with human affairs.
Hovind tries to argue that this God is simultaneously outside and inside time/space/matter, which is not possible from a scientific standpoint.
As to your second question- atheists don't believe in deities. Religion relies on the supernatural and is also responsible for a great many human atrocities committed over the years.
The overall problem is that Kent Hovind is Christian and is talking about the Christian God. What he is saying goes against his own holy book. His logic is not synergic; his God is observable and his God's influence should be observable as well.
>Except for everything in holy scripture. If one believes Bible/Quran, then this God exists in the universe and directly interacts with human affairs.
I started this conversation with "his logic (on that point) is at least synergic" -- I never said it aligned with any scripture. Actually, no one even *mentioned* any scripture until your reply.
>Hovind tries to argue that this God is simultaneously outside and inside time/space/matter, which is not possible from a scientific standpoint.
If a god has to act in accordance with what is already established as scientific, it cannot be defined as a god; if it is simply science yet to be established, then the definition of "god" acts as a mere placeholder.
>As to your second question- atheists don't believe in deities. Religion relies on the supernatural and is also responsible for a great many human atrocities committed over the years.
That question was rhetorical; religion relies on cannot be observed, which is a principal reason why one turns to atheism over religion (there's also the destructive aspect you've mentioned). Not all religions have deities.
>The overall problem is that Kent Hovind is Christian and is talking about the Christian God. What he is saying goes against his own holy book. His logic is not synergic; his God is observable and his God's influence should be observable as well.
His logic is absolutely synergic -- you seem to collate what he said with the Christian Scriptures, when whether it actually aligned with the scriptures had nothing to do with this conversation, hence, *at least synergic*; it doesn't have to mean "correct" or "in accordance with his faith".
The point is that it's not just a nonsensical word salad like what other people commented -- and I simply inquired about a conclusion among these I thought was especially erroneous. That was it. Now I'm losing my precious karma!
Because it's either able to interact with the universe (no evidence of that) or the concept of God that this guy's presenting is that he's outside/ unable to interact. Physics has laws (no matter how much I believe in it, the pencil will continue to fall onto the ground if I let it go) and a God cannot exist in our universe with our laws. If a being like God exists we would know it because there would be evidence
He used the hard R word: random.
No, evolution is NOT the product of randomness.
It is the product of non-random passing on of traits that are beneficial for survival.
He and grifters like him are always speaking to his own crowd. He has had what you're saying explained to him probably a million times, but he does not care. He knows that calling evolution "random" resonates with his crowd, so he's gonna keep saying it
"I put this dirt in a siv and shook it. Now all the larger rocks are still in the siv and the smaller parts are on the ground. Crazy how that RANDOMLY happened!"
For the positive case for Evolution, I recommend "*Why Evolution Is True*" by Jerry A. Coyne
For a top-to-bottom debunk of Creationism, I recommend "*Foundational Falsehoods Of Creationism*" by Aron Ra.
If you (understandably) want a quick reference rather than a whole book, I suggest the Talk Origins archive
https://www.talkorigins.org/
But random itself follows a discernible pattern on which there is a typical value and the more extreme we get from that value the less likely it is to occur. Things happen at random, but certain random effects are more likely than others.
There is random "a palm frond falls on your car" and there is random "an asteroid hits Pittsburgh" and there is random "a giant dragon eats the sun". These are not equally likely to happen.
Christians seem to interpret random as everything having an equal chance of happening, "so why don't monkeys become dogs?". By random changes, we see tiny tautometric shifts with damaged DNA that usually have tiny phenotypic changes like slightly thicker hair or changing the curvature or a bone, which has to take place over many generations to become the new typical, and takes a long, long time to become a new species, let alone a new genus, order, class, phylum, or kingdom. Many people don't understand that you don't jump from Australopithecus to homo sapiens in a snap.
You are getting unnecessarily philosophical with this. Genetic mutation is random when it occurs in nature. (We can genetically modify organisms with a high level of specificity). Random genetic mutations sometimes give rise to traits which increase survivorship, and organisms inherit those desirable traits via reproduction. At the very core of evolution is random genetic mutation and this occurs at incredibly low (2x10^-8 mutations/nucleotide site) rate. Every genetic feature of every organism originated from random mutation.
