Greg Bahnsen - Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews (part 7)

[sdcorfu]

Ratings have been disabled for this video....FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS.

[funhistory]

Same pretty girl who picked her nose in Part 6 (during the introduction to Personal Freedom & Dignity section) now hangs her head in shame while doing it from 2:35 - 2:38.

[Roper122]

* groan...

please, please, don't tell me that he is actually opening by asking for evidence for atheism.

and then he goes on to say that faith does not fill gaps in reason...

but you cannot account for reason, and you start from faith

( which is effectively filling the gap .. just at a different point )

self deception indeed.

[pilgrimpater]

Wow hang on 3:02 the burden of proof is ALWAYS with the claimant. This is totally wrong because the Atheist has no case against god because nobody can define the god or goddess or gods. You cannot have faith against an untruth. All the Atheist has is the fact that nobody has ever made a case FOR god. That is why Atheism is not a faith.

[ebeatworld]

We don't have many Christian debaters up to par with this guy these days. D'Souza is pretty good. But we need more intelligent believers like this guy.

[Gangjoyful]

@ebeatworld There's always William Lane Craig :)

[ReformedTheology5]

our Christian faith is not apart from, not beyond reason :-).

evolution is anti-Scientifical on all levels, it is pseudo-Science. people need to look past their blind emotions and pseudo-Science. they need to use their minds, intelligence...all they do is believe what people tell them blindly, then insult anyone who disagees. Education is really dumbed down.

[jmg94j]

1. Moral absolutes LOL Religious morals have continuously evolved over the last3000 years or so. In the old testament genocide was considered just and appropriate in some cases, ie: The slaughter in Jericho, and the destruction of the midianites. In the new testament things likke that were frounded upon, but slavery was still ok. Most christian churches are decent today because they have been forced to accept secular values such as women's right's, civil rights, etc. The key word here is "force"

[bullwhipjesus]

To all Christians what is your evidence for not believing in Horus? You have to face it you use the same reasoning Atheists do. Its funny how no one argues over the existance of George Washington in American history, but we argue over the existance of Jesus. If something really exists or existed with enough evidence to back it up there is no arguement. Yes any nutjob can say Washington never existed but we would all laugh at them, but when you tell Christians Jesus is not real they get mad.

[dichotomyofone]

Oooookkkkkk. I'd destroy any of his students and him in debate if these are his best arguments.

[JoshuaPniewski]

You wouldn't destroy him because for one he is dead... but second you have no response to any of his arguments without either begging the question, contradicting yourself, or appealing to relativism, which again shows you have no foundation to start from.

How can you prove logic exists, in order to use it at an argument? You must borrow from the Christian worldview to be able to defend your own. Watch his debates with George Smith, and Gordon Stein.... You would lose...

[dichotomyofone]

Ok, you go ahead and think that. No response without begging the question? Oh? Self contradiction? Of course! Appealing to relativism? Naturally, that we none believers always do. I've plenty of a foundation, I have the negative argument, the one that says you don't know and as that, it is more rational to not worship a unknown deity then it is to worship it.

And really, an ontological argument against logic? Yeesh. I don't have to borrow a theist world view to defend anything.

[JoshuaPniewski]

What is your foundation for logic then?

How do your "Know" he is an unknown God, and not merely that you do not know him?

[dichotomyofone]

If you want to understand logic, it's history and how it works look it up, I'm not going to teach you about it.

I can't know it in the way your begging for me to not know it, I can know that everyone who claims to know God seems to have no special power, knowledge or wisdom about anything, ever. So whoever it is that makes these claims are either lying or insane and in every case that is provable. Too ask yourself, what about Brahman, the Hindu God, why are you ignoring the claims about him?

[JoshuaPniewski]

Well, i understand how logic works and I can account for its existence.

But, you in a non-christian worldview cannot account for the universal laws of logic. You can claim they are conventions among men, which wouldn't make them universal, you could claim they work based on past observation, but since you cant predict the future you have no basis for believing they would hold true in the future. So how do you come to the conclusion that their are laws of logic, or any universal laws at all?

[dichotomyofone]

The word "law" is used as a descriptive, not a prescriptive. It describes how things behave, their patterns, etc. Don't get confused by semantics.

