Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith debate (part 3 of 6)

[Gilbertus1986]

5.00 "unless you repent you will perish"- (scripted on the screen)

[CaptainSmallFoot]

Three videos into the set and have yet to hear either of them say anything substantial. I will say that I found Bahnsen's attempt to make morality contingent upon not just a deity, but upon his specific deity alone to be astonishingly weak. I found myself disappointed that Smith wasn't more aggressive in explaining Bahensen's absurdities. Of course, he starts in rather late in the video, so hopefully we'll get some action in vid 4.

[templarart]

"How can they 'KNOW' how something 'should' be... if there is no universal law of morality that explains HOW it really 'should' or 'ought to' be?"

We are social animals and all social animals are hardwired with the instinct to interact in a social structure, this is called morality. No wolf needs Commandments to know not to take another wolf's meat. Christians get their morality from society and then reinterpret the Bible to say what society says. Examples: slavery, polygamy, heretics.

[KeithTruth]

smith got destroyed in this section

[CBALLEN]

If there is no God then everything is permissible,all prisons should be closed and court systems shut down,no one could give any reason to ban anything whether other people get hurt or murdered makes no difference,because each man would be a law unto themselves and people personally not liking something would have no bearing on anything.

[templarart]

@CBALLEN Do you follow speed limit signs? Yes? Because Jehovah, tribal god of the ancient Hebrews will send you to hell if you don't? No - because there's a chance you'll be punished and maybe your insurance rates will go up.

Did the US create speed limits because of any god? No. Speed limits, like all laws/rules are created by a society for the good of that society. Did the Romans make rules about trade because of Jupiter?

[tzephon]

@templarart "all laws/rules are created by a society for the good of that society." What do you mean by 'good' and why should anyone care about the good of society?

[Zupernova91]

@CBALLEN Exactly my point. This is what a lot of atheists fail to understand. How can they 'KNOW' how something 'should' be or 'ought to' be if there is no universal law of morality that explains HOW it really 'should' or 'ought to' be?

Which further leads me to believe that every atheist DO believe that there is an absolute law of morality, and when they say they try to do what's 'best for the society' they are basing it on this universal law of morality, without being able to account for it.

[Zupernova91]

@Zupernova91 So basically what they are doing (ironic as it is) is presupposing the existence of all universal laws throughout the universe, and the ONLY thing they can possibly base these laws upon is the very existence of God. Of course they deny this, as they wouldn't enjoy having their supposed world-view ridiculed. But the fact is that atheism does not hold bearing.

[actionjackson864]

@Zupernova91 Ayn Rand has addressed this by answering these three questions without use of the bible.

1. what is morality?

2.does man need morality?

3. if yes why?

see the writings of Dawson Bethrick if you really want to know how atheists make sense of it all.

[H0R5H0E]

Greg Bahnsen has further demonstrated to me that theist theologians are highly practiced, very expert pricks. His skill at painting his opponent as unreasonable, by lying about the discussion itself, wasting time, and making non sequiturs, ad hominems, and emotional attacks, is truly awe-inducing. He is a fearsome opponent and I can only wonder what his motive is in continuing to "defend theism" with such skill.

Smith's patience is extraordinary. I would have walked out at 4:55.

[KeithTruth]

@H0R5H0E You are irrational



[SuperSam424]

@H0R5H0E Wow, you're dumb.

[klhcc]

Where does George Smith begin? - Bahnsen spews rubbish under all kinds of assumptions (many of them insulting) which have so many gaps that it becomes difficult to take him seriously.

Peace.

[unprofessionalvids]

@klhcc actually George Smith is the one spewing rubbish LOL

[voskresene]

Does anyone know in what year this debate took place?

[Diatonic135]

there is no such thing as neutrality.

[darpachief]

good vid

[TOTASS1]

theres a subliminal message on 05:00 LOL "Unless you repent you will all perish" hahaha

[okzoia]

How can I SAY "genocide is wrong"? Well I just SAID it, didn't I? I can say it because I can type and speak! If you htink genocide is morally permissible, then you are one sick f---!

[coolmoebri]

reason > faith

[sawsin69]

bahnsen dont use "christian"... use bahnsen's worldview

[sawsin69]

comment box is not a debate panel... so please stop..

[jfinite]

@sawsin69

It's not!?

