Hmm I don't think theists look very hard if they think Dr. Bahnsen is convincing. It appears that this seems convincing because of Dr. Gordon doesn't present his argument very well.
The assumption that the logical absolutes needed to be created by something or someone is as baseless as the assumption that the universe needed to be created, or that god needed to be created, because it's an argument from ignorance. You are going to have to do better than that before you can call TAG 'proof of the existence of god' - until then, TAG is simply 'circular justification for the belief that I already hold'.
TAG as presented here by Dr. Bahnsen is a fairly complex argument, but can be boiled down to a simple argument from ignorance - That is, atheists don't know where the laws of logic come from, therefore god. That is, if there's logical absolutes, something must have existed to create the logical absolutes - which contains the baseless assumption that the logical absolutes needed to be created. Which is as unsatisfying to non-believers as when an atheist asks "Well, then, who created god?"
That was a really interesting debate. How come they don't do it in this format any more? I quite enjoyed the bit where they asked each other questions and I would have really enjoyed a debate in this style between, say, WLC and Christopher Hitchens, or two similar modern luminaries.
It's quite clear that Dr. Bahnsen won the debate, as Stein had no good response to the TAG argument.
Unfortunately (for theists) that doesn't make Bahnsen right.
The problem with Bahnsen is that he uses logic to make the argument that logic isn't necessary to prove the existence of God. This is contradictory. I'd also argue that in light of the extraordinary claims in the Bible (i.e. people rising from the dead/other miracles) that Christians have the burden of proof here entirely. As such, naturalism should be presumed until rebutted with proper evidence.
@michaelwynermusic This is something of the point of the presuppositionalist. You have to assume God in order to prove God. If you start with naturalism you will never end up believing in God. The claims are only extraordinary from your point of view from the Christian point of view they make sense. That is not saying that Christians should not be rational. Indeed, consistent Christians are the only people who are completely rational (notice the qualifiers consistent and completely).
"The claims are only extraordinary from your point of view from the Christian point of view they make sense."
The beliefs of an insane person make sense to them as well. What one feels should not be the measure of truth, only external evidence. The fact of the matter is that the God of the Bible is described as a personal God. I'd argue that if this God existed, we'd be seeing more DIRECT evidence of his existence and not be expected to rely on feelings.
@bedajo28 Wait a minute ... can you please tell me how (if) you've observed anything outside of physical laws? And could you please tell me how it is rational to presuppose that there is anything outside of physical laws, although the evidence for such supernatural capacities has yet to be proven? So people who are completely rational, according to you, just make up stuff (like supernatural deities) and that's correct? I don't get it.
@NikTheJew I personally have not observed any obvious miracles but others have and they recorded them in the Bible. However, you do not accept that as evidence because it is contrary to your worldview to believe in the supernatural. Everyone has an ultimate standard. Yours is human autonomy and reason the Christian's is God and His scriptures. You cannot prove these ultimate standards by bringing in another standard otherwise it would not be ultimate.
@NikTheJew The way you decide if your presuppositions are correct are by internally critiquing them. The naturalist says that everything that is is nature. But if that is the case then there are no such things such as universal concepts. Nature is all that is, is a universally concept therefore, it is a contradictory worldview and cannot be correct. I believe with absolute certainty that the only consistent and true worldview is the Reformed Christians view.
@michaelwynermusic As a naturalist I assume you also believe in evolution and abiogenesis. If not you may correct me. But if I am correct then you believe that basically everything is physical and just matter and energy. Anything outside of nature isn't. In that case how would you account for the laws of logic (the same can be said for morality).
The laws of logic and morality can be explained through evolution. Indeed, inherent in life are situations. How one responds to those situations can result in death or survival. Therefore it makes sense that overtime our hominoid ancestors developed an ability to weigh choices. Those who made better choices lived longer, thus transmitting their traits genetically.
Thanks for posting this entire thing, part of it was missing from the gregbahnsen youtube site. Great apologetics even though I now use presuppositionalism against Calvinism(which is what many of those proposing it teach, like Bahnsen). When I first came across it--it revealed how I was being idolatrous in my mind and why the debates I had never seemed to have any fruition with unbelievers. Now, after much use it's simple to see the holes in all their positions.
@droptozro I think people embrace Calvinism because the doctrines of grace are fully Biblical. Reformed theology recognizes that the Gospel is about Gods freedom, not mans.
Sorry, it's not fully biblical. That's a straw-man to claim it, because it immediately supposes that any other version of teaching is incorrect.
