Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

[Spesh]

Sir, you wouldn't know logical reasoning if it hit you in the face. Based on your petty viewpoint one has no morals without believing in your god, talking about self delusional.

Folks when you laugh at how ignorant people can be when they follow groups such as the Taliban, remember we have the equivalent in this country with posts like the above from the religious extremists. As far as i'm concerned these people are a direct threat to what made this country great.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

-Abraham Lincoln.

Read more at
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Statler Waldorf]

Honestly, just this paragraph alone proves that you live in a very twisted world.

Meaningless assertion, got anything better?

Basically your entire basis on your argument is what you think and what you can say without any facts.

Nope, it’s what I can demonstrate, I can provide a logically cogent explanation for each of the preconditions of intelligibility, and as you have helped demonstrate no atheist can.

Knowledge is possible without God. Science has proven that in the absence of God and Faith. Science has discovered many illnesses and cures despite Faith and the believe in God not because of it. Science has discovered many new inventions to make our lives easier and more convenient despite of Faith and God and not because of it. Sciences has done a lot of things and explained a lot of things despite Faith and Religion.

Again, a meaningless assertion. Science uses induction, so until you can explain how you can consistently use induction in a purely natural world your statement above is meaningless. Induction makes perfect sense in a Christian universe, so the Christian has no problem using science; the atheist refutes his own worldview when he appeals to science because science relies on assumptions (yes science relies on faith despite your assertion to the contrary) that could not be true if his atheism were true.

Science is knowledge. Science is the drive of humanity to learn even more.

Wait, which is it?

Religion exists despite knowledge.

Nope, knowledge exists because of religion, you had that backwards.

It exists to explain to people a complex world in terms they may understand while literally dumping down education and knowledge.

So while claiming that it is the religious who are dumbing down schools you misspell “dumbing”? Classic!

If you are born in India you are Hindu. If you are born in Turkey you are most likely a Muslim.

So?

Here you are a Christian and every Religion claims to be the right one.

So? Where do you come up with these arguments? There is no logical reason to believe that simply because everyone claims to have the right answer therefore nobody has the right answer.

Which one is the right one?

Christianity.

They all have one thing in common: they exist in the absence of knowledge.

Not true, Christianity is the only one that can even account for knowledge.

But the knowledge of 1+1=2 is global.

Not amongst Hindus, 1+1 equally 2 is illusion.

Heart transplants (an invention of science through knowledge)

Fallacy of reification, science doesn’t “invent” anything, people do.

Science continues to gather information and increase knowledge. With every problem solved another problem appears. And only the drive for more knowledge keeps science going.

You sure seem to have quite the crush on science; I find that funny considering it’d be completely impossible if your atheism were true.

Religion has a final story. This is it. No thinking required. No knowledge required. It is a fictional story with a happy ending written by different people in different times copying a lot of contents from Religions prior to your very own you claim to be the one and only religion. The right one.

More meaningless assertions, have you figured out a way to account for the preconditions of knowledge yet? That’s what I am waiting for because making these silly assertions aren’t getting you anywhere.

Morality is arbitrary and depends on the individual.

That’d make morality impossible, which would in turn make science impossible. Do you really want to admit science is impossible?

Morality can exist without God or Religion.

Really? Prove it.

Morality can live and survive without science as well.

Science can’t “live” without objective morality though. Objective morality can’t “live” in an atheistic universe, therefore neither can science.

Morality is a way of living totally independent from influences from the outside and relies on each individual to define it.

Then if someone defines their morality to be that rape is morally good behavior then you’d have no problem with them committing rape?

The world can exist without Religion but it wouldn't without science and knowledge.

WHAT!!!!? So if there were no humans on the earth practicing science the world would just magically pop out of existence? How did the world exist prior to humans then? Were the dinosaurs practicing science keeping it in existence? What an absurd statement.

Science is a danger to Religion.

Not to Christianity because it presupposes Christianity is true a priori. Something that would only function if Christianity is true is certainly no danger to Christianity.

The more complex our world becomes, the more knowledge we gather through science, the less need for Religion who has a hard time explaining that the World is only 6000 years old and humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

Considering you have yet to give me one single reason to believe the world is billions of years old it seems you are the one who is having trouble fitting that belief in with reality. Unless of course you have finally found that case where radiometric dating has accurately dated rocks of empirically known age…have you found it?

