I find no relationship between the title of these videos and the content. I've read many of Smith's published lectures, media material, articles and books, and only recently came across Bahnsen on youtube. I think both of them were severely under-performing in this "debate." I honestly feel like I wasted my time watching these. =(
@emptyquarter1 I never get an answer to that question. You see this whole presup thing is really nothing more than a semantic sleight of hand meant to trap your opponent with fallacious arguments inside fallacious arguments inside fallacious arguments. Asking a simple, straightforward question like: "What method would you use to discern fact from fiction." wipes all the 3-Card Monty semantic tricks off the table leaving you with a real, relevant question that Christians won't answer..
@emptyquarter1 We're just retreading old ground at this point, and I'm just waiting for you to openly admit what you've implicitly admitted several times already.
You conceded that the edifice of scientific inquiry presupposes axioms unprovable on grounds other than an appeal to their own authority. In admitting that you have conceded that science is not a method capable of evaluating every kind of claim. Back to Bahnsen's point; one kind of claim science (aka the materialist's worldview) is that abstract entities "exist." Logic, aesthetic values, etc...
Of course, I'm not suggesting that science has not been a fruitful pursuit in human history, and it's foolish to infer that I was making that point. The efficacy of medical and technological advancements is a red herring. Obviously, if science presupposes axioms that it is not in a position to validate, such as math or logic, then science is not the end-all of human knowledge; other non-scientific endeavors are legitimate as well. And you've virtually conceded that.
If science can't address something, you don't relegate that question to innanity, you investigate in an appropriate way. Science will never, and could never (ever [ever]) validate or falsify the existence of the laws of logic, mathematical theories, aesthetic values, etc... Science, to operate, presupposes math and logic, as well as the scientific method itself. The kind of logical positivism you seem to espouse has been long regarded as self-referentially incoherent.
When you use the word "science" I get the feeling that you mean methodological naturalism, and beyond the scope of that method, assignments of truth and falsity have no meaning, or are at least groundless. I think you need to wake up and realize that by definition, the scientific method is imply not equipped to address some issues and concerns. How could empirical observation ever validate or falsify theories regarding IMmaterial, abstract entities and concepts?
I thought we were on the same page for a bit. Clearly, we aren't. The statements you're making are absurd. There is no glorious, apotheosic medium for truth known as "science." The noun "science" is shorthand that stands for a method of empirical observation of the world. Believe or not, there are facets of reality not open to empirical observation. The object of study determines the method of study, and abstract entities are beyond the purview of science.
Again, the point Bahnsen is making right there is a negative one, not a positive one. Bahnsen was never asked and never attempted to make a case that only God could account for abstract entities. He was simply saying that a naturalist/materialist never could. I'm not sure that's even disputable. As he said, in the materialistic framework logic itself would reduce to chemical processes in the brain, and so we have no reason to think that "logic" per se even exists at all.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you mistake the point that Bahnsen is making at some points. It is tempting for Christians sometimes to utilize "God of the gaps" arguments, which I think is a huge mistake, as of course you do. The point that Bahnsen makes when he discusses logic, love, or other immaterial, abstract entities is that in principle and by definition, a materialistic worldview (aka science) never could explain these things, even in theory.
An interesting debate. Belief in God boils down to whether or not God has given and individual the gift of faith. Of course, the Atheist would deny this and say that it is his intellect that causes him not to believe in a God. The person who has God's gift of faith cannot understand the Atheist's inability to see a Creator as responsible for such a complex and well designed creation. Yes, there are problems within the creation, mostly man's doing, but there is intelligent design in the creation
Greg Bahsen is probably one of the best christian apologists. His Transcendental Arguiment for the Existence of God (TAEG) is unrefutable. The atemp to refute is only possible ASSUMING the very thing one wishes to refute.
The reason many think this Bahnsen character wins this argument is because he manages to layer his presuppositions in so many layers of obfuscation and assertion that Smith doesn't even know where to begin in dissecting it - baffle 'em with bullshit.
Read Smith's book for a succinct, systematic vivisection of all of these (and many others).
@unprofessionalvids So, help me out here - in a comment under segment one of this vid you said reading Smith's book "would be like reading Stephenie Meyer's book" (implying you had not read it), and here you claim it is "full of presuppositions, speculation and failed logic" (implying you had).
Contradict much?
Or did you just assume, due to his conclusion (different from yours), that it MUST have relied on faulty logic?
@mgt247 I don't think you heard him out either. Basically Bahnsen proves that in an atheist universe, only materials exist, that meaning that "abstractions," or ideas we put on things/categories, aren't necessary in the sense that the brain shouldn't need categories; it should just take us along for a ride and we're not making choices, we're just by products of chemicals, "thought is unnecessary." that doesn't make sense and thus how can we even know if we're dealing with reality?
On top of, it's hard to understand his argument in one sitting but if we can abstract things like love/mathematics/gravity and put them into categories then we can do that with God too but He isn't literally just an abstraction (an idea) because He created "logic" and "ideas". God reveals Himself to us the sense that we're made in His image, since we can abstract things in the universe that He made, we can do the same with Him but He's more than just an abstraction.
I was going to write a post explaining why most, if not all, of Bahnsen's arguments given throughout this debate are just a heap of meaningless proses; however, I would have to submit several more posts, due to character restrictions, and waste a good deal of energy just to do it justice. So, in order to save time, space and my sanity, I will go with my gut instinct by just denouncing him as a babbling liar.
@william629 I say liar because his deceitful approach is by design, not by way of any kind of misunderstanding. He's willing to make irrational and irrelevant statements and claims only to make it appear as though he has a legitimate point instead of admitting the apparent truth, he knows no more about the existence of a God than George Smith does.
"God is a personal, non-physical being"---Greg Bahnsen
Do I dare ask Bahnsen, or anyone else, to explain how he knows this?
@william629 This can be understood through reading the Bible. The Bible is by the Cristian world-view the word of God, and it clearly states that God cannot lie. That's the reason why Greg Bahnsen can say he knows this for a fact.
Definition of physical: "any aspect of an object or substance that can be measured or perceived without changing its identity". We cannot measure God with scientific instruments, nor can we see Him directly.
@Zupernova91 I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. The bible says it's so, so it must be so. The Qu'ran says it's so, so it must be so. The Torah says it's so, so it must be so. We can play that juvenile game til now and forever. As far as not being able to measure God with "scientific instruments", or being able to see him directly, I'm in complete agreement with you; nor can we see the boogy man, the easter bunny, unicorns, or mermaids in the same way. What exactly was your point?
@william629 "Do I dare ask how Greg Bahnsen knows this"?
The answer is found in the Bible. Greg Bahnsen didn't make up this answer, nor do Christians make it up. Now, you may not believe or like the answer, but you cannot seriously think something is implausible because you do not like it, right?
@drewski1gba The answer is found in the bible. That's good to know. Here's a brilliant idea. Go to as many mosques, synagogues, temples, etc as you can and let the people there know that they're reading the wrong texts. You know what else is non-physical, things that are imaginary and non-existent. Why is you're imaginary being any more credible than those of any other religion? And please don't say because your holy book (the bible) states so, they have that same excuse believe it or not.
"Why is your imaginary being credible over those others?" For you to use the word imaginary tells me that you haven't really thought through your objection. What makes God "imaginary" to you? Is it because you have never seen him, or is it something more than that. Answer that question, then we can get into comparing religions, which ones are viable etc...
@drewski1gba Essentially, all I want you to do is give a good an HONEST explanation for the existance of you're God without the use of "For the BIble Tells Me So", or any other pointless rationale such as, I have faith, It's in our hearts, It's in spirit, etc... Don't worry about comparing the other religions, the're too many religions in the world to do that via youtube posting. Not to mention all the religions that precede judeo-christianity.
Just giving you an answer to this question means that I am appealing to reason. Reason alone proves God existence. Your outlook on life (whether Naturalism, Existentialism, Atheism etc...) cannot sustain a meaningful foundation for reason at all.
It comes down to who we think the burden of proof falls on. You say it falls on me because you demand evidence that is suitable for you. I would contend that you already believe there is a God, by appealing to rational interchange.
@drewski1gba Atheism is a by product of reason. It's a simple confession of not being a theist, and not subscribing to supernatural claims. You make it sound as if Atheism is an institution or something. If I say I don't believe in bridge trolls or flying horses do I now have to provide evidence for that. In that case the burden of proof is on you to prove that unicorns don't exist since you don't have evidence. Unless you believe in unicorns I guess.
@william629 I would believe in a unicorn I guess if it had a rational foundation with which to hold to. I may even be interested in believing in trolls if over a billion professing people did.
@drewski1gba "Reason alone proves God existence". Please explain. I really would like to know how that works. And If you cannot or will not explain it, please don't just toss it out their like it's a sensible response.
When you ask for an "HONEST" explanation of God, you are assuming a standard of Morality, just by saying "be honest", as opposed to be dishonest. I have a Moral plumline (Jesus). Saying that reason proves God is to say that we as humans bear the image of one who has created us and we presuppose things like reason or morality. Yet when asked to give an account of reason or morality, what i say makes sense and what you would say CANNOT make sense out of human experience.
@drewski1gba When I say honnest, I mean the only meaning of honnest that I know of. We bear images of a lot a things, no doubt about it; however, that doesn't make them true just because.