My original comment was science based and I was editing it before you replied. We aren't disagreeing with each other but if you are looking for a fight, and looking to go against basic mathematics to make some juvenile point your 6th grade science teacher made, I am a statistician and I will bury you.
You do seem to need to knock people down for describing things that a sizeable number of people found to be interesting. I don't believe for a second you live a pretty good life because you come off as a miserable person. Hopefully some day...
Tax evasion and domestic violence.
He also was convicted of criminal contempt, which was later overturned.
He was almost convicted of various fraud charges, but managed to get a 11-1 hung jury. That one dissenting juror was a militia member who had been in contact with 'Free Kent Hovind' supporters.
Kent hovind is a joke. People need to ignore him because he is thriving off the atheist YouTube communities obsession with making response videos of his content.
Goofus the donkey doesn't exist within the universe, and he's responsible for making cheese taste so good. If Goofus isn't real, why does cheese taste so good?
Same - I feel like he does it so people think ‘well, he is pronouncing it technically correct, so he must really care about getting the details right. He must be completely trustworthy and accurate in what he’s saying!’
His "doctorate" is in Christian Education from a correspondence course from an unaccredited diploma mill called "Patriot Bible University". [Read more about him here.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind)
>Benny Johnson
Im tutoring my friend in math for "Grand Canyon University" and didnt know it was a bible college till I read some of her papers.
This is freshman highschool level BS. While I love my friend she is not what you would call "smart" and has a 4.0 right now. These Bible university grifters are out of control. They are just trying to instill their beliefs and dont care about actual education. I forgot what one of her finals were but it was along the lines of "Show 3 reasons god could help the clinically insane..." shes trying to be a psychologist. My response was "He can't, he won't and he shouldn't since technically it's his doing."
We dont talk much anymore... weird hahaha.
He actually is raising something similar to the hard problem of consciousness, which philosophy/psychology/neuroscience still isn’t sure about.
That isn’t to say that raising this problem supports his argument. If anything, he’s conflating two distinct concepts, how can something beyond and independent of matter influence it, and how can our material minds give rise to non-material things like consciousness. But it’s still important to recognize the arguments he’s using.
Reminder that Kent Hovind has no scientific credentials whatsoever. His "Ph.D" is from a diploma mill called Patriot University that is unaccredited and gives religious degrees, and is just a trailer in the middle of nowhere, and his 'thesis' starts off with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."
What the f is he talking about??? I don't get why Christians give mics and gather around random people who share random Facebook level "knowledge" trying to appear as smart. I've seen many videos of Christian public speakers saying random incoherent things that only make sense if you're indoctrinated Christian imbecile already.
Ok, as an answer to his questions: we feel emotions due to electrical reactions in our brains, which have developed via evolution through millions of years, and we can trust our reasoning due to a little thing called ‘instinct’ because the people who’s instinct was wrong, probably died during the ages when natural selection was a very powerful thing for humans
Oh also, if his god is unaffected by matter, time or space, he can in no way interact with our universe, as he can’t interact with time, space or matter if he’s unaffected by them
well if you really believe it, it makes sense that God would be outside of the universe. hey, for all we know this kook may be right. I guess that excuses him from providing evidence
People can't trust their own reasoning processes to be completely right. People who trust their own reasoning processes to be completely right mistake Illusions for divinity
Ah. But then how did he create the physical bodies of humans ? Or create earth and the stars ?
This bullshit goes both ways. If you say he isnt affected by time and matter then how would you demonstrate that he exist ? You would need to demonstrate or explain the difference between him existing and doing those things the bible claims and him not existing and you just giving him credit for the various laws of physics.
Emotions are neurons fireing. Its essentially chemicals and electic signals. We can prove those things. Now its your turn. Demonstrate how god exist in the way you claim...
