2. Begging the Question Fallacy is when you conclude an assumption. Hopefully you knew that. Tell me how I begged the question, rather than just declaring it.

3. Why is it an argument that religions don’t exist? Of course they exist. Again, explain the false dichotomy rather than just asserting it. You want to speak logically, right?

4. My “appeal to sentimentality” is an appeal to bservation. What makes you so certain that what you see and hear are real? I claim the same for my feelings. It is another sense just like any other. Since my goal is to feel happy, I claim it is the most important sense. All other senses merely direct once on how to achieve the sense of happiness.

Science DOES work the way I claimed. You can only disprove things, never prove things.

You’ve cited Occam’s Razor, which is a convenient cliche that doesn’t do what you think it does, logically speaking. If you had been paying attention, God exists beyond logic and reason, and is the source of logic and reason. You can no more write a mathematical equation describing God than you could write a mathematical equation that would give rise to logic from nothing. Your resort to mathematical equations suggest you really don’t understand how math works, at a fundamental level. Perhaps this is because you have a difficult time reasoning with logic.

Besides, all logical reasoning starts with assumptions. Without an assumption, nothing is nothing is nothing. What are your assumptions for the universe? Mine are that there is a God and he governs the universe through logic and reason. I also believe that man can attain the knowledge that God has. This leads me to investigate the laws that govern the universe. What compels you to do the same? My assumptions lead to good results: modern science. Where do your assumptions lead you?

Your diversion to the Bible is pointless. It has no relevance whatsoever. Nevertheless, your infantile interpretation of the Bible is common among atheists, who claim they know more about what the Bible really is and yet can’t understand what it is. “Seeing, they do not see” as the Bible says.

(1) The Bible is a story, and you aren’t surprising anyone by saying so.

(2) The Bible is not a mathematical text, and you aren’t surprising anyone by saying so.

(3) The Bible IS independently verifiable. Pray to God and ask him to tell you what he thinks about it.

Finally, your logic of “A is like B, therefore A is a B.” is absurd, and you know it.

2. Your argument that god must exist because he is the source of all order in the universe, and order in the universe exists, is a textbook example of the Begging the Question Fallacy.

3. Your argument that one of the many world religions must exist is a false dilemma fallacy, only with several choices rather than two.

4. You quite blatantly use Appeal to Sentimentality; that if you realllyyy can feel god in your mind, he must exist (really, you are much too intelligent to conjure something this ridiculous).

And you actually defeated your own argument. No, we can’t prove that God does not exist; but science does not work that way. We can’t prove that flying monkeys don’t exist on Mars, either. But we can state conclusively that they do not exist because the probability is very low.

Occam’s Razor: god is an unnecessary variable. There is no mathematical formula to describe any scientific theory that posits a god variable. The First Cause argument does not work either, because then we get into the question of where god came from; an even bigger question, and therefore adding the variable god solves nothing and just makes the dilemma literally infinitely more impossible to solve.

You can tell that the Bible is a story, rather than a scientific theory, because:

1. It adds in unnecessary details that do not explain anything or conform to any experimental or observable evidence. Its explanations are complex rather than simple. This is characteristic of a fairy tale, not a scientific theory.

2. It includes no math or evidence to support its theory. This is characteristic of a fairy tale, not a scientific theory.

3. It is not independently verifiable. Do you think that a super-intelligent race of aliens could have independently derived the bible through heavy scientific research? Of course not, because it’s not universal (as science is). This is characteristic of a fairy tale, not a scientific theory.

(2) My two statements are not contradictory. Evolution has no testable or repeatable claims, just like creationism.

Bill Nye offers no evidence for his subsequent statements on what we should teach children.

His video is exactly the opposite of science and reason. It is just assertions made without basis.

I know you are the sort of person who likes to see science done this way: Let the loudest, most obnoxious person win! This goes hand-in-hand with every Atheist’s refusal to accept basic logic and reason, and their inability to grasp the most fundamental concepts of science and knowledge and reason. Which is why they try to be as loud and obnoxious as possible, and forego any reasonable discussion in the process.

Honestly, I can form a retort to him that would look the same, using the same words, but substituting Creationism for evolution.

Yes, you certainly could; in fact, you already have claimed that Creationism is:

Testable and repeatable: To the same degree that evolution is.

However, later in the very same thread, you finally admitted this was not true:

I don’t have an explanation for why the creatures are the way they are. I don’t need an explanation. My understanding of the Creation of the earth isn’t something that’s testable anyway, and I don’t care to see it put to the test.

Bill then went on to say that our nation’s children need solid educations in science, so that our nation can remain competitive in the world. He noted that Creationism is not appropriate for children, and he is exactly correct. Feeding a child a diet of Creationism, and claiming it is equivalent to science is, intellectually and morally, equivalent to feeding a child a steady diet of soda pop and potato chips, and claiming that “Creation Science Nutrition” has found this diet to be varied, balanced, and healthy.

I’m very glad that Bill Nye has made this statement, even if he made it less forcefully than I would prefer.