@drewski1gba As far as what makes "God" imaginary to me, that all depends on which God you're referring to. I'm going to assume that you're talking about the God of christianity. This question could've easily been answered by looking up the word imaginary in the dictionary, but I'll humor you a bit with an example. May have to post again. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. A much similiar story was constructed in Greece prior to biblical acounts of creation.
@drewski1gba Supposedly, Pandora, the first woman in accordance to what is now considered Greek mythology, was given to Epimetheus as a companion. Pandora was given a box that she was ordered not to open. Of course she opened it. As a result, man "fell from grace" and evil was released upon the world. Now in my opinion, either one of these stories is fictional or they're both based off the same folklorish myth, evolving slighty with time and tradition.
@drewski1gba Now, you may be a fundamentalist Christian or you may be the ever popular, bend the "word of God" in order to preserve whatever you call christianity type of person. If you are the later, you may dismiss my previous posts be stating that some biblical stories are only "metaphorical", and the perfectly find. Either way you swing it my view is the same. Could their be a God, absolutely.....
@william629 My belief: God is Holy, mankind is sinful, this sin has separated mankind from a relationship with God. i.e. there is a big problem in the world.
However, God, sent Jesus, the Son, on a rescue mission to intercede for mankind, to live a perfect life and even be killed for it. Moreover, as he was dying, his own Father poured on Jesus wrath that was should have been ours. Jesus died, and rose 3 days later and is in heaven on a Throne ruling over all creation. This is my belief.
@drewski1gba Could there be a God (supernatural, creator being), absolutely. There can be an endless amount of things we don't know about, or never will no about. But until you prove it, don't be surprised when people don't just nod their heads and agree with you. You have the right to believe what you want. If you want to believe in talking trees that's alright with me. Keep in mind, however, that it's your belief, not mine.
@william629 Thats fine. I do think proof is overrated, however. I don't need to prove God to someone because I believe all people know there is a God. I am an Augustinian, by the way.
@lukeism2 While I think it's great that Max (well-educated atheist caller) presented his arguments to Dr. Bahnsen, he's *hardly* handing him his ass. Go to 1:40 and tell me that Max feels confident of what he's just presented. He ends up deferring to George Smith, who, while constructing his arguments brilliantly, could not give any empirical justification of abstract universal entities.
Greg Bahnsen is a fucking idiot. Reason is not "god given" you arrogant prick. If presenting arguments that are all complete logical fallacy is the only way you can hold your own in an intellectual debate, please just go home and pray to a magical man in the sky.
Fantastic debate! If you want to understand Bahnsen's arguments better, please search "presuppositionalism" ... especially videos by Paleocrat and Antipelagian
The "God-guy" is right on the point that there is NO free will for the atheist what so ever. Check the physics!!! Atoms have no free will and you are made of it.
@dkw12002: And the other proponent starts out assuming his view exists. It's nonsense to assume anything else. Also you have no basis to evaluate "good" based on your world view, unless you either follow that fallacies that Bahnsen points out in this and other debates and lectures. We can identify good, bad, love and other immaterial concepts, but to one who does not believe in the immaterial and only the the physical you have no basis to even speak about them. Did you even listen?
does god make a valid basis for good? throughout history is bombarded with criticisms and until now cannot be accepted by the whole. how can one being without associating itself with the external world can make abstractions? it is not immaterial, in a sense that it has divine origin, it is a FEELING. a dog doesnt feel that way- that was developed by evolution. btw we came from the same origin. so good without god is not good? god as a man made being conforms only to our morality not vice versa
Gee, a debate about IF god exists, and the proponent starts out assuming god exists and uses that opinion as a fact to try and explain everything including that an atheist is really a Christian at heart. George was being generous in stating the good parts of the bible. Let's just say the good philosophy of the bible can be reduced to pamphlet size.
I would just like to point out that the fact that we will begin our reasoning with one presupposition or another is an inescapable one. Some would suggest that we can and must begin our reasoning from a position of complete neutrality, yet this is not actually possible. The man who tries to be neutral in his search for truth begins by assuming that he is alone and must proceed with no bias, (continued)
using nothing but his own senses and relying on his own ability to interpret the data he is presented with. Yet, this is itself the atheist's position, not something less. In fact, this supposedly neutral position also must begin by assuming uniformity of nature as well as the validity of the tools, like logic, that are needed in order to asses the data. This is not neutrality at all. Once we come to understand the myth of neutrality then we can see the importance of presuppositionalism.
Yes, people are looking at the same things usually, but interpreting them differently. Fantastic claims require fantastic proof, but claims of god(s), virgin birth, assension, gods, heaven and hell, souls, sin, inspired word, trinity, transubstantiation, etc. all exist without a shread of scientific proof. They make sense only in the same sense that Santa is jolly because he is fat and wears a heavy suit because he lives at the N. pole. Atheists are not neutral. They don't believe.
It appears that I was not clear enough on this. I was not trying to say that atheists are neutral, but that neutrality doesn't exist. In our thinking we are either atheist or theist, there is no other position to begin from.
But since you speak of scientific proof, can you prove that logic exists? How about thoughts, can you prove that they exist? Has a scientist ever seen a thought or tested a thought? You except that these things exist don't you? Yet what proof do we have for them?
I suppose not, but confusion exists, being mistaken and misinterpreting exists, and changing your mind at the drop of a hat exists along with blind faith, obstinacy, and being devil's advocate exist. "I think, therefore I am," as Descartes said. Something exists, about that there can be no argument. It's in the interpretation that we disagree. Science uses the scientific method to show what exists in nature using a normal pair of eyes. Religion uses special senses to come to their conclusions.
your asking for scientific proof for historical claims...
There is more historical evidence for the accuracy of the bible than there is for any other historical document.
because we cannot repeat the historic facts in a lab through testing does not make them false. We cannot recreate the assassination of Cesar to prove that it was actually Cesar, that it was a knife, etc. Even if we could "recreate it" does that mean it actually happen, or that our recreation could have happened?
Accuracy can mean at least two things...either the message is accurate, true, valid, etc. or that the bible you read today is an accurate copy of what the bible was originally written. Since not a shred of what was first compiled into the old or new testament remains, that would be hard to say, but if you were to copy A Visit by St. Nicholas by hand 500 times, you would still end up with a fairy tale. I would not argue that there was someone named Jesus, but there was a St. Nicholas too.
Well then you must throw out all the ancient writings from plato to aristole, seeing as the bible has more historic literary evidence for its validity. What we have of Plato's writing cannot be trusted as his since the original copies dont exist.
Heck we cannot trust 95% of any writings because the originals have been lost. Be consistent in your application of evidence.
Not really. Outside of religion, nobody cares who comes up with an idea except historians, because the concept has to stand on its own. With Socrates, you can take or leave any idea he has. In religion, you have ideas being passed on by GODS. Jesus is supposed to be infallable. If there was no resurrection, then Christianity is false as Paul said....and Jesus was just a guy, the bible is just ancient superstition and can be dismissed along with all the other myths. That's a huge difference.
Again there is more historical evidence to believe that he resurrection in the bible did happen, than any other piece of history.
what if I said Julius Caesar wasn't murdered? You would say i was wrong because of historical/anthropological "evidence". Why would you view that evidence as valid and not apply those same standards to the Bible?
The burden of proof would be on me to disprove Julius' murder... the burden is on you to disprove the resurrection
@JoshuaPniewski I can't even prove I'm just a guy. Maybe I'm the REAL messiah, although we are probably in agreement that Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Nero, The Emperor of Japan, and all the other men that ever lived and were claimed to be gods are not gods, so the question to you is: why would you think Jesus was a god? It's your belief, not mine. The list of things I don't believe in is far too long to get started on.
@JoshuaPniewski Nobody even mentioned my beliefs. It is your beliefs that are in question. I am not religious though and have no reason to believe in gods, satan, ghosts (holy or otherwise), angels, heaven, hell, virgin births, transubstantiation, miracles, creationism. I do believe in the power of prayer, but it isn't god. That is the power of positive thinking and there can be beneficial results even if you meditate or pray to whatever god you believe in. Zeus answers prayers same as JC.
I would say "Who cares." If I told you that Atilla the Hun died early and was replaced by his brother - you would also say "Who cares."
If, instead I said that the Buddha walked on water or Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or Ruben Ecleo duplicated all of Jesus' miracles or Hercules killed the Hydra or Krishna slew the Ogres - would you accept these as fact unless they were disproven?
2nd hand miracle accounts are a dime a dozen found everywhere at all times and the 'evidence' for these events are all the same - stories.
Jesus' resurrection is particularly problematic since the 4 accounts do not agree on many points. Paul, who was the first to write about it states that he was buried (qapto not tiqemi) and then rose as a spirit. 1 Cor 15. Even if EVERYTHING was right, it's still not as good as the evidence for miracles you don't believe in like 'The Miracle of Fatima'.
you cannot jump to the conclusion that because the 4 different accounts are from different viewpoints that the event didnt happen... take WWII for example.... there are tons of books written, none of which are exact so it didnt happen and it is superstition... pure logical fallacy... please try again...
"so, again, you have no foundation for Knowledge or your own beliefs..."
Bahnsen's Identity arguement is silly and ridiculous. We all accept that what is real is real and then build a foundation of knowledge and theories around that. Has ANYONE been hamstrung by this irrational argument?
Atheists wish to defend we came from primordial soup over billions of years? right?
