Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 6 of 14)

[Invictaism]

wow dr. bahnsen is annihilated stein. God will win. Always.

[JanJiska]

@Invictaism,

Which god? There are thousands which have been worshipped across the world since the dawn of man - which one will always win?

[1noen1]

The laws of logic are based on observation????

You see, what happens is these idiots think that because they managed to get a PhD. that they then know everything.

[dagnil4]

To Opine Bahnsen is full of shite,shows the inability to think and speak in an intelligent manner; maybe the zoo may be a better lacal for this fellow/

[DanC9189]

This is rediculose, Bahnsen is full of shit.

This whole debate is just a flood of pseudo-intellectual meaningless nonsense. I've had enough of this crap, i cant put up with this for 7 more parts.

[SteheHierNichtAnders]

more assertions without substance from a skeptic... shocker.

[bKiwiD]

MAN Stein was not prepared for this debate. He went off talking about how Bahnsen doesn't understand laws- but Stein was limiting himself to 'scientific' laws by INduction. Bahnsen was referring to the much purer logical law of DEduction. This debate would be less painful to listen to if Dr Stein took a first year philosophy course or two.

[SteheHierNichtAnders]

so true.

[darrinrasberry]

2:43 Bahnsen commits the composition fallacy.

Stein still smashes his face on the sidewalk this whole debate, though.

[ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji]

How so?

[darrinrasberry]

Erm, I messed up on that one - I meant 2:33. Bahnsen commits the fallacy by asserting that, given the naturalistic worldview of the electro-chemical composition of the brain, the mind cannot possibly result. This is the composition fallacy IIRC, but I might need to brush up a bit. ;)

[ykl4hoijgbojo5jijoji]

Oh, OK! That makes more sense...but I think he was partially referencing the argument for that.

[fiercegallantry]

You're insane. Stein looks like a complete poltroon. So do you.

[nietzsche42]

epistemology is the theory of knowledge not reality

[trollforlife]

Nice username!

As for the transcendental argument, it doesn't really do much convincing by the theist when he says "I have a better foundational epistemology than you atheists!" If he then tries to say "therefore God exists" he's both presupposing reason again AND making the mistake of thinking that epistemology can have an effect on metaphysics. For the sake of finding a common ground, let both the atheists and the theists presuppose logic. At least that IS common ground. Presupposing God isnt.

[megenoita]

You created a non-existent caricature of the transcendental argument. It doesn't say "I have a better epistemology"; it says the atheist's is incoherent, and the Christian Theist's is the ONLY one that is logically coherent. Once that is established, it is the only logical conclusion that God must be true.

[JanJiska]

Which God?

There are thousands to choose from all claiming that they are the only one which is true and right.

[fiercegallantry]

Whatever else you may think, it is clear that Dr. Bahnsen utterly destroyed Dr. Stein in this debate.

[epsyca17]

ThatOneQuestion, I noticed that you claimed Christianity was

"based on the theft of older cultures."

What older cultures specifically are you referring to? Also, what specific aspects of Christianity are you referring to? Are you talking about the gospels, communion, baptism, the idea of a god rising from the dead,etc.? Please site sources.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Yup, Bahnsen continues to prove he is a fool.

[MRKetter81]

You've proven nothing but your opinion. Substantiate your claims little one

[ThatOneQuestion]

"You've proven nothing but your opinion. Substantiate your claims little one"

I thought you said you were too good to argue?

Pathetic.

These are arguments of philosophy, not truth nor proof.

You would have to prove you can do research before I would bother with you.

[MRKetter81]

Philosophy is how you determine "proof" is what it is in the first place so your point is moot.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Philosophy is how you determine "proof" is what it is in the first place so your point is moot."

Wrong. You are clearly uneducated.

[MRKetter81]

Then tell me what method you use to determine evidence outside of logic?

Scientific method? That's a phylosophical method in of it self...

So tell me how do you determine proof if not a phylosophical method?

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Then tell me what method you use to determine evidence outside of logic?

Scientific method? That's a phylosophical method in of it self..."

Best Creationist quote of the week! Thanks! You guys are always great for a laugh.

You obviously want to turn everything into a religion.

Yeah, thats right, Biology and genetic research is a philosophy. Yup, you got em there.

Debate with you is pointless. You really dont have a clue.

[ThatOneQuestion]

MRKetter81, I invite you to go to this channel:

youtube . com / watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Argue your opinion about the Scientific Method as you have here. I would love to see that!

You might even want to watch the 2 hour lecture yourself. You might get an education. Dont worry, its all science.

[fiercegallantry]

From an historical perspective, yes, biology is an aspect of natural philsophy.

Duh.

Philosophy encompasses not just ethics but also methaphysics (the theory of reality) and epistemology (the theory of reality).

[ThatOneQuestion]

"From an historical perspective, yes, biology is an aspect of natural philsophy. "

...complete failure, yet again, fiercegallantry.

Again, just like MRKetter81, you want to turn everything down to your level so you can justify your personal beliefs.

You cant tolerate anything less, so you lie.

[fiercegallantry]

Nope. I just like precision.

150 years ago, there was no such science as "biology." There were "biological sciences." And a 100 years before that, scientists were called "natural philosophers."