[JoshuaPniewski]

What is you basis for believing that these patterns will behave in the future as in the past?

[dichotomyofone]

You're talking about deductive logic here. Logic is fully aware of the fallacy of using this logic, however, such as in the case of science, where the fallacy is practiced professionally, it works none the less. Which at least gives us probabilities of things happening the same way each time we attempt it.

Could debate you on this with PM but it'll have to be later...which 4 things are you mentioning? I'm not watching this video again for your sake.

[JoshuaPniewski]

So giving it the possibility of working in the future makes it true? You still havent accounted for Logic

Although you can explain how you believe these things you cannot account for them:

1.) Moral Absolutes

2.) Uniformity of Nature

3.) Universals & Laws

4.) Personal Freedom & Dignity

[JoshuaPniewski]

as to other gods and worldviews outside of the Christian worldview, that is another topic, as each one would be addressed differently, but it comes down to their inability to create the preconditions of their own world view (like atheism).

You say you have a foundation for your beliefs, then please address the 4 areas Bahnsen mentions... you can PM if you would like.

[AntiCitizenX]

This guy fails so hard. He commits every classic blunder of theistic thinking.

[DevoutAtheist42]

Perhaps Smith's title is misleading, but he's certainly defining atheism in one of the common ways. You won't find many "Strong Atheists," who claim a positive case against God. Most are closer to "Weak Atheism," which says that there's insufficient evidence to make belief in God rational or justified.

[DevoutAtheist42]

Edit: Sorry, that was gallopingly tactless.

I'd never heard of him until I saw these videos; it would have been interesting to see him debate Daniel Dennett or one of the other atheistic philosophers around nowadays.

[a5dr3]

The best is the one that Micheal Martin didn't show up to. It's called "The Debate That Never Was." You can download it for a small fee at CMF Now. Bahnsen just turned the scheduled debate into a lecture and a long question and answer time, but it is at a more advanced level than the other debates, and it's the same approach he would have taken with Dennent I'm sure. There's another you can find on net if u google around against Edward Tabash. He debates like Hitchens, through emotional appeal.

[JoshuaPniewski]

"Devout" Atheist gives the idea you have "faith" in your atheism... Since you cannot prove an universal negative... being a devout atheist is quite contradictory aye?

[lorenzojhwh]

blessings too

shalom

[77Merav]

very interesting.

[barbyndigena]

o sea hellooooooo!!!!!!! es hiper nice!!!

[exposingscams]

This video is boring, I have not focused on the message at all. I rather watch my own vomit dry.

[ClumsyRoot]

Those students look as bored as they should.

[deadgoblin86]

LOL I listened to the tape Greg Bahnsen references. Bahnsen got PWNED!!! hahaha, you lose, Goddy

[gharik]

Problem: People are making unsupported claims about the content of the Bible.

[Redfingers]

As far as Greg's lecture is concerned, I've detected a problem.

Greg talks about the book "The Case Against God." True, the author has admitted he has no positive case. But there is such a thing as a negative case. It is clear that the author is making a negative case or at least is taking the negative position.

The burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the claimant, and only the claimant. So carry your burden well, Greg. When that author makes a positive claim, he should do the same.

[Redfingers]

"The absolution or absolutism needed to judge why A = A is the truth and the truth can only be consistently displayed through the teachings of the Gospel and faith in the Christian God."

Problem: the Gospel contradicts itself.

Problem: the Gospel is inconsistent.

Problem: believers are inconsistent.

Problem: the Bible does not establish the laws of logic

Problem: Induction is impossible whenever you add the variable of miracles performed by an omnipotent God's arbitrary will

[a5dr3]

All of those "problems," upon cross examination aren't problems at all, except for the third, which is irrelevant to TAG. (Assuming inconsistent means not perfect.) Actually if the Bible is true than we would expect "believers" to be inconsistent. I would encourage you to continue your research. There are about a million websites that adequately deal with each of your points if you google them one by one.

[Redfingers]

Then I'm going to have to ask you to PM me with a link of even a single one of them.

That or you can go ahead and explain to me exactly how "uniformity of nature" can be guaranteed whenever you add God's omnipotence and how exactly the Bible establishes the laws of logic.