Atheists also wish to claim the burden of proof is on Christians to prove God.
We're only asking you to prove "reason" or "logic" exists since it does transcend the physical world. You accept what is "real"? yet you cannot -know- real?
It's not difficult to understand.. there's only 3 types of people, 2 are consistent-God/Law and infinite skeptics, and 1 inconsistent and often hypocritical.
This is only a consistent view within YOUR un-belief.
The majority of atheists wish to claim that all can be known through our 5 senses, yet you have no true -reason- to accept your 5 senses for what they are... nor can you truly prove reason exists through the natural any more than a Christian can prove God exists through the natural other than by the means of it's existence/creation.
The argument is more of just a call to consistency ...most aren't.
@droptozro "Atheists wish to defend we came from primordial soup over billions of years? right?"
No. Atheists simply do not believe in gods - any specific atheist might have no opinion on origins.
"Atheists also wish to claim the burden of proof is on Christians to prove God."
Not just Christians. If you claim Allah, Brahma, Zeus, Odin, Elves, Space aliens created the universe then the burden of proof is on you. I can't say "Leprechauns made the universe - prove they didn't."
The majority wish to defend that... most atheists don't accept ID, even in the form of aliens. I understand that some atheists may not have opinions on origins, but that cannot also be left blank on your side of the debate---and then make a claim that a Christians is not true.
No..that's simply a straw man. It works w/physical things also, I think that watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut them open--prove me wrong. You must also have a burden of proof--no neutrality
@droptozro "t that cannot also be left blank on your side of the debate---and then make a claim that a Christians is not true."
Yes, I absolutely can. I don't need an explanation on my side to dismiss bad explanations. As an example: A voodoo priest on a remote island claims that earthquakes come from the Eel god 'Ijuro", the wiseman on the island says "I don't believe you." Who's right? Do you need knowledge of continental drift in order not to believe the voodoo priest's magic stories?
Here's a really good lesson on 'burden of proof'. Frank claims that an 'evil toaster' is talking to him telepathically. You say "I don't believe you." Frank says "Prove it's NOT happening." Obviously the one making the assertion has to prove his case. The one denying the assertion can choose to falsify the assertion but that's not his responsibility. You believe x - show WHY you believe x. It's not reasonable to expect me to falsify 'x'.
@droptozro "prove "reason" or "logic" exists since it does transcend the physical world."
Reason/Logic does not transcend anything, it's an emergent property of the brain like processing data is an emergent property of computer chips. Is data processing proof of Jehovah?
"you cannot -know- real" Neither can you. What you see may not be real but that goes triple for fairy tales mom told you as a child. It's possible that what we see isn't real - so what? Religion isn't real either way.
It's not a physical thing, so it does transcend it. You're wishing to claim something exists, just like a Christian can, and then defending yours is possible without the possibility of a God being true. As you simply stated before, Leprechauns made the universe... I can say, logic doesn't exist--it's only something you've made up. Burden of proof goes both ways, if you don't wish to defend evolution... then you're going to have to defend nothing came from nothing- impossible?
@droptozro 'It's not a physical thing, so it does transcend it."
It's not supernatural, it's emergent like a math formula. No one doesn't believe in emergent properties. This is like proving ghosts exist because computer CPUs invisibly process data. "then you're going to have to defend nothing came from nothing- impossible?"
"Something from nothing?" Who knows? I DO know for a fact that Jehovah, tribal go of the ancient Hebrews and a 1st century cult leader had nothing to do with it.
"It's emergent like a math formula" ---that's a presupposition, like the logic you're using with no foundation. You're counting on the formula to remain constant--with the logic that you would have which could claim it doesn't have to remain constant.
I find it odd you keep referring to CPUs... especially since there is intelligence behind the creation of every single one? coincidence? I'm just wondering.
Actually you technically would need that knowledge--otherwise (cont)
@templarart (cont) you would be arguing from ignorance. Which these are all wrong... you do have a burden of proof. You don't have to avoid the question. If you don't understand that there is no neutrality(as most of these videos often state)--you have to state your side of it--hence the knowledge issue you stated earlier.
The main issue is, you're using logic--and have no right to trust it. If you don't believe you were created in the image of God--with a trustworthy mind, (cont)
@droptozro "have no right to trust logic If you don't believe in God".
That is SO ridiculous!
You trust logic because logic works. You trust math because math works. You trust food because it nourishes you. Experience breeds trust, not gods, elves or wizards.
There is no way to be 100% certain about anything - SO WHAT?, the alternative is counterproductive navel gazing! Again, adding gods doesn't fix the problem since you can't trust that you heard the god-stories you believe in.
I know... it does sound ridiculous, but only because I'm trying to make consistent your views. Templarart, I have a feeling you didn't listen to all these videos. Go to "problems for unbelieving worldviews" and see your dilemma.
Experience cannot always breed trust(how would you know this is true?), and trust in what? Instincts? Methods? Possible constants?
I know I was made in the image of God--I can trust these things(without use of Bible)
@droptozro "I know I was made in the image of God"
Babylonians KNEW they were made by Marduk, Egyptians KNEW they came from the Nile, The Branch Davidians KNEW that Koresh was the reincarnated Christ, Persians KNEW that Azula Mazda and Ahriman were responsible for the universe. They thought they could trust in these lies too. What's the point?
Yes, trust is based on experience and Bahnsen's arguments are just terrible.
@templarart (cont2) then you're going to have to defend your belief that evolution somehow gave you a trustworthy mind.
Look at it this way, can you truly tell me for a fact that the people who have the supposed condition of color-blindness, ARE the ones who are truly colorblind? Because obviously just because a majority believes something, doesn't mean it's true... how do you know that's not how we're to be made, and we're seeing incorrectly?
In order to accomplish anything in the physical universe, you HAVE to accept that reality is real, your brain and reason are trustworthy and you're not really a butterfly's dream. The alternative is to sit in a corner, doing heroine and staring into a candle. Baal, Odin or Yahweh doesn't help the equation at all because if you can't trust your brain, then you certainly can't trust that you actually heard the magic stories you believe in.
1) This is NOT a logical fallacy, it is evidence that this is a story - not an historical event.
2) The BULK of my post was me expressing the fact that miracle/magic stories are a dime dozen. Millions found throughout 1000s of religions, superstitions, cults, myths and stories. You don't believe 99.9999% of them - the resurrection is no different from any of them - why would you believe it?
"youve committed the fallacy of appeal to common practice and bandwagon"
Neither fallacy applies to what I said: common practice isn't even close and bandwagon is basically "appeal to popularity" which is something completely different. Instead of incorrectly labeling arguments as fallacies, please answer why, if 99.99% of religions are wrong - yours is correct even though it has no better evidence than any other religion? If 99.99% of Fords were bad cars, would you buy a Ford?
@JoshuaPniewski The gospels are NOT 4 independent accounts. Even BIBLICAL scholars recognize this. It is kind of like if AP puts out a report with errors, those errors are reported by many newspapers.
Nothing new here. Atheism has already destroyed Atheism long ago. Bahnsen simply borrows a little from Hume and others and wraps it in a Christian package.
In the end Christianity isn't about winning debates. It is about proclaiming their beliefs. But even more importantly, Islam is spreading their belief through demographic superiority. The ship is sinking and no one is noticing. Epic fail.
(c) What gives it meaning besides your own subjectivity? What brings any shred of truth to it but the latter subjectivity? A good analogy would be of when I was a child, I use to wear a sheriff's badge but it had no meaning behind it, there was no authority, truth or objectivity to that plastic badge (in terms of real sheriff badge). Your "reasoning" can be viewed in the same light as that badge; artsy but ultimately nihilism. I'd advise you to read Dr. Bahnsen's paper on "self-deception".
Where to begin, where to begin. Of all of Dr. Bahnsen's videos, I've seen you comment quite abit and most of your posts have used Christian principles against Christian principles (the same fallacy that Dr. Bahnsen was talking about in those lectures). You're using logic but it seems you don't have a basis for your logic, to what ultimate authority or universal appeal does this "logic" you're using pertain to for truthful verification? (c)
if just old greg had lived long enough to see this. however, i still think he would have stayed deluded. aint that an irony for itself? how can delusion exist in a material world? certainly, it can. it all can be explain up to a very detailed level within the realm of "materialism".
Smith, along with many other atheists today, seem to hold a rather magical blend of rationalism and empiricism. They affirm unobservable universal principals, yet maintain that that all knowledge is gained a posteriori.
Bahnsen and Smith don't understand each other, I think - Bahnsen assumes Smith is either an empiricist/rationalist and Smith is totally unprepared for Bahnsen's mode of argument.
Their politeness unfortunately disintegrates in this clip as a result.
I don't really see that at all. Smith was an empiricist, and had just never considered most of the points Bahnsen was bringing up, like when he asked in an atheist universe why there is an obligation to be rational. Just because he didn't have an answer isn't to say that Bahnsens arguments were based on misunderstandings. Smith certainly doesn't understand Reformed Theology, however
You REALLY need some grasp of logic to see how stupid Bahnsen's arguments are.
Bahnsen begins with insane, unsupported assertions and then "proves" them with "god of the gaps" style reasoning. Anyone who can think would be stunned by these arguments because they aren't even remotely rational.
Imagine telling Hawking that math is from Elves and when he tries to educate you - you keep demanding to know where the plus sign came from.