[Dulos12]

as an atheist, WHY IS MURDER WRONG? what if there is no god, an atheist says murder is wrong, but another atheist says that MURDER IS RIGHT. who is right, or better yet, who cares? that is bahnsens point, the reason we automatically hate murder and evil, is b/c we are created in the image of God. morality or christian influenced morality can account for right and wrong, but in an atheist worldivew, they can't, but again, that's just my opinion.

[CronusFury]

Thats a very disturbing fact actually...To live in an "enlightened" world where the existence of God is denied and forgotten by everyone. Why should one do good? Why should one go the extra mile just to do excercise morality? Why not Just do evil all your lives? Kill your neighbor and rape his wife? What is the punishment of that? Death? If there is no God, there is no Hell, if there is no Hell then the punishment of death is just dissapearing into nothingness.

[CronusFury]

While the reward of a Good Life is the same. An eternity of lost conciousness. What kind of people would live in this GodLess society? where morality is based upon our own very limited human "wisdom", and not written in stone (literally) but sways to the benefits and prejudices of one party to another.

Good and Bad lives will both have the same ending, an eternity of nothingness. This thought will drive people insane. For the avarage life of a human is 80 years, even less.

[CronusFury]

That 80 years is nothing compared to eternity, eventually time will run out, whether it be 80 years or a million, it is off no consequence, time eventually runs out.

and that eternity of nothingness will come. But for the atheists sake, it would be better if it were an eternity of nothingness otherwise eternity of torment awaits them.

Time is ticking, The hourglass is running out of sand. The fury of time is relentless.

CronusFury = The fury of time.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"But for the atheists sake, it would be better if it were an eternity of nothingness otherwise eternity of torment awaits them."

For all the philosophical and epistomological language, eventually it always comes down to an appeal to fear and a reference to Pascal's Wager. Thanks but no thanks.

[Dulos12]

the only way you receive an eternity of "torment" is by rejecting God. my opinon on why skeptics reject God is not b/c there is no proof, but b/c they just don't like Him.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"my opinon on why skeptics reject God is not b/c there is no proof, but b/c they just don't like Him."

You said it: in your opinion. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I'm afraid I'll have to dismiss it as just that: an opinion.

[Dulos12]

thanks for sharing your opinion on my opinion, and i'lll take it as that, your opinion.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

No problem. ;)

[Dulos12]

true

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"Why should one do good? Why should one go the extra mile just to do excercise morality? Why not Just do evil all your lives?"

Cronusfury, if that really is the way you think, please DO NOT EVER lose your faith!

[Dulos12]

thanks for answering his question and proving him wrong.

[CronusFury]

You persume yourself wise to say that that is indeed the way i think. I was simply trying to understand the moral logic of a world if there is no God.

But i guarantee you, if the Holy Spirit is with me, not even the devils greatest tricks could ever make me lose my faith. Amen and May God Bless You.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"You persume yourself wise to say that that is indeed the way i think."

No I don't. That's why I used the word 'if'. What I meant to say was that IF your faith is the only thing that keeps you from killing, raping, stealing, etc. it would be better for all that you would never lose it.

[CronusFury]

You persume yourself wise to say that that is indeed the way i think. I was simply trying to understand the moral logic of a world if there is no God.

But i guarantee you, if the Holy Spirit is with me, not even the devils greatest tricks could ever make me lose my faith. Amen and May God Bless You.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"that is bahnsens point, the reason we automatically hate murder and evil, is b/c we are created in the image of God."

Then wouldn't the logical thing to do is hate God? After all He murdered almost the entire population of the earth, animals and plants included, because he wasn't satisfied with HIS OWN creation. Why shouldn't this be called murder?

[Dulos12]

yes you're right, in our nature, we HATE God. w/o God, why is murder wrong, i don't think that nature in itself can tell us, b/c animals do it all the time to survive, yet as humans, we say it's wrong, why, is it wrong in a godless society

[CronusFury]

"He murdered almost the entire population of the earth, animals and plants included, because he wasn't satisfied with HIS OWN creation. Why shouldn't this be called murder? "

To answer that question i would have to go into the book of genesis. But since you probably would ignore any biblical references i would present, my attempts to debate would be futile. BUt i will try anyway.

When God created the world (according to genesis ) everything was as according to God. Perfect Utopia.

[CronusFury]

But there was a fruit. God said to man. "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge lest you die. "

God Warned them, yet they still ate of the fruit. and as a result, the Utopia was broken and all the death famine and toil, are a result of that one sin. Original sin.