Particularly "problem" 4. If you cannot positively make a case for the claim, go ahead and discard the claim.

Problem 3 doesn't refer to TAG, it refers to the insane claim of TheGreatPrince that I quoted.

[a5dr3]

Check out Micheal Martins written debates with Butler and Frame for an explanation of induction. I'm not sure where to begin with the New Testament. As an unbeliever, I doubt your interested enough in Christianity to do any demanding study. If you are start with N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God", + if you go to Josh Mcdowells website he has a lot of average Joe "evidential" type resources that will help you understand the basic points of why the Scriptures are reliable.

[Theologica37]

Bahsen is great, but hes wrong about the Roman Catholic Church's teachings on faith and reason.

[Dhorpatan]

@Theo37

Bahnsen was wrong on almost all his Epistemology and philosophy.

Just like you are about the Laws of Logic and the Problem of Universals, etc.

[CadicusTheDamned]

Luke 14:33, bitches. Live up to it or you supposed Christians will fry in Hell for eternity. Quit being hypocrites. If the bit about the snake talking is to be taken literally, so are the words of your master.

By the way, this cunt is a con man. It's obvious if you look at it objectively.

[a5dr3]

yes, if we don't give up everything we will go to Hell. The question is, what does giving up everything mean especially in this context. -It is a ridiculous fallacy to assume that one Scripture should be interpreted in the same manner as another. When Jesus says he is a door that does not mean he is claiming to be made of wood. Different scriptures are interpreted contextually according to their genre, etc. Anyways, who said the part of the snake talking is to be taken literally?

[TheGreatPrince]

We can certainly tell what level CadicusTheDamned's discernment is on.

[harr7959]

vic is correct. Absolutely crap.

This is some of the worst intellectual dishonest I have ever seen.

[a5dr3]

vic has developmental problems. Do you have some sort of valid argument against presuppositionalism or do you just hate God and aren't well read enough to understand this introductory high school course?

[HeathMc]

Great videos!

Bahnsen's arguments are so good, even dead, he still reduces atheists to resort to making personal attacks and leaving nasty comments.

Thanks for posting these!

[VicSidious]

100% top class unadulterated bullshit.

[ChessTube1]

Dr. Greg Bahnsen rules! His books are absolutely outstanding.

[CptCrash21]

Atheists don't really run into contradictions in moral "absolutes" or too much of anything else. I'm not an atheist, but we all parties need to be honest about the discussion.

[a5dr3]

Even ur comments are riddled with contradictions. In an atheist universe all that exists is matter, yet u appeal to universal, abstract ethical standards when u inform others of their obligations in discussion. You rationally criticize an Augustinian epistemology, but without contradicting your materialism u can't account for invariant rational standards that exist outside of your individual brains grey matter. -Your very disagreement itself proves your atheistic relativism cannot be followed

[a5dr3]

In a random world of wholly atomistic, chance particulars there can be no thing or opinion more "right" or "wrong" than another. -I'm also avoiding more "technical" criticisms.

[CptCrash21]

Friend I think you're confusing logical absolutes, which denotes a demonstrably self-evident relationship, with moral absolutes. I think you've also ascribed many things to my statement that aren't really there.

[a5dr3]

I understand your perspective. You've always just taken for granted things like abstract laws of rationality, uniformity in nature, etc. I assure you that the laws of logic are not self-evident. If they were logicians wouldn't have to devote their life to studying and discovering them, our IQ's wouldn't be tested by our ability to recognize them and the majority wouldn't have to be expressed in abstruse formulas. Ethics is a different category, but there is certainly a logical process and more

[a5dr3]

importantly a set of epistemological assumptions about the nature of reality. It's simple, if all that exists is the material world that is constantly fluxuating and changing, how can there be immaterial standards that are invariant, whether they be ethical or logical? Again, it gets much deeper than this if you really want to delve into what a consist atheistic universe would actually look like. Check out the debates on this page. I believe Stein brings up a similar point about logic -Cheers!

[plumpis]

The law of identity is not self-evident? The law of excluded-middle is not self-evident? Please, proceed to show us external justification.