On the other hand Religion is a danger to the world.

Assertion.

As history has proven

History doesn’t deal with “proof”, that’s logic and mathematics.

(how many crusades were there again)

Doesn’t matter, one atheistic leader in the Soviet Union killed hundreds of times more people than all of those religious zealots did in hundreds of years. You guys win the “danger to society” contest; I will concede you that honor.

Education and knowledge is not part of any Religion.

That just proves your ignorance when it comes to religions right there.

It astounds me that Statler cant see the leap of faith he makes in his supposed proven train of logic.

It astounds me the leap of faith you make when you assume certain conditions are true that could only be true if your view of reality were completely false.

The last thing I would describe your rantings to be would be philosophical or logical.

Good thing a person’s philosophical and logical merits are completely independent of your opinion huh? Do you ever make any points that are not completely irrelevant?

You are the only one however that keeps asserting things to be true which you have no proof of.

This coming from the guy who asserts the earth is billions of years old but then cannot point to one single empirically verifiable reason for believing so? Ironic.

I still have a completely valid and un-refuted syllogism in the Dawkins thread proving God exists, so your statement above couldn’t be more erroneous.

First of all, we should change that to "My perceived impossibility of the contrary".

Nope, demonstrated impossibility of the contrary, until you can account for the preconditions in a manner that is consistent with your atheism this will continue to be a demonstrated fact.

Second, that doesn't cut the mustard, you still have to be able to prove yourself that God does the things you claim, which of course you can't.

You just don’t get it do you? God HAS to do the things He says He does or else all knowledge would be impossible. So the same syllogism demonstrates that God indeed does what He says He does.

Radioactive dating is a scientifically tested and valid technique,

Merely asserting something is “scientifically tested and valid” certainly doesn’t make it so. Those words have meaning; empirical science is based off of direct observation and repeatability, so until you can verify radiometric dating repeatedly works on rocks of directly observed known age the method is not scientific at all.

Any atom of an element is guaranteed to have the same number of protons as any other atom of that element…

Where did you get this? Some 4^th grade textbook? You can explain the theory behind the method until you are blue in the face but until you can verify that it actually works in the real world on rocks of known age I am not going to just accept your promises that it works on rocks of unknown age, that’s completely unscientific.

Using this information, highly accurate dating can be established for even very old objects.

How do you know this? What’s your control? You can’t use “known half-life to calculate unknown age” before you use “known half-life to verify known age”. Demonstrate the method works on rocks of known age before you try and sell anybody on it working on rocks of unknown age! Why is that so hard to understand? Is it because you know the method won’t work on rocks of known age?

Now, if you believe scientific dating methods (which I'm sure you won't regardless of what I post),

I do believe scientific dating methods; unfortunately you haven’t provided any scientific dating methods because none of the methods you have provided are empirically verifiable by science.

would have the first anatomically correct humans arising out of Africa 200,000 years ago,

Are you seriously going to tell me that all of this is based on your dating method that has never been empirically verified to even work? You based your entire view of history on this sort of magic snake oil? I am speechless…

Are you really suggesting that the formation of Earth from it's early molten-magma stage, through the developing of an ocean, an atmosphere, single-celled organisms, mutli-celled organism, plants, fish, insects, land venturing creatures, the reign of dinosaurs, the rise of warm-blooded rodents and mammals, the ice age, apes, neanderthals, cromagnums, & eventually humans, all happened in a span of 500 years before giving rise to the civilizations in Egypt?

Nope.

Plenty of less delusional Christians are willing to concede that 6,000 years is a ludicrous proposition.

Insinuating that someone who has utterly destroyed you in debates over the last few weeks is “delusional” certainly doesn’t make you look very good :-P Unfortunately many Christians are ignorant of the facts when it comes to dating methods and will just buy your assertions that the method works even though it’s never been demonstrated to work. Not this Christian though, I hold my science to a bit stronger standard than that. You have to emperically demonstrate the method works before I will buy it.

Since, however, you are such a man of education though, why not run this theory by your local college Astronomy professor and see if you don't get looked at as though you're a couple fries short of a happy-meal.

Not sure what an astronomy professor has to do with radiometric dating, but the fact some college professor thinks the earth is billions of years old certainly doesn’t make it so. You’re going to have to demonstrate that it is really that old, I have yet to see anything from you that even comes close.

