Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 12 of 14)

[JanJiska]

" rendering it useless against modern religion"

All religion or just yours?

[CamAtheist]

Bahnsen proves evolution...no one can become that stupid in one generation and certainly 7,000 yrs isnt enough..Bahnsen needs the full 80 triilion yrs plus that scientology claims.

[leviksu]

ad hominem much?

[CamAtheist]

I consider myself a modern Epicurian actually..if there is proof show me..but extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary evidence...

[leviksu]

Bahnsen did offer proof, several times. Clearly you either didn't listen to Bahnsen's position (most likely because you'd made your mind up before and did not consider the positioin... hence your fallacious and emotional response in the form of an ad hominem) or you simply disagree.

search "Atheists: TAG You're Out!", a video by paleocrat for a fuller and FAR more concise explanation of Bahnsen's view.

[CamAtheist]

if that makes you feel better about your gullibility thats fine. Its one thing to say there is something we call GOD but to jump from that to it spoke to men, gave rules and sent itself in the form of a human who then returned as flesh back to that place and will return is no less rediculous and hard for me to believe as whatever the Mormans and Scientologists are selling. Me being here only proves my parents had sex, which may not even be true. GOD speaking to everyone at the same time..proof!

[leviksu]

Straw man arguments are logical fallacies. You obviously know nothing about the Christian position. Instead, you substitute your ridiculous mis-characterization of it so that you can ridicule what you think is Christianity. Read a book.

[CamAtheist]

admittedly I don't. I cant even decide between the Eastern Orthodox, Western Christianity and Coptic Christians who all have diiferent Bibles. But ofcourse the Western one is the only true one. So I guess thats the true ones. Is it Pentecostals, SDA, Mormons, Lutherens, Minnonites, Armish, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Anglicans or maybe Branch Dividians who are corrrect in their KNOWLEDGE and INTERPRETATION of GOD'S REVEALED WORD. YOU ARE LAUGHABLE, maybe you should read a book. YOU CLOWN!

[leviksu]

Easy tiger. More ad hom and a complete lack of anything resembling knowledge on the actual religions you mis represent. I'm done with you.

[CamAtheist]

True! No one but people like you understand religion. I get it. You have a special relationship with GOD and have special knowledge. You people never seem to come up with anything useful though except praising God. Next time you talk to GOD, ask him for a cure for cancer or maybe AIDS or just maybe poverty or tell Jesus hurry up and get back here, he's 2000 yrs late. YOu are laughable. I wish you luck.

[CamAtheist]

For the record its not a strawman argument as you call it when I raise the disparities between your different BELIEFS. If there is a GOD and you all talk to him and read the same magic book why doesnt he clarify things, you know so we get real free will. But alas people just made up shit back in the day. If someone's phylosophical argments demonstrates truth for you, thats good but then it means that truth is dependent on how convinced one is by an argument. Me, I need hard evidence, GOD.

[leviksu]

This is a straw man, because I'm a Catholic. I do not use a "magic book" as you put it. LEARN ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT.

You say you need evidence. Look up that video I suggested. Why do you think you need evidence? How do you deal with the problem of induction? THOSE are the questions you need to answer... a Catholic can... can you?

[CamAtheist]

You are offering philosophy. Who cares about philosophy. I need real evidence. Let GOD show himself. Actually I don't really need evidence because i don't think I have an eternal soul nor am I convinced that Gay people are doing some abominable act or that people shouldnt eat pork or shrimp. ..Its total bullshit. Its all philosophical arguments to try to make sense of the world but then claim Jesus rose from three days death and went to space/hell then heaven, that requires evidence sir

[leviksu]

You don't even know why you need evidence. You don't even know that you can use induction (which is what you are assuming). I agree that you need it, but you can't even tell me that you can because your presuppositions don't account for it!

[CamAtheist]

I don't really. Its you people with your silly ideas that you want people to believe and have imposed on humans for centuries. The Catholic church opposes condom use in HIV Africa and abortions on the claim that life begins at conception. They claim to speak for the most intelligent whatever in the universe while molesting boys, helping Hitler and the Hutu malitias. I am assuming if someone says that a small boat contained all the animals on the globe they need to show evidence not arguments.