[a5dr3]

I think you've misunderstood the transcendental challenge. If I could "justify" anything from the perspective of your wholly subjective, arbitrary, fideistic atheistic worldview,I would have undermined my own position. -I couldn't in 500 words complete a list of the schools of thought that have denied these laws. In an atomistic universe, their brains' grey matter is as relevant as yours is. What overarching, universal criterion do you appeal to when you pontificate they are objectively wrong?

[plumpis]

I take the law of identity and excluded middle as self-evident. Yes, people have denied them, but I think they are wrong.

The overarching, universal criterion I appeal to when I pontificate they are objectively wrong is my presupposition. Hey, we have something in common!

[a5dr3]

U can presuppose that Darth Vader lives in your attic if u want to, but until u have a logical defense of your epistemology your simply living on faith, and against reason. That the chemicals in your brain might happen today to fizz in a certain manner that inspires u to believe in excluded middle does not somehow create a universal,invariant, prescriptive law of thought, just a worldview reducable to total arbitrariness and skepticism, as brilliant atheists like Hume and Russel have shown.

[plumpis]

Presuppositions like God exists or Darth Vader lives in my attic do not lead to contradictions if I deny them, while the law of identity and excluded middle do.

Oh, and stop trying to tell me that Hume and Russell argued for Cartesian skepticism.

[a5dr3]

one your in now of trying to reconcile invariant,universal,abstract laws of logic and the free agency u seem to think u have to choose whether or not to follow them, to a materialist world that in your opinion consists of solely matter in flux, where even your "thoughts" are merely the determined epiphenonenons of antecedent biological factors. -Who mentioned Descartes?

[a5dr3]

Again, you've begged the question and assumed without justification your personal choice of a Western modal system of thought superior over those philosophies that allow or don't even believe in the possibility of contaridctions. If your "logic" is grounded in nothing but personal psychology why do u assume it superior to Parmenides, Schopenhauer or Buddhas? -To deny that God exists does in fact lead to contradictions,(why that bothers you I'm not sure),like the

[plumpis]

You seem to not understand the meaning of "self-evident". It is absurd to ask for justification or flat out deny that "A = A" or that propositions are either true or false. How could the truth of these possibly be contingent on the existence of something?

[a5dr3]

OK, it is self evident that God exists, so you need to repent of the fact that u continue to use a Christian theory of knowledge to argue against him. -I don't feel like explaining why things like universals, mental freedom, uniformity in nature, rationality, laws of math, similarity, substances, general concepts and categories, normalcy of the observer, reliability of the senses, induction, etc, all of which are necessary for your "self evident" assesments,

[a5dr3]

can only be made coherent within a Christian worldview. I brought up Russel because he knew this very well and articulately commented on the futility of any foundation for knowledge from an atheistic perspective. You seem intelligent and well read enough to deconstruct your philosophy on your own. I believe in excluded middle and all the rest, but I can only defend that belief because if I utilize a Christian worldview. Without it I can't utilize any of the list above and justify that A = A!

[plumpis]

Now you're getting it. You can't justify a tautology with something other than itself, it is just self-evidently true. A tautology follows from anything, sweetie. Unicorns exist, thus A = A. Jebus died for our sins, thus A = A.

Pineapples are made of frogs, therefore God exists or does not exist. God exists, therefore God does or does not exist.

...and just for fun; It is raining, and it is not raining. Therefore you owe me a million dollars.

[TheGreatPrince]

@ plumpis:

The meaning of self-evident is only justifiable or valid if you have a basis to judge that self-evidence on or a school of thought, philosophy or objective absolutism. Otherwise it becomes irrelevant what's self-evident and what's not. A = A only because it's logical and logic stems from the same "absolute" I just mentioned, without an absolute or basis of absolution, it becomes meaningless and irrelevant, again, why A = A or even the definition of "tautology", for that matter. -

[TheGreatPrince]

- The absolution or absolutism needed to judge why A = A is the truth and the truth can only be consistently displayed through the teachings of the Gospel and faith in the Christian God.

[TheGreatPrince]

@ plumpis

Also, by saying "You assume a lot. I don't believe in free will." you are inconsistently portraying your perception. Stating that you don't believe in free-will is invalidating the gift of free-thinking and therefore any subjectivity (opinions, views, etc.,) is rendered illogical.