You think you've trumped him but you're just an idiot.
I think the problem you may have is not going "deep enough" into the questions of epistemology.
If I understand him correctly, Bahnsen does bring up some great arguments of (assuming atheism is true) the origin / causation of logic. Since logic is a phenomenon that is abstract, universal, etc, an atheist cannot explain it. Bahnsen points out that the absolute only way for logic to even be possible is my means of the reflection of the thinking of the Christian God.
Let's step back a few hundred years and use yet another "God of the Gaps" argument to illustrate this fallacy.
1) People get sick.
2) Atheists can't explain illness.
3) Evil spirits explain illness.
4) Evil spirits must exist.
It's easy to assert a "magic" explanation for any and all mysteries we encounter. These explanations are always wrong and we eventually discover the answer to the mystery without the need for magic. Remember: a bad explanation is worse than no explanation.
This is not to say that atheists cannot explain logic. Logic is simply an advanced form of pattern recognition and memorization found in all animals. It begins with the simplest programming where a fly is drawn to the scent of meat and ends up with us where we can actually think of things that do not exist yet (abstract reasoning.) Currently we attribute this programming to evolution but even if evolution is wrong this no more validates Jehovah than it validates Odin, Baal or Fairies.
not at all... greg is just an embarrassment to science and philosophy except for religious philosophy which has absolutely no scientific support. it rather contradicts... really pitiful.
"not at all... greg is just an embarrassment to science and philosophy except for religious philosophy which has absolutely no scientific support. it rather contradicts... really pitiful."
oww... wake up... we got the measurements, you got the dreaming... there are dozens refutations to EAAN, each proposing even an alternate theory and plantinga was unable to respond properly to any of those. equivocation is the magic word here.
lol... plantinga is their best guy in the ring. "they" dont have a better one. i want the science not some rhetorical trickery. dont you get it? the guys from the "discovery institute" have even lost a court battle.
even here, bahnsen doesnt come up with anything different then the EAAN argument. the only difference is, he doesnt name it so and doesnt give us the equation, but his "transcendental" argumentation is rather the same.
no, i cant read and i dont know vincent nor derek. gee...
i know about fideism and occasionalims and axiomatic truths. i just dont know cheung (i know william cheung the martial artist) and clark (my first english teachers surname was clark)! now thats funny!
what challange? a discussion of two people who i dont know is a challange? that one discussion is the delivered proof?! i think you are dreaming or something. there is absolutely no proof that god exists. there is proof gaining support that god doesnt exist.
yeah, as ive suspected. no scientific proof just epistemology and a portion of EAAN and hyperbolic doubt.
i tell you something about hyperbolic doubt.
"For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light." - 2 corinthians 11:13-14
you are being pathetic theweakarefree. i would bet you deny we have evolved complex pattern seeking minds.
is it circular? indeed!!! but its not vicious circularity and thats the point. how do you know that? we can test our theories. but how do you know that? we can test the theories behind the theories. but how do you know that? we can test... but how do you know that? indeed we dont know! but you dont know either. and every time we have a deeper look another god disappears. pathetic.
You misrepresent apologetics. Apologetics is not just about giving answers to people's questions. Its also about giving questions to peoples answers or even questioning the questions themselves. Illustration: A priest always answered questions with a question. A man walked up to him and said, "Why do you answer a question with a question?" The priest replied, "Why shouldn't I?" Apologetics allows its questioners to open up within their own assumptions in order to further understand Christianity.
you seem to misunderstand the advancement in sciences when compared to the "advancement" of religion, in particular christian religion in the last 2000 years. the more modern the christians the more they invent new theology to keep us with the scientifically "closed gaps", perhaps except for the "creationists".
the point is, what new ideas did apologetics bring forward? any new medicine, or other applications? certainly not. it only tries to cultivate the old rhetorical fallacies...
in principle, religion doesnt have to bring anything new. it can be just as dogmatic as it was in its best dogmatic phase. but from another point of view it already had a phase of development since the first days of (pagan) religions. what is actually religion about? its supposed to give explanations and perhaps some (even eternal) comfort. heres the problem, we have a competing body called science and those two seem to contradict quite often.
It's absolutely incredible how Bahnsen perfectly uses every second of this short debate to summarize all the different major problems with Smiths worldview. It's like he scripted it all. I just don't think there will ever be another polemicist so fast on their feet. -Except maybe Max
This argument is so incredibly stupid that I won't waste my time on it. What is there to address but bald-faced self delusion and ignorance? You have to believe in a big Genie in the sky to have reason? That's so incredibly stupid that of course most people won't know how to address it! It's like going up to Stephen Hawking and telling him he doesn't know math because he doesn't understand Leprechauns - how do you address that?
No, it's like saying why are you using the scientific method when you believe everything happens by chance and there isn't any reason for anything anyway?
There is are lots of reasons... for everything. Banana splits taste good so people have a reason to make them. Cars cut down on travel time so I have a reason to use them.
Why wouldn't I use the scientific method when it is the only effective way to evaluate the validity of a concept?
Because you don't believe in the scientific method, quit saying you do. Everything happened by random chance right? How is that scientific? Why are there laws? Why does gravity always work? You say there isn't consistency and then say there is. You can't have it both ways.
No one says there isn't consistency - in fact that is the very basis of the scientific method.
"Why are there laws? Why does gravity work?" Interesting questions and questions we will be dealing with for millenia but the answer is certainly not an ancient Hebrew tribal god anymore than it is Zeus, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny or Fairy Godparents.
The problem for you is that there is consistency. Deal with that. You are supposed to be for a, it all happened by chance universe. In your world there shouldn't be consistency.
who is talking about chance? why shouldnt there be consistency? a theistic world with all those wonders and stuff resembles the world of alice... :)
our understanding of world is naturalistic and experiments and theoretical physics already leave almost no place for a creator deity. and yes, those explanations even if incomplete are much better then invoking an ancient mystical deity. :)
That caller was so frustrated with that Bahnsen moron - I would've told the drooling idiot that he shouldn't be debating people but instead sitting in a grade school science class and maybe learning something.
After following your trail templ. I'm realizing you don't know much about philosophy or Christian theology. I would highly recommend you check out the other stuff on this page and then google the written Hitchens-Wilson and Frame-Martin debates. Also google transcendental arguments.
You don't know enough about whats happening yet to be interjecting your opinions.
At the 5:00 minute mark, it says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Questioning the existence of something we have not a shred of evidence for doesn't just "seem" right. It is right. And believing in something you have not a shred of evidence for doesn't just "seem" wrong. It absolutley is wrong. It is a practice that leads to something worse than death - being inhuman. Sorry. I didn't make the rules. I just live by them.
You simply dont understand transcendental argumentation, and 500 words isn't enough for me to explain it adequately. Listen to the Stein debate and the course that will be posted by the end of the week. If you still disagree lets debate then.
Disagree that the existence of the Christian God has not been proven. Most arguments for the God are ridiculous and also unscriptural. The Biblically fidelitous method of defending the faith has come to be called presuppositional apologetics or transcendental argumentation. It is the way that the Bible defends itself but is unfortunately not often utilized or well known even among Christians. The method is used by Bahnsen in the Stein debate and is taught in the Defending the Faith series.
well, all we need to do is to call upon the help of physics. modern physics disproves all this mumbo jumbo. the places which you can occupy with the christian god have been decreasing in numbers ever since. "semantics dishonesty" wont help you either.
What's dishonest about examining whether a worldview comports with itself? Why is it so difficult to understand that when a person wants to say that the Bible is irrational and therefore shouldn't be believed while at the same time relying on an overall worldview that not only can't explain objective standards of rationality but would in principle even destroy the possibility of it existing at all, he is arbitrary and incoherent? -Physics disproves what? The need to justify induction?
This debate was neither person's best work, but part of that is du
I don't know much about Smith, but Bahnsen's debate with Stein is much better than this one!
MCulpa 2 days ago in playlist Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith debate
I find no relationship between the title of these videos and the content. I've read many of Smith's published lectures, media material, articles and books, and only recently came across Bahnsen on youtube. I think both of them were severely under-performing in this "debate." I honestly feel like I wasted my time watching these. =(
CaptainSmallFoot 2 months ago
@emptyquarter1 I never get an answer to that question. You see this whole presup thing is really nothing more than a semantic sleight of hand meant to trap your opponent with fallacious arguments inside fallacious arguments inside fallacious arguments. Asking a simple, straightforward question like: "What method would you use to discern fact from fiction." wipes all the 3-Card Monty semantic tricks off the table leaving you with a real, relevant question that Christians won't answer..
templarart 8 months ago
@emptyquarter1 We're just retreading old ground at this point, and I'm just waiting for you to openly admit what you've implicitly admitted several times already.
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
@emptyquarter1
You conceded that the edifice of scientific inquiry presupposes axioms unprovable on grounds other than an appeal to their own authority. In admitting that you have conceded that science is not a method capable of evaluating every kind of claim. Back to Bahnsen's point; one kind of claim science (aka the materialist's worldview) is that abstract entities "exist." Logic, aesthetic values, etc...
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
@emptyquarter1
Of course, I'm not suggesting that science has not been a fruitful pursuit in human history, and it's foolish to infer that I was making that point. The efficacy of medical and technological advancements is a red herring. Obviously, if science presupposes axioms that it is not in a position to validate, such as math or logic, then science is not the end-all of human knowledge; other non-scientific endeavors are legitimate as well. And you've virtually conceded that.
