Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith debate (part 5 of 6)

[goldfidelitydotcom]

sliced and diced



[Vainslain]

...of course he did follow up with the usual atheists excuse ^_^

[Vainslain]

Bahnsen nailed smith on atheist's supposed neutrality when it comes to the issue of God's existence by quoting the subtitle of smith book "case against God"

That was brilliant!!!! Smith was left stammering here

[Victoruto]

You should just have a lengthy conversation with Dr. Frame. He isn't a strict Van Tilian, but he could articulate presuppositional apologetics much better than most people. That is wonderful the he goes to your church. I have learned an incredible amount from him about the history of philosophy/apologetics by downloading his lectures on Itunes.

[Victoruto]

I'm sorry man, but I just don't have time to respond to all of these comments of yours. God bless, and if you are honestly interested in understanding Presuppositional apologetics, then I recommend the books "Always ready" by Greg Bahnsen, "Van Til's Apologetic" by Greg Bahnsen, and "Apologetics to the Glory of God", by John Frame.

God bless.

[snaredstix]

RIP Greg Bahnsen. One of the greatest Christian apologists of all time.

[1noen1]

Reason is the presupposition necessary to any possibility of rational debate. There is however no need to make a further presupposition of a supreme being or god who guarantees reason.

[william629]

@ 03:46 Bahnsen states that presupposing a Christian view of the Universe makes science possible. Tell that to Darwin & Galileo.

[labeef1]

@william629

Not exactly. Bahnsen's is not arguing that those who do not presuppose the Christian worldview CANT study, understand, discover, or apply science. As you point out, that's evidently false. However, he is arguing that an atheist has no grounds for arguing that way if God does not exist. I agree, however I must admit that I completely disagree with Bahnsens apologetic approach. Presuppositionalism is irrational in itself. I believe the best approach is classical apologetics.

[william629]

@labeef1 You're addressing me for an idea that I never staked claim to. I never stated that he said those who do not presuppose the christian worldview CANT study, understand, discover, or apply science. What he did say, and I will quote, "I would argue that when people use the causal notion or the inductive principle, that they are presupposing a christian view of the universe, and that is what makes science possible." If this were true, science as we know it wouldn't exist.

[labeef1]

@william629

Hi William. Sorry if I misunderstood you. But what I summarized is basically his argument. He believes that in order to have logic, reason, etc. then you must presuppose God, (in Bahnsen's case,as you point out takes it a step further in saying a "Christian worldview.") You have a problem with this, as do I. Not because I don't believe in the conclusion, but because of the presuppositional method he uses. He's using circular reasoning by having his conclusion in the premise.

[Victoruto]

@labeef1 All arguments are circular when dealing with one's basic epistemological commitments. This is inescapable. If Scripture is the ultimate authority and criterion for truth, then to appeal to a standard outside of Scripture to authenticate it, is to be epistemologically inconsistent. Similarly, if the empiricist appeals to something outside empiricism to establish empiricism, then he also is inconsistent. If he appeals to to his empiricism to establish empiricism, then he is circular.

[labeef1]

@Victoruto Thanks for your response. However, I have a couple of problems with this. First, I don't have to show where the argument is circular, you readily admit this upfront. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy and invalidates the argument. Based on what you're saying, it seems as if you would agree that circular reasoning invalidates all arguments...except yours on epistemology. Strike 2 (and 3) as far as I'm concerned, is that you defend the use of circular reasoning by introducing

[labeef1]

@Victoruto the fallacy of equivocation. You claim that all arguments are circular (when dealing with epistemology), but I don’t grant you this premise. Arguments are not all circular by way of the fallacy of circular reasoning. You’re changing the meaning of the term “circular” in mid stride. What you’re calling circular I’d call linear. I agree with the presuppositionalist that in order to have logic, sense perception, empirical data, etc. you must affirm God. But why not

[Victoruto]

@labeef1 I totally agree that arguments are not all circular by way of the FALLACY of circular reasoning. Arguments dealing with epistemological ultimatum are not question begging, but rather what one might call "broad circles". They are all-inclusive. As I said, this is inescapable and applies to all basic presuppositions. Being that you agree that in order to have logic, sense perception, empirical data, etc. you must affirm God, you are in agreement with Bahnsen.