[leviksu]

you assume your own conclusion. you assume that there is nothing outside the material universe and then ask me to prove that there is a material being called "God". This is not my argument. You clearly just want to bash people who disagree with you and I refuse to deal with such small-mindedness. You are full of ad hominem and straw man arguments.

I suggest you study the other side before you go assuming you know what they are arguing.

[CamAtheist]

I assume the obvious. I assume there is no Santa Clause because there is no evidence. When you tell me that there is a Great Inteliggence that created the Universe with purpose and it spoke to special people who recorded it, then I need some substantative evidence not philosophical arguments. Who am I bashing, everyone is free to believe whatever they want but when you people want to claim its true and have policy that affects others despite lack of evidence reasonable people protests.

[CamAtheist]

I assume then that its unimportant that the present POPE gave instructions to hide and relocate child molestors. Its so important that one acknowledges a particuar version of God thats no use to those children while they were being molested. When the Catholic Church says to women not to use a condom when their husbands are HIV positive and that gays should not be allowed to adopt children, reasonable people want to know on what basis they make these claims. Bash you idiots, yes, you deserve more

[CamAtheist]

Really? The bible purports to be the word of some unknowable god so by definition its a magic book as it tell you how to get to the supposed other world by doing certain things here. At one point the Catholic Church claimed that Transubstantioantion actually occured and persecuted Jews and other doubters. They also said blacks don't have souls while St. Augustine said sex was only for reproduction but of course these were not true Catholics like today where Pope hide-the-rapes is in charge.

[leviksu]

More ad hom and straw man arguments. I'm done tlaking with you. If you want to be an adult, let me know and I'll discuss it with you.

[CamAtheist]

True because the claims of the Catholic Church which lead to hudreds of thousands of people getting AIDS is indeed straw man arguments against unprovable non-evidence based assertions about incrdibly unlikely things like dead peoplle flying into space and virgins having children. I went to a Catholic school all my life and I did my PhD dissertation of the role of the Churches in IMperialism so trust me I know the history of Christian bullshit. Grow up clown

[leviksu]

You have a Ph.D and yet you say things like "bullshit", cannot properly capitalize a word, fail to use proper punctuation, and can't spell the word "incredibly"? I doubt you have a Ph.D. You're saying that the Catholic Church causes people to get AIDS? Condoms are not the end-all-be-all. No one said the Church is correct on temporal matters anyway. You need to learn how to debate and stop using such logical fallacies. Oh yes, and learn how to use grammar & spelling rules as well.

[CamAtheist]

Yes sir Masters and PhD from uni of Cambridge. You do realise this is youtube right? Maybe this is your stage who knows. The catholic church has made these things articles of belief. You are a hippocrit if you would disassociate the church from that. The Bishops in Africa have re-enforced the ideas claiming people will burn in hell. You are clearly a clown, maybe Dennis Prager is your father. You might doubt how much you wish, maybe you can ask your clown of a God, see what turns up.

[leviksu]

No, I simply expect people to use proper grammar. Why do you insist on name calling? I makes you seem childish. You keep coming up with these straw-man arguments, but it doesn't work. None of it disproves God... in fact it has nothing to do with the existence of God and is a red herring. You fail. One man I read about supports the use of condoms in Latin America but says they should not be used in Africa to inhibit AIDS. Clearly you cannot see past your illogical visage.

[CamAtheist]

Name calling. If men molest children are they not child molestors? The Catholic Church's official position with reference to AIDS in AFRICA has been to say condoms allow the virus to pass and that it inhiits reproduction. And my grammer is important because you need something to hold on to. The Catholic Church also hid the Bishop of Kigali who helped to round up Tutsis so that they could be machetied by the Hutu intahamwe. Where was your GOD? Evidence sir, thats all we ask. So irrifutable proof

[leviksu]

The Catholic Church doesn't force anyone to do anything. Yet another straw man from you.