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
@emptyquarter1
3
If science can't address something, you don't relegate that question to innanity, you investigate in an appropriate way. Science will never, and could never (ever [ever]) validate or falsify the existence of the laws of logic, mathematical theories, aesthetic values, etc... Science, to operate, presupposes math and logic, as well as the scientific method itself. The kind of logical positivism you seem to espouse has been long regarded as self-referentially incoherent.
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
@emptyquarter1
2
When you use the word "science" I get the feeling that you mean methodological naturalism, and beyond the scope of that method, assignments of truth and falsity have no meaning, or are at least groundless. I think you need to wake up and realize that by definition, the scientific method is imply not equipped to address some issues and concerns. How could empirical observation ever validate or falsify theories regarding IMmaterial, abstract entities and concepts?
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
@emptyquarter1
I thought we were on the same page for a bit. Clearly, we aren't. The statements you're making are absurd. There is no glorious, apotheosic medium for truth known as "science." The noun "science" is shorthand that stands for a method of empirical observation of the world. Believe or not, there are facets of reality not open to empirical observation. The object of study determines the method of study, and abstract entities are beyond the purview of science.
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
@emptyquarter1
Again, the point Bahnsen is making right there is a negative one, not a positive one. Bahnsen was never asked and never attempted to make a case that only God could account for abstract entities. He was simply saying that a naturalist/materialist never could. I'm not sure that's even disputable. As he said, in the materialistic framework logic itself would reduce to chemical processes in the brain, and so we have no reason to think that "logic" per se even exists at all.
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
@emptyquarter1
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you mistake the point that Bahnsen is making at some points. It is tempting for Christians sometimes to utilize "God of the gaps" arguments, which I think is a huge mistake, as of course you do. The point that Bahnsen makes when he discusses logic, love, or other immaterial, abstract entities is that in principle and by definition, a materialistic worldview (aka science) never could explain these things, even in theory.
AOPrinciple 9 months ago
@emptyquarter1
Well that statement wins the argument..
TheObservationDeck 9 months ago
An interesting debate. Belief in God boils down to whether or not God has given and individual the gift of faith. Of course, the Atheist would deny this and say that it is his intellect that causes him not to believe in a God. The person who has God's gift of faith cannot understand the Atheist's inability to see a Creator as responsible for such a complex and well designed creation. Yes, there are problems within the creation, mostly man's doing, but there is intelligent design in the creation
DougCameraMan 9 months ago
Bahnsens the best woohoo
plato7770 10 months ago
Greg Bahsen is probably one of the best christian apologists. His Transcendental Arguiment for the Existence of God (TAEG) is unrefutable. The atemp to refute is only possible ASSUMING the very thing one wishes to refute.
QED, atheists.
MatsPT 11 months ago
Cool! Max and George team up and still fail against Bahnsen (:
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
The reason many think this Bahnsen character wins this argument is because he manages to layer his presuppositions in so many layers of obfuscation and assertion that Smith doesn't even know where to begin in dissecting it - baffle 'em with bullshit.
Read Smith's book for a succinct, systematic vivisection of all of these (and many others).
steveb0503 1 year ago
@steveb0503 Smith's book is full of presuppositions, speculation and failed logic
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
@unprofessionalvids So, help me out here - in a comment under segment one of this vid you said reading Smith's book "would be like reading Stephenie Meyer's book" (implying you had not read it), and here you claim it is "full of presuppositions, speculation and failed logic" (implying you had).
Contradict much?
Or did you just assume, due to his conclusion (different from yours), that it MUST have relied on faulty logic?
steveb0503 1 year ago
CALLERS MAD BRO
Megabubbajackson 1 year ago
1:56 That pretty much defeats TAG.
A YEC friend of my said Bahnsen was the best.....not really impressed.
mgt247 1 year ago
@mgt247 Yeah, I don't think Bahnsen answered that question adequately.
LunchAnderson 1 year ago
@mgt247 I don't think you heard him out either. Basically Bahnsen proves that in an atheist universe, only materials exist, that meaning that "abstractions," or ideas we put on things/categories, aren't necessary in the sense that the brain shouldn't need categories; it should just take us along for a ride and we're not making choices, we're just by products of chemicals, "thought is unnecessary." that doesn't make sense and thus how can we even know if we're dealing with reality?
niggaids 5 months ago
On top of, it's hard to understand his argument in one sitting but if we can abstract things like love/mathematics/gravity and put them into categories then we can do that with God too but He isn't literally just an abstraction (an idea) because He created "logic" and "ideas". God reveals Himself to us the sense that we're made in His image, since we can abstract things in the universe that He made, we can do the same with Him but He's more than just an abstraction.
niggaids 5 months ago
I was going to write a post explaining why most, if not all, of Bahnsen's arguments given throughout this debate are just a heap of meaningless proses; however, I would have to submit several more posts, due to character restrictions, and waste a good deal of energy just to do it justice. So, in order to save time, space and my sanity, I will go with my gut instinct by just denouncing him as a babbling liar.
william629 1 year ago
@william629 I say liar because his deceitful approach is by design, not by way of any kind of misunderstanding. He's willing to make irrational and irrelevant statements and claims only to make it appear as though he has a legitimate point instead of admitting the apparent truth, he knows no more about the existence of a God than George Smith does.
"God is a personal, non-physical being"---Greg Bahnsen
Do I dare ask Bahnsen, or anyone else, to explain how he knows this?
william629 1 year ago
@william629 This can be understood through reading the Bible. The Bible is by the Cristian world-view the word of God, and it clearly states that God cannot lie. That's the reason why Greg Bahnsen can say he knows this for a fact.
Definition of physical: "any aspect of an object or substance that can be measured or perceived without changing its identity". We cannot measure God with scientific instruments, nor can we see Him directly.
Zupernova91 1 year ago
@Zupernova91 I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. The bible says it's so, so it must be so. The Qu'ran says it's so, so it must be so. The Torah says it's so, so it must be so. We can play that juvenile game til now and forever. As far as not being able to measure God with "scientific instruments", or being able to see him directly, I'm in complete agreement with you; nor can we see the boogy man, the easter bunny, unicorns, or mermaids in the same way. What exactly was your point?
william629 1 year ago
@william629 "Do I dare ask how Greg Bahnsen knows this"?
The answer is found in the Bible. Greg Bahnsen didn't make up this answer, nor do Christians make it up. Now, you may not believe or like the answer, but you cannot seriously think something is implausible because you do not like it, right?
drewski1gba 1 year ago
@drewski1gba The answer is found in the bible. That's good to know. Here's a brilliant idea. Go to as many mosques, synagogues, temples, etc as you can and let the people there know that they're reading the wrong texts. You know what else is non-physical, things that are imaginary and non-existent. Why is you're imaginary being any more credible than those of any other religion? And please don't say because your holy book (the bible) states so, they have that same excuse believe it or not.
william629 1 year ago
@william629
"Why is your imaginary being credible over those others?" For you to use the word imaginary tells me that you haven't really thought through your objection. What makes God "imaginary" to you? Is it because you have never seen him, or is it something more than that. Answer that question, then we can get into comparing religions, which ones are viable etc...
drewski1gba 1 year ago
@drewski1gba Essentially, all I want you to do is give a good an HONEST explanation for the existance of you're God without the use of "For the BIble Tells Me So", or any other pointless rationale such as, I have faith, It's in our hearts, It's in spirit, etc... Don't worry about comparing the other religions, the're too many religions in the world to do that via youtube posting. Not to mention all the religions that precede judeo-christianity.
william629 1 year ago
@william629
Just giving you an answer to this question means that I am appealing to reason. Reason alone proves God existence. Your outlook on life (whether Naturalism, Existentialism, Atheism etc...) cannot sustain a meaningful foundation for reason at all.
It comes down to who we think the burden of proof falls on. You say it falls on me because you demand evidence that is suitable for you. I would contend that you already believe there is a God, by appealing to rational interchange.
drewski1gba 1 year ago
@drewski1gba Atheism is a by product of reason. It's a simple confession of not being a theist, and not subscribing to supernatural claims. You make it sound as if Atheism is an institution or something. If I say I don't believe in bridge trolls or flying horses do I now have to provide evidence for that. In that case the burden of proof is on you to prove that unicorns don't exist since you don't have evidence. Unless you believe in unicorns I guess.
william629 1 year ago
@william629 I would believe in a unicorn I guess if it had a rational foundation with which to hold to. I may even be interested in believing in trolls if over a billion professing people did.
drewski1gba 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drewski1gba Which God do you believe in?
william629 1 year ago
@drewski1gba "Reason alone proves God existence". Please explain. I really would like to know how that works. And If you cannot or will not explain it, please don't just toss it out their like it's a sensible response.
william629 1 year ago
@william629
When you ask for an "HONEST" explanation of God, you are assuming a standard of Morality, just by saying "be honest", as opposed to be dishonest. I have a Moral plumline (Jesus). Saying that reason proves God is to say that we as humans bear the image of one who has created us and we presuppose things like reason or morality. Yet when asked to give an account of reason or morality, what i say makes sense and what you would say CANNOT make sense out of human experience.
drewski1gba 1 year ago
@drewski1gba When I say honnest, I mean the only meaning of honnest that I know of. We bear images of a lot a things, no doubt about it; however, that doesn't make them true just because.
william629 1 year ago
@drewski1gba As far as what makes "God" imaginary to me, that all depends on which God you're referring to. I'm going to assume that you're talking about the God of christianity. This question could've easily been answered by looking up the word imaginary in the dictionary, but I'll humor you a bit with an example. May have to post again. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. A much similiar story was constructed in Greece prior to biblical acounts of creation.
william629 1 year ago
Comment removed
william629 1 year ago
ok?
drewski1gba 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drewski1gba Supposedly, Pandora, the first woman in accordance to what is now considered Greek mythology, was given to Epimetheus as a companion. Pandora was given a box that she was ordered not to open. Of course she opened it. As a result, man "fell from grace" and evil was released upon the world. Now in my opinion, either one of these stories is fictional or they're both based off the same folklorish myth, evolving slighty with time and tradition.
