Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith debate (part 4 of 6)

[CaptainSmallFoot]

This isn't a debate regarding the case for or against God. This is a debate that can't stay on topic regarding the logic of consistency within a thing and ethics. =/

I find it odd that Bahnsen depraves Christianity of necessarily having anything to do with the Christian religion, and basically declares any moral person a Christian--whether they be self professed or closet-case Christians. This is basically the conversation:

Smith: I believe this because x,y,z.

Bahnsen: No, because God.

[Bewareofthewolves]

The Atheist (on this occasion, George smith) is so dead in sin that they can not even begin to respond to the actual argumentation that Bahnsen is presenting. All they can do is distort Bahnsens points and attack strawmen.

[Creationcreed]

If a person is only out to debate, then they will not be convinced no matter how much evidence you present to them, because they are not seeking God, and because they want to maintain their label of "I am an Athiest!" or simply to devote to their lack of belief, plus they are supposedly free to do what they want as well with less conviction.

[lukeism2]

@Creationcreed george said, if a god presented himself to him, he would believe in that god.. i'm an atheist, i'd be open to a god if there was evidence. but i can't just say, i'd be open to the christian god.. because there are millions of gods... and gods that will be talked about in the future.. and possibly a god that we have no idea about. i just think it's highly unlikely. i hope this didn't seem as pigeonholed or narrowminded as other atheists you've talked to.

[templarart]

@Creationcreed I would actually be interested in a good argument for any form of theism but there just isn't any. I gave up a lot leaving Christianity, 2 years of my life in Bible College studying to be a Pastor. Instead of seeking any god or messiah or spiritual leader - think. Really think. Use your critical thinking skills and honestly, fearlessly examine the things you believe in.

[Creationcreed]

@templarart Do you believe that the scientific method is the only way of finding out whether or not something is real or true?

[templarart]

@Creationcreed It's the only reliable way. You can guess and be right. Your mom might tell you some old stories that may turn out to be true. You might feel a certain way that ends up being correct but none of these methods are reliable and coming to any truth in this way is just pure luck. The process of objectively examining propositions using evidence and logic is the best method of arriving at the truth.

[Creationcreed]

@templarart You do agree we have to use logic and evidence. But what kind of evidence would you need to say "There is a God!"?

[templarart]

@Creationcreed In the case of a god, I would expect a real god to behave differently from a fake god. I would expect real miracles, interventions, detailed-fulfilled prophecies, appearances, a book that was accurate and provided information well before its time. I would expect the clergy of a real god to be different from the conmen clergy of other gods that live off of the gullibility of their marks while lying to them. Any of these. I just expect a real god to be different from a fake god.

[HisTruthbeUNKOWN]

The basic assumption Christian philosophy makes is that man just popped into existence suddenly out of the dust of the ground. With a fully formed functional thinking brain & a "soul".

However, the fact of the matter is that man evolved slowly over time and therefore his intelligence also slowly developed.

At what point in the evolution of man do these intrinsic laws of logic take hold? At what point did the innate belief in god root itself?

[sawsin69]

cat will not give birth to an elephant..

bahnsen - why not? ahahhahaha

[a5dr3]

Well, why not? Are you not familiar with punctuated equilibrium? Just like Bahnsen says on one of these lectures, when people ridicule instead of actually trying to provide a feasible epistemological foundation for induction, it generally shows that they just don't have an answer. I've known about this page for a year and it's always just the same old adolescent jeering and mockery.

[sawsin69]

i'm sorry for offending you... it is that every law in the universe cannot account for a man giving birth to an elephant unless we resort to the probability of God and still and will always be a probability... im not ridiculing the argument... im asking WHY? i'm not telling that it is absurd... so much with the old adolescent jeering huh

[sawsin69]

im sorry if offended you or anything... it is that every knowable laws in our universe cannot account for a man giving birth to an elephant... I'm not ridiculing the argument... im asking WHY? im not telling that it is absurd... so much with old adolescent jeering huh... don't be to harsh god will not be happy with you ,just like bahnsen said =/

[sawsin69]

to defend christianty or to defend himself? cmon

[Skinko101]

lol me too, i saw it

[punkash78]

Look at the subliminal message put in at 5:00. I can't believe I caught that. Wow, now I am all the sudden a Christian. How ludicrous to think that this subliminal message is going to convert or play a role in converting anyone: typical theistic magical thinking.

[8675965]

don't be ridiculous! your reasoning is infantile!