[labeef1]

@Victoruto I’m still confused as to what exactly a "broad circle" is. The fallacy of circular reasoning is a black or white issue. There is no way around it. Either this “broad circle” is logically fallacious, or else it isn’t circular at all, rather it’s linear. The determining factor is whether or not the conclusion is in the premise. I'm not saying that as a classicist, we don't have presuppositions. But we don’t start with conclusions, rather we start with certain axioms or tools that are

[Victoruto]

@labeef1 You must agree, then, that if God exists, He cannot be the conclusion of an argument. If He is the conclusion, then we are assuming that man is autonomous and capable of reasoning our way to God with our own "natural" tools of reason. In other words, we decide whether God is allowed to exist depending upon whether He meets our criteria of evidence. We therefore must start with God and show the impossibility of the contrary: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."(Prov 1:7)

[labeef1]

@Victoruto Sorry for the late response, I've been pretty busy. I'm not sure why my view would lead you to believe that if God exists, then he cannot be the conclusion of an argument. By applying the classical view, you move in a linear and logical fashion, and end with a conclusion. It seems to me that the presuppositional view suffers from what you're saying. I also do not buy into the idea that by starting with self-consciousness, we are being autonomous. Nobody starts with God's thoughts.

[labeef1]

@Victoruto: Only God can start with His thoughts. I don't think there is anything evil about self-consciousness. There may be those in the secular community that argue for autonomy, but they're arguing falsely. It's one thing to accuse me of being autonomous, it's quite another to prove it. We do not "decide” God's existence via logic. If God exists, and I don't believe it, my disbelief does not have the power to destroy him. And what you're calling "natural" tools are not independent

[labeef1]

@Victoruto: of God, but, given to us by God as a means to function in his world. You cannot even say the word G O D without assuming the law of non-contradiction. Without that God-given law, no information can be deciphered, and everything is reduced to random data bits. You cannot even start with the Bible as truth before you assume the general reliability of sense perception. You can’t hear it if it’s preached, you can’t read it if you can’t see it, or feel the pages as you turn it.

[labeef1]

@Victoruto: You must acknowledge that you have to assume these basic premises before you can even begin to talk about God or the Bible. Take a look at how the scriptures themselves deal with this issue. You’ll notice that the Bible itself assumes certain things to be true. Namely, the law of non-contradiction, the law of causality, and the general reliability of sense perception. God told Adam…”If you eat of the forbidden tree (A), then you will die, (B).” If A, then B. Adam understood this.

[Victoruto]

@labeef1 Even regardless of whether all circular arguments are fallaciously circular, they are inescapable, and must be use and dealt with—by everyone. But, I do not believe they are all circular. The presuppositionalist is not saying, "God exists because God exists". He is rather reasoning from a possibility of something to the necessary precondition for that possibility. That is, If X then Y because Y is the precondition for X. X therefore Y.

[labeef1]

@Victoruto . When Moses asks God, “how will they know that you sent me?” God did not reply, “They will assume me.” Rather, he told Moses to throw down his staff, stretch out his arm, etc. so that they may KNOW that he is God, and that these visual and physical effects are not common place in nature, but supernatural. Christ said that if they don’t believe him for his words, believe him for his works (his percieved miracles that proved him to be authentic) Scripture gives us criteria in which to

[Victoruto]

@labeef1 Presuppositionalism is not anti-evidence. However, the Jews were already theists who believed in the Most High God, so were those to whom Christ was speaking. Also note that Christ made this statement: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:31). Miracles are not an independent criterion for belief.

"it never assumes itself to be the word of God." This couldn't be anymore false. (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20).

[labeef1]

@Victoruto I understand that presuppositionalism is not anti-evidence. It is the fact that they conclude before they get started, and using "evidence" after they begin with their conclusion is inconsistent, (and of course, illogical) You can't have your cake and eat it too. Bottom line, I don't see how presuppositionalism escapes "fideism" if followed consistently. I also understand that the Jews and those to whom Christ was speaking were already theists. Ask yourself, why were they theists?

[labeef1]

@Victoruto .test its validity, it never assumes itself to be the word of God. Yes, it is a self-authenticating document in the sense that it claims to be the word of God, but it does not leave you to assume it.

Further, I would point out that by acknowledging proper logic and sense perception as our axioms, we are not embracing any secular, philosophical idea that is contrary to the things of God.

[Victoruto]

@labeef1 Presupposing logic without God is indeed secular. It is to assume self-autonomy and to rob God as being the "beginning of knowledge" (Prov 1:7). You must assume that there are independent ultimate standards outside of God to which you subject Him.