Reformed theology falls apart under pushing its antithesis. It logically follows in reformed doctrine that God's character is marred, God would be untrustworthy, God makes people sin, God wants people to sin, and effectively God WOULD be a sinner. Which of course I reject. Push the antithesis with all 5 points, be consistent.
@droptozro You clearly do not in any way understand the reformed position, judging by your absolute misrepresentation of it. You mentioned straw-man, well your last comment was a prime example of what straw-man argumentation is all about. Read some reformed literature and you may get a better grasp of what you are attacking.
I have... I've read enough of it and also seen it's fruit, and I've also read those critics of it who are strongly against straw-man arguments and quote full context quotes from the mainstream teachers of it over the centuries(and today). I can back up all my assertions using Scripture and pushing the antithesis with reformed doctrine.
I've read Van Til recently also, and while he has great logic against unbelievers, his logic is woeful against others in the faith.
@Bewareofthewolves lol just surfing bruvva u know me. looking for answers and all that. see u having a debate with these dudes!! must be mad frustrating
@droptozro " I now use presuppositionalism against Calvinism"
that's like saying I'm going to use the Word of God against the Word of God. If you are a presupp. then it logically follows that you adhere to the doctrines of grace.
Calvinism is the word of God? That's...idolatry. Hope that's not what you really mean in claiming that.
I elaborated a bit below, but we could go through all 5 points. Calvinism is a worldview, a system of consistent thought that's is thought to be from the Scriptures--but if we're consistent with presuppositionalism--we know that's not true, we have a view to some degree we're imposing on Scripture no matter how objective we attempt to be--but we should seek objectivity.
@droptozro I said it's like saying... as in it's like this example.
*sigh, i hate chatting over youtube. Do you have a skype or something because this is a first, I've never heard of anyone who is (might I say Arminian) and holds to presupp. It's a contradiction.
Nope, not Arminian. I think they're inconsistent also, there's doctrines they've added to make their circular loops back to Scripture just like the Catholics. Calvinists do it also though, no ultimate difference.
I tell you just like I told the other person, I've read Van Til--I read his arguments about why he believes presupp only works with the reformed and they're weak, they can be torn apart by presupp themselves, and they woefully misrepresent other positions.
@ArginGerigorian I'm not a calvinist and I hold to presuppositionalism as well. I'm a Bible believing Christian. Calvinism and Arminian beliefs are both unbiblical extremes. Let the Bible interpret the Bible!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You think the christian won. What a joke. His logic was not logic, and he was obliterated. Your logic is broken too, because you think his arguments were good. They were terrible! They were worthless! They were garbage! Just like your "mind."
@indignant99 And yet all you have done is enter the debate by name calling. You wouldn't even accept logic if it hit you right in the head.
"His logic was not logic": I don't get that, what do you mean? The Christian is the only one who can account for logic. God has made the world and everything in it (even laws of logic). Paul says, in Colossians 2:3-4 speaking about Christ. That in Him (Jesus) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. In Christ alone is there knowledge.
@ArginGerigorian "For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments or (vain philosophy)."
@indignant99 The only reason he didn't win in your opinion is because you, like stein are unwilling to remove yourself from the position as your own Final Authority of Truth. In a sense it is impossible for you to have a god because you see yourself as one and untill God breaks your pride and changes you, you will stay in the same desperate position..
@indignant99 It's funny that as an atheist the Laws of Logic what is it called when you debate? Whats the point why do you care? Can you go and pick a law of logic off the Logic tree? Can you show me the mind? Something you as an atheist believe. So do you see what's wrong there? Cause i do.
A lecture on more modern views of epistemology that takes steps to actually test/self verify knowledge through statistical connections between beliefs instead of simply declaring it be true because God gave it to us would probably have been a good response. Stein did talk a bit about something similar and certainly has a better grasp on how to know things than Bahnsen, but it's still a debate that shows its age.
Had this debate taken place today, Stein could have shrugged off TAG even if he had stepped into it with both feet like he did here. Bahnsen could have been embarrassed out of the studio with a range of results from cognitive psychology and neuroscience showing that his belief in being rational is demonstrably false to a significant extent.
It would also have been proper to call Bahnsen on how naive his epistemic views were after demonstrating how wrong he was.
Who won depends a bit on how you look at it. The TAG is a cheap parlor trick for trying to make your opponent look silly, and Stein clearly didn't have any experience with it. On the other hand, TAG doesn't actually amount to anything other than saying "I can justify my understanding of the world because I believe God created things that way".
