Eleven Year Old Genius Sets Out to Prove Existence of God

[barbos]

Bah. It's not fair to say the kid lacks humility. It's similar to another kid saying that they're gonna grow up to be President, or an astronaut, or some other similar lofty occupation.

Better than aspiring to take up-the-skirt photos of women in public places.

Let's wait when he is 14, shall we?

I thought it interesting and peculiar that he's already latched onto the god vs. no god thing. It's not strange that a kid wants to grow up to be a pastor, priest, etc.

His father is a priest, and the kid is not a teenager yet. So nothing surprises me here.

 

[WAB]

So I am right, he has less humility than I. In fact he has less humility than 11 year old me.

Well, no, I don't think word "incredibly" is appropriate here. As I said before I have a problem with his "science". I think we have a case of a kid with good memory which can get you through school quickly, but that's about it. He does not understand any of the shit he is talking about.

but he's still a kid. His views as to his potential may be overstated and egocentric, but appalling? Not.

Well, his parent is certainly appalling.

I assume you are an adult. You have lived long enough to have acquired wisdom, which brings humility.

I have no humility for child abuse. If what we have here is what I think it is then this kid has good chance of becoming an ass.

We will have to agree to disagree. Not that the kid might turn out to be an ass. That seems to be quite possible, if not exactly probable; but that it makes no sense at all to even try to apply a characteristic like humility to an eleven year old kid, who, according to your own argument, is by and large the product of his upbringing.

Nevermind the parents; they are not the subject(s) under discussion, re the OP. The question of their humility is beside the point, with respect to the topic.

 

[barbos]

So I am right, he has less humility than I. In fact he has less humility than 11 year old me.

Well, no, I don't think word "incredibly" is appropriate here. As I said before I have a problem with his "science". I think we have a case of a kid with good memory which can get you through school quickly, but that's about it. He does not understand any of the shit he is talking about.

Well, his parent is certainly appalling.

I have no humility for child abuse. If what we have here is what I think it is then this kid has good chance of becoming an ass.

We will have to agree to disagree. Not that the kid might turn out to be an ass. That seems to be quite possible, if not exactly probable; but that it makes no sense at all to even try to apply a characteristic like humility to an eleven year old kid, who, according to your own argument, is by and large the product of his upbringing.

Well, interviewer did try to apply this characteristic to that kid.

Nevermind the parents; they are not the subject(s) under discussion, re the OP. The question of their humility is beside the point, with respect to the topic.

You think parent(s) has nothing to do with this "show"?

 

[WAB]

Well, interviewer did try to apply this characteristic to that kid.

Nevermind the parents; they are not the subject(s) under discussion, re the OP. The question of their humility is beside the point, with respect to the topic.

You think parent(s) has nothing to do with this "show"?

Now how in the world did you come to that conclusion?

I specifically said: The parents are not the subject of the OP:

ME: Nevermind the parents; they are not the subject(s) under discussion, re the OP. The question of their humility is beside the point, with respect to the topic.

lol.

 

[barbos]

Parent is very much a subject of discussion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

but still, this kid is going to have to construct an argument that's never been constructed.

Kind of an uphill battle, then, if he's already saying 'science wouldn't exist without God.'

I mean, if he's going to find a scientific proof that won't get dismissed out of hand, he needs to start with something other than a presuppositionist premise.
OR, he could actually establish that science would not exist without God. That'd be pretty cool.

He could then make a career out of establishing a basis for creationist assertions...

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Bah. It's not fair to say the kid lacks humility. It's similar to another kid saying that they're gonna grow up to be President, or an astronaut, or some other similar lofty occupation.

Better than aspiring to take up-the-skirt photos of women in public places.

Let's wait when he is 14, shall we?

I thought it interesting and peculiar that he's already latched onto the god vs. no god thing. It's not strange that a kid wants to grow up to be a pastor, priest, etc.

His father is a priest, and the kid is not a teenager yet. So nothing surprises me here.

That's just the desire to please. Raised catholic every boy was told how one day he would make a great bishop. Most consider it seriously until they grow a brain.

 

[WAB]

Let's wait when he is 14, shall we?

His father is a priest, and the kid is not a teenager yet. So nothing surprises me here.