It is the arrogance of man that brings about its own torment. And we "like children" blame the father for bringing these pestilences against us.

[CronusFury]

While the father looks down on the children and says "Why do you wave your fingers at me?"

"You knew the course of your actions...Your actions have consequences." Therefore, the consequences of Mans first mistake is still being felt today. 'God said do not do this...lest you die...there will be death.' Everything that follows is a result of us ignoring his warning.

but once again i cant expect any Atheist to understand what a Christian does, simply because they dont believe what we do.

[CronusFury]

Our rationality comes from teachings, scriptures that is the word of God. Atheists claim Christianity to be 'irrational' because they dont understand our 'rationality' based on the books.

[CronusFury]

and in regards to this statement: "For all the philosophical and epistomological language, eventually it always comes down to an appeal to fear and a reference to Pascal's Wager. Thanks but no thanks."

Live your faith in fear, lest the fool be brave and speak words against the most high. But when the fools life ends, those words will be either as empty and meaningless as the nothingness after death. Or they will be looked at in Judgement, and the once brave fool now cowers in fear.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"But there was a fruit. God said to man. "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge lest you die. "

God Warned them, yet they still ate of the fruit."

In Perfect Utopia, how could man know what 'death' was? If he didn't know, how could God's 'warning' be a warning? Was 'death' explained beforehand to man? Come to think about it: how can a supposedly immortal, eternal creature know 'death'?

[CronusFury]

You forgot one aspect of God. He is also All-Knowing. In his eternal knowledge not mesurable by man's limited wisdom, (If you can even call it wisdom). God knows the aspect of Death.

As for the perfect Utopia? I answer it with this: I do not believe that men are born good, nor are they born evil...yet i beleive that all men are born innocent. Like children who do not know the difference between good and evil, and through learning...one can discern the nature of what is good and what is evil.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"Like children who do not know the difference between good and evil, and through learning...one can discern the nature of what is good and what is evil."

So, why is it a sin to know the difference between good and evil? According to Genesis, even knowing this difference is a sin. Why is that? Just because you know something is wrong, doesn't mean you're actually doing something wrong, right? Then why didn't God want man to know this difference?

[cronus078]

Because he wanted man to retain there innosence, so that man would not in an essence sin and be subjected to judgement.

[CronusFury]

As for the concept of mans creation, youd have to understand that they were under the wing and eternal protection of God in Eden, and that itself was the perfect utopia, since God is all loving and perfect in all aspects.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"As for the concept of mans creation, youd have to understand that they were under the wing and eternal protection of God in Eden"

Then why didn't God protect man against the serpent?

[cronus078]

I am not so much an expert in theology or biblical scriptures to answer it solidly. All i can do is speculate, with the limited wisdom i have, to try and understand the reason why God did not spare man from temptation.

Perhaps it was a test? A test that man failed?

I think it was St. Augustine who said that God can make good come out of the works of evil. If eve did not take that fruit, we most likely would never have been born. And we couldnt be here, talking about it.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

'It is the arrogance of man that brings about its own torment.'

How can imperfection come from perfection? You said God created Perfect Utopia. Why then didn't he create man perfect? After all, if man WAS perfect, he wouldn't have sinned, even with free will. Why is man to be blamed for being created imperfect by God. Looks as if God seeks to blame man for His own mistake.

[CronusFury]

"...As for the perfect Utopia? I answer it with this: I do not believe that men are born good, nor are they born evil...yet i beleive that all men are born innocent. Like children who do not know the difference between good and evil, and through learning...one can discern the nature of what is good and what is evil."

As for why he didnt create man perfect? It was because he created something of the physical realm. Because we are material, we are not perfect. We can never be.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"Because we are material, we are not perfect. We can never be."

1- Who says? Why can't man be material AND perfect? Are you saying now that God is not capable of creating something of the physical realm that is also perfect? After all, Jesus dwelled in the material plane and still was perfect, right?

2- Since you just admitted man wasn't created perfect: why then is man to blame for doing things wrong? That's what imperfect beings, by nature, do.

[cronus078]

to answer your first question i would have to go into the deepest and most intricate natures of philosphy since the times of socrates and aristotle...more specifically plato. (though i dont know how i can fit all that into a youtube post but ill try -_-)

Think of a chair, what makes a chair a chair? There are many different types of chairs, but what is the perfect form of a chair? The one your sitting on right now? but there are different chairs everywhere.