[CamAtheist]

You can say straw man all you want but the Catholic church is among the worst organisations in the world with its armies of child molesting men of GOD and golems like yourself who would defend a group that once claimed the earth was the centre of a universe and solar system which was created by the GOD they were supposedly speaking to. Never mind there is no longer purgatory and who knows what else they have changed. You are a clown. Live in wonderland with the child molestors. peace clown.

[leviksu]

hahaha! You are so full of logical fallacies. None of what you say has anything to do with the existence of God. Red herrings, straw man arguments, and ad hominem are pathetic. I hope one day you develop an appreciation for logic and discourse. Right now you exhibit neither. Good day.

[CamAtheist]

You are pointless like that jackass. You have no evidence of your pointless and impotent imaginary friend. All you have is your arguments yet your Church has been wrong on so many occasions and continue to ...fuck it moron.. Hope those other people who are sure about their GOD come and kill your retarded ass. Then you will be gone. peace

[purereligion127]

@CamAtheist

What this poster embodies and expresses is the downfall of modern skepticism, rendering it useless against modern religion: after verbally assaulting his reader, and expressing a murderous desire towards the same, he ends: "peace." The only people who would ever take such a critter seriously are those who are not fit for God's Kingdom anyway.

In sum: he's no challenge for the faithful; he's no voice to the undecided; he's no more than a pawn for God to use to enlighten others.

[leviksu]

Now you're saying that we should be "bashed" and we "deserve more"? What does that mean? Do you want to kill us? That's certainly sick.

Do all people do wrong things? Yes. Does that mean God does not exist? No. Straw man again from Mr. Fake Ph.D

[CamAtheist]

Kill, no sir I am no killer I leave that for the GOD people. God did allegedly say that one should kill their neighbours who tell them to praise other GODS. Child molestors should be in prison as well as those who help hide them. The pope should be locked up for life. There are things you can call GOD but to claim that GOD has these rules that we must follow which he apparently only told a few desert people a while back is just stupid. You keep at it defending the child molestors and shysters.

[adamredwine]

The Marquis de Sade said many times that he did not enjoy torturing women. His writing was social commentary, not fetish.

[h20hubby]

"If God does not exist, does objective moral value exist?"

-Peter John Kreeft

Romans 1:18 to the end.

[JanJiska]

No, morality is relevant to society. This is why it used to be moral to burn witches but now it is not.

Please bear in mind that the eternal and unchanging bible used today to argue against murder was the oen which was used to approve of burning witches alive and mudering people who did not agree with the religion you follow.

Society does not get its morals from religion it is the other way around.

[MrEpictetus]

Hey JanJiska, there were no witches burned in Salem. 17 people were executed for witchcraft in 150 years, they were found guilty by puritans far more educated in classical law than you, and we still execute criminals today so what moral standard changed?

Sphere sovereignty is the Biblical distinction between church, state and family. The state can execute criminals, the individual cannot. syllogisms are a basic tenet in logical argument, I have yet to see you make even one.

[JanJiska]

"there were no witches burned in Salem"

Perhaps that is why I did not say there were.

"we still execute criminals today"

WE certainly do not.

"what moral standard changed"

You think that morals have not changed since the middle ages? Seriously?

"syllogisms are a basic tenet in logical argument, I have yet to see you make even one"

And sugar is a basic tenet in my cups of tea - but I have yet to see you make even one!

Perhaps you should pray to your God to enlighten you?

[jcook51]

"Society does not get its morals from religion it is the other way around. "

True.

Ideas sometimes have an appeal precisely because society makes them seem plausible, makes them the "obvious" way to look at life.

Hence much of today's self-indulgence, instant gratification, shallowness, hedonism, and materialism.

I agree. Society contributes much to our "morals".

[JanJiska]

Good point. I am very glad that the nonsense written in the bible is being gradually erased and we no longer recommend death for homosexuals, rebellious teenagers etc etc.

Although modern society makes these attrocities unacceptable so the bible is usually re-interpreted to play these down.

[jcook51]

What about all the evils post-modern society has foisted on man? Vanity, shallowness, self-indulgence, hedonism, materialism are recirculated in our society today. Just turn on the TV. Many impressionable minds have no safeguard from these influences.