I have one more post so bare with me.
william629 1 year ago
@drewski1gba Now, you may be a fundamentalist Christian or you may be the ever popular, bend the "word of God" in order to preserve whatever you call christianity type of person. If you are the later, you may dismiss my previous posts be stating that some biblical stories are only "metaphorical", and the perfectly find. Either way you swing it my view is the same. Could their be a God, absolutely.....
One more post. I mean it this time.
william629 1 year ago
@william629 My belief: God is Holy, mankind is sinful, this sin has separated mankind from a relationship with God. i.e. there is a big problem in the world.
However, God, sent Jesus, the Son, on a rescue mission to intercede for mankind, to live a perfect life and even be killed for it. Moreover, as he was dying, his own Father poured on Jesus wrath that was should have been ours. Jesus died, and rose 3 days later and is in heaven on a Throne ruling over all creation. This is my belief.
drewski1gba 1 year ago
@drewski1gba Could there be a God (supernatural, creator being), absolutely. There can be an endless amount of things we don't know about, or never will no about. But until you prove it, don't be surprised when people don't just nod their heads and agree with you. You have the right to believe what you want. If you want to believe in talking trees that's alright with me. Keep in mind, however, that it's your belief, not mine.
william629 1 year ago
@william629 Thats fine. I do think proof is overrated, however. I don't need to prove God to someone because I believe all people know there is a God. I am an Augustinian, by the way.
drewski1gba 1 year ago
the caller is handing bahnsens ass to him
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2 While I think it's great that Max (well-educated atheist caller) presented his arguments to Dr. Bahnsen, he's *hardly* handing him his ass. Go to 1:40 and tell me that Max feels confident of what he's just presented. He ends up deferring to George Smith, who, while constructing his arguments brilliantly, could not give any empirical justification of abstract universal entities.
plaid311 1 year ago
It's interesting how Bahnsen's concept of god is immune to the same foundational justification that he requires of morality and reason.
mik3anthon3y 1 year ago
Greg Bahnsen is a fucking idiot. Reason is not "god given" you arrogant prick. If presenting arguments that are all complete logical fallacy is the only way you can hold your own in an intellectual debate, please just go home and pray to a magical man in the sky.
rootbeer7281 1 year ago
Best debate I've ever heard regarding the existence of God
Lightmane321 1 year ago
Fantastic debate! If you want to understand Bahnsen's arguments better, please search "presuppositionalism" ... especially videos by Paleocrat and Antipelagian
leviksu 2 years ago
The "God-guy" is right on the point that there is NO free will for the atheist what so ever. Check the physics!!! Atoms have no free will and you are made of it.
pigment777 2 years ago
Good debate. Seems like for the whole debate Smith has been misunderstanding Bahnsen's arguments.
derocdero 2 years ago
To derocdero,
Not only do I think you have this backwards but I dont think Bahnsen even understands his own answers.
TheEricFlu 2 years ago
@dkw12002: And the other proponent starts out assuming his view exists. It's nonsense to assume anything else. Also you have no basis to evaluate "good" based on your world view, unless you either follow that fallacies that Bahnsen points out in this and other debates and lectures. We can identify good, bad, love and other immaterial concepts, but to one who does not believe in the immaterial and only the the physical you have no basis to even speak about them. Did you even listen?
phoobarr 2 years ago
does god make a valid basis for good? throughout history is bombarded with criticisms and until now cannot be accepted by the whole. how can one being without associating itself with the external world can make abstractions? it is not immaterial, in a sense that it has divine origin, it is a FEELING. a dog doesnt feel that way- that was developed by evolution. btw we came from the same origin. so good without god is not good? god as a man made being conforms only to our morality not vice versa
sawsin69 2 years ago
Gee, a debate about IF god exists, and the proponent starts out assuming god exists and uses that opinion as a fact to try and explain everything including that an atheist is really a Christian at heart. George was being generous in stating the good parts of the bible. Let's just say the good philosophy of the bible can be reduced to pamphlet size.
dkw12002 2 years ago
I would just like to point out that the fact that we will begin our reasoning with one presupposition or another is an inescapable one. Some would suggest that we can and must begin our reasoning from a position of complete neutrality, yet this is not actually possible. The man who tries to be neutral in his search for truth begins by assuming that he is alone and must proceed with no bias, (continued)
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
using nothing but his own senses and relying on his own ability to interpret the data he is presented with. Yet, this is itself the atheist's position, not something less. In fact, this supposedly neutral position also must begin by assuming uniformity of nature as well as the validity of the tools, like logic, that are needed in order to asses the data. This is not neutrality at all. Once we come to understand the myth of neutrality then we can see the importance of presuppositionalism.
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
Yes, people are looking at the same things usually, but interpreting them differently. Fantastic claims require fantastic proof, but claims of god(s), virgin birth, assension, gods, heaven and hell, souls, sin, inspired word, trinity, transubstantiation, etc. all exist without a shread of scientific proof. They make sense only in the same sense that Santa is jolly because he is fat and wears a heavy suit because he lives at the N. pole. Atheists are not neutral. They don't believe.
dkw12002 2 years ago
It appears that I was not clear enough on this. I was not trying to say that atheists are neutral, but that neutrality doesn't exist. In our thinking we are either atheist or theist, there is no other position to begin from.
But since you speak of scientific proof, can you prove that logic exists? How about thoughts, can you prove that they exist? Has a scientist ever seen a thought or tested a thought? You except that these things exist don't you? Yet what proof do we have for them?
posttenebraslux100 2 years ago
I suppose not, but confusion exists, being mistaken and misinterpreting exists, and changing your mind at the drop of a hat exists along with blind faith, obstinacy, and being devil's advocate exist. "I think, therefore I am," as Descartes said. Something exists, about that there can be no argument. It's in the interpretation that we disagree. Science uses the scientific method to show what exists in nature using a normal pair of eyes. Religion uses special senses to come to their conclusions.
dkw12002 2 years ago
your asking for scientific proof for historical claims...
There is more historical evidence for the accuracy of the bible than there is for any other historical document.
because we cannot repeat the historic facts in a lab through testing does not make them false. We cannot recreate the assassination of Cesar to prove that it was actually Cesar, that it was a knife, etc. Even if we could "recreate it" does that mean it actually happen, or that our recreation could have happened?
JoshuaPniewski 1 year ago
Accuracy can mean at least two things...either the message is accurate, true, valid, etc. or that the bible you read today is an accurate copy of what the bible was originally written. Since not a shred of what was first compiled into the old or new testament remains, that would be hard to say, but if you were to copy A Visit by St. Nicholas by hand 500 times, you would still end up with a fairy tale. I would not argue that there was someone named Jesus, but there was a St. Nicholas too.
dkw12002 1 year ago
Well then you must throw out all the ancient writings from plato to aristole, seeing as the bible has more historic literary evidence for its validity. What we have of Plato's writing cannot be trusted as his since the original copies dont exist.
Heck we cannot trust 95% of any writings because the originals have been lost. Be consistent in your application of evidence.
JoshuaPniewski 1 year ago
Not really. Outside of religion, nobody cares who comes up with an idea except historians, because the concept has to stand on its own. With Socrates, you can take or leave any idea he has. In religion, you have ideas being passed on by GODS. Jesus is supposed to be infallable. If there was no resurrection, then Christianity is false as Paul said....and Jesus was just a guy, the bible is just ancient superstition and can be dismissed along with all the other myths. That's a huge difference.
dkw12002 1 year ago
Can you prove Jesus was "just a guy"
Again there is more historical evidence to believe that he resurrection in the bible did happen, than any other piece of history.
what if I said Julius Caesar wasn't murdered? You would say i was wrong because of historical/anthropological "evidence". Why would you view that evidence as valid and not apply those same standards to the Bible?
The burden of proof would be on me to disprove Julius' murder... the burden is on you to disprove the resurrection
JoshuaPniewski 1 year ago
@JoshuaPniewski I can't even prove I'm just a guy. Maybe I'm the REAL messiah, although we are probably in agreement that Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Nero, The Emperor of Japan, and all the other men that ever lived and were claimed to be gods are not gods, so the question to you is: why would you think Jesus was a god? It's your belief, not mine. The list of things I don't believe in is far too long to get started on.
dkw12002 1 year ago
so, again, you have no foundation for Knowledge or your own beliefs...
