Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 4 of 14)

[guardiansolcana64]

geez, can't you enjoy the debate without arguing?

[ClumsyRoot]

Atheists are such wet blankets! Too bad they're right.

[BenjaminWirtz]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

[JanJiska]

Then you are weak and will burn in atheist hell!

Unlike other hells this happens when you are still alive and requires that you accept the fact that you are weak and worthless and you owe everything to a supernatural creator who holds you hand.

Think of it as a child's imaginary friend that you never grow out of.

[ClumsyRoot]

How original!

[BenjaminWirtz]

Alright, so it's unoriginal. Does that make it any less relevant?

[ClumsyRoot]

I'm not indicting you in particular. But such comments are symptomatic of the bumper-sticker theology that is prevalent today.

And no, it isn't relevant. When there's no compelling evidence that something is true, the logical response is disbelief. It's not about faith; it's about making reality one's fall-back position.

[TheMusicGene]

This question has only two answers. Yes or No.

[MrEpictetus]

some people are atheists because they are of such a low, destitute moral character that they must convince themselves they will get away with it,

some atheists are simply misinformed or incapable of grasping the deeper truths perceivable here in this life.

There is a third group, a conceited few who believe their arguments and evidences superior.

The Doctor is only for the third group.

[JanJiska]

Some people are Christians because their parents brain washed them into it when they were very young.

Some Christians are simply misinformed about their religion being better or more plausible than any other.

Some are desperate to be part of something.

Some just like an excuse to look down on other people.

Christianity is not a special case, it is no different to any other supernatural belief.

[MrEpictetus]

Christians invented education and college.  Bologna, Oxford and Cambridge were all Christian and have produced the finest Christian minds of human history.

dont you remember that Harvard and Princeton were divinity schools long before people forgot how to read latin and greek?

then You want to show up 100's of years later and claim all of history was nonsense and religious claims are all the same. You would have to know almost nothing.

thanks for your opinions Jan, I really must get going.

[JanJiska]

"Christians invented education"

I thought that there were major scientific advances in China before Christianity reached there?

You seem to be confusing something being done by Christians with something being done because of Christians. It is a subtle point, I am not suprised you missed it especially as it suits your purpose.

"thanks for your opinions Jan"

You are welcome.

" I really must get going"

But your argument was only just beginning to fall apart ... oh I see.

[sammyboy123456]

Miracles do not prove the evidence of God? How is this begging the question? It seems to me that occurances that defy the "natural" order of the universe would hint towards a being that exists outside the closed system of the universe, or, a God

[chyrd]

what miracles??? the ones written about in the bible? The book that was not allowed to be read by the masses until Henry VIII? The book that was used to oppress the masses throughout the "Dark Ages". The book that was used to continue slavery? the book that was used to kill scores of "heathens"?

Using the book to prove that the miracles it said happened is circular reasoning at it's lamest.

[aricandisgood]

It's interesting that every Theist gets flamed on these things. There's intellectual freedom for you.

[h20hubby]

Sounds like every time Stein comes up to a new part of the argument, he has to recollect his thoughts as though his belief structure was just, somehow, shaken.

[JanJiska]

Stein admitted in an interview afterwards that Bahnsen caught him off guard with this argument and he was not able to counter it at the time. He claims to have developed a rebuttal since then but I have not seen it.

[DetectiveTackett]

No one has seen Stein's magic invisible fairy-dust rebuttal.

[JanJiska]

Has anyone seen the invisiable fairy-dust?

[bKiwiD]

I'm just at the beginning of this video, and the gentleman Stein has understood the Cosmological argument wrongly. The Cosmological argument actually accounts quite wonderfully for the fact that God Himself needs no cause; in brief, it is a fundamental property of God to exist. I suggest a beginner's university textbook: William Rowe's "Philosophy of Religion, an introduction". It is a quite adequate summary of arguments for and against theism, with very little bias on the part of the author.

[megawolf7]

Yes. All of Steins so called "Christian Arguments" are off. He does not present them correctly so he can tear them down.

He creates strawmen arguments. What a lame debater.

[Sophrosyne22]

The Guy for atheism leaves you wondering what the f*** he just said, and trying to make some sense of his illogical thinking! Where as the guy talking for Christianity is totally solid in everything he says, and is a smart man!

[Myusernamerulez]

@Sophrosyne22 As an atheist, I agree.

[fiercegallantry]

Stein is remarkably weak in his opening statement. He makes no case for doubting Bahnsen's position.

He never even lays a glove on Bahnsen.

[BananaOfDoom]

He wasn't supposed to. Bahnsen stated his position, as did Stein. The rebuttals and cross-examination come later.

[brad78ton]

Occam's Razor actually supports the Christian worldview since it can account for most of the things we claim are actually real. Atheism can't even be considered since it can't account for any actual standard to judge what is actually correct or not.

[irishmauddib]

Youll have to explain that statement because it sounds like you made it up. Why would you expect atheism to account for anything?

[brad78ton]

If atheism can't account for anything, why bother to claim it is a valid foundation for a worldview?

[irishmauddib]

Your mistake is expecting atheism to account for anything. All atheism is is the position that without evidence that your claim is true, your claim doesnt account for anything so we have to find something else which does. How can the statement "I have seen no evidence suggesting there is a god" account for anything? LOL.

[bKiwiD]

I think what Brad meant by stating that atheism must 'account' for the world as it is, is that the atheistic worldview must be neither internally inconsistent nor inconsistent with the world it applies to, or else it is irrational to hold to atheism. For example, if I said my worldview included a belief that gravity didn't exist, it would be reasonable for someone to ask me to defend my position by explaining how I account for the world, as it is, without gravity.