That's just the desire to please. Raised catholic every boy was told how one day he would make a great bishop. Most consider it seriously until they grow a brain.

This is still silly argumentation. Really. Who here thinks they would be able to win in a formal philosophical debate with Alvin Plantinga or William Craig? Show of hands, please? Has anyone hear read the papers, books, or articles of those two men?

To make a claim that anyone, be it the two guys I mentioned, or this kid's father, or any of the great church fathers, theologians, etc, hell even the plethora of religious scientists today, are dummies, is almost objectively wrong. I hesitate to say certainly objectively wrong, although I think I am almost certainly right.

Bear in mind, and GOD I hate to keep bringing this up:

My reasoning mind is atheist. Faith is what it is: a belief, and even the most adamant believer knows it.

 

[Copernicus]

People often make the mistake of assuming that intelligent people tend to arrive at correct conclusions, but that doesn't explain why highly intelligent people can be on both sides of issues like the existence of God. Nobody would argue that Craig and Plantinga are not extremely intelligent and highly educated people, yet most of us here would disagree with their conclusions. And it isn't really relevant whether we could best either of them in a formal debate, since they are also polished public speakers and debaters.

The skeptic Michael Shermer has written a well-received book on the subject of Why People Believe Weird Things, especially smart people. After all, the smart, the informed, and the educated are better at making arguments than the stupid, the misinformed, and the uneducated, aren't they? Yet Shermer found that Holocaust deniers, for example, could have an in-depth knowledge of the history of WWII, be highly educated, and mentally sharp. Yet they would still argue for a conclusion that almost all historians reject. What gives? Shermer's explanation was not hard to grasp. It was that smart people are a lot better than less intelligent people at defending bad ideas. They erect strong, elaborate defenses around those ideas, and they spend a lot of effort and time figuring out the weak points in better arguments. In the end, it isn't hard to sway an audience (or oneself) to a conclusion that they (or oneself) wants to believe. It's just a matter of finding ways to convince people to ignore counterevidence and focus on the meager evidence that exists for the wrong conclusion.

This 11 year old may be very sharp, but that doesn't mean that he will end up concluding that the evidence in favor of God's existence is really quite weak in the face of all the counterevidence.

 

[OLDMAN]

Greg Koukl has never liked the blind men / elephant concept because he views it through the prism of a fundamental Christian particularism apologetics. He thinks it affords an unacceptable amount of tolerance - not only to other religions - but even other denominations. (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics)

Note that he disqualifies the 'kings' perspective as an onlooker. But if that's the case
non-Christian religions, and even atheists, can rightfully ask what right Jesus has to assert that He is The Way. If there really IS an 'elephant' in the room, as I'm sure Greg Koukl would agree, then the parable is justified.

ETA - and I say this as a big fan of the STR ministry.

How is it Christians don't see the problem with God as a man who lives a perfect life? How could God know what it is like to be a mortal human? Obviously Jesus is aware (knows fully) that god exist and there can be no question the outcome of his life...therefore how hard would it be to act accordingly? God can never know true human emotions such as fear or loneliness and therefore cannot feel true empathy towards his creations. How could he, being God? Shit, I think I just explained why he acts as he does....lol

 

[Jobar]

How could God know what it is like to be a mortal human? Obviously Jesus is aware (knows fully) that god exist and there can be no question the outcome of his life...therefore how hard would it be to act accordingly? God can never know true human emotions such as fear or loneliness and therefore cannot feel true empathy towards his creations. How could he, being God? Shit, I think I just explained why he acts as he does....lol

OM, have you seen these DarkMatter videos?

 

[WAB]

People often make the mistake of assuming that intelligent people tend to arrive at correct conclusions, but that doesn't explain why highly intelligent people can be on both sides of issues like the existence of God. Nobody would argue that Craig and Plantinga are not extremely intelligent and highly educated people...|

- bold mine.

Cop, with the utmost respect,

Many people on this board have argued, or at least claimed, that Craig & Plantinga must be dummies, idiots, or morons, or in some sense out of touch with reality, or of acting like babies needing to cling to their security blankets, etc., for not being able to realize that the Bible is composed of ancient fairy-tales & make-believe. It could be they just toss those ad homs out as a way to vent steam, and that they aren't really accusing Craig & Plantinga, both scholars, of being dummies, idiots, or morons.

