Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 7 of 14)

[krayzdave]

The argument "All things are possible with God, so why didn't he make a a world where people are free and always choose good..." is ridiculous. The argument should be: All things that are possible for God are possible (for man). Some things are not possible with God because they are impossible for him to perform; ie, evil. God can't create a world where beings are free to make choices with only one choice; ie, only good. He can't do this because it is logically impossible. He is logical!

[JanJiska]

@krayzdave,

"because they are impossible for him to perform"

I thought he said he was all powerful?

"He is logical!"

Why? What stops him from being illogical? Whatever it is must be powerful if it can constrain your God like that!

[YHWHisSovereign]

A knowledgeable Christian can always refute an atheist.

[JanJiska]

@YHWHisSovereign,

Rather like a knowledgeable Unicorn Worshipper can always refute an atheist?

However, why does refuting an atheist prove anything? There are many skilled debaters from many religions, why should yours be any different to ones you don't believe in?

They all have their reasons, proofs, histories, stories and excuses over why they can offer no real proof. Yours is no different.

[Refutingnonsense]

@JanJiska I think you prove your foolishness with the way you speak even before you have actually made your point. Why do you say we are Unicorn Worshippers? I'd like to know. And since you speak with such intellectual arrogance I would expect your argument to be brilliant and blow my mind away. So please, tell us all how knowledgeable christians are unicorn worshippers. Thanks.

[JanJiska]

@Refutingnonsense,

" Why do you say we are Unicorn Worshippers?"

I did not say that - who did you say is proving their foolishness?

"I would expect your argument to be brilliant and blow my mind away"

I hope I met your expectations.

Being as you are there, could you answer some of the questions I asked?

[Bewareofthewolves]

Steins surface level notion of God is quite astounding !!! Utter ignorance.

[swarmtime]

why doesn't god come to a bunch of athiests???

HE DID!!

Jesus came to earth, walked around a bit, died, CAME BACk and then showed himself to people, then a book was written about it over the years to show YOU, this book that over sooooo many years has changed like 3%

[JanJiska]

@swarmtime,

Yes (apparantly) - but it was only recorded in one, heavily self contradictory, book. No third party sources exist for Jesus's miracles.

Even if we assume he did have super powers, we have no way of knowing whether he was telling the truth about the source of those powers. He might have been lying about his origins.

[bittersweetlaurelin]

@JanJiska what are the contradictions?

[JanJiska]

@bittersweetlaurelin,

Search for the YouTube vid "Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)", there are more examples than I fit in the text allowed here.

[veritaslogos]

wow, this is truely the worst part of his arguments, total failure

[Diatonic135]

Why do so many people want God to ease their suffering?

Also, why do people think that God inflicts suffering on his people?

Finally, why does Stein reference parasites as evidence against theism?

[JanJiska]

"Why do so many people want God to ease their suffering?"

Because people do not like suffering and God has promised to answer prayers made to him and he has the power to remove the suffering.

"Also, why do people think that God inflicts suffering on his people?"

Because God created everything and then choses not to prevent them. Despite the fact that many religious people claim that God helps them every day.

Why is any religion any more plausible than any other?

[sawsin69]

the answer would be god cannot go beyond his nature... and bahnsen showed it here in this debate... im an atheist at heart... and somehow we should be reasonable on our answers...

[JanJiska]

The excuse would be that God cannot go beyond his nature. However if that is a rule it is ionly because God arbitrarily decided it.

[archiekralj]

I heartily thank you for making this excellent debate available. Part 7 stops at 1:32 and ask that you fix and repost Part 7.

[darrinrasberry]

5:25 proves Stein didn't prepare. Bahnsen is a Calvinist, who would never use this argument at all.

[4ChanVent]

Apply a little logic to god and he goes poof. For instance

1: an omnipresent being is indistinguishable from the rest of the universe.

2: Omniscience cancels out omnipotence. If you know every state of everything thats ever going to happen you can't alter anything at all.

3: Uncreated infinitely complex being required to create simple matter and energy Vs. simple matter and energy always existing.

The list goes on

[TheJaredJammer]

I stopped taking Stein seriously the moment he used the long-debunked prison argument.

Victory for Greg Bahnsen.

[PaniLusia]

dude. atheist's arguments are a joke.

[JanJiska]

But there are no arguments for being an atheist. There is simply lack of enough proof to convince us that there is a supernatural god.

[PaniLusia]

yea but its funny that the fact, that you are unable to understand something, makes you think that its because you are smarter.

[buttearthfacehead]

wow, so true.

[JanJiska]

Similar to when theists cannot understand how the world works without their god running things?