[cronus078]

answering the second question: Man isnt created perfect but that doesnt justify them to rape, that doesnt justify them to kill, that doesnt justify them to Lie, that doesnt justify them to be sinful in any way shape or form. Just because its a mans nature to sin, doesnt make the sin "acceptable."

[CronusFury]

"After all, if man WAS perfect, he wouldn't have sinned, even with free will. Why is man to be blamed for being created imperfect by God. Looks as if God seeks to blame man for His own mistake."

Answer again. Man was not perfect,But as i have stated earlier man was created innocent. And because they were innocent they could not in a sense Sin. Because sin involves malice.

If a child said a bad word has he commited a sin? Not if he didnt know what the word meant in the firstplace.

[CronusFury]

Should the child be told Not to use the word? Of course. But since the child had no idea what the world meant, has he, in fact, sinned?

With that i mind, The cause of mans fall from the utopia, was the eating of the fruit from the tree of KNOWLEDGE. The KNOWLEDGE of what is right, and what is wrong. Therefore man is now able to be held accountable for their actions, because they know the difference and has lost the innocence of a child.

[CronusFury]

Now i can guess of a possible question that you may ask next: "Well who tempted them to fall from innosence? The Devil, once an angel of God. But since the devil is evil that makes God flawed because evil exists!"

Wrong. God had created everything, from the imperfect materiel world and man to the perfect (not sure about this one) Angels that serve under the lord. Lucifer, later called satan saw how flawed man was, and grew vain saying how man should be serving the angels instead of vice versa

[CronusFury]

Therefore he went down and tempted man saying "should you eat this fruit, you will be like Gods" To an innocent child that would sound interesting. "eat this candy and you will fly" a stranger would say. But if the child was told not to take candy from strangers he would know what was right and wrong in that sense. Just as God told man what was wrong, ( to eat of the fruit of knowledge.) Yet man wronged and ate of the fruit...and know every single action of theirs is now vulnerable to judgement.

[CronusFury]

As for evil. What is darkness but the absence of light? What is Bad but the abssence of Good? Therefore since we as christians believe that God is Good and the highest Good, anything seperated from him is evil. The devil chose to seperate himself completely from God, threw him to the depths of Hell and the devil tries to bring as many men as he can with him.

[CronusFury]

Now i know how you may twist this around... "Well i dont believe in God! But that doesnt mean im evil you arrogant Ba**ard!!"

Indeed it doesnt, because you see..you people are seperated from the IDEA of God. But know this!! All you who doubt the Lord. That you may have turned your backs on God! But God will never turn his back on you! For since man ate and was disseased from the fruit of KNOWLEDGE, God has promised to save everyone from sin, through his son Jesus Christ.

[CronusFury]

A testemant to his infinite wisdom and love for mankind. That he gave the possibility for sinners to be saved. Those that think they have the right knowledge. Those that think that human understanding could solve anything, or rather that human understanding could disprove God. They are all saved. But since man is still in sin they have to embrace the Christ as the way out of sin, For God gave man the key to salvation which is the Christ, all man has to do, is embrace him and salvation is theirs.

[CronusFury]

Now of course now, to you i sound just like another ranting preacher. But what i am doing is just simply stating, and defending my faith. Christ is king of kings, and Lord of Lords, and the one true path to God.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"But what i am doing is just simply stating, and defending my faith."

Of course you are free to do so. I'd just like to ask you: against what are you defending your faith? What is so threatening about unbelief that you have to defend your faith against it?

[CronusFury]

Perhaps defending the faith was to strong a term. When people critisize something you believe in, dont you feel obligated to answer that criticism? I dont find unbeleif threatening at all, rather i feel obliged to answer criticism. Youll have to forgive me for making this sound like a battle. Im a martial artist, and defending the faith sounds cooler. XD

[TheMasterElite]

What is so threatening? Unbelief is threatening because of what stems from it inevitably: Immorality and Tyranny.

You cannot know anything unless God exists. Nothing we know can possibly be unless God exists. If God isn't God, something else must be...and Atheism's case is that MAN IS GOD. Atheism is a faith, for man must have faith in something, and Atheism's faith is "To believe in yourself."

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"You cannot know anything unless God exists. Nothing we know can possibly be unless God exists."