[ThatOneQuestion]

"150 years ago, there was no such science as "biology." There were "biological sciences." And a 100 years before that, scientists were called "natural philosophers.""

Exactly-you are blind and living in the past.

Absolute failure, kid.

Particle Physics, and new modern sciences aren't called by archaic names that have no meaning to the modern field.

This is exactly why people like you are a waste of time.

[fiercegallantry]

Why? Because I am better educated than you are?

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Why? Because I am better educated than you are?"

That has nothing to do with my comment.

Re-read it.

[fiercegallantry]

You claim that I "want to turn everything down to your level so [I] can justify [my] personal beliefs."

Providing science with a sound philosophical basis is the exact opposite of trying to drag it down. On the contrary, it shows a respect for science.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"sound philosophical basis "

And that is the trouble.

It is neither sound nor a good foundation for anything.

[fiercegallantry]

You would have to actually, ya know, prove that.

In the meantime, the attempt still shows more respect for science than your posture. Trying to use science as a cudgel to attack God & advance your philosophy while neglecting or undermining the foundations of science does not show a respect for science as an enterprise.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"You would have to actually, ya know, prove that. "

Sure. Its not a "sound" foundation for anything because you assume with your feelings and deny the proof that invalidates your belief in a fairy tale.

"advance your philosophy"

Not being childish, gullible, or weak enough to believe in a Sky God does not create a new philosophy.

The only way you can get around this is to prove the existence of your Sky God, something you CAN NOT doe with words alone.

[fiercegallantry]

You have a weird assumption that science yields greater certainty than philosophy.

This claim is a little silly, since scientific models rely on philosophical assumptions. All scientists have some philosophy a science. A scientist who does not realize he has a philosophy of science just has a philosophy of science that he has not consciously evaluated & considered.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"This claim is a little silly, since scientific models rely on philosophical assumptions."

"philosophical assumptions"

Now THAT is quite idiotic. Nice try, kid, but if you dont understand something dont make shit up.

Way to fail.

[fiercegallantry]

Ignoramus.

It's not my fault you haven't read Kuhn, Quine, Wittgenstein, Sellars or Polanyi.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Just like it isn't my fault you dont have an actual education in a field that matters.

Philosophy is professional bullshitting, nothing more. There is no discovery, no truth in philosophy.

Try actually making a real argument based on something substantial, or just dont bother.

[fiercegallantry]

Sorry, you really do not know what you are talking about. Your appeal to anti-intellectualism is rather humorous in light of the common atheist pretenses.

Science presupposes categories, concepts, numbers, law of logic, principles of mathematics, and the "uniformity of nature." In this sense, science depends on philosophical assumptions. Undeniably so.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Sorry, you really do not know what you are talking about."

That is exactly what can be said about your laughable comment.

You are a retard, and clearly not worth much effort. You are still an ignorant fool without much of an education, and making shit up like your "appeal to anti-intellectualism" really makes me laugh.

Have a nice day, kid.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Remember when I said:

Try actually making a real argument based on something substantial, or just dont bother.

That comment didn't qualify.

Dont make shit up, like that bogus appeal, and try again.

Your categories of "philosophy" are a joke.

Do you have anything else?

[ThatOneQuestion]

Oh, and lets not lose sight of what you are trying to prove:

The Magic Man in the sky.

If you actually want to make a positive argument towards that idea, go right ahead!

Most of you children havn't even started to define and justify that silly little thing before you arrogantly cry about this bullshit, so try to work towards that, boy. I'll wait.

[FreakShizzlez]

@fiercegallantry "Science" itself is the presupposition of empiricism. The belief that "empiricism is all there is" is a believer's mantra and a philosophical/religious doctrine, as there is no empirical way to prove such a thing.

[Jd311989]

Your very dim, you didn't catch how Stein COMPLETELY ignores the strongest argument of Bahnsen.. The Transcendental Argument.. and he couldn't even if he tried. He is beaten, you are beaten, atheists are beaten. Your wrong. Go ahead try to account for the laws of logic secularly... We'll be waiting with popcorn ready to laugh

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Go ahead try to account for the laws of logic secularly... We'll be waiting with popcorn ready to laugh"

Keep on waiting, then. Religious philosophers are the biggest joke in any academic circle. Do you think anyone cares if you are laughing or not?

None of you can prove the existence of your Sky God, yet you think you have already won. Christianity is based on the theft of older cultures, and here you are pretending like its an original work.

Way to fail.

[irishmauddib]

Just playing with words here is all you are doing. Define exactly what you mean by "account for the laws of logic" because it sounds to me like you are hiding your lack of points behind a veil of playing with english.

[VCMethod]

Psalm130 , you are a MORON.

[Psalm130]

People need to understand that the Jews and Masons are behind all this anti-christian stuff we see going on today. The Jews have been relentless in attacking Christianity since A.D. 43. The ACLU Jews are commited to removing all Christian symbols from America by 2015.

[Victoruto]

Hey, easy there on the Jews. Remember, the Bible is a Jewish book written by Jews, about Jews, in Jewish lands. I think 'unbelievers' is the word you are looking for.

[Kmonman]

Jewish lands like Egypt and Iraq??

[Victoruto]

Actually I was thinking more of Israel. But the Jews did live in both Egypt and what is now modern day Iraq.