Or how every religion has just as much evidence and proof as every other religion but somehow every one of them thinks that they are the only one that is right?

Face it - non of them are any less aburd than any other it only matters which ones gets its hooks into you first.

[PaniLusia]

Only someone who never took 10 min. of their fukin precious time to check if maybe.. just MAYBE there are some evidences, could say that

:-P

MAYBE if so many people, and so many scientists fights system, to show you some evidences.. Maybe if thousands per year choose to die rather then to deny faith in Jesus Christ...

MAYBE that means, there ARE undeniable evidences?

Maybe theres quite a lot of them?...

Maybe you dont know everything yet?.. Maybe you just didnt want to check, and learn?

[JanJiska]

At no point have I ever claimed to know everything. There may well be a super natural creature somewhere, I never said that there was not. I merely state that it has not been proven to me.

I also state that Christianity is no more plausible than any other religion. They all have their true believers, evidence, miracles and holy books.

If there is undeniable proof then please show me.

Mayeb you cannot?

Maybe there is none?

[sawsin69]

here you can completely see how theistic morality... theistic worldview poses more problems... and how these theist reacts are the eveidences...

[jdoe933]

There is a fairly substantial body of evidence for the resurrection. There are a number of works by a Dr. Gary Habermas applying secular historical standards to the records of the resurrection. The evidence is really far stronger than is the evidence for many historical events that are (admittedly less, but still significantly) unlikely, and yet widely accepted.

[JanJiska]

Dr. Habermas uses the tried and tested technique of deciding the conclusion and the researching the evidence rather than the other way around.

The myth of Jesus's resurrection is nothing extra odrinary. It is simply a re-telling of the death and resurrection of Mithras.

Even if Jesus did die and rise again there is no way of telling if he is what he is claimed to have said he was. It could be a trick by the Devil to divert people away from the OT or it could be Loki having a laugh etc.

[Pixxychick]

"The myth of Jesus's resurrection is nothing extra odrinary. It is simply a re-telling of the death and resurrection of Mithras." ...

I'm sorry...what?

Mithras was never even reported to have DIED much less rise from the dead. Mithras killed a bull, but there is no evidence whatsoever of him dying and rising, neither in the Roman or the Persian Mithraic legends.

[JanJiska]

Yeah, sorry.

Since posting that I have found out I was wrong. Although it does not make Christianity or any other religion more plausible of course it does slap me across the face for not checking my sources before opening my mouth!

[jdoe933]

There actually are evidentiary deficits among the different religions.

[JanJiska]

Yes, including several for Christianity (e.g. the survery which recalled Joseph back to Bethlehem did not happen at the date it was claimed etc).

There is plenty of evidence which would hamper any religion but the believers will not (or can not) see it.

There is no special case for Christianity. The bible itself contains hundreds of contradictions and inaccuracies.

[funkychiropractor]

Please show me a few more of the contradictions and inaccuracies. And what are your sources are you using.

[JanJiska]

Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the interposition of Providence Gen 21:2/ Rom 4:19/ Heb 11:12

Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years old without any interposition of providence Gen 25:1,2

Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor Josh 24:32

Abraham bought it of Hamor Acts 7:16

God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed forever Gen 13:14,15,17; 17:8

Abraham and his seed never received the promised land Acts 7:5/ Heb 11:9,13

Source = bible

[MrEpictetus]

Your first two sentences only point to the primacy of Isaac.

Your next two were injected to undermine Biblical inerrancy. remember when Isaac paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham? the eternal priesthood Hebrews 7? this is like the " whose God is it? Abrahams? Isaacs? or Jacobs?

but your point is taken.

Joshua 21:43 says all the land promises to the Jews were fulfilled, and the promises were conditional anyway.

[JanJiska]

Could you please explain why your religion is more plausible than any other?

Perhaps you could disprove Russel's Teapot whilst you are there?

[Pixxychick]

The God of the Bible is different from "Russel's teapot" because the God of the Bible has revealed himself to humanity through inspired scripture and in the person of Jesus Christ. The historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is very good, and if Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity is more plausible than any other.

[JanJiska]

"The historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ is very good, and if Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity is more plausible than any other. "

That depends on your interpretation of 'very good' 3rd party sources please?

Although if it were true all it proves is that Jesus had supernatural powers, not that your God is real

[Pixxychick]

Further, what abilities does this teapot have? Can this teapot reason? Can it create a universe? If you say yes, how do you know this? If you say, "Because the teapot has revealed itself to me", then you have no sufficient reason to doubt the existence of the teapot.

[JanJiska]

Did you have those 3rd party sources about Jesus's resurrection and other super natural powers?