[labeef1]

@Victoruto Was it because they assumed God, or was it because they had the faith of their fathers to whom time and time again, through natural and special revelation, God proved himself to be the genuine article? You said: Also note that Christ made this statement: "If tthey hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." I’m not sure how this supports your case, as if this proves that Christ is glorified by presupposing he is the son of God

[labeef1]

@Victoruto without using the physical and mental tools God has given us to distinguish the true, and the counterfeit. Does it sound like Christ is saying, “well, they’re not believing me because of my works, but that’s because the only way to know my father is to presuppose him?” I don’t see this at all in this text. What I see here is Christ pointing out calcitrant and heardened hearts, and that they “ought” to have recognized who he was as God had revealed himself through the prophets,

[labeef1]

@Victoruto and now through Christ himself. Also, you’re refutation of my claim that the Bible does not simply assume itself to be the word of God by referencing 2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20 does not stand. It doesn’t seem like you read my full statement. I said that the Bible IS a self-authenticating document, meaning that it certainly claims to be the word of God. The above verses are verifying exactly that…that the Bible claims to be the word of God. However, you did not address the fact that

[labeef1]

@Victoruto that the scriptures impose upon itself certain criteria to verify itself as being the word of God. So of course, those appointed by God to represent Him and are recorded for us in scripture, claim to be speaking for God. But not without proof. Lets suppose that Christ who did no miracles, and no witnesses of God’s audible verification of who he was. What if he was tried, crucified, and buried, but there was no resurrection? What if we could still visit his grave today? Would you

[labeef1]

@Victoruto “suppose” that he really was the son of God? If that were the case, I would say it would be an insult to God for placing faith in one that God showed no special revelation that he was anything more than a mere man. We place our faith upon one who was “seen, heard, and touched,” by the very men who went to grusome deaths to proclaim it’s reality.

Your charge that I’m presupposing logic “without God,” is a strawman. I’ve already mentioned that the tools God gives us to function in

[labeef1]

@Victoruto his world are not apart from him, but rather given to us by him. As I’ve already stated, just because people use these tools and come up with conclusions that are against the things of God, does not mean that the tools themselves are secular. It would be like saying that eating is wrong, because there are people who are gluttonous, and abuse the means God has given us to survive physically. I don’t believe you would take that postion, so I don’t know why you can’t distinguish between

[labeef1]

@Victoruto tools used properly, and falsely. Again, you have not shown how in the idea of self-consiousness, contains the idea of autonomy. As soon as one realizes oneself, as a self, what that person should imediately realize is that they are derived, contingent, dependant, and are NOT God. And lastly, you seem to have a problem with us using our minds to verify the things of God in the way he designed us to as somehow replacing him with reason. I don’t understand this conclusion. To explain

[labeef1]

@Victoruto explain where I’m going with this I have to go back to the question that I just can’t seem to get an answer from you about. Is God able to reconcile bonefide conraditions in his own mind? I really appreciate the dialoge Victuro, and I recognize you as a brother in Christ, and that this is an intramural debate between two christians. . However, if you keep dodging that question, then I don’t see the point in debating any longer. The answer to that question is my ultimate concern in

[Victoruto]

@labeef1 But I will respond to this for you: "Is God able to reconcile bonefide conraditions in his own mind?"

Sorry if I have been "dodging" this question. It was not intentional. The answer is simply No. Reconciling contradictions is an absurdity. Illogical feats are not feats at all. God is not a God of irrationality but a God of rationality. I believe that logic finds its basis in the Person of God, thus logical contradictions would be self-denial, and God cannot deny Himself.

[labeef1]

@Victoruto I understand. Youtube boards can be a pain to get a point across. I don't expect you to respond to all of them. I'm pretty familiar with the presuppositional guys, (Dr. Frame attends my church, probably one of the most genuine, humble and respectable people you'll ever come across). I'm glad to hear your answer, as I couldn't agree with you more. God cannot speak with a forked tongue. For the classical view, I would recommend "classical apologetics" by Sproul/Gerstner if you're

[labeef1]

@Victoruto unfamiliar with that. It gives a very fair and accurate assessment of the presuppositional position in it's critique of it. I will also try and get into some of the material you mentioned as I'm not familiar with all of it. I'm sorry we don't have time to finish, but I appreciate the conversation and your insight. God bless.