[irishmauddib]

If thats what he means then its a silly statement. Gravity clearly exists so if you say it doesnt you actually have something to account for. Theres no evidence god exists however, so stating that you need to account for its non existence is a different thing and is an insanely silly thing to say.

I mean, any of us could make up any old thing and then just declare that the onus is on people to account for its non existence. Thankfully no other area of our discourse operates in this fashion

[bKiwiD]

Sounds like you've misunderstood again :)

When I say account for it, I DON'T MEAN that the onus is on you to prove that there is no God. What I do mean is that you consider all the consequences of a worldview with no God (ie the impact on the concept of the conscience, free will, good and evil, love and beauty), and still manage to come to the conclusion that the best conclusion to make, that fits the 'facts' of the world as we know it, is that there is no God.

[irishmauddib]

Again a silly comment. I have come to no such conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that all the opinions and views I DO have on these subjects you list work perfectly well without that assumption. There is no requirement for a god in any of the ways I think or how I think about them.

This does not mean there is no god. It just means everything appears to work remarkably well without one. Therefore I have no use for the assumption especially as it has no supporting evidence.

Clearer now?

[aricandisgood]

bKiwiD

Your point is abundantly clear. They don't see because they CANNOT see. Plain and simple. We have to present the Gospel and leave the rest up to the Holy Spirit.

Good points brother.

[JanJiska]

Well I wish the holy spirit would get a move on - I am on a one way fast track to hell at the moment!

[RocMegamanX]

Stein references Occam's Razor(simplest answer=right one), but the question of God's existence may as well be open-ended, so there can't truly be a simple answer for that.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Stein references Occam's Razor(simplest answer=right one), but the question of God's existence may as well be open-ended, so there can't truly be a simple answer for that."

You just admitted it and gave the answer to debunk this statement a moment ago: man.

[RocMegamanX]

Now I'll give it to Stein that man wrote the Bible, but this doesn't truly mean God doesn't exist. It was just merely either a record of the times or a book of stories, but not to be taken word for word.

Too many religious people take/took the bible word-for-word, which is why the Inquisition/Witch Hunts/Crusades happened.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Now I'll give it to Stein that man wrote the Bible, but this doesn't truly mean God doesn't exist."

This is where you insert your irrational faith.

Man wrote the Bible, and every other religious text in the world, yet somehow that means your particular God might still exist anyway?

That is not even close to a rational thought.

[ScottyDstNo]

Stein 'thanks' Bahnsen for 'showing that he doesn't understand atheism', and then he turns around and demonstrates one of the poorest understandings of arguments for God that I've ever heard. How embarrassing. Didn't he say that he's an atheist because he's observed these arguments and found that they are not adequate? He sounds like he hardly has an elementary understanding of them.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Stein's opening argument annihilates the crap Bahnsen tried to use.

A great 15 minutes.

Bahnsen got owned.

[Kmonman]

That sums up your understanding, and why you just don't get it.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"That sums up your understanding, and why you just don't get it."

What, you think Bahnsen actually has some kind of argument?

All he is doing is mental masturbation.

Part 3 2:20 "We can prove the existence of God by the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without him, it is impossible to prove anything."

Thats the most laughable excuse I've heard in a very long time.

Bahnsen is an idiot.

[pbcinla]

The universe is finite in regards to space as well. Scientists say it is in the shape of a dodecahedron, though you could never reach its perimeter.

[motile]

The universe is finite only in it's time of existence, not in size, and only as far as the BB itself as far as we know. We do not know what came before the BB. To postulate an infinite complex deity to explain less complex natural systems is absurd and dishonest because it supports ignorance and chooses preference over truth.

[Psalm130]

The universe is finite. The Big Bang shows this. Therefore, it requires a cause. God is not finite. He does not need a cause. Stein doesn't even understand the Cosmological argument.

[pbcinla]

He also misstates it in the sense that it goes:

All /changing/ things require a cause. The universe is changing and is not constant. Change requires cause. We cannot have infinite causes (philosophically impossible) therefore an unchanging cause must exist.

But this is Aquinas, not Bahnsen's argument.

[irishmauddib]

Explain to me how you get from a 1st cause to an intelligent all knowing being?

Why cant, for example, the first cause be something we dont understand, but an eternal unliving unknowing thing?

[brad78ton]

It seems, at least based on the principle of uniformity, that the inital cause would have the attribute of intelligence. since this can be observed (i.e. intelligence begets intelligence) and not the contrary (non-intelligence begets intelligence). Matter of fact I see no good reason to think the latter and produce this attribute. Unless of course you take it on blind faith.

[irishmauddib]

The principle of uniformity states that what we observe on earth must be true in the rest of the universe. A totally unproven, and with current technologies unprovable, claim. So I reject the rest of your assertion based on the fact the foundation is unproven.

[brad78ton]

You can reject it, but you better make sure you know what you are affirming in it's place. since I'm sure you don't realize it, but you have done serious damage to science itself in your rejection of the principle of uniformity. Physical laws, geological stratification, and biology (theory of biogenesis) are built upon this very principle.

[irishmauddib]

You read too much into what I say. I rejected your assertion, i didnt reject the principle. If you want to make a claim like the one you made then you have to tell me that with all scientific laws you are certain there are no exceptions. You are making claims that the "first cause" if such a concept is meaningful MUST have intelligence and this is what I reject. Do not read more into my words than I put there.

[fiercegallantry]

Brad, Bahnsen would not use this argument.

With good reason.

[brad78ton]

1st off, I never claimed he would. 2ndly, if its faulty then you should show why, because anybody can make a claim, but providing evidence to support the claim is the difficult part.

[Sophrosyne22]

Well spoken, it's so simple it must be true, Intelligence comes from intelligence... that should be obvious except when you've been spoon fed lies since you were born from the media and the textbooks, and you have forgotten how to think for yourself, hence accepting the version spoon fed to you!