Also, how do you know that he was telling the truth about the source of these powers and he was not Loki having a laugh at you all?

I do not know what the teapot can do, it is not for me to know. The Invisable Pink Unicorn will guide us to the teapot's knowledge. However, can you disprove the teapot or unicorn?

[jdoe933]

Yes, but again your demands for evidence must be appropriate to the subject. That would be their (presuppositional apologetic-ans or whatnot) argument.

[JanJiska]

They do try to use this as an excuse for not being able to provide the evidence.

My counter argument would be that this demand for evidence is completely appropriate.

This is based upon that fact that this is what it would take to convince me. God can do anything, therefore God can do it.

The fact that they are getting driven back to arguing pointless philosophical semantics seems to demonstrate desperation IMHO.

[DetectiveTackett]

Narcissistic & fallacious.

[JanJiska]

Childish and desperate.

(I am referring to the fact you are resorting to name calling, not you personally. Although I am sure that you recall in the other thread I mentioned that you sounded like you were becoming desperate and abuse is often the last resort of the desperate so I am not suprised).

[MrEpictetus]

The Big Bang says that Time/Space was born simultaneously in the birth of the Universe,.. thats a Christian belief.

Spontaneous Generation is impossible, isnt that evidence?

Uniformitarianism is a silly assumption made by the same naturalists who want massive mutations on the earth but no changes in the atmosphere's composition. the fact that you dont understand philosophy says more about your education than the 'desperation 'of the Christian worldview.

no shortcuts to education.

[reformedcalvinist216]

Theologians have no intention of making scientific assertions...so why do scientists intend on abandoning their field of expertise in order to develop philosophical arguments? It is ridiculous for any scientist to debate the existence of an immaterial intelligent designer by using immaterial laws of reason. Stein fails to address the topic during most of the debate. Completely self-refuting.

[sermonfire]

truth.

[fiercegallantry]

Bahnsen FTW.

[elijahsraven]

Wow. Stein has got some really feeble arguments. That one about the will; if God made it that man would always choose good; that would be programming man in one direction; there would be no point in man having free will.

[mayartay]

Stein is again not in the debate here. He's just reading from his pre-prepared list of arguments against theism. No matter what arguments Bahnsen made, Stein would be saying the same things. That is not the purpose of a debate. This alone makes him the loser because he is not responding to Bahnsen.

[irishmauddib]

I was thinking the same of both of them actually. They both seem to be reading from pre prepared arguments.

However I am not sure how a point being prepared, or a point being ad hoc, has anything to do with wether the point is true or not so i find your comment useless here.

[StaticFilter2]

Well, I have to concede that Stein didn't make attach any answers to any of the arguments made. Bahnsen did on several occasions address Stein's responses and responded to them. Stein did make an attempt, at least, to try to address the transcendental argument, but failed miserably to make any points. I have to grant Bahnsen the win so far. Still 7.5 more videos to watch though. I'm hoping for a good argument from Stein.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Stein completely destroyed Bahnsen again.

This is amusing.

It will be interesting to see how Bahnsen pulls more failures out to try and contend with this brutality.

[StaticFilter2]

I'm trying to understand where Bahnsen was destroyed. Can you tell me what points you believe he has won on so far? I'm hoping for good arguments from both sides, but so far have Bahnsen in the advantage column.

[fiercegallantry]

On what planet, TOQ?

[Psalm130]

Francis Bacon founded science, and he was a theist. All the founders of the major branches of science were theists.

[motile]

Before Darwin most people were theists because before Darwin there was no explanation for the complexity found in nature and so an intelligent creator was the only option available. Now we have evolution by natural selection and so the false intelligent creator hypothesis, which relies upon supernatural elements, is found to be incompatible with science.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Stein is just a bad speaker but he is making better points

[Psalm130]

No he isn't. Use your brain. Pay attention. Stein is avoiding the issues Bahnsen is bringing up.

[ALogicalConstruct]

He addresses it, logic is a western concept. He also states how logic is simply a series of conclusions based on evidence.... are logic doesn't apply to einsteinium or quantum physics, it is based on what we can observe, if a god where to imbue us with laws of understanding wouldn't they always work? They don't, math is a tool to explore the non-logical, try reading about quantum physics, it is quite interesting and completely illogical.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Your doing armchair philosophy, that leads nowhere.

[Victoruto]

Have you listened to the whole debate? It is agreed upon but theists and atheists that Stein loses this debate. He is never able to account for human intelligibility.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I think he loses the debate too, in the same way that people loose to bill o'riley all the time, Bahnsen fails to meet the burdon of rejoinder and while stein doesn't spend to much time on it I think that he points out that logic is just the way in which objects in our universe happen to interact with themselves and other objects, it is no different that and law of physics.