JoshuaPniewski 1 year ago
@JoshuaPniewski Nobody even mentioned my beliefs. It is your beliefs that are in question. I am not religious though and have no reason to believe in gods, satan, ghosts (holy or otherwise), angels, heaven, hell, virgin births, transubstantiation, miracles, creationism. I do believe in the power of prayer, but it isn't god. That is the power of positive thinking and there can be beneficial results even if you meditate or pray to whatever god you believe in. Zeus answers prayers same as JC.
dkw12002 1 year ago
your logical inconsistency here pretty much ends this conversation...
JoshuaPniewski 1 year ago
"what if I said Julius Caesar wasn't murdered?"
I would say "Who cares." If I told you that Atilla the Hun died early and was replaced by his brother - you would also say "Who cares."
If, instead I said that the Buddha walked on water or Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or Ruben Ecleo duplicated all of Jesus' miracles or Hercules killed the Hydra or Krishna slew the Ogres - would you accept these as fact unless they were disproven?
These are 2 completely different things.
templarart 1 year ago
2nd hand miracle accounts are a dime a dozen found everywhere at all times and the 'evidence' for these events are all the same - stories.
Jesus' resurrection is particularly problematic since the 4 accounts do not agree on many points. Paul, who was the first to write about it states that he was buried (qapto not tiqemi) and then rose as a spirit. 1 Cor 15. Even if EVERYTHING was right, it's still not as good as the evidence for miracles you don't believe in like 'The Miracle of Fatima'.
templarart 1 year ago
you cannot jump to the conclusion that because the 4 different accounts are from different viewpoints that the event didnt happen... take WWII for example.... there are tons of books written, none of which are exact so it didnt happen and it is superstition... pure logical fallacy... please try again...
JoshuaPniewski 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"so, again, you have no foundation for Knowledge or your own beliefs..."
Bahnsen's Identity arguement is silly and ridiculous. We all accept that what is real is real and then build a foundation of knowledge and theories around that. Has ANYONE been hamstrung by this irrational argument?
templarart 1 year ago 2
@templarart
Atheists wish to defend we came from primordial soup over billions of years? right?
Atheists also wish to claim the burden of proof is on Christians to prove God.
We're only asking you to prove "reason" or "logic" exists since it does transcend the physical world. You accept what is "real"? yet you cannot -know- real?
It's not difficult to understand.. there's only 3 types of people, 2 are consistent-God/Law and infinite skeptics, and 1 inconsistent and often hypocritical.
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro (cont)
This is only a consistent view within YOUR un-belief.
The majority of atheists wish to claim that all can be known through our 5 senses, yet you have no true -reason- to accept your 5 senses for what they are... nor can you truly prove reason exists through the natural any more than a Christian can prove God exists through the natural other than by the means of it's existence/creation.
The argument is more of just a call to consistency ...most aren't.
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro "Atheists wish to defend we came from primordial soup over billions of years? right?"
No. Atheists simply do not believe in gods - any specific atheist might have no opinion on origins.
"Atheists also wish to claim the burden of proof is on Christians to prove God."
Not just Christians. If you claim Allah, Brahma, Zeus, Odin, Elves, Space aliens created the universe then the burden of proof is on you. I can't say "Leprechauns made the universe - prove they didn't."
templarart 1 year ago
@templarart
The majority wish to defend that... most atheists don't accept ID, even in the form of aliens. I understand that some atheists may not have opinions on origins, but that cannot also be left blank on your side of the debate---and then make a claim that a Christians is not true.
No..that's simply a straw man. It works w/physical things also, I think that watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut them open--prove me wrong. You must also have a burden of proof--no neutrality
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro "t that cannot also be left blank on your side of the debate---and then make a claim that a Christians is not true."
Yes, I absolutely can. I don't need an explanation on my side to dismiss bad explanations. As an example: A voodoo priest on a remote island claims that earthquakes come from the Eel god 'Ijuro", the wiseman on the island says "I don't believe you." Who's right? Do you need knowledge of continental drift in order not to believe the voodoo priest's magic stories?
templarart 1 year ago
@droptozro "Blue Watermelons."
Here's a really good lesson on 'burden of proof'. Frank claims that an 'evil toaster' is talking to him telepathically. You say "I don't believe you." Frank says "Prove it's NOT happening." Obviously the one making the assertion has to prove his case. The one denying the assertion can choose to falsify the assertion but that's not his responsibility. You believe x - show WHY you believe x. It's not reasonable to expect me to falsify 'x'.
templarart 1 year ago
@droptozro "prove "reason" or "logic" exists since it does transcend the physical world."
Reason/Logic does not transcend anything, it's an emergent property of the brain like processing data is an emergent property of computer chips. Is data processing proof of Jehovah?
"you cannot -know- real" Neither can you. What you see may not be real but that goes triple for fairy tales mom told you as a child. It's possible that what we see isn't real - so what? Religion isn't real either way.
templarart 1 year ago
@templarart
It's not a physical thing, so it does transcend it. You're wishing to claim something exists, just like a Christian can, and then defending yours is possible without the possibility of a God being true. As you simply stated before, Leprechauns made the universe... I can say, logic doesn't exist--it's only something you've made up. Burden of proof goes both ways, if you don't wish to defend evolution... then you're going to have to defend nothing came from nothing- impossible?
droptozro 1 year ago
(err sorry), meant "something came from nothing" --which is physically and naturally impossible on every scale.
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro 'It's not a physical thing, so it does transcend it."
It's not supernatural, it's emergent like a math formula. No one doesn't believe in emergent properties. This is like proving ghosts exist because computer CPUs invisibly process data. "then you're going to have to defend nothing came from nothing- impossible?"
"Something from nothing?" Who knows? I DO know for a fact that Jehovah, tribal go of the ancient Hebrews and a 1st century cult leader had nothing to do with it.
templarart 1 year ago
@templarart
"It's emergent like a math formula" ---that's a presupposition, like the logic you're using with no foundation. You're counting on the formula to remain constant--with the logic that you would have which could claim it doesn't have to remain constant.
I find it odd you keep referring to CPUs... especially since there is intelligence behind the creation of every single one? coincidence? I'm just wondering.
Actually you technically would need that knowledge--otherwise (cont)
droptozro 1 year ago
@templarart (cont) you would be arguing from ignorance. Which these are all wrong... you do have a burden of proof. You don't have to avoid the question. If you don't understand that there is no neutrality(as most of these videos often state)--you have to state your side of it--hence the knowledge issue you stated earlier.
The main issue is, you're using logic--and have no right to trust it. If you don't believe you were created in the image of God--with a trustworthy mind, (cont)
droptozro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@droptozro "have no right to trust logic If you don't believe in God".
That is SO ridiculous!
You trust logic because logic works. You trust math because math works. You trust food because it nourishes you. Experience breeds trust, not gods, elves or wizards.
There is no way to be 100% certain about anything - SO WHAT?, the alternative is counterproductive navel gazing! Again, adding gods doesn't fix the problem since you can't trust that you heard the god-stories you believe in.
templarart 1 year ago
@templarart
I know... it does sound ridiculous, but only because I'm trying to make consistent your views. Templarart, I have a feeling you didn't listen to all these videos. Go to "problems for unbelieving worldviews" and see your dilemma.
Experience cannot always breed trust(how would you know this is true?), and trust in what? Instincts? Methods? Possible constants?
I know I was made in the image of God--I can trust these things(without use of Bible)
You don't know, but criticize.
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro "I know I was made in the image of God"
Babylonians KNEW they were made by Marduk, Egyptians KNEW they came from the Nile, The Branch Davidians KNEW that Koresh was the reincarnated Christ, Persians KNEW that Azula Mazda and Ahriman were responsible for the universe. They thought they could trust in these lies too. What's the point?
Yes, trust is based on experience and Bahnsen's arguments are just terrible.
templarart 1 year ago
@templarart (cont2) then you're going to have to defend your belief that evolution somehow gave you a trustworthy mind.
Look at it this way, can you truly tell me for a fact that the people who have the supposed condition of color-blindness, ARE the ones who are truly colorblind? Because obviously just because a majority believes something, doesn't mean it's true... how do you know that's not how we're to be made, and we're seeing incorrectly?
droptozro 1 year ago
@droptozro " can you truly tell me for a fact..."
In order to accomplish anything in the physical universe, you HAVE to accept that reality is real, your brain and reason are trustworthy and you're not really a butterfly's dream. The alternative is to sit in a corner, doing heroine and staring into a candle. Baal, Odin or Yahweh doesn't help the equation at all because if you can't trust your brain, then you certainly can't trust that you actually heard the magic stories you believe in.
templarart 1 year ago
Dude.. look up "logical fallacy".
1) This is NOT a logical fallacy, it is evidence that this is a story - not an historical event.
2) The BULK of my post was me expressing the fact that miracle/magic stories are a dime dozen. Millions found throughout 1000s of religions, superstitions, cults, myths and stories. You don't believe 99.9999% of them - the resurrection is no different from any of them - why would you believe it?
templarart 1 year ago 2
youve committed the fallacy of appeal to common practice and bandwagon just to name two...