[plumpis]

You assume a lot. I don't believe in free will. I didn't say you mentioneud Descartes, I said you characterized Hume and Russel as being in support of practicing Cartesian skepticism (look it up).

[CptCrash21]

Friend, I think you're confusing Moral absolutes with Logical absolutes, which denotes a demonstrably self-evident RELATIONSHIP. I also think that you are ascribing things to my statement that aren't really there.

[CptCrash21]

Ah, the screen did a weird freeze-up thing when I tried to post my comment. Crud.

[plumpis]

Yet, in a world that includes ectoplasmic goo, suddenly things and opinions can be more right or wrong than others?

[plumpis]

In an atheist universe, there are no gods. Everything else is compatible.

[CptCrash21]

The "definition" thing was good. The whole bit about faith underwriting reason isn't. I know he thinks he's got something there, but he doesn't. Freedom underwrites reason, not faith. Faith isn't something thrust upon us. I could say much more about why this is so, but it gets rather technical. But again, the definitions thing was pretty good.

[fiercegallantry]

Bahnsen's argument is *not* the _argumentum ad ignorantum_. Rather, he argues that unbelieving world-views, including atheist world-views, run into **self-contradictions** in regard to moral absolutes, laws, induction, & personal dignity.

[aiyic]

@ 7:40, the bespectacled guy , oh so cleverly, agreeing with the great professor. Wake up!

[aiyic]

I'm still not convinced! I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced. Clever dancing around the lack of proof for the claim of god's existence.

[fiercegallantry]

Dr. Bahnsen (Ph.D. in epistemology from USC) had an encylopedic knowledge of philosophy & the history of philosophy. His mind was sharp & incisive. He is greatly missed.

[aiyic]

Presumptive fogging! Two steps from an televangelist. The 'evidence' for god, is the lack of proof an atheist has for the non-existence? Is that the bones of this? Tell me if I'm wrong.

[a5dr3]

No, it is a transcendental argument and functions likewise.

[kamajiboy]

enough to put you to sleep

[Klaratu]

Dr Bahnsen is Brilliant!

[gokuhawks14]

do comments have to be approved

[WorshipVideo]

I approve of this comment

[derocdero]

The evidence for Christianity is presented throughout the lecture. The evidence of logic, reasoning, the evidence of knowing, etc, are all presented as evidences of the Christian faith.

[aiyic]

We don't need proof that Christianity exists!

And anyway, logic, reasoning and knowing are not evidence in themselves. Clever man but, has no proof.

[a5dr3]

I kind of agree, and in a sense Bahnsen would as well. In another sense there is just too much explicit Scripture explaining that we should furnish the unbeliever with evidence and arguments. Also, the transcendental argument for Gods existence is sound and Scriptural and very effective.

[aiyic]

Even as an atheist, I just can't help but think that it's very clever, thought provoking and ethereal, but there is no substance to it. It threatens a eureka moment, but doesn't' deliver. I have a extremely intelligent Jew turned Hari Krishna devotee cousin who can espew similar stuff but you are still left feeling short-changed.

[chinchilla8]

Harpakhrad11, have you read the title of the series?

[Harpakhrad11]

Yes

[Harpakhrad11]

Up to part seven and I still have not heard any evidence for christianity.

[MRKetter81]

If you're looking for him to prove to you (as though the berden of profe was his) then you're going to be disapointed, but then you came to be disapointed from your approach in the first place.

How can you place the burden of profe in the first place when your use of reasoning is with out any?

[Harpakhrad11]

It would seem to me that the term "Unbelieving Worldviews" must be negative in nature. Meaning that they must be unbelieving in something positive; in this case (from what I can tell) some form of Protestantism. To challenge this negative he posit a positive, he has not. In part one he mentions the occult, he has not refuted occult theory's. Not all "Unbelievers" are materialists, yet this is what he spends all his time on. Am I being to literal in my understanding of the term "Unbeliever"?

[aiyic]

You are right. This is presumptive fogging! Two steps from an televangelist. The 'evidence' for god, is the lack of proof an atheist has for the non-existence? Is that the bones of this? Tell me if I'm wrong.

[fiercegallantry]

You're wrong.

[aiyic]

And....

[daome2012]

thx