I would like you to back up this statement. WHY is it so that one cannot know anything unless God exists?

[TheMasterElite]

...because God does exist. You yourself are proof of it. Where does reason and morality come from? You can say that murder is wrong, but how can it be wrong if there is no absolute wrong?

...if you can't morally reason, you can't reason at all. No idea is any better than another, and evolution is as good as Communism. Two different societies could never solve their problems, let alone two different people, and their would be chaos.

...but there isn't...so there must be a God.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

This sounds more like an argument from personal incredulity to me. Again: please back up your statement that my ability to know things or even my existance alone necessitates the existance of a deity.

Also: is it better to be a Muslim than an atheist?

[TheMasterElite]

Incredulity? LOL

No, it is not better to be muslim than atheist. As an Atheist, you would believe man is god. As a muslim you would believe that Allah is god.

I continue to state that reasoning cannot exist, let alone yourself, if God does not exist. How can human experience make sense short of God existing? You couldn't make sense out of anything if nothing can be wrong. That would be against your own worldview to say murder is wrong, since nothing is wrong according to your worldview.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"I continue to state that reasoning cannot exist, let alone yourself, if God does not exist."

Yes, and I continue to ask you to back that statement up. Can you or can you not do so?

Also: since atheism by definition is 'the absence of any god-belief', an atheist who believes man to be God technically is no longer an atheist.

[TheMasterElite]

I just did. You can't make sense of anything if nothing is morally "wrong"...

...I do get your concept of Atheism...but then, how can you account for reasoning? Who is holding you accountable for your actions? Who or what establishes the way you live your life? How can you account for right and wrong?

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

TheMasterElite, don't you obey secular laws? Well, there's your answer.

You might want to explain though, how your sense of morality can be inspired by a god who wipes out almost all life on earth simply because he isn't happy with his own creation. Was that a morally right thing to do? Why (not)?

[TheMasterElite]

Secular laws, hmmm? And what makes them right or wrong?

"A God who wipes out almost all life on Earth"...and indeed he did, and justly so. Man was at fault, being completely immoral, and having no restraint. All was anarchy, and he did so as a great judgement for failing to live according to the moral law. If you are God's creation, you would owe all to your creator. He has the right to do what he wills with you, and does...

CONTINUED IN NEXT REPLY

[TheMasterElite]

...also, seeing as most laws of today HISTORICALLY originate from the summary of the moral law of God, the 10 Commandments, I still don't see any source of morals from Atheism. Nothing can effectively determine what is "right" or "wrong"...

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"I still don't see any source of morals from Atheism."

Well DUH! Again: atheism, by definition, is the absence of any god-belief. That's all. Atheism  holds NO moral obligations or commandments because atheism only deals with god-belief. Atheism says as much about morality as it says about gravity.

[TheMasterElite]

I accidentally clicked "SPAM" instead of "REPLY" on one of your subscriptions, an error I will apologize for. I did not intend to do this.

Once again, my apologies. 0-0

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"Secular laws, hmmm? And what makes them right or wrong?"

Again: why do you obey them?

"Man was at fault, being completely immoral, and having no restraint."

So why did the animals and the plants have to die, while the fish and birds came out of it unscathed? And what about the babies and the toddlers? Where they immoral too?

"He has the right to do what he wills with you, and does..."

So because God allegedly has the right to do with me as he wills, it's perfectly OK? Nice morality.

[TheMasterElite]

...because all of Earth is fallen due to man's failure to keep God's commandments. Death itself wouldn't exist were it not for that. ALL mankind is immoral from day one due to the first man's failure as our representitive to keep God's commandment, from whence came sin, death, and misery...

...and yes, God does, but does "according to the counsel of his own will" [WCF 1647]. Technically, I don't deserve to exist, but I do, by his grace...

But once again, its the same with "Secular laws".

[TheMasterElite]

...what makes "Secular laws" right or wrong then? If they say Genocide is right, is it? If they say its okay to murder, is it right?

Is child abuse also right then?

[TheMasterElite]

...also, as you saw, they aren't "Secular laws" yet...if there is no God, there is also no God-given rights, which makes our rights privelages of the state...

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"...which makes our rights privelages of the state..."

Hmmm....so you'd rather have a deity that whipes out almost all life on Earth telling you what right or wrong than those elected from your own people?