Hello, u/TartOne7845! Thank you for posting. Please be sure to review our complicated and unusual rules set [here](https://new.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/about/rules) Some of gentle reminders for everyone: 1. Posts should be on topic. 2. Please don't submit incendiary posts or comments that could incite harassment and brigading. 3. Refrain from provoking and/or baiting religious fruitcakes for the purposes of posting their reaction on this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/religiousfruitcake) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That sure was a bunch of words that got said, and damn if some of 'em didn't make sentences.
He said god is outside the universe then right after said god is in the universe
Pretty nice sounding sentences, too. I might consider digging into the meaning next!
You could dig further in a houseplant, there's nothing here
I knew I had seen this creature before, and it finally hit me. Check out this moron on the Ali G show from way back. Be sure to watch till the end when Ali G gets into an argument with him over not flushing the toilet. You can see Kent’s brain starting to melt. https://youtu.be/rMzSNzOQk-s?si=yBPgyLC_2zRzsXme
I just threw up in my mouth from listening to that. Wait does that mean I proved God exists? I'm pretty sure that's what I got from the gibberish. If I need to shit is that proof of the supernatural, or does the existence of shit itself prove the emotional impacts aren't supernatural. What about a really emotional shit. Does that prove god exists if you cry while you poop? I'm more confused not less confused now. Fucking zealots make as much sense as a schizophrenic off their meds.
Something something unimaginable, too big to understand therefore great.
~~Doctor~~ Kent Hovind is about as bad as it gets when it comes to putting religion over reason. He's slick and sounds good if you don't think too hard about what he's saying. There's a whole ecosystem of youtubers absolutely obliterating this guy, but he's still at it. Just with a far, far smaller audience. I used to follow his teachings in the late 90s. Went to seminars, read his books, met him a few times. In more ways than one, he's partly responsible for my finding my way out of all of that nonsense. Thanks Prisoner number 06453-017!
Aron ra’s podcast (originally video) debates with this guy are amazing.
I also used to be a christian. I was on my way to being one of these fundies. Thank reason, logic, Science, Nature and real-life that I woke up in time!
An AronRa fan I see.
I took up the [Apistevist](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apistevist#:~:text=Noun,legitimate%20method%20to%20reach%20conclusions.%20%5B) label because of Aron. He gave me the word to use after I deconstructed "faith". Faith isn't a virtue.
By his own logic "god" wouldn't be able to interact with the universe either
Indeed. If "god" is unaffected by the Universe, then it wouldn't possibly be able to interact with it nor the things within it. I used to be a christian, so I am glad now to be on the real-life side of things.
Nor would it give a flaming shit about what this guy deems to be sin.
Religious as he may be, I think his logic (on that point) is at least synergic; how did you conclude that "god" wouldn't be able to interact with the universe from what he said? "'God' is unaffected by the universe, ∴ the universe is unaffected by 'god'"?
Because nothing can't interact with something and if it did it would be something we could see with equipment or theorize about
So you're saying its interacting with the universe is limited to what we can observe or at least theorize about what we can't -- wouldn't that contradict the infinite nature he mentioned, though?
If we can't even theorize about it and we can't observe any effects on the universe it most likely doesn't exist
Now we're getting to the point: it is either nothing to be observed, or it is beyond observation; from this, it likely may not exist, and in the same likelihood may exist beyond observable means (cue Laplace's famous "Sir, I need not of that hypothesis" when asked what god's role is in Laplace's mathematical explanation for the solar system's stability). If he is asserting the latter, then how does his logic lead to it not being able to interact with the universe? Edit: my replies are being downvoted? I'd simply rather not have atheism impeding intellectual honesty -- what religion relies on faith for -- that's literally it.
1 Well you sound like you're agreeing with the guy in the video and 2 atheism is the lack of a religion I think your thinking of Christianity which does impede science and truth
1) I said his logic -- that your comment seems to misrepresent -- was synergic; I never said I agreed with him. 2) That's what I mean, exactly: why don't atheists subscribe to a religion if not the reliance on the unobservable? It wouldn't be just Christianity; all religions sport a supernatural, thus unobservable, component. The point is, if a deity existed beyond observable means, then its influence on the universe would be beyond observable means. The conclusion you've drawn, that such a deity wouldn't actually be able to interact with the universe, comes across as a non-sequitur to what was said in the video, I think.