[TheGreatPrince]

@ punkash78

That wasn't subliminal. At all. In-fact, Bahnsen's, an apologetic, goal isn't to convert or change anyone's heart. It's to defend the Christian faith. Which is what he's doing. He doesn't care whether you believe or not.

[TheGreatPrince]

@ punkash78

My mistake. Ignore that last message. I didn't even notice the quick flashing message, I was just listening.

[a5dr3]

Actually, it's typical for a pagan to consign their own asinine, derrogatory explanations to the motivations of Christians. Yeah dude, Christians are so stupid that they think they can subconciously control your mind. The "subliminal message" is obviously just a silly joke and shows how biased, average thinkers will try to reconstruct reality according to their imaginations.

[darrinrasberry]

Bahnsen forgot those worldviews that hold the Law of Identity as axiomatic.

[a5dr3]

No, Bahnsen is about a billion light years beyond "forgetting" the Law of Identity. He is asking for a valid epistemological system by which to justify the intelligibility of experience. The Law of Identity itself needs a basis and is only one small aspect of a system of thought. And even if you could somehow construct a system around a self proclaimed "Law" no matter how reasonable or absurd the law, it would still be upon examination just an arbitrary faith commitment.

[sawsin69]

its good to see Christians who keep blabbering. you're wrong! you're stupid!. now where's god in that statement?

[theweakarefree]

At 7:32, this is classic Bahnsen...

[1980PintoMan]

A cat has cats because that is it's nature. Then how would evolution work? You don't have an explanation there Smith.

[templarart]

Even if evolution is 100% wrong - Jehovah is still just another myth in the vast pantheon of human imagination. Jehovah is a minor, tribal god - seen as a mountain god by neighboring civilizations. It's "chosen people" were stepped on by every major civilization and accomplished nothing of any importance - hardly what I would expect from a real god.

[ezkl01]

I've heard this before. Is there any evidence for it though?

[templarart]

Jehovah as a mountain god? google(.)books(.)com "History of Israelite Religion Volume 1" page 52. Same place: "The Biblical World" page 91. In the Bible, the Arameans fear him as a mountain god. (1K 20:23) - I'm trying to find my original reference which was supported by archeological finds. I'll post that later.

[ezkl01]

thanks dude, I'll have to check this out.

[jvarcher]

william lane craig is a far more persuasive apologist.

(aristotle was a christian?!)

[motile]

Greg Bahnsen talks pure shit.

[templarart]

I just find it inconceivable that people as brainwashed, mindless, ignorant and retarded as Bahnsen can actually put his own clothes on in the morning. It's hard to actually argue with people this stupid, like arguing with a delusional moron who says you can't reason unless you believe in his magical invisible rabbit.

[motile]

Right on.

[1980PintoMan]

It's hard for you to argue because you have no argument.

[templarart]

I made my argument: it's called an analogy. Where is your argument or... are you incapable of logic because you don't believe in the Trix Rabbit?

[1980PintoMan]

I wasn't talking to you. Somebody gave no argument, that's all.

[cda6590]

There he went: "Those who reject the world view of the Bible, etc. can't suppose any reason for morality." What about others who believe in another form of god?

[1980PintoMan]

The atheist has no reason for morality, can't explain it. Murder can be good or bad to an atheist.

[templarart]

Morality is a tool evolved by ALL pack, herd or hive animals that allows them to live in social structures. It would be impossible for any civilization to succeed without morality and cultures have been succeeding and evolving far before the creation of Jehovah, tribal god of the ancient Hebrews.

[1980PintoMan]

Morality could not have evolved, there is no reason for morality in your world. You are a hypocrite.

[templarart]

So did a god give the Babylonians their laws of morality? Did a god give the Egyptians their laws of morality?  Either a god appeared before each and every culture giving them all different laws of morality or humans came up with these laws on their own in order to organize their societies. Neither answer supports Christianity as the sole source of morality.

[theweakarefree]

templart,

If "morality" is a feature of evolution, then whatever morality that has evolved is "right".

If a majority of Germans think it is right to apply their evolutionary morality to the extermination of Jews, the what they decide is right.

Atheism is so stupid.

[templarart]

You dodged instead of answering my question.

Since morality DOES evolve - Xians no longer live by Bible morality but instead by better, evolved social morality. In direct defiance of the OT Xians do not murder unbelieving family members, are against slavery, don't think killing Sabbath breakers is a good idea etc. In direct defiance of the NT Xians save money, resist evil, do not live in communes etc.

[theweakarefree]

Wow. The level of your ignorance of Biblical theology is astounding.