Christian morality is ultimately selfish and egoistic. Eventually it boils down to being 'good' only to save ones OWN soul. Secular laws, however, are there for society, thereby protecting humans as individuals.

P.S.: what does God tell you about obeying speed limits? Why do you obey them?

[mghkb3]

"Christian morality is ultimately selfish and egotistic. Eventually it boils down to being 'good' only to save ones OWN soul. Secular laws, however, are there for society, thereby protecting humans as individuals. "

...selfish and egotistic? May I remind you that ALL man is fallen. It can't boil down to being GOOD because no man on Earth is "good", nor is capable of being perfectly "good". And we do not save our own souls, Christ came to save, we can only be saved ourselves. We cannot save.

[TheMasterElite]

Wort,

...wrong user.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"And we do not save our own souls, Christ came to save, we can only be saved ourselves."

Each Christian that is willing to be completely honest, will have to admit that his basic concern is to avoid eternal damnation (Hell) and to make it to Heaven. That's your ultimate goal as a Christian. And like it or not, that's basically selfish and egoistic.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

So, what about those speed limits? What does God tell you about them? Do you obey them? Why (not)?

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"If they say Genocide is right, is it? If they say its okay to murder, is it right?"

Secular laws are there to protect society, and thereby humanity as a whole. It doesn't take rocket science to realize that allowing genocide or murder would jeopardize the future of humanity as a species.

Therefore I say genocide is ALWAYS wrong. What's your position on genocide? Is it right or wrong, and is it ALWAYS right or wrong?

[mghkb3]

"Secular laws are there to protect society, and thereby humanity as a whole. It doesn't take rocket science to realize that allowing genocide or murder would jeopardize the future of humanity as a species."

...but now you are being inconsistant with your worldview. How can you say Genocide is wrong? What MAKES it wrong?

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"How can you say Genocide is wrong? What MAKES it wrong?"

The fact that genocide always has innocents suffer. The fact that genocide threatens the future of the human species; as a social species we need each other to survive. The fact that I can feel empathy. Plenty of reasons that make it wrong without needing any god. And these reasons make genocie ALWAYS wrong.

Your turn now: what MAKES genocide wrong (if it's wrong) and is it ALWAYS wrong?

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"......because all of Earth is fallen due to man's failure to keep God's commandments."

Not all Earth. The fish and birds came out of it unscathed, remember? Why did zebras have to die while sharks could stay alive? And again: did the newborn and the toddlers also fail to keep God's commandments? Do you think it's perfectly OK to also kill those NOT responsable? Really?

[mghkb3]

...and yes, the newborns were responsible. All man is responsible, and all creation was cursed because of the first man's failure.

He was our representitive, and he fell, and us being represented by him as his posterity, fell as well.

All creation is "cursed of God". Sin is in all, both man and beast. God did no wrong in the global flood. All creatures survived, and those of the human race that died WERE offered a chance for survival as well, but they rejected it.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"...and yes, the newborns were responsible."

Please demonstrate how a newborn child can have any responsability.

"He was our representitive, and he fell,"

Then why not punish him alone? Or is it morally OK to punish children for the sins of their fathers?

"All creation is "cursed of God". Sin is in all, both man and beast."

No, not in all. Again: the birds and fish came out of it unscathed. Were the birds and fish without sin, then? Please explain.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"Therefore he went down and tempted man saying "should you eat this fruit, you will be like Gods"

So, God tempted man? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't God say somewhere in the Bible that he would never tempt man?

And even so: do you think it's fair that God tempts man and then blames man for falling for it, while taking none of the blame himself? Really?

[CronusFury]

Firstly i did not say God tempted man, you must have misinterpreted what ive said. I said the Devil tempted man, to prove to God that man was indeed imperfect and unworthy of the angels service and Gods love.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"Therefore man is now able to be held accountable for their actions, because they know the difference and has lost the innocence of a child."

As I asked before: how is knowing right from wrong a sin? The fact that you are accountable for your actions does not imply that you actually DO something wrong. Yet, for God according to Genesis, knowing right from wrong alone is a sin. Why?

[CronusFury]

Knowing right from wrong is not a sin. But doing something wrong when you KNOW its wrong Is. Eve took the fruit and ate it even if God said not to. Eve knew that disobeying God was wrong, and with the devil's temptations urging her on she ate of the fruit.

the next question to be asked is; shouldnt the devil be punished instead of eve? since it was the devil that tempted eve to commit sin?