You are in luck though, if you don't trust radiometric dating, here's a few other methods of dating that have nothing to do with isotopes, & half-lives.

Unfortunately for you those methods listed in that video are even easier to refute. Several genera of trees can add more than one ring per year, and it just so happens that all of the trees supposedly dating back over 10,000 years belong to such genre. So those trees could easily be only 4,000-4,500 years old which would still put them post-flood. There is not a single example of a tree that only adds one ring per year that dates over 4,500 years old, funny how that works huh?

As for the ice core method, that’s loaded with numerous problems. One being that the visible layers of annual ice accumulation are only visible for a few thousand years, after that point the ice becomes very uniform and void of any visible layers. Yet, secular scientists ASSUME the annual accumulation amounts are the same even though they are no longer visible and they continue counting off the years. Of course, the visible data is completely consistent with the Creation model because you’d only expect to see actual visible layers of annual accumulation for a few thousand years followed by large amounts of ice deposited at very short periods of time leaving no visible annual layers behind. Couple this with the fact that when scientists try to find objects of empirically known deposit under the ice years after their deposit they end up being under hundreds of times more ice than expected given the dating method and you’ve got yourself a very flawed method of dating the earth. Do you have anything else?

Sir, you wouldn't know logical reasoning if it hit you in the face. Based on your petty viewpoint one has no morals without believing in your god, talking about self delusional.

…and yet you seem to be completely incapable of refuting my valid syllogism, that’s so funny how that works. It’s a shame you guys only talk a good game.

Folks when you laugh at how ignorant people can be when they follow groups such as the Taliban, remember we have the equivalent in this country with posts like the above from the religious extremists. As far as i'm concerned these people are a direct threat to what made this country great.

Comparing Christians to the Taliban, nice. I guess when you’re fresh out of ideas you can always resort to logically fallacious generalizations and personal attacks.
Was religious freedom not one of the things that made this country great or do you not count that American tenet?

Sure they do. It used to be "logical" to think that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Eventually that worldview became obsolete, just as eventually yours will too. You are a dying breed, you are one of the last Mohicans, compadre.

Says the man whose worldview is completely contradictory.

I hope Christians don’t die off because that would leave only people whose views of reality completely refute themselves and who are hopelessly inconsistent in their worldviews. Christianity won’t ever die off though, so we don’t have to worry about that.

[phins_4_ever]

Meaningless assertion, got anything better?



Nope, it’s what I can demonstrate, I can provide a logically cogent explanation for each of the preconditions of intelligibility, and as you have helped demonstrate no atheist can.



Again, a meaningless assertion. Science uses induction, so until you can explain how you can consistently use induction in a purely natural world your statement above is meaningless. Induction makes perfect sense in a Christian universe, so the Christian has no problem using science; the atheist refutes his own worldview when he appeals to science because science relies on assumptions (yes science relies on faith despite your assertion to the contrary) that could not be true if his atheism were true.



Wait, which is it?



Nope, knowledge exists because of religion, you had that backwards.




So while claiming that it is the religious who are dumbing down schools you misspell “dumbing”? Classic!



So?




So? Where do you come up with these arguments? There is no logical reason to believe that simply because everyone claims to have the right answer therefore nobody has the right answer.




Christianity.




Not true, Christianity is the only one that can even account for knowledge.



Not amongst Hindus, 1+1 equally 2 is illusion.





Fallacy of reification, science doesn’t “invent” anything, people do.



You sure seem to have quite the crush on science; I find that funny considering it’d be completely impossible if your atheism were true.



More meaningless assertions, have you figured out a way to account for the preconditions of knowledge yet? That’s what I am waiting for because making these silly assertions aren’t getting you anywhere.



That’d make morality impossible, which would in turn make science impossible. Do you really want to admit science is impossible?




Really? Prove it.





Science can’t “live” without objective morality though. Objective morality can’t “live” in an atheistic universe, therefore neither can science.



Then if someone defines their morality to be that rape is morally good behavior then you’d have no problem with them committing rape?



WHAT!!!!? So if there were no humans on the earth practicing science the world would just magically pop out of existence? How did the world exist prior to humans then? Were the dinosaurs practicing science keeping it in existence? What an absurd statement.