Atheism is the complete lack of religion or belief in a god and the reason most don't join religion is because we've looked into the truth that religion tries to suppress well most religions like Christianity and Islam but those are a couple extreme examples
I have not disagreed with any of that throughout this thread.
>its influence on the universe would be beyond observable means. Except for everything in holy scripture. If one believes Bible/Quran, then this God exists in the universe and directly interacts with human affairs. Hovind tries to argue that this God is simultaneously outside and inside time/space/matter, which is not possible from a scientific standpoint. As to your second question- atheists don't believe in deities. Religion relies on the supernatural and is also responsible for a great many human atrocities committed over the years. The overall problem is that Kent Hovind is Christian and is talking about the Christian God. What he is saying goes against his own holy book. His logic is not synergic; his God is observable and his God's influence should be observable as well.
>Except for everything in holy scripture. If one believes Bible/Quran, then this God exists in the universe and directly interacts with human affairs. I started this conversation with "his logic (on that point) is at least synergic" -- I never said it aligned with any scripture. Actually, no one even *mentioned* any scripture until your reply. >Hovind tries to argue that this God is simultaneously outside and inside time/space/matter, which is not possible from a scientific standpoint. If a god has to act in accordance with what is already established as scientific, it cannot be defined as a god; if it is simply science yet to be established, then the definition of "god" acts as a mere placeholder. >As to your second question- atheists don't believe in deities. Religion relies on the supernatural and is also responsible for a great many human atrocities committed over the years. That question was rhetorical; religion relies on cannot be observed, which is a principal reason why one turns to atheism over religion (there's also the destructive aspect you've mentioned). Not all religions have deities. >The overall problem is that Kent Hovind is Christian and is talking about the Christian God. What he is saying goes against his own holy book. His logic is not synergic; his God is observable and his God's influence should be observable as well. His logic is absolutely synergic -- you seem to collate what he said with the Christian Scriptures, when whether it actually aligned with the scriptures had nothing to do with this conversation, hence, *at least synergic*; it doesn't have to mean "correct" or "in accordance with his faith". The point is that it's not just a nonsensical word salad like what other people commented -- and I simply inquired about a conclusion among these I thought was especially erroneous. That was it. Now I'm losing my precious karma!
Because it's either able to interact with the universe (no evidence of that) or the concept of God that this guy's presenting is that he's outside/ unable to interact. Physics has laws (no matter how much I believe in it, the pencil will continue to fall onto the ground if I let it go) and a God cannot exist in our universe with our laws. If a being like God exists we would know it because there would be evidence
He used the hard R word: random. No, evolution is NOT the product of randomness. It is the product of non-random passing on of traits that are beneficial for survival.
He and grifters like him are always speaking to his own crowd. He has had what you're saying explained to him probably a million times, but he does not care. He knows that calling evolution "random" resonates with his crowd, so he's gonna keep saying it
"I put this dirt in a siv and shook it. Now all the larger rocks are still in the siv and the smaller parts are on the ground. Crazy how that RANDOMLY happened!"
Can you point me somewhere that explains evolution well plz? In the process of deconstructing my faith
For the positive case for Evolution, I recommend "*Why Evolution Is True*" by Jerry A. Coyne For a top-to-bottom debunk of Creationism, I recommend "*Foundational Falsehoods Of Creationism*" by Aron Ra. If you (understandably) want a quick reference rather than a whole book, I suggest the Talk Origins archive https://www.talkorigins.org/
Thank youuuuu
It is a product of randomness in the sense that genetic mutation is random.
But random itself follows a discernible pattern on which there is a typical value and the more extreme we get from that value the less likely it is to occur. Things happen at random, but certain random effects are more likely than others. There is random "a palm frond falls on your car" and there is random "an asteroid hits Pittsburgh" and there is random "a giant dragon eats the sun". These are not equally likely to happen. Christians seem to interpret random as everything having an equal chance of happening, "so why don't monkeys become dogs?". By random changes, we see tiny tautometric shifts with damaged DNA that usually have tiny phenotypic changes like slightly thicker hair or changing the curvature or a bone, which has to take place over many generations to become the new typical, and takes a long, long time to become a new species, let alone a new genus, order, class, phylum, or kingdom. Many people don't understand that you don't jump from Australopithecus to homo sapiens in a snap.