[cronus078]

(( i reached a commenting limit ))

Eve gave the fruit to adam and they were both kicked out of eden. She was punished because she made the choice out of free will, even if the devil put the temptation in her mind. That is what makes the devil so evil. He suggests the evil, but it is man that may or may not take the suggestion, and pay the consequences. B

The Devil was punished, he was thrown out of heaven and damned to hellish torment for all of eternity.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"f a child said a bad word has he commited a sin? Not if he didnt know what the word meant in the firstplace."

Exactly. You just proved my point.

[CronusFury]

"It isn't a matter of validating or invalidating arguments. It's about being able to see those same arguments from a different perspective. . . What I discovered was an intellectual riddle that couldn't be solved by the logical mind. It had to be solved by the intuitive heart." ~ A.S.A. Jones in The Unexpected Journey by Thom S. Rainer.

[Harpakhrad11]

The fact that most atheists in the western world have a Christian understanding of morality does not then lead me to conclude that Christianity is correct. It only means that Christianity has come to dominate western thinking.

[a5dr3]

But that is not his point at all. His point is that ethics become relative (indistinguishable from impulse) and/or metaphysically impossible if Christianity is not true. The Christian claim is that because we were created in God's image, everyone in some varying degree, even atheists, can't help but still reflect in some perverse manner, God's moral character.

[dreadnut]

The apologists knows that each gods of other religions have theological differences, so when an atheists argues a wiccan or mormon or juju preist, isn't he just as dependent in his rejection of these beliefs for his own in Bahnsens theory?

[pbcinla]

Haha, when does an atheist argue against a wiccan or juju preist?

I don't find they do because Christianity is logically superior on this issue. Islam possibly second. The others are easily dismissed because half reject Western logic.

[TheAtheistChrist]

Actually I've done it myself. Atheism rejects those beliefs equally with the christian god. Christianity is anything but logically superior.

[pbcinla]

Hmm. Then why not "Atheist Druid" or "Atheist Shaman?"

[dreadnut]

Bahnsens arguements are stupid. He says that when atheists argue against God/Christian world view, that they give evidence of the christian world view. As if atheists were simply anti christian or anti god.  Atheists are anti-supernatural/spiritual. We disagree with god like we do greco-roman diamonia, nors gods...

[dreadnut]

"Bahnsen brought great clarity and depth" When? I listened to the whole thing and it turns out hes just like the rest of the dolls in the closet, William Craig Lane, Habermas, Strobel, Jacoby, McDowell... How much trash can you fit in one bag?

[bitbutter]

Thanks for posting. I think Smith argues very persuasively here.

[cda6590]

Bahnsen pretends like Christianity is the only religion; like his God is the only possible God. Muslims can justify their beliefs with the same rationale, yet Bahnsen would clearly say Muslims are just as mistaken as Atheists.

[a5dr3]

Why accuse Bahnsen of shoddy scholarship by making blind assumptions? Do you really think thats all you have to say to effectively refute him, like he's never thought of that? Hilarious. No Muslims cannot justify their beliefs with the same rationale. Since u need to learn how to research I let you find out why for yourself.

[cda6590]

His basic argument was that no one can justify their world view through anything but a belief in God. What God? The Christian God of course. He says later that "everyone was a 'Christian,' including Aristotle." What is stopping a Muslim from saying that no one can justify their world view through anything but a belief in Allah? And that everyone including Aristotle was really a Muslim?

[a5dr3]

OK -A whole bunch of things. Like the fact that Allah is transcendent but not imminent.

Bahnsen never said that Aristotle was aChristian. He Said Aristotle was utilizing a Christian worldview when he reasoned cogently. That God has revealed himself not only in special but natural revelation as well. In order to exercise mathematics, logic, science, etc. one must presuppose a Christian epistemology and metaphysic. The

[a5dr3]

Koran, like the book of mormon etc. is a heretical imitation if the Judea-Christian revelation. It becomes very evident when these texts r cross-examinined. Bahnsen will explain these points more fully in upcoming videos. I don't expect you to accept them just because I've said they're true. In the meantime check out the Stein debate.

[pikechris1]

full of fallacies...

[mardvegas]

Bahnsen brought great clarity and depth to the certain and inescapable argument for the existence of God.

For all human experience presuppose Christianity.

[motile]

Shite.