[JanJiska]

Non of these is new. People are people, always have been and always will be. In the bible God showed himself to be vain, jealous, vengeful, paranoid, vindictive and extremely dangerous.

Impressionable minds need safeguarding from religion as much as anything else.  How many suicide bombers kill people in the name of atheism?

Brainwashing religion into children (even with best intentions) is not a good solution as it teaches people to believe without proof and accept without thought.

[jcook51]

"Brainwashing religion into children (even with best intentions) is not a good solution as it teaches people to believe without proof and accept without thought."

I agree. People often accept the "religion" of the society they live in without ever realizing it. A fish doesn't know what it's like to be wet until he's out of the water.

Today our religion is narcissism, materialism, naturalism, and to some degree, relativism.

[JanJiska]

I am not sure i would go quite as far as to call these things religions tbh.

[garvess]

I wonder if the audience there is mostly christian or atheist? Stein got dead silence after his closing statement, Bahnsen recieved what sounded like it could be a standing ovation, I was expecting an encore. I dont even think it was an audience it sounded more like a church congregation.

[JanJiska]

It is likely to have more Christians than atheists as it would be of more interes to them.

Who is more likely to go to a debate about the existance of fairies. Determined fairy believers who want to see their champion strike a blow - or people who do not believe in fairies and really could not care less.

[Fleefles]

Obviously, many atheists are very interested in the topic of God or there wouldn't be so many websites, books and debates about it.

I'd say both sides would want to go equally. Your logic is silly and goes both ways. Had Stein "won" (which is an opinion) the debate, I could say, "He only got more applause cause there were more atheists there. Because if someone believes in fairies, why would they want to go to a debate that tries to disprove them?"

[JanJiska]

I think that there are far more book, website, meetings, songs, plays, statues, paintings, poems etc about God than about there not being a God.

Christians would be far more keen to disprove atheists than vice versa as Christians often define themselves by their religion whereas atheists do not define themselves by one of the thousands of religions that they do not believe in.

[traviskurtz]

phatboy, Bahnsen is using Hume's argument pertaining to Science, are you about to say Hume is a dumbass?

[phatboy5015]

So Bahnsen is saying that laws of logic aren't possible without God? So if I test a hypothesis a million times and it comes out the same every single time, it means nothing if I God didn't tell me it was what was supposed to happen? This is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. No matter what Stein says, all the fundy does is say his point is moot because God didn't say it was so. Simply ridiculous... But of course the stupid Christians think he is a genius... Dumbasses...

[zeth321]

What are you talking about? We established that there is a basis for the uniformity of nature through the positive result from the "million times" of testing. This is just too painfully obvious.

In contrast, Bahnsen says that you must assume God's existence in order to rationally conclude that there is uniformity in nature. Strangely enough, God has NOT ONCE provided any information of this "uniformity of nature". I could just as well be the source of the "uniformity of nature" conclusion.

[zeth321]

Who said anything about proof? You can never get a proof for the world around you. Never. We work based upon the patterns we have repeatedly seen in the past. Babies learn that things exist when they are not looking at them. And they figure this out not by believing in a God, but by experience. We can be wrong, yes, but this is what we use, Theist or Atheist. God explains nothing.

What I am dying to hear is how the existence of God is a proof for the uniform of reality (or vice versa).

[zeth321]

I justify my presupposition of the uniformity of nature based upon past experience as explained. I learned all of this when I was still a baby, as I've already told you.

But the Theist has not answered the very question he asks the Atheist. How does the Theist justify the presupposition of the uniformity of nature? What does God have to do with it, etc.

"What I am dying to hear is how the existence of God is a proof for the uniform of reality (or vice versa)."

So?

[zeth321]

Listen. Because throughout my life things have been uniform and I have never seen reality be non-uniform, I conclude that it will continue to be uniform. Though, it might not be uniform in the future, but this IS THE BEST THAT ONE CAN DO. You cannot prove it, you can only provide evidence.

Now, the real frustrating part about this discussion is that you haven't answer the question that you yourself ask. How do you justify your presupposition of the uniformity of nature (Laws o logic, etc)?