Not to Christianity because it presupposes Christianity is true a priori. Something that would only function if Christianity is true is certainly no danger to Christianity.



Considering you have yet to give me one single reason to believe the world is billions of years old it seems you are the one who is having trouble fitting that belief in with reality. Unless of course you have finally found that case where radiometric dating has accurately dated rocks of empirically known age…have you found it?





Assertion.




History doesn’t deal with “proof”, that’s logic and mathematics.



Doesn’t matter, one atheistic leader in the Soviet Union killed hundreds of times more people than all of those religious zealots did in hundreds of years. You guys win the “danger to society” contest; I will concede you that honor.




That just proves your ignorance when it comes to religions right there.



It astounds me the leap of faith you make when you assume certain conditions are true that could only be true if your view of reality were completely false.



Good thing a person’s philosophical and logical merits are completely independent of your opinion huh? Do you ever make any points that are not completely irrelevant?




This coming from the guy who asserts the earth is billions of years old but then cannot point to one single empirically verifiable reason for believing so? Ironic.

I still have a completely valid and un-refuted syllogism in the Dawkins thread proving God exists, so your statement above couldn’t be more erroneous.



Nope, demonstrated impossibility of the contrary, until you can account for the preconditions in a manner that is consistent with your atheism this will continue to be a demonstrated fact.





You just don’t get it do you? God HAS to do the things He says He does or else all knowledge would be impossible. So the same syllogism demonstrates that God indeed does what He says He does.



Merely asserting something is “scientifically tested and valid” certainly doesn’t make it so. Those words have meaning; empirical science is based off of direct observation and repeatability, so until you can verify radiometric dating repeatedly works on rocks of directly observed known age the method is not scientific at all.




Where did you get this? Some 4^th grade textbook? You can explain the theory behind the method until you are blue in the face but until you can verify that it actually works in the real world on rocks of known age I am not going to just accept your promises that it works on rocks of unknown age, that’s completely unscientific.



How do you know this? What’s your control? You can’t use “known half-life to calculate unknown age” before you use “known half-life to verify known age”. Demonstrate the method works on rocks of known age before you try and sell anybody on it working on rocks of unknown age! Why is that so hard to understand? Is it because you know the method won’t work on rocks of known age?



I do believe scientific dating methods; unfortunately you haven’t provided any scientific dating methods because none of the methods you have provided are empirically verifiable by science.



Are you seriously going to tell me that all of this is based on your dating method that has never been empirically verified to even work? You based your entire view of history on this sort of magic snake oil? I am speechless…





Nope.



Insinuating that someone who has utterly destroyed you in debates over the last few weeks is “delusional” certainly doesn’t make you look very good :-P Unfortunately many Christians are ignorant of the facts when it comes to dating methods and will just buy your assertions that the method works even though it’s never been demonstrated to work. Not this Christian though, I hold my science to a bit stronger standard than that. You have to emperically demonstrate the method works before I will buy it.





Not sure what an astronomy professor has to do with radiometric dating, but the fact some college professor thinks the earth is billions of years old certainly doesn’t make it so. You’re going to have to demonstrate that it is really that old, I have yet to see anything from you that even comes close.



Unfortunately for you those methods listed in that video are even easier to refute. Several genera of trees can add more than one ring per year, and it just so happens that all of the trees supposedly dating back over 10,000 years belong to such genre. So those trees could easily be only 4,000-4,500 years old which would still put them post-flood. There is not a single example of a tree that only adds one ring per year that dates over 4,500 years old, funny how that works huh?

As for the ice core method, that’s loaded with numerous problems. One being that the visible layers of annual ice accumulation are only visible for a few thousand years, after that point the ice becomes very uniform and void of any visible layers. Yet, secular scientists ASSUME the annual accumulation amounts are the same even though they are no longer visible and they continue counting off the years. Of course, the visible data is completely consistent with the Creation model because you’d only expect to see actual visible layers of annual accumulation for a few thousand years followed by large amounts of ice deposited at very short periods of time leaving no visible annual layers behind. Couple this with the fact that when scientists try to find objects of empirically known deposit under the ice years after their deposit they end up being under hundreds of times more ice than expected given the dating method and you’ve got yourself a very flawed method of dating the earth. Do you have anything else?



…and yet you seem to be completely incapable of refuting my valid syllogism, that’s so funny how that works. It’s a shame you guys only talk a good game.