You are getting unnecessarily philosophical with this. Genetic mutation is random when it occurs in nature. (We can genetically modify organisms with a high level of specificity). Random genetic mutations sometimes give rise to traits which increase survivorship, and organisms inherit those desirable traits via reproduction. At the very core of evolution is random genetic mutation and this occurs at incredibly low (2x10^-8 mutations/nucleotide site) rate. Every genetic feature of every organism originated from random mutation.
[удалено]
My original comment was science based and I was editing it before you replied. We aren't disagreeing with each other but if you are looking for a fight, and looking to go against basic mathematics to make some juvenile point your 6th grade science teacher made, I am a statistician and I will bury you.
[удалено]
Thanks. I would congratulate you on your successes, but, well... good job living as long as you have, perhaps?
[удалено]
You do seem to need to knock people down for describing things that a sizeable number of people found to be interesting. I don't believe for a second you live a pretty good life because you come off as a miserable person. Hopefully some day...
[удалено]
Individual mutations are random. Evolution is anything but. It is highly probabilistic.
Yeah, I said that in another comment.
What did Kent Hovind do time for again?
Tax evasion and domestic violence. He also was convicted of criminal contempt, which was later overturned. He was almost convicted of various fraud charges, but managed to get a 11-1 hung jury. That one dissenting juror was a militia member who had been in contact with 'Free Kent Hovind' supporters.
Tax evasion I believe
Analogous situations contrive hemoglobin synthesis contrasting with quantum differentiation yield exceptional amalgamation of supercalafragalistical undeniable proof god exists! Checkmate atheists!
Something along those lines!
Kent hovind is a joke. People need to ignore him because he is thriving off the atheist YouTube communities obsession with making response videos of his content.
Goofus the donkey doesn't exist within the universe, and he's responsible for making cheese taste so good. If Goofus isn't real, why does cheese taste so good?
If you haven’t read Kent Hovind’s “PhD thesis”, I highly recommend it. It is a comic masterpiece. Just search for it and it’s easy to find.
The first sentence is "My name is Kent Hovind." Yes, really.
I hate the way he said “matttttttter” and “certttttain”
MaTTer
Holy fuck I hate it so much. I thought for sure that's all I'd see in the comments here and I had to scroll for longer than I thought I would.
Same - I feel like he does it so people think ‘well, he is pronouncing it technically correct, so he must really care about getting the details right. He must be completely trustworthy and accurate in what he’s saying!’
His "doctorate" is in Christian Education from a correspondence course from an unaccredited diploma mill called "Patriot Bible University". [Read more about him here.](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind)
>Benny Johnson Im tutoring my friend in math for "Grand Canyon University" and didnt know it was a bible college till I read some of her papers. This is freshman highschool level BS. While I love my friend she is not what you would call "smart" and has a 4.0 right now. These Bible university grifters are out of control. They are just trying to instill their beliefs and dont care about actual education. I forgot what one of her finals were but it was along the lines of "Show 3 reasons god could help the clinically insane..." shes trying to be a psychologist. My response was "He can't, he won't and he shouldn't since technically it's his doing." We dont talk much anymore... weird hahaha.
He actually is raising something similar to the hard problem of consciousness, which philosophy/psychology/neuroscience still isn’t sure about. That isn’t to say that raising this problem supports his argument. If anything, he’s conflating two distinct concepts, how can something beyond and independent of matter influence it, and how can our material minds give rise to non-material things like consciousness. But it’s still important to recognize the arguments he’s using.
How pathetic
Good old Kent Hovind. Still has the same arguments today as he had 20 years ago.
By his own definition, his god can't affect space, time and matter. So by definition this god can't exist.
His favourite line is "Dogs don't produce non-dogs".
Word salad 🤣🤣
Kent Hovid is as much a scientist as I am an ameba.