See, I'm being too nice again.

The truth is, and it is all in the archives, and on the boards at present, that there are many users here who are so absolutely certain of themselves that they run roughshod over theists as if any adult human being who could believe in ancient sky-daddies must be, quite literally, either dummies, idiots or morons (these are the more popular words. Some prefer the word asshat, which I think is funny as hell, an ass with a hat? The image makes me laugh & laugh & laugh, especially when I'm trying to sleep).

I will go further, I could tell you of at least oh, 4 or 5 members who get very angry when anyone argues with them and refuses to allow them to call religious people dummies, idiots, or morons, without being told that they are being silly.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How could he, being God? Shit, I think I just explained why he acts as he does....lol

Your post reminds me of my grandfather.
A very logical, deliberate, restrained gentleman. Utterly at a loss to deal with anyone under five years old.
Not just uncomfortable, but totally helpless. He couldn't remember ever being a kid, and couldn't imagine why anyone would act the way they did. So he had to assume anything they did was a willful act of rebellion.

"I told him not to do that. Once. And then he did it. It must be a deliberate flaunting of my authority."
"No, Dad, he just wanted a cookie."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

OMG
You're right. I never noticed until now.
I feel so foolish. And you guys knew it all along. I am truly in the presence of genius.

I now see I ts just a bad drawing of an imaginary elephant. Its anatomically incorrect. The elephant has two eyes on the left side of its head leaving it blind on the other side, which probably accounts for why it accidentally stood on a snake. Or maybe it's completely blind (and stupid) and amazingly doesn't mind all those blind folks getting all over it - folks who, despite their blindness apparently HAVE seen idolatrous things like spears, trees, fans, ropes, and one has miraculously been able to manoeuvre a ladder into position and is no doubt trying to climb up to the top of God...err...I mean the wall.

Shame on me for thinking God was partly made of rope.

The point is, they are all wrong. Your position is that 'Well, someone has to be right' when no one has to be right.

 

[OLDMAN]

The Dark Matter reminds me of "Chick Tracts" that used to be everywhere...

 

[Copernicus]

People often make the mistake of assuming that intelligent people tend to arrive at correct conclusions, but that doesn't explain why highly intelligent people can be on both sides of issues like the existence of God. Nobody would argue that Craig and Plantinga are not extremely intelligent and highly educated people...|

- bold mine.

Cop, with the utmost respect,

Many people on this board have argued, or at least claimed, that Craig & Plantinga must be dummies, idiots, or morons, or in some sense out of touch with reality, or of acting like babies needing to cling to their security blankets, etc., for not being able to realize that the Bible is composed of ancient fairy-tales & make-believe. It could be they just toss those ad homs out as a way to vent steam, and that they aren't really accusing Craig & Plantinga, both scholars, of being dummies, idiots, or morons.

See, I'm being too nice again.

The truth is, and it is all in the archives, and on the boards at present, that there are many users here who are so absolutely certain of themselves that they run roughshod over theists as if any adult human being who could believe in ancient sky-daddies must be, quite literally, either dummies, idiots or morons (these are the more popular words. Some prefer the word asshat, which I think is funny as hell, an ass with a hat? The image makes me laugh & laugh & laugh, especially when I'm trying to sleep).

I will go further, I could tell you of at least oh, 4 or 5 members who get very angry when anyone argues with them and refuses to allow them to call religious people dummies, idiots, or morons, without being told that they are being silly.

Everyone here occasionally gets angry and exaggerates the credulity, ignorance, and lack of intelligence of those they disagree with. You yourself seem to be doing that here. Some folks do overreact too much and like to call others names. I have seen Plantinga's and Craig's arguments and character attacked plenty, as one would expect on a board dominated by atheists. However, I cannot honestly remember a lot of namecalling of the sort that you describe. There are also plenty of atheists here who go out of their way to be nice to theists who grace us with their presence. What I find is that the ones who slip into ad hominem abuse tend to do that with everyone they disagree with, and those are relatively few. Most folks here strike me as well-behaved people who just enjoy making snarky comments about people and arguments they disagree with.