This debate is in the paralympics category of God debates. It's certainly outdated to the point of irrelevance.
@Gnomefro Cool. I respect that! Of course I would disagree with you. I believe it goes beyond the TAG argument. Poor Bahnsen couldn't even get to other areas of the debate because he had to grind it in Stein head that, he has absolutely no reason/ justification to believe in the laws of logic, science, etc. And still Stein assumes these things, in a sense borrows from the Christian world-view so he can get to an end. I think it's called the "Taxi-Cab fallacy" but I'm not sure about it.
@ArginGerigorian It comes down to this. One must believe in order to understand. The world says "seeing is believing". Christ says, "Believe and you shall see the glory of God" John 11:40. To the presuppositionalist it's Christ or nothing. He is our starting point and we will not relinquish that and with that presupposition we understand the world around us. I'm very new to presupp. but it's pretty cool. :)
@Gnomefro You say this debate is in the paralympics category of God debates, can you suggest any theist, atheist debates that might qualify for the olympics (to use your analogy)?
Hmm I don't think theists look very hard if they think Dr. Bahnsen is convincing. It appears that this seems convincing because of Dr. Gordon doesn't present his argument very well.
shadywolf91 2 weeks ago
The assumption that the logical absolutes needed to be created by something or someone is as baseless as the assumption that the universe needed to be created, or that god needed to be created, because it's an argument from ignorance. You are going to have to do better than that before you can call TAG 'proof of the existence of god' - until then, TAG is simply 'circular justification for the belief that I already hold'.
Stevarious 1 month ago
TAG as presented here by Dr. Bahnsen is a fairly complex argument, but can be boiled down to a simple argument from ignorance - That is, atheists don't know where the laws of logic come from, therefore god. That is, if there's logical absolutes, something must have existed to create the logical absolutes - which contains the baseless assumption that the logical absolutes needed to be created. Which is as unsatisfying to non-believers as when an atheist asks "Well, then, who created god?"
Stevarious 1 month ago
That was a really interesting debate. How come they don't do it in this format any more? I quite enjoyed the bit where they asked each other questions and I would have really enjoyed a debate in this style between, say, WLC and Christopher Hitchens, or two similar modern luminaries.
It's quite clear that Dr. Bahnsen won the debate, as Stein had no good response to the TAG argument.
Unfortunately (for theists) that doesn't make Bahnsen right.
Stevarious 1 month ago
This was an epic slaughter.
megenoimi 2 months ago
Wait a second.
a. I'm on youtube.
b. Both the highest rated comments are christian
c. The debate is highly voted when the christian obviously winning.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED
MCulpa 3 months ago
Audio is terrible. Can`t understand...
waycooltoo 4 months ago
@waycooltoo
you can google for a transcript I believe... sorry I cannot remember what website at the moment.
droptozro 4 months ago
The problem with Bahnsen is that he uses logic to make the argument that logic isn't necessary to prove the existence of God. This is contradictory. I'd also argue that in light of the extraordinary claims in the Bible (i.e. people rising from the dead/other miracles) that Christians have the burden of proof here entirely. As such, naturalism should be presumed until rebutted with proper evidence.
michaelwynermusic 4 months ago
@michaelwynermusic This is something of the point of the presuppositionalist. You have to assume God in order to prove God. If you start with naturalism you will never end up believing in God. The claims are only extraordinary from your point of view from the Christian point of view they make sense. That is not saying that Christians should not be rational. Indeed, consistent Christians are the only people who are completely rational (notice the qualifiers consistent and completely).
bedajo28 4 months ago
@bedajo28
"The claims are only extraordinary from your point of view from the Christian point of view they make sense."
The beliefs of an insane person make sense to them as well. What one feels should not be the measure of truth, only external evidence. The fact of the matter is that the God of the Bible is described as a personal God. I'd argue that if this God existed, we'd be seeing more DIRECT evidence of his existence and not be expected to rely on feelings.
Logicshouldprevail 3 months ago
@bedajo28 Wait a minute ... can you please tell me how (if) you've observed anything outside of physical laws? And could you please tell me how it is rational to presuppose that there is anything outside of physical laws, although the evidence for such supernatural capacities has yet to be proven? So people who are completely rational, according to you, just make up stuff (like supernatural deities) and that's correct? I don't get it.