Comparing Christians to the Taliban, nice. I guess when you’re fresh out of ideas you can always resort to logically fallacious generalizations and personal attacks.
Was religious freedom not one of the things that made this country great or do you not count that American tenet?





Says the man whose worldview is completely contradictory.

I hope Christians don’t die off because that would leave only people whose views of reality completely refute themselves and who are hopelessly inconsistent in their worldviews. Christianity won’t ever die off though, so we don’t have to worry about that.

Honestly, there is no way to have a discussion with you. You don't even realize that in the English language (like in most languages) sentences are formed to paragraphs. Paragraphs should be read in context. Ripping paragraphs apart into individual sentences simply shows that you really can't comprehend a paragraph. You do nothing but taking sentences totally out of context and your life simply exist in phrases (like your fairy tale book). That is fine by me.

Multiple posters have shown you the flaws in your arguments (if we even can consider these arguments). If you can't respond to complete paragraphs but make sentences to fit to your 'argument' then that is your prerogative. I certainly don't give you a platform for your one sentence ramblings. You extract a few smiles from me because I seldom come across such closed and tunnel minded people. And I am also glad that people like you are in the minority. I know quite a few religious people. But they live their religion in their hearts and minds.

One question though: are you a reborn christian?

[irish fin fan]

When someone believes that the earth has only been existence for 5 or 6 thousand years then there is no hope for having a rational conversation with you. Once again were is the proof for this?

[rob19]

Nope, demonstrated impossibility of the contrary, until you can account for the preconditions in a manner that is consistent with your atheism this will continue to be a demonstrated fact.

Doesn't matter what I can do, you still have to prove yourself that God does the things you claim. I could contest that Aliens exist, but that wouldn't make it true without any evidence.

You just don’t get it do you? God HAS to do the things He says He does or else all knowledge would be impossible.

Prove it

[Statler Waldorf]

Honestly, there is no way to have a discussion with you. You don't even realize that in the English language (like in most languages) sentences are formed to paragraphs. Paragraphs should be read in context. Ripping paragraphs apart into individual sentences simply shows that you really can't comprehend a paragraph. You do nothing but taking sentences totally out of context and your life simply exist in phrases (like your fairy tale book). That is fine by me.

…and yet you give no examples? That seems blatantly convenient. Baseless assertions and logical fallacies don’t magically become relevant simply because they are contained within the same paragraph, I am sorry. If you feel you were taken out of context then please give an example, or else I can’t help out much.

Multiple posters have shown you the flaws in your arguments (if we even can consider these arguments).

Not quite, multiple posters have whined about my argument, and stated they do not like it and are not persuaded by it. However, not liking an argument and not being persuaded by an argument are completely irrelevant when it comes to the truth of an argument. Nobody on here as even come close to refuting the argument I presented. If it really were such a “bad argument” a refutation would have been rather simple, and yet it seems to be impossible for such posters.

If you can't respond to complete paragraphs but make sentences to fit to your 'argument' then that is your prerogative.

Your prerogative seems to be whining about something and then conveniently not giving an example of where such a thing has even occurred.

You extract a few smiles from me because I seldom come across such closed and tunnel minded people.

How come atheists never fail to attack the arguer when they find they are unable to defeat the argument? Don’t you all know that is irrational behavior?

And I am also glad that people like you are in the minority. I know quite a few religious people. But they live their religion in their hearts and minds.

I don’t blame you one bit for preferring the quiet religious type because obviously the ones like me make you look pretty silly in the arena of debate.

One question though: are you a reborn christian?

That’s a bit redundant, all Christians are born again. I would not be considered an evangelical Christian if that’s what you mean though.

When someone believes that the earth has only been existence for 5 or 6 thousand years then there is no hope for having a rational conversation with you. Once again were is the proof for this?

Scripture is quite clear that the Earth was created thousands of years ago, not billions. If you believe scripture is in fact in error then the burden of proof is on you to back up your belief as to why it is in error. To date, I have not been given any reason to believe the Earth is in fact billions of years old rather than thousands; unless of course you have a sound reason you can provide?

Doesn't matter what I can do, you still have to prove yourself that God does the things you claim.

I already did through negation, it’s a done deal. Your claims to the contrary don’t change anything, either you can refute my argument or you can let it stand but complaining about it doesn’t get us anywhere.