[labeef1]

@Victoruto regards to presuppositional apologetics, and where I believe it all ends when followed to it’s logical conclusion..sorry for the lengthy post my friend..when I have time to do this I have to take full advantage, :)

[sawsin69]

no matter how good you are in philosophy. having billions of PhDs. doesn't make you any different from people who make a personal satisfaction on/off switch for their psychological cravings. If god is really it! then why his followers ridicule when someone says "i saw a miracle!"

[dkw12002]

Oops. That was St. Augustine's quote, not Aquinas and it is on p. 38. Aquinas would not agree with this quote and would go into great detail about his comprehension of god, as many theists today also do.

[dkw12002]

Bahnsen is just using nature and calling it God. He credits god for everything. I would just point out that if a god does everything, that would be indistinguishable from a god that did nothing, indeed it would be like no god existed.

[sawsin69]

God is utterly unknowable...

[dkw12002]

Kant said there could be things which exist beyond our 5 senses, but if they do, we cannot know about them.

Aquinas is quoted in Smith's "Case Against Atheism" p. 39... "What then brethern shall we say about God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God."

[sawsin69]

Kant's "unknowability" of things outside us, provides, i think, an infinite space for God's Existence... but this doesn't mean i agree with the whole argument

[dkw12002]

It would put God's existence on par with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Great ZuZu of the Mountain, to borrow a couple of terms from Richard Dawkins. In other words, people can imagine a lot of things. Kant thought it was practical to believe in God, but also said reason was more powerful than religion. This is before Darwin, of course. I doubt Kant would be thinking of religion as practical today, were he alive.

[sawsin69]

but to compare God to a Flying spaghetti is narrowing God's nature... but as to the definitions... God throughout the history is not clearly well defined... the modern philosophers back in the time were preoccupied with religious dogma... they haven't figured out that human cannot "completely" account for their minds

[JoshuaPniewski]

so you are admitting there is a God?

[krdwa]

An "empty faith" commitment? If a claim to know something without evidence is "faith", and the absence of such a claim is "empty faith", then this leaves no possibility other than "faith". Such sophistry is convenient for one who wishes to dishonestly argue that atheism relies on faith, but is easily exposed, and ultimately only reveals the character of the one who uses it.

[freshmuzic]

Yeah! Right because their is NOTHING in atheism that is believed with out observation all is observed.

[D33veeoss]

There is 1 thing actually.

Atheist believe that our existence, this universe and the laws within are unintentional.

[freshmuzic]

I was being sarcastic, but faith as defined is belief with no observation, or proof of the matter and their are alot of things humans presupose through faith, in our daily lives.

[punkash78]

Wow, yet another subliminal message at 5:00. Is this happening in every video? It happened in the last one as well. What do Christians think they are accomplishing by throwing such messages in these videos? Do people come to believe in Christ through psychological manipulation? How Calvinistic of them to think that. Quit trying to play God, that is if God exists of course.

[Boethius51250]

I'm a Christian and I agree with Bahnsen. But, I will agree with you the subliminal message at 5:00 is lame.

[punkash78]

I like the name Boethius.

[legendre007]

"Wow, yet another subliminal message at 5:00. Is this happening in every video?"

When I read this, I thought you must have been playing a practical joke. But at the 5:00 mark, I decided to pause the video. At 5:00, it says "The wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus."

You'd think that if the person who uploaded this video was so confident in Bahnsen's message, and in the obviousness of God's existence, that 1 wouldn't have to resort to subliminal stuff.

[a5dr3]

maybe its just a joke

[stpeffley]

Calvin's theology doesn't say GOD uses "psychological manipulation." Calvinism teaches predestination which is how GOD already knows who is going to Heaven and Hell before they have come into existence. Calvinists believe GOD to be all knowing and all powerful, GOD doesn't manipulate anybody with Psychological mind tricks. GOD reveals HIMSELF to people through the HOLY SPIRIT entering an unbelievers heart, and then after being saved the truth is revealed. This is why Atheists dont get Christians

[theweakarefree]

At 4:27, Bahnsen proves that atheism is a reigion that is full of blind faith commitments.

[irishmauddib]

He proved nothing of the sort. He just asserted it. How is "I dont know" a faith commitment? You would really need to explain that one to me before we could proceed.

[motile]

1 + 1 = 3 if 3 is defined as the product of 1 + 1.

This is exactly what Greg Bahnsen does through this whole debate. Pure nonsense.