NikTheJew 3 months ago
@NikTheJew I personally have not observed any obvious miracles but others have and they recorded them in the Bible. However, you do not accept that as evidence because it is contrary to your worldview to believe in the supernatural. Everyone has an ultimate standard. Yours is human autonomy and reason the Christian's is God and His scriptures. You cannot prove these ultimate standards by bringing in another standard otherwise it would not be ultimate.
bedajo28 3 months ago
@NikTheJew The way you decide if your presuppositions are correct are by internally critiquing them. The naturalist says that everything that is is nature. But if that is the case then there are no such things such as universal concepts. Nature is all that is, is a universally concept therefore, it is a contradictory worldview and cannot be correct. I believe with absolute certainty that the only consistent and true worldview is the Reformed Christians view.
bedajo28 3 months ago
@michaelwynermusic As a naturalist I assume you also believe in evolution and abiogenesis. If not you may correct me. But if I am correct then you believe that basically everything is physical and just matter and energy. Anything outside of nature isn't. In that case how would you account for the laws of logic (the same can be said for morality).
bedajo28 4 months ago
@bedajo28
The laws of logic and morality can be explained through evolution. Indeed, inherent in life are situations. How one responds to those situations can result in death or survival. Therefore it makes sense that overtime our hominoid ancestors developed an ability to weigh choices. Those who made better choices lived longer, thus transmitting their traits genetically.
Logicshouldprevail 3 months ago
Thanks for posting this entire thing, part of it was missing from the gregbahnsen youtube site. Great apologetics even though I now use presuppositionalism against Calvinism(which is what many of those proposing it teach, like Bahnsen). When I first came across it--it revealed how I was being idolatrous in my mind and why the debates I had never seemed to have any fruition with unbelievers. Now, after much use it's simple to see the holes in all their positions.
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro Just wondering, how do you use presuppositionalism against Calvinism?
Bewareofthewolves 4 months ago
@Bewareofthewolves
Exactly like Bahnsen, by pushing the antithesis of the Calvinist worldview.
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro I think people embrace Calvinism because the doctrines of grace are fully Biblical. Reformed theology recognizes that the Gospel is about Gods freedom, not mans.
Bewareofthewolves 4 months ago
@Bewareofthewolves
Sorry, it's not fully biblical. That's a straw-man to claim it, because it immediately supposes that any other version of teaching is incorrect.
Reformed theology falls apart under pushing its antithesis. It logically follows in reformed doctrine that God's character is marred, God would be untrustworthy, God makes people sin, God wants people to sin, and effectively God WOULD be a sinner. Which of course I reject. Push the antithesis with all 5 points, be consistent.
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro You clearly do not in any way understand the reformed position, judging by your absolute misrepresentation of it. You mentioned straw-man, well your last comment was a prime example of what straw-man argumentation is all about. Read some reformed literature and you may get a better grasp of what you are attacking.
Bewareofthewolves 4 months ago
@Bewareofthewolves
I have... I've read enough of it and also seen it's fruit, and I've also read those critics of it who are strongly against straw-man arguments and quote full context quotes from the mainstream teachers of it over the centuries(and today). I can back up all my assertions using Scripture and pushing the antithesis with reformed doctrine.
I've read Van Til recently also, and while he has great logic against unbelievers, his logic is woeful against others in the faith.
droptozro 4 months ago
@Bewareofthewolves wagwan cuz
cuntface919 4 months ago
@cuntface919 What you sayin bro? What are you doing round these parts?
Bewareofthewolves 4 months ago
@Bewareofthewolves lol just surfing bruvva u know me. looking for answers and all that. see u having a debate with these dudes!! must be mad frustrating
cuntface919 4 months ago
@droptozro " I now use presuppositionalism against Calvinism"
that's like saying I'm going to use the Word of God against the Word of God. If you are a presupp. then it logically follows that you adhere to the doctrines of grace.
Can you elaborate more on what you mean?
ArginGerigorian 4 months ago 5
@ArginGerigorian
Calvinism is the word of God? That's...idolatry. Hope that's not what you really mean in claiming that.
I elaborated a bit below, but we could go through all 5 points. Calvinism is a worldview, a system of consistent thought that's is thought to be from the Scriptures--but if we're consistent with presuppositionalism--we know that's not true, we have a view to some degree we're imposing on Scripture no matter how objective we attempt to be--but we should seek objectivity.
droptozro 4 months ago
@droptozro I said it's like saying... as in it's like this example.