If you can prove even ONE claim in yout last post, then I will never post on this site again.

Wow. Atheism is so stupid.

[templarart]

Deuteronomy 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son....saying, Let us go and serve other gods...13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death

You would have to be severely ignorant of the Bible not to know that my claims are true. Would you like verses for EACH claim?

[MRKetter81]

Your question is Retorical and loaded. You ASSUME morality evolves. However how can any "standard" evolve at all? Then it's no longer a stanard, and more subjectional than anything.

In that case one may as well assume whatever moral standards they wish arbitrary to any standards. One can simply stipulate their own morality and call it "evolved" and then you would be forced to agree that he was being moral based on the assumption you make that morality evolves.

[templarart]

1) You reject slavery and the murder of heretics which is a "standard" that the OT openly commands. Why? You live by evolved, social morality - NOT Bible morality.

2) Like politics; morality is developed, decided on and accepted by "the group". Subgroups within the group can try to push their moralities on the larger group. e.g. Peta, Queer Nation, NRA etc.

3) Yes, "the group" can decide that a specific individual's behavior is immoral without any religion. It's called government and laws.

[JoshuaPniewski]

So Hitler was right to kill Jews, because his government and laws said it was ok to?

What about the genocide in Darfur?

[templarart]

We find Hitler and the genocide in Darfur to be highly immoral because we've accepted the morality of our society.

Genghis Khan, Saddam Hussein or Moses, however, would see genocide as a perfectly acceptable practice.

If there IS any ultimate, objective right or wrong.. (there isn't) the Bible sure isn't any help in finding it.

[JoshuaPniewski]

So, your recognizing you have no basis for morality other than what one person or society deems acceptable, so who are you to enforce and place limits on other peoples view of morality. What gives you the right to limit other peoples freedom?

[templarart]

"you have no basis for morality other than what one person or society deems acceptable"

ALL of our moralities are largely based on the society we live in. DESPITE the OT YOU don't kill heretical family members, feel slavery is okay, think killing sabbath breakers, witches or non-virgin brides is positive.  DESPITE the NT you resist evil, will NOT give someone your house if asked, save for the future, will not sell all you have and live in a commune. You and I both have a Western morality.

[JoshuaPniewski]

All? Do you have knowledge of all things? What about ones you don't know yet?

You obviously do not understand Biblical Law in relation believers, morality, and salvation.

Simply saying I hold a western morality therefore biblical morality is false is a logical fallacy, and only proves I inconsistently apply biblical morality, it does not make it any less true.

[JoshuaPniewski]

You assume I hold to western values, but what if I hold to Nazi values? I believe killing Jews is Ok. What basis do you have to say I am immoral, other than your conventions I do not hold to? I believe your western values are immoral.

[JoshuaPniewski]

In an atheistic worldview you cannot even account for values because thoughts thus actions are simply the results of random chemical reactions in my brain therefore since it is a random natural act, you have no basis for calling it immoral, specially since we cannot control random natural events.

[templarart]

I really don't know where to start - you have so many false premises going on that I'm just drowning in them.

1) There is NO such thing as an 'atheist worldview' anymore than there is a 'not-a-scientologist worldview' or a 'not-a-communist worldview'. My worldview is very different from many other atheists and you'll get different philosophical answers from atheist to atheist because the term atheist only means that you don't believe in gods - it's NOT a philosophy, worldview or belief.

[templarart]

2) Secular Values/Morality. As an example, let's look at the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Read through these amazing works largely authored by non-Christians creating a list of human rights and govt commandments not found in any Holy Book. They arrived at the idea that humans have a right to life, liberty and happiness NOT from a Bible but from philosophy and reason. Where do we find freedom of the press or freedom of religion in the Bible? We don't, we find the opposite.

[templarart]

3) So instead of morality arrived at through reason and philosophy we should use the Bible?

The Bible openly calls for a whole host of atrocious behaviors like genocide, slavery, the killing of infidels and that a bride should be stoned to death on her father's doorstep.

A person who bases his morality on reason and compassion can say that genocide is immoral but a Christian claiming Biblical morality cannot say that genocide is immoral or else his god is immoral and commands immorality.

[reo345678]

@templarart "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"...I rest my case

[templarart]

@reo345678 I'm not sure I understand what case you've rested. What you quoted was written by a deist who did NOT believe in the Christian god. Deists and atheists are much closer in ideology than deists and theists - in fact a deist could be called a type of atheist. Note: A-Theism not A-Deism. Atheists don't believe in gods which are powerful, supernatural beings attached to religions. Deists don't believe in these thing either.