[Victoruto]

Oh yeah, it's just the way things happen to be...I forgot. Well how about "God exists because it's just the way things happen to be." Stein could not account for logical laws.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I would acknowledge the existance of god under those situations, he may, "just happen to exist" if he does then the probobility is not an issue.

[ALogicalConstruct]

We just happen to live in three dimensional space, we just happen to live on this planet becaue it happened to support life, if it was different then maybe we would be having the conversation in the andromeda galaxy (joking, some alien might but we wouldn't exist). I fail to see why logic cannot exist differently i fail to see why it must be like this, can you explaine why logic must act in the way it does? Why it could not be different (lack of imagination is not a valid argument).

[Victoruto]

Well then, what else could logical laws be? If you are going to argue rationally then what is the basis for your rationality.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Just a reflection of how the universe works.... you don't need to know all the physics to throw a ball through a hoop, you just do it intuatively(through observation)...same thing. If you say logic is not learned then i point to all the formal logical fallacies, how often does someone say A therefore B, if B then A

[Victoruto]

Are you saying that logical laws just exist out in the natural world and we then come to know them? Have you ever seen, felt, or heard one of these laws?

[ALogicalConstruct]

SO you maintain that anything immaterial cannot exist without a god, like consciousness?

Yes i am saying that logical laws exist out in the world, that is where they came from, we are merely observing and following them.

[Victoruto]

Well I maintain nothing, period, can exist without God, including immaterial entities.

Ok, so you claim that logical laws just exist in the world. Well then what are they? Material, non-material? Logic doesn't exist without a mind to use it, so how can they just be out there? Do the laws grow on trees somewhere?

[ALogicalConstruct]

so without a mind to interpret it something can both exist and not exist, the middles could be excluded, and something couldn't be what it is....

logic is just the ability to intuitively understand reality, symbolic logic to logic is the equivalent of physics to baseball.....

does gravity grow on a tree somewhere, or inertia or the weak force, or the strong force, or gluons or electrons, or friction, or the rate of change, or the ratio of a circle to it's radius......

[Victoruto]

I disagree that it can both exist and not exist. What we are claiming is that logic is the way God thinks and expects us to think.

You've somewhat defined logic, but not accounted for it and I don't believe that you can. Is it an evolutionary byproduct? Are you a materialist?

Interesting you bring up the laws of nature. What are these laws. They would only be properties of tested data, but how can you possibly know that nature is uniform if you haven't tested every event?

[ALogicalConstruct]

Oh so Logic exists without are ability to perceive it... if god thinks like that then he is bound by it, i'll take that then. So if god is logical then he is bound by irreducible complexity which makes the likelihood of him existing practically nothing.

You would have started writting the zeros 20,000,000,000 years ago at the big bang and you still wouldn't have written enough

[ALogicalConstruct]

Logic? No it is not an evolutionary by product in any more than gravity is..... can i account for logic? You mean can i point out what created logic, no. I look at it as the natural state of affairs, i don't believe you can prove that logic could not be different.... i think logic is this way because that is just how it fell into place.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Errrr.... this is getting messy, if this is going to go on much longer we should do this in PM.

Laws of nature are simply the processes that take place around us, they follow patterns that are governed by constants....

Stupid 500 character limit..... cont.

[pbcinla]

They are not the processes they are concepts of the process.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Ok, prove it.

[pbcinla]

Prove what?

[pbcinla]

Do you believe that points, lines, and circles exist in the physical world? No. They are imaginary. They are concepts outside the physical world that have no real connection to it. Neither do the laws of physics or math exist in the real world they are by their very definition abstract.

[ALogicalConstruct]

I sent you a pm i am not going to scramble around in this message board.... we can do this there, i am not going to respond here..... i have bee skiing all day i am tired and grumpy.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Uniformity is not knowable, nor is that unnecessary, everything we have observed follows these laws, all the galaxies Hubble looks at, every electron we have studied follows these laws. So, so far everything that matters follows those laws.

[theweakarefree]

How do you know something that is "not knowable"?

[ALogicalConstruct]

If you want to get technical, then it is because of the nature of harmonic variations within in elementary matter, the harmonics of other particles whether electrons of photons (or the elusive gravitron) cannot be sustained with the inherent amount of energy present in the universe, so harmonic anomalies cancel out to bring about the uniformity we see

We should do this in PM, i'll pm you with all of this

[motile]

You know what Psalm, you're a troll. A dishonest ignorant troll. Wake the fuck up.