I could contest that Aliens exist, but that wouldn't make it true without any evidence.

Correct. I didn’t contest that God existed though, I proved He does; so your analogy is irrelevant.

Prove it

Already did, now refute it. Or are you unable to?

[phins_4_ever]

That’s a bit redundant, all Christians are born again. I would not be considered an evangelical Christian if that’s what you mean though.

Don't skirt the question. You know what I mean and how I meant it.

Did you start over and asked your lord for forgiveness for your sins? (emphasizing on starting over)
And I believe (if I recall correctly) when you make your 'do over' you have to accept Jesus as your savior.

Don't skirt the question please. It is a clear question which only requires a clear answer.

[irish fin fan]

…and yet you give no examples? That seems blatantly convenient. Baseless assertions and logical fallacies don’t magically become relevant simply because they are contained within the same paragraph, I am sorry. If you feel you were taken out of context then please give an example, or else I can’t help out much.



Not quite, multiple posters have whined about my argument, and stated they do not like it and are not persuaded by it. However, not liking an argument and not being persuaded by an argument are completely irrelevant when it comes to the truth of an argument. Nobody on here as even come close to refuting the argument I presented. If it really were such a “bad argument” a refutation would have been rather simple, and yet it seems to be impossible for such posters.




Your prerogative seems to be whining about something and then conveniently not giving an example of where such a thing has even occurred.



How come atheists never fail to attack the arguer when they find they are unable to defeat the argument? Don’t you all know that is irrational behavior?





I don’t blame you one bit for preferring the quiet religious type because obviously the ones like me make you look pretty silly in the arena of debate.



That’s a bit redundant, all Christians are born again. I would not be considered an evangelical Christian if that’s what you mean though.



Scripture is quite clear that the Earth was created thousands of years ago, not billions. If you believe scripture is in fact in error then the burden of proof is on you to back up your belief as to why it is in error. To date, I have not been given any reason to believe the Earth is in fact billions of years old rather than thousands; unless of course you have a sound reason you can provide?



I already did through negation, it’s a done deal. Your claims to the contrary don’t change anything, either you can refute my argument or you can let it stand but complaining about it doesn’t get us anywhere.




Correct. I didn’t contest that God existed though, I proved He does; so your analogy is irrelevant.



Already did, now refute it. Or are you unable to?

Prove the earth is 6 thousand years ago. I good write a book and state that it's six thousand years old but where is my proof. Show me the proof.

[tylerdolphin]

Its not that nobody has disproven your argument...its that you are posting an argument that makes unprovable assumptions and simply dismiss the respondent as wrong when they point that out.

[Statler Waldorf]

Don't skirt the question. You know what I mean and how I meant it.

Nope I don’t, I still think the question was completely redundant. Would be like asking, “is that a parallelogram square or no?”

Did you start over and asked your lord for forgiveness for your sins? (emphasizing on starting over)

I am a Christian yes.

And I believe (if I recall correctly) when you make your 'do over' you have to accept Jesus as your savior.

No that’s not supported by scripture, there is no “accepting” involved, people either believe or they don’t. Christ doesn’t need permission to do any of the saving.

Don't skirt the question please. It is a clear question which only requires a clear answer.

Did I give you a clear answer?

Prove the earth is 6 thousand years ago. I good write a book and state that it's six thousand years old but where is my proof. Show me the proof.

I already did. The Bible has to be the word of God in order for knowledge to be possible. So if the Bible is the infallible word of God then we can use it to prove all sorts of things, one of which is when and how the earth was created. If you follow the genealogies in the Bible it puts the creation of Adam back around 6,000-6,400 years ago. That’s proof. Science doesn’t deal with proof by the way, so I am not really sure why you’d ask for proof and then expect some appeal to science.

Its not that nobody has disproven your argument...its that you are posting an argument that makes unprovable assumptions and simply dismiss the respondent as wrong when they point that out.

That’s not accurate at all though, my proof’s assumptions are demonstrable. Mainly, that I can account for the preconditions of knowledge using my worldview and you cannot. That supports the premises of my arguments right there. You can try and refute the argument by accounting for the preconditions using atheism, but you have yet to even come close to doing that. This sort of indirect proof has been around and used to prove the existence of numerous entities for years, it’s not like I just made it up on the spot.