[reo345678]

@templarart Yes they do. A deist believes that God created the world and established laws and let it run by itself. Thus, they have a basis for the morality that they promote. And in case you didn't know many of the people who formulated those great documents such as Roger Sherman, George Washington, and others were Christians. Plus, the outstanding creed of an atheist is that there is no God. If a deist claims that there is a God how could you say they are the same?

[templarart]

@reo345678 Short answer: A 'god' is a powerful, worshiped, supernatural being like Thor, Zeus, Ra etc. A god is not necessarily a creator and a creator is not necessarily a god. God (capital 'G'), is the name of the Jewish/Christian god; God the god. A non-god, (non-religion) creator is an unknown alien being, irrelevant to our lives and no different from a natural event. Deists do not believe in 'God the god' or any other gods. Deists often use the Xtian formal name 'God', but it isn't a god.

[JoshuaPniewski]

Are you sure you understand worldviews? Although there are different forms and schools of atheistic worldviews they are worldviews none the less. In the simplest form the presupposition that there is no God, is the basis for your world view. Thus the atheist (majority of the time if they are consistent) hold to a naturalistic random view of the world.

[templarart]

You don't believe in Taoism - is 'not-a-Taoist' a worldview? No. Is 'not-a-communist' a worldview? No. You could say there are schools of 'not-a-communist' worldviews too. How about "Is not collecting stamps a hobby?" You HAVE to understand that this is a HIGHLY prejudicial and fanatical viewpoint - like a "Twilight" fanatic calling everyone else "A-Twilightists" and saying that they have an "A-Twilightist worldview". You don't believe in Thor - is that the BASIS of your worldview?

[JoshuaPniewski]

Are you simply trying to skirt the issues with semantics? You of course have a world view, call it whatever you want "templarart worldview" it does not matter. As it does not have the necessary preconditions for knowledge, uniformity, or universal laws (etc. logic)

[JoshuaPniewski]

and its obvious the Christian Worldview has a basis in the Trinitarian God...

Also, did you even listen to the video? Bahnsen explains this issue you raised quite fully... also make sure you check you the next 2 parts...

[templarart]

Bahnsen's arguments are such incoherent piles of convoluted illogic and false premises that it takes forever to unravel it into something even approaching logic. Look at Smith's bewilderment, he has no clue what Bahnsen is talking about and can't even approach arguing with it because it's just a pile of baseless garbage - like a 3 year old explaining nuclear fusion. "And then Santa and the Easter Bunny make power! You can't talk about power if you don't believe in Santa." WHAT?!

[JoshuaPniewski]

So instead of addressing your inability to account for logic you ridicule and demean.

How can you say it is a false premise or illogical because you have no standard for truth? What is your standard for logic or truth outside of your own thoughts, comprehension, and conventions. Therefore you have no basis for the claim of "illogic and false premises"

What is your standard for logic? for Truth?

[templarart]

All science and logic is based on a single, basic tenet which is unproven and unprovable:

"Everything we see and experience is real."

Abandoning this basic concept and worrying that we're living in a Matrix or that we're a butterfly's dream leads to a pointless, counterproductive mindset. You might as well sit in a corner doing heroine and staring at a candle.

This ISN'T JUST a problem for skeptics. The religious are ALSO beset by exactly the same problem

(part 2)

[templarart]

2

As a Christian you also have to believe that everything you see and experience is real.

Maybe you just imagined that someone told you these stories as a child. Maybe aliens are experimenting with us in a virtual world and gave each of us a different bizarre religion just to watch what happens. Maybe a Carpathian demon created the world, history, memories and religions 10 years ago just for fun.

Religion is just as affected by and offers no viable solution to this problem.

[templarart]

3

Now, either skeptic or Christian, we have to simply accept that everything is real - what about logic?

All higher animals, and many lower animals are capable of 'pattern recognition' a skill necessary for survival. Logic is simply an advanced form of 'pattern recognition'. If you mean 'Laws of Logic'. These 'laws' are simply observations of how our world works and are descriptive NOT prescriptive. I've filled maybe 30 boxes trying to explain this to the Christian, Fierce Gallantry.

[mardvegas]

Bahnsen was like the Timothy to the Paul (Van Til) who crystallized the certain and inescapable argument for the existence of God.

Praise God for their ministries.

For all human experience presuppose Christian Theism, game over.

[motile]

For all human experience presuppose a 2000 year old Jewish zombie scapegoat? No thanks. Pull your head out of your arse and wake up.