[zeth321]

Okay. Let's say I assume God exists. Now, how the heck does that prove anything the uniformity of nature? I've asked you repeatedly now. And this will be the last time.

"What I am dying to hear is how the existence of God is a proof for the uniform of reality (or vice versa)."

[zeth321]

Non sequitur. Just because there is a God that is "unchanging, absolute and invariant" does not mean that the properties of the world we see is uniform in space and time. You would have to also assume that God made the world that way. That does not prove the laws of logic nor that the world is uniform. The Atheist merely assumes the uniformity of nature based on experience, the Theist assumes the UoN because they assume God is uniform. Why can't you just assume the UoN minus the extra assumptio?

[zeth321]

"so now you are doubting the uniformity of nature where only a few comments ago you were trying to justify it in your own worldview."

No. I said that you didn't prove that nature is uniform based upon the existence of a God. I accept it, but you wanted it to be proven.

But, as I said before, we can't prove something like the UoN. What we do is notice patterns. And when an certain pattern is consistent without fail, we assume that the pattern will continue on.

[zeth321]

No. Our world views might have common elements, but that doesn't mean that I share your world view. I accept UoN for the reasons I have stated. No proof. Just lots of evidence.

You on the other hand have not shown how God's existence connects with the UoN. Just because God exists doesn't mean that the UoN is true. And just because the UoN is true, doesn't mean that God exists. If nature is uniform, that just means that nature is uniform. This issue is very straight forward. Dont complicate it

[zeth321]

""If nature is uniform, that just means that nature is uniform." is another way of saying, I dont have an answer."

Correct. I do not have an answer for why things are the way they are. I can only say that they are the way I see it.

But the thing is, this situation is the same for you. You use God to explain the UoN. Fine. Now apply that same skepticism to God. Why is God uniform and unchanging? He just is you say?! Amazing! "That's the same thing as saying, I don't have an answer!"

[zeth321]

Are you unaware about the meaning of my last post? I demonstrated that you have a double standard.

You demand that the Atheist explain why there are laws of logic. So, they tell you that those laws just are as we see them. Of course that's not good enough for you.

You answer the question by saying God made it like that. But now the Theist is required to account for God. Your only option is to say that God just is the way he is. And you give an answer that you yourself don't accept. Error.

[zeth321]

I cannot explain UoN. And you cannot account for God. See here, you are pushing off explaining how the world is uniform by creating another element that is also uniform (God). The only reason you can "explain" why the world is uniform is by inventing an element that is also uniform. BUT YOU CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT NEW ELEMENT THAT YOU MADE UP. You are in the same boat as I am in explaining why things are the way they are. We both cannot explain something. Your explaination is no better than mine

[zeth321]

First off, I would like to say that you still haven't proven God. Just because there is logic doesn't mean that God exists. Logic can exist on it's own.

And secondly,

"thus, the transcendental argument for the existence of God proves itself through the impossibility of the contrary."

How is the contrary impossible?

[zeth321]

So, what's the contradiction?

[zeth321]

That's not a contradiction buddy. That's a lack of knowledge. Big difference. You can't say one thing is true just because you can't explain something any other way.

Side note: When I said Logic can exist on it's own, I meant that there didn't need to be some other entity, like a unicorn, in order for it to be true. Logic does need a way to manifest itself, like through the properties of matter. But this is besides the point. Your "proof" fails.

[zeth321]

I HAVE NOT ADMMITTED TO A CONTRADICTION. Quote me, I dare you.

I don't care what Aristotle wrote, you're the one defending the arugment. I will not appeal to authority here, you must present your argument in in completion(or in formal logic style).

You have yet to show a contradiction in the Atheistic model of the universe. I fully understand the issues we are debating, I just want you to explain the proof (I know you can't). You haven't successfully done so because it is plain bs.

[irishmauddib]

No bahnsen, you would pull the trigger and go to jail because we have established human made human enforced laws.

[fiercegallantry]

I think you're missing the point...

[irishmauddib]

Not at all. The point is we have established rules of morality and law. We have done this as a people. But Bahnsen is just taking this and using it as "evidence". Its a dishonest tactic based on his knowledge that such morals and laws are very important to us as a people.