 

[WAB]

People often make the mistake of assuming that intelligent people tend to arrive at correct conclusions, but that doesn't explain why highly intelligent people can be on both sides of issues like the existence of God. Nobody would argue that Craig and Plantinga are not extremely intelligent and highly educated people...|

- bold mine.

Cop, with the utmost respect,

Many people on this board have argued, or at least claimed, that Craig & Plantinga must be dummies, idiots, or morons, or in some sense out of touch with reality, or of acting like babies needing to cling to their security blankets, etc., for not being able to realize that the Bible is composed of ancient fairy-tales & make-believe. It could be they just toss those ad homs out as a way to vent steam, and that they aren't really accusing Craig & Plantinga, both scholars, of being dummies, idiots, or morons.

See, I'm being too nice again.

The truth is, and it is all in the archives, and on the boards at present, that there are many users here who are so absolutely certain of themselves that they run roughshod over theists as if any adult human being who could believe in ancient sky-daddies must be, quite literally, either dummies, idiots or morons (these are the more popular words. Some prefer the word asshat, which I think is funny as hell, an ass with a hat? The image makes me laugh & laugh & laugh, especially when I'm trying to sleep).

I will go further, I could tell you of at least oh, 4 or 5 members who get very angry when anyone argues with them and refuses to allow them to call religious people dummies, idiots, or morons, without being told that they are being silly.

Everyone here occasionally gets angry and exaggerates the credulity, ignorance, and lack of intelligence of those they disagree with. You yourself seem to be doing that here. Some folks do overreact too much and like to call others names. I have seen Plantinga's and Craig's arguments and character attacked plenty, as one would expect on a board dominated by atheists. However, I cannot honestly remember a lot of namecalling of the sort that you describe. There are also plenty of atheists here who go out of their way to be nice to theists who grace us with their presence. What I find is that the ones who slip into ad hominem abuse tend to do that with everyone they disagree with, and those are relatively few. Most folks here strike me as well-behaved people who just enjoy making snarky comments about people and arguments they disagree with.

Snarky comments are fine; continuously using ad homs, over a period of years, deserves to be called out. I'm not afraid of calling them out. I'm here to share ideas and learn, not join a sewing circle, nor be part of a mutually congratulatory circle-jerk. Without a little courage, and being honest enough to shoulder a mountain of scorn, the world would not have progressed. I don't mind taking "stick" once in a while, as long as I can remind a few miserably conceited and arrogant people to mind their manners once in a while.

You will also notice, if you care to search my posts, that I am without a doubt the most self-deprecating and apologetic user on these boards. I say that with absolute confidence.

 

[Underseer]

• A is really smart
• A says that B is true
• Therefore B is true
• The fact that the majority of experts say that B is false has no bearing on this.

I can't tell you how many times I've run into this, and not just on the topic of Christianity. Anti-science idiots and conspiracy theory idiots like to play the same game.

Technically, this is an appeal to authority fallacy, but even if we ignore that, the argument fails. If one authority is enough to prove a truth claim, then the larger number of authorities should disprove it. So either expert opinions make things true, in which case B is false, or expert opinions don't make things true, in which case the claim that B is true is an unsupported claim. Either way, their claim that B is proved fails.

Not that it matters. They always has idiotic reasons why the testimony of experts is relevant when an expert agrees with them, but can be dismissed with a wave of the hands if the majority of experts disagree with the person making the argument.

 

[Underseer]

Just a gentle reminder: insults are not in and of themselves ad hominem fallacies, although they are dick moves. It's only an ad hominem fallacy if the insult is used to argue that a claim is false.

Attacking the person instead of the argument is bad form and a logical fallacy. It's what people do when they have no valid case to make.

Criticism in and of itself is not a logical fallacy. If I say that William A. Baurle is a doodeyhead, then it is up to me to provide arguments and evidence that this is the case (although I'd still probably receive moderator action of some kind). If I say that Nazis are/were genocidal maniacs, it's my responsibility to prove the claim.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

• A is really smart
• A says that B is true
• Therefore B is true
• The fact that the majority of experts say that B is false has no bearing on this.

I can't tell you how many times I've run into this, and not just on the topic of Christianity. Anti-science idiots and conspiracy theory idiots like to play the same game.

You mean how the entire science world is part of a conspiracy and can't be trusted, except that Hugh Ross guy because he is a physicist and says god can be proven by science.