*sigh, i hate chatting over youtube. Do you have a skype or something because this is a first, I've never heard of anyone who is (might I say Arminian) and holds to presupp. It's a contradiction.
ArginGerigorian 4 months ago 3
@ArginGerigorian
Nope, not Arminian. I think they're inconsistent also, there's doctrines they've added to make their circular loops back to Scripture just like the Catholics. Calvinists do it also though, no ultimate difference.
I tell you just like I told the other person, I've read Van Til--I read his arguments about why he believes presupp only works with the reformed and they're weak, they can be torn apart by presupp themselves, and they woefully misrepresent other positions.
droptozro 4 months ago
@ArginGerigorian I'm not a calvinist and I hold to presuppositionalism as well. I'm a Bible believing Christian. Calvinism and Arminian beliefs are both unbiblical extremes. Let the Bible interpret the Bible!
Hoogz20 2 months ago
Clear Dr. Bahnsen won that debate.
BTW, since both of the debaters are dead - they both know who really won...!
RyuSei00555 5 months ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You think the christian won. What a joke. His logic was not logic, and he was obliterated. Your logic is broken too, because you think his arguments were good. They were terrible! They were worthless! They were garbage! Just like your "mind."
indignant99 9 months ago
@indignant99 And yet all you have done is enter the debate by name calling. You wouldn't even accept logic if it hit you right in the head.
"His logic was not logic": I don't get that, what do you mean? The Christian is the only one who can account for logic. God has made the world and everything in it (even laws of logic). Paul says, in Colossians 2:3-4 speaking about Christ. That in Him (Jesus) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. In Christ alone is there knowledge.
ArginGerigorian 9 months ago 18
@ArginGerigorian "For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments or (vain philosophy)."
ArginGerigorian 9 months ago
@indignant99 The only reason he didn't win in your opinion is because you, like stein are unwilling to remove yourself from the position as your own Final Authority of Truth. In a sense it is impossible for you to have a god because you see yourself as one and untill God breaks your pride and changes you, you will stay in the same desperate position..
Crispycremes20 6 months ago
@indignant99 It's funny that as an atheist the Laws of Logic what is it called when you debate? Whats the point why do you care? Can you go and pick a law of logic off the Logic tree? Can you show me the mind? Something you as an atheist believe. So do you see what's wrong there? Cause i do.
GodisLegitasCake1 5 months ago
A lecture on more modern views of epistemology that takes steps to actually test/self verify knowledge through statistical connections between beliefs instead of simply declaring it be true because God gave it to us would probably have been a good response. Stein did talk a bit about something similar and certainly has a better grasp on how to know things than Bahnsen, but it's still a debate that shows its age.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
Had this debate taken place today, Stein could have shrugged off TAG even if he had stepped into it with both feet like he did here. Bahnsen could have been embarrassed out of the studio with a range of results from cognitive psychology and neuroscience showing that his belief in being rational is demonstrably false to a significant extent.
It would also have been proper to call Bahnsen on how naive his epistemic views were after demonstrating how wrong he was.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
Who won depends a bit on how you look at it. The TAG is a cheap parlor trick for trying to make your opponent look silly, and Stein clearly didn't have any experience with it. On the other hand, TAG doesn't actually amount to anything other than saying "I can justify my understanding of the world because I believe God created things that way".
This debate is in the paralympics category of God debates. It's certainly outdated to the point of irrelevance.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro Cool. I respect that! Of course I would disagree with you. I believe it goes beyond the TAG argument. Poor Bahnsen couldn't even get to other areas of the debate because he had to grind it in Stein head that, he has absolutely no reason/ justification to believe in the laws of logic, science, etc. And still Stein assumes these things, in a sense borrows from the Christian world-view so he can get to an end. I think it's called the "Taxi-Cab fallacy" but I'm not sure about it.
ArginGerigorian 9 months ago
@ArginGerigorian It comes down to this. One must believe in order to understand. The world says "seeing is believing". Christ says, "Believe and you shall see the glory of God" John 11:40. To the presuppositionalist it's Christ or nothing. He is our starting point and we will not relinquish that and with that presupposition we understand the world around us. I'm very new to presupp. but it's pretty cool. :)
ArginGerigorian 9 months ago
@Gnomefro You say this debate is in the paralympics category of God debates, can you suggest any theist, atheist debates that might qualify for the olympics (to use your analogy)?
Bewareofthewolves 4 months ago