[templarart]

Evidences for Christianity: Miracles and Witnesses in the Bible: Do you believe ALL the witnesses to the 1000s of other religions and superstitions out there? Do you believe that Mecca witnessed Mohammed cutting the moon in half? Do you believe the witnesses to the Virgin Mary, Pleiades aliens, Osiris, Krishna, Thor?

[pikechris1]

yeah, i believe in all of them. ;-)

all of them being tales. :p

[1980PintoMan]

I think you are getting off topic but do you believe in Piltdown Man? Archaeoraptor? The peppered moth experiment? If so, you believe in hoaxes.

[pikechris1]

? science has mechanisms to get rid of hoaxes... do you deny those mechanisms are working properly? if so, then it doesnt make much sense to discuss this topic further...

[pikechris1]

as well what is quite strange, you believe in "shitty" cals but you dont believe in science.

just like a muslem once told me, "he believed in the big bang but not in evolution"... we can get to the big bang only through calculation but we observe evolution right in the wildlife... you are in the same trap... lol :)

[pikechris1]

"unfortunately" science does not comment on the supernatural, but philosophy can use scientific theories and research results to justify the case against god. the evidence the "world" is uncreated is mounting. 90%+ of all physicist will answer you in a similar way. their assumptions are based on observations and experiments.

"uncreated world" = no deity.

[1980PintoMan]

The chances of any part of the universe, including this planet, happening by chance is completely impossible. There aren't even enough particles to write down the zero's needed to write the odds.

[pikechris1]

absolutely nonsense. its a physical, chemical process. we would exactly expect something like that to happen. its the opposite, the chances are extremely huge. the process is deterministic, its the "fate" of the universe, its our "fate". if you prefer, its the "mind" of g-d, like einstein used to say. a pantheistic g-d. g-d equals nature and everything in it.

[1980PintoMan]

Where would the chemical process, the laws of physics come from? Why are they constant? This shouldn't be in a chance universe. You can't expect anything. You have to borrow from Christianity to be able to expect physical laws to work the same every time.

[pikechris1]

do they arise from g-d? where is the proof? no one claims science know everything... that aint what science is about.

are they really constant? i would say you are certainly wrong there... :)

christianity is evolutionary as well :)

[1980PintoMan]

Calculating 200 parameters for life to exist, less than 1 chance in 10215 (one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

[pikechris1]

that aint true. simply because you miss the inflationary factor which gives rise to those parameters naturally. your calc only works ad hoc, when those parameters are calculated separately and then the probabilities are multiplied to achieve the effect of them arising from zero to 100%. that is nonsense.

[bitbutter]

Ouch! Banhsen looks very foolish in this segment when he tries to demonstrate that atheists hold dogmatic faith positions. When Smith corrects him, saying that he _doesn't know_ how life started Bahnsen drops this stinker: "there's an empty faith commitment when you say you don't know". From where I'm sitting an "empty faith commitment" looks uncannily like no faith commitment at all.

[a5dr3]

Smith assumes causual relations and purpose in 'science' and everyday life but his entire asumption of the nature of the universe is that ultimately there is no cause or purpose. If Smith is willing to accept that the universe came from randomness then he has no basis to assume this same randomness can be overcome when engaging in induction. He therefore exposes Smiths arbitrariness hypocrisy

[a5dr3]

-and empty faith commitment to the nature of the universe manifesting the characteristics necessary for intelligable predication, that only a Christian can coherently account for. Smiths materialistic rational/irrational dialectic is not a a sufficient basis for science or knowledge of any sort.(I know that no one knows for sure)

[bitbutter]

The question was about the origin of life. not the universe. "empty faith commitment" is a meaningless term.

[a5dr3]

Does life come from non-life? rationality from non-rationality, intelligence from non-intelligence, language from non-language, meaning from non-meaning? When someone begins with the presupposition that ultimately there is no cause, purpose or meaning in the universe but then engages in scientific pursuit, which assumes exactly the opposite, they can accurately be described has having an empty faith commitment, that absent of any ultimate unifying being or principal skepticism can be overcome

[mardvegas]

Dr. Greg Bahnsen drove Van Til's point home as he crystallized the certain and inescapable argument for the existence of God.

For all human experience presuppose Christian Theism, good night nurse.

[DoctorMurky]

"The very notion of causality presupposes the Christian god." How much did they pay Smith to do this?

[a5dr3]

Apparently not enough to afford a copy of 'An Enquiry Concerning the Human Understanding'