Well no, not crush. Just nicely put him in his place while setting a good example of valid reasoning skills. If you have a comeback for the 11-year-old's point, then this is a good time to state what that is. The point is that if Hovind requires absolute certainty to know anything, then, applying Hovind's own premise, he can't know that God exists.
I have stated my come back time, and time, again in here. My comeback is that the kid has all the of the SAME absolute certainty that the guy he is debating with has. There is no difference between the two on that. There is no comeback. The kid just cannot see that he is in the exact same position from the opposite view.
The kid's age puts him off his guard because he doesn't expect an 11-year-old to be capable of such reasoning.
He's put on guard from the very beginning. The kid pretty much tells him to his face after interrupting him, "There is no proof of God." Is there really anything else that can be said after that? The kid has no intentions of seeing if there is proof, or what kind of proof this guy is willing to offer.. the kid is wanting to just stick it to some Christian adult that he perceives to be ignorant for believing things as absolutely as he does.
And every adult in the room to include that kid's father has no qualms with lacking respect for the cultures and ideals of those not like him. It's a closed minded, ignorant way to be for a group of people that claim to take the higher moral ground when it comes to tolerance.
And yet you know that the kid's argument was not based in faith, but in logic, regardless of whether he has faith in logic or not.
The kid's logic is based on his father's logic. It is not his own. If his father is a logical figure or not, it does not matter. My point is the kid has faith that his father is right, and he feels like he sees that for himself. It is no different than the guy who was taught to say the things he is saying about Christianity and God.
Then what according to you is pure logic?
As I said, it is the same as altruism. It is a point on a sliding scale. Something we will never hit exactly because nothing is exact in science. We have to round up decimal points, put approximations on things, and theorize what we cannot have and know 100% for certain.
There is no such thing as pure logic. That is the trouble with all of this, people think there is a definite right and a definite wrong and it is never what the other person they are discussing with has. I am not even trying to discuss how wrong *I* think the Christian guy is... because that wasn't what I was trying to touch on here. What I am trying to touch on is that the kid is not going around pwning Christian dudes in the face.. he's just being overly absolute and you agree with what he's saying.. which makes it a lot easier for you to stomach how flawed his views are as well.
I'm not taking a stand in the debate, nothing you said there has validity.
You clearly have a stance. You clearly not only agree with what the kid is saying, but you are trying to exclude him as being in the same boat as the Christian dude and thus justifying the way he delivers his 'debate'.
You made a great point about practical/absolute thinking. Why ruin it?
This is how wishy washy you are. I make a point, one that you think is great, but I say something else and suddenly everything I say sucks to you. If this kid were to find God in 10 years and become a preacher, would you discredit everything he said the day of the video?
My points are simply that I don't see anyone demolished in that video. The kid had a clear advantage in social position being young and well defended by other adults, and every adult in that room was just there to completely try to smoke that guy for his perceived truth. No one was smoking them for their truth being just as perceived. That's all I saw.