[SliferDemon]

I do believe that a long time ago, in the time of cavemen that there were no laws, no GOD, and yet... They survived. When GOD was made-up to control people they used LAWS to scare people into thinking they will be punished.

[benjaminyu]

As Dr. Stein and Bahnsen would probably both ask you, on whom or what do you base this belief in or on? Is there empirical evidence of such truth-claims regarding cavemen? Dr. Bahnsen said that the issue isn't whether or not one can be objective and believe in God, but after considering and acknowledging our presuppositions (of Christians and Atheists), then we can have rational talks. A good Theist debater admits biases, but Atheists claim objectivity and reliance on empirical evidence alone.

[jessivehadit]

Wow. Unimpressive and predictable. Apparently filling your head with god causes it to thicken and harden. Bahnsen seems unable to hear or comprehend the simplest of things, either that, or belief in god goes hand in hand with unbelief in reality.

There's a lot of things that I don't know or understand about this universe, but I refuse to label my ignorance "God" and bow before it.

[benjaminyu]

Besides making blanket propositional statements, please give examples of where his rationale and logic is flawed. This would be more useful for discussion rather than simple name calling.

Granted, I've heard better debaters for the atheist's point of view than Dr. Stein, but even so, where is Dr. Bahnsen's logic flawed? (e.g. - cite specific examples)

[tw1ggz]

didnt bahnsen go way over on the 10 minute clock?

[irishmauddib]

Greg really puts false claims out here. The claim that atheists have no basis for morality or that there is no reason not to torture women is so very false. Of course non beleivers have reasons for this.

But IF this is the way he thinks then I hope for the sake of the women around him that he never loses his faith in god, because IF he sees no other reason not to torture women then he really is an abhorrant character.

[benjaminyu]

Bahnsen didn't that atheists have no basis for morality, but that there is no basis for morality from an atheist worldview. The atheist borrows from the theist's worldview, in that without a god (of whatever kind), how can one claim any absolute moral standard? Who or what decided that torturing women or killing (already born) babies is wrong? This is an indirect proof (as defined in high school geometry). It's explained (more than once) in previous parts of this recording.

[fiercegallantry]

But are they logically consistent, normative reasons?

Bahnsen actually teaches that atheists do have reasons for morality: Christian reasons. The dominant modern form of athiesm (materialism in metaphysics, radical empiricism in epistemology) does not.

[irishmauddib]

Also crying for "absolute" standards is boring. Theres NO absolute morality. We create moral standard based on our accumulated knowledge+wisdom. Maybe some things arent absolute, but theyre as near as. Any object can be moved. A huge object needs huge forces. There are some objects we may never be able to move. The same for morals. So whinge about killing babies all day if you want, but there is no sign the required "force" to move it will ever occour.

[fiercegallantry]

Begging the question.

Also, inconsistent with actual atheist behavior.

[irishmauddib]

You really are a one trick pony. This isnt the first time Ive had to point out that you just spew out a cliche comment like "begging the question" and then a point with no backup, argument, facts, figures or argument. This is no good to us. If you have a point make it and back it up. Otherwise no thanks.

[irishmauddib]

Let me clarify. You have clearly heard a lot of your heros use phrases like "ad hominem" "begging the question" "strawman" and so on. Listen to them again though. They never just get up, say "begging the question" and then sit down again. WHAT question, HOW its begging it, WHICH sense do you mean it in are all things you then need to follow up with.

Without that you just sound like an opinionless troll who throws out phrases to cover up a lack of anything of any substance to actually say.

[fiercegallantry]

If that's what you wnat to think, you're gonna think that.

[irishmauddib]

Absolutely useless comment in the first degree. I have given the REASONS I think the things I do. At no point is bias or needing wanting to think something displayed and everything I have said is backed up with the reasoning behind it.

A comment like this is, yet again, just a smokescreen to cover up the fact you dont have anything to actually say on the subject. As I said, if youve nothing to say its best to say nothing at all.

[wraith696]

Jesus, that's some huge applause for Bahnsen. What was this, the Olympic stadium?!

[tw1ggz]

the applause were for both.