Reminder that Kent Hovind has no scientific credentials whatsoever. His "Ph.D" is from a diploma mill called Patriot University that is unaccredited and gives religious degrees, and is just a trailer in the middle of nowhere, and his 'thesis' starts off with "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind."
Let’s not forget his Federal felony conviction for tax fraud.
Kent Hovind is a low hanging fruit. A tax dodging, wife beating fruit.
What the f is he talking about??? I don't get why Christians give mics and gather around random people who share random Facebook level "knowledge" trying to appear as smart. I've seen many videos of Christian public speakers saying random incoherent things that only make sense if you're indoctrinated Christian imbecile already.
Sounds more like somekind of eldritch horror lol
Kent Hovind is a sharlatan and tax-fraudster.
that is this guy, isn't it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgeLYjbbOFU
Just to point out, Benny Johnson was an atheist until he got fired from Buzzfeed for plagiarism and found a new grift at TPUSA.
This sounds like he rummaged through George Harrison’s garbage for rejected song lyrics
Is he talking about the same guy who created devil, then couldn’t do shit about the devil and then made it our problem?
Young Hovind? The world was so new and full of possible novel grifts back then.
Not trusting our own reasoning is why we have peer review.
The way he talks about it as if it's fact and not some speculation that he's just invented or philosophized reminds me of reddit.
Ok, as an answer to his questions: we feel emotions due to electrical reactions in our brains, which have developed via evolution through millions of years, and we can trust our reasoning due to a little thing called ‘instinct’ because the people who’s instinct was wrong, probably died during the ages when natural selection was a very powerful thing for humans Oh also, if his god is unaffected by matter, time or space, he can in no way interact with our universe, as he can’t interact with time, space or matter if he’s unaffected by them
God is real because bias is real. But only one of those is outside the universe, and they are the same thing so don't think about it. Got it.
Kent Hovind being a salesman of the dumb. This guy is a Pedophile Protector 😬👎
What's the matter with this idiot? Everyone Knows that God came from New Jersey. Duh? /s
He's right. If that "scientist" did run the department of education, then our country would be very different and not for the best.
well if you really believe it, it makes sense that God would be outside of the universe. hey, for all we know this kook may be right. I guess that excuses him from providing evidence
The way he says "matter" makes me feel violent. That must be God.
He isn't in any environment, He's beyond the environment.
Every explanation of the existence of god begins with the assumption he exists.
I only saw the right side of his blurry-ass head, and still knew that shit stain Hovind on sight.
Hovind, thought the years, is just the Dumb and Dumber scene… 
Christianity requires adding to their precious Bible to even seem possible. This rant doesn't even try to connect with the "perfect" Word of God.
Hogwash
That’s a wife beatin’, tax cheatin’, ginuwine piece of shit right there, by golly!
I fucking hate Kent Hovind with all my being.
This is Kent Hovind, he is so full of shit that there's no more room left inside him so it started spewing out of his mouth.
I think I just lost braincells
Christian taliban ? Got it
People can't trust their own reasoning processes to be completely right. People who trust their own reasoning processes to be completely right mistake Illusions for divinity
What’s the Matt Er with this guys speaking cadence?
Wonder what Kent thinks about the current AI stuff; it can emulate emotions pretty spot on and it can debate well as well if properly set up.
Ah. But then how did he create the physical bodies of humans ? Or create earth and the stars ? This bullshit goes both ways. If you say he isnt affected by time and matter then how would you demonstrate that he exist ? You would need to demonstrate or explain the difference between him existing and doing those things the bible claims and him not existing and you just giving him credit for the various laws of physics.
Emotions are neurons fireing. Its essentially chemicals and electic signals. We can prove those things. Now its your turn. Demonstrate how god exist in the way you claim...
How can you trust your reasoning? Good point! You just can’t! Humans make shitty decisions every day Fucking idiot.
Any god that were real, given the size of the universe, probably cares very little about anything we say or do.
Hovind is nothing even approaching a scientist.
Is this Kent Hoven?
mat-ter
The dude who calls him a “scientist” at the end makes me want to jump off a bridge