JoshuaPniewski 1 year ago
"youve committed the fallacy of appeal to common practice and bandwagon"
Neither fallacy applies to what I said: common practice isn't even close and bandwagon is basically "appeal to popularity" which is something completely different. Instead of incorrectly labeling arguments as fallacies, please answer why, if 99.99% of religions are wrong - yours is correct even though it has no better evidence than any other religion? If 99.99% of Fords were bad cars, would you buy a Ford?
templarart 1 year ago
@JoshuaPniewski The gospels are NOT 4 independent accounts. Even BIBLICAL scholars recognize this. It is kind of like if AP puts out a report with errors, those errors are reported by many newspapers.
dkw12002 1 year ago
You obviously aren't a biblical scholar, nor know what biblical scholars recognize... thank you for your conversation
JoshuaPniewski 1 year ago
Nothing new here. Atheism has already destroyed Atheism long ago. Bahnsen simply borrows a little from Hume and others and wraps it in a Christian package.
In the end Christianity isn't about winning debates. It is about proclaiming their beliefs. But even more importantly, Islam is spreading their belief through demographic superiority. The ship is sinking and no one is noticing. Epic fail.
Entropy56 2 years ago
ow shit a new discovery! =)) just kidding
sawsin69 2 years ago
oh NO! now we are all doomed!
sawsin69 2 years ago
It's all about having the most babies. I suggest you start early if you want to save yourself.
Entropy56 2 years ago
i should =)
sawsin69 2 years ago
these atheists are just flat out rude and have no class
stpeffley 2 years ago 2
Atheism is a religion without a God.
martesco 2 years ago
logic based on reason preassumptuous and conscience and not on christian principles... we "use" as to prove something not "based"
sawsin69 2 years ago
(c) What gives it meaning besides your own subjectivity? What brings any shred of truth to it but the latter subjectivity? A good analogy would be of when I was a child, I use to wear a sheriff's badge but it had no meaning behind it, there was no authority, truth or objectivity to that plastic badge (in terms of real sheriff badge). Your "reasoning" can be viewed in the same light as that badge; artsy but ultimately nihilism. I'd advise you to read Dr. Bahnsen's paper on "self-deception".
TheGreatPrince 3 years ago
@ templarart:
Where to begin, where to begin. Of all of Dr. Bahnsen's videos, I've seen you comment quite abit and most of your posts have used Christian principles against Christian principles (the same fallacy that Dr. Bahnsen was talking about in those lectures). You're using logic but it seems you don't have a basis for your logic, to what ultimate authority or universal appeal does this "logic" you're using pertain to for truthful verification? (c)
TheGreatPrince 3 years ago
biology.plosjournals(.)org/per lserv/?request=get-document&do i=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060318&ct=1
cbsnews(.)com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694713(.)shtml
(eventually leave out empty spaces added by YT)
if just old greg had lived long enough to see this. however, i still think he would have stayed deluded. aint that an irony for itself? how can delusion exist in a material world? certainly, it can. it all can be explain up to a very detailed level within the realm of "materialism".
pikechris1 3 years ago
What I don't understand is how someone as educated and perspicacious as Mr. Bahnsen can be so diluted and brainwashed by religion.
1999to2005 3 years ago
who cares about who "wins." it's about what you learn from it and how to be constructive.
bjarczyk 3 years ago
Smith, along with many other atheists today, seem to hold a rather magical blend of rationalism and empiricism. They affirm unobservable universal principals, yet maintain that that all knowledge is gained a posteriori.
Victoruto 3 years ago
Bahnsen and Smith don't understand each other, I think - Bahnsen assumes Smith is either an empiricist/rationalist and Smith is totally unprepared for Bahnsen's mode of argument.
Their politeness unfortunately disintegrates in this clip as a result.
darrinrasberry 3 years ago
I don't really see that at all. Smith was an empiricist, and had just never considered most of the points Bahnsen was bringing up, like when he asked in an atheist universe why there is an obligation to be rational. Just because he didn't have an answer isn't to say that Bahnsens arguments were based on misunderstandings. Smith certainly doesn't understand Reformed Theology, however
a5dr3 3 years ago
Smith's an Objectivist.
And you are right - he doesn't get Reformed Theology. =)
darrinrasberry 3 years ago
You REALLY need some grasp of logic to see how stupid Bahnsen's arguments are.
Bahnsen begins with insane, unsupported assertions and then "proves" them with "god of the gaps" style reasoning. Anyone who can think would be stunned by these arguments because they aren't even remotely rational.
Imagine telling Hawking that math is from Elves and when he tries to educate you - you keep demanding to know where the plus sign came from.
You think you've trumped him but you're just an idiot.
templarart 3 years ago
I think the problem you may have is not going "deep enough" into the questions of epistemology.
If I understand him correctly, Bahnsen does bring up some great arguments of (assuming atheism is true) the origin / causation of logic. Since logic is a phenomenon that is abstract, universal, etc, an atheist cannot explain it. Bahnsen points out that the absolute only way for logic to even be possible is my means of the reflection of the thinking of the Christian God.
Does that make sense?
Shalafi3 3 years ago
Let's step back a few hundred years and use yet another "God of the Gaps" argument to illustrate this fallacy.
1) People get sick.
2) Atheists can't explain illness.
3) Evil spirits explain illness.
4) Evil spirits must exist.
It's easy to assert a "magic" explanation for any and all mysteries we encounter. These explanations are always wrong and we eventually discover the answer to the mystery without the need for magic. Remember: a bad explanation is worse than no explanation.
templarart 3 years ago
This is not to say that atheists cannot explain logic. Logic is simply an advanced form of pattern recognition and memorization found in all animals. It begins with the simplest programming where a fly is drawn to the scent of meat and ends up with us where we can actually think of things that do not exist yet (abstract reasoning.) Currently we attribute this programming to evolution but even if evolution is wrong this no more validates Jehovah than it validates Odin, Baal or Fairies.
templarart 3 years ago
correct.
lipoicacid 3 years ago
I like Bahnsen.
OTOH, 500-character mini-posts are no way to conduct a serious debate on this question, so I am loathe to be more specific.
fiercegallantry 3 years ago
Atheists always lose lol.
GreekOrthodoxy 3 years ago
particularly when they went up against Greg. He was the best.
s2000r1titan 3 years ago
Greg destroys this atheist at 4:17
theweakarefree 3 years ago
not at all... greg is just an embarrassment to science and philosophy except for religious philosophy which has absolutely no scientific support. it rather contradicts... really pitiful.
pikechris1 3 years ago
"not at all... greg is just an embarrassment to science and philosophy except for religious philosophy which has absolutely no scientific support. it rather contradicts... really pitiful."
FAIL
theweakarefree 3 years ago
exactly! greg and all those "plantingas" and co fail fully. they dont deliver. its as simple as that. :)
pikechris1 3 years ago
Google "Vincent Cheung vs. Derek Sansone" if you have the courage to see atheism and empiricism utterly demolished right before your eyes.
Good night.
theweakarefree 3 years ago
oww... wake up... we got the measurements, you got the dreaming... there are dozens refutations to EAAN, each proposing even an alternate theory and plantinga was unable to respond properly to any of those. equivocation is the magic word here.
pikechris1 3 years ago
Do you know how to read? I didn't say anything about Plantinga or EAAN.
I said "google Vincent Cheung v. Derek Sansone if you want to see atheism and empiricism utterly demolished right before your eyes."
You can read, right?
theweakarefree 3 years ago
lol... plantinga is their best guy in the ring. "they" dont have a better one. i want the science not some rhetorical trickery. dont you get it? the guys from the "discovery institute" have even lost a court battle.
even here, bahnsen doesnt come up with anything different then the EAAN argument. the only difference is, he doesnt name it so and doesnt give us the equation, but his "transcendental" argumentation is rather the same.
no, i cant read and i dont know vincent nor derek. gee...
pikechris1 3 years ago
It is plainly obvious that you don't know about Cheung...or Gordon Clark, or fideism, or occasionalism, or axiomatic truths.
So, if you want to sit in your safe little corner and ignore my challenge to you, then go ahead.
Everyone is laughing at you right now...and you don't even know it.
theweakarefree 3 years ago
i know about fideism and occasionalims and axiomatic truths. i just dont know cheung (i know william cheung the martial artist) and clark (my first english teachers surname was clark)! now thats funny!
what challange? a discussion of two people who i dont know is a challange? that one discussion is the delivered proof?! i think you are dreaming or something. there is absolutely no proof that god exists. there is proof gaining support that god doesnt exist.
at least laughing is healthy.
pikechris1 3 years ago
yeah, as ive suspected. no scientific proof just epistemology and a portion of EAAN and hyperbolic doubt.
i tell you something about hyperbolic doubt.
"For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light." - 2 corinthians 11:13-14
pikechris1 3 years ago
you are being pathetic theweakarefree. i would bet you deny we have evolved complex pattern seeking minds.
is it circular? indeed!!! but its not vicious circularity and thats the point. how do you know that? we can test our theories. but how do you know that? we can test the theories behind the theories. but how do you know that? we can test... but how do you know that? indeed we dont know! but you dont know either. and every time we have a deeper look another god disappears. pathetic.
pikechris1 3 years ago
just curious, what is considered a "vicious circularity" opposed to circularity?
shilohwillcome 3 years ago
shilohwillcom, here some very basics.
tinyurldotcom/4fzzhk
pikechris1 3 years ago
em, that didn't seem to work..
shilohwillcome 3 years ago
You misrepresent apologetics. Apologetics is not just about giving answers to people's questions. Its also about giving questions to peoples answers or even questioning the questions themselves. Illustration: A priest always answered questions with a question. A man walked up to him and said, "Why do you answer a question with a question?" The priest replied, "Why shouldn't I?" Apologetics allows its questioners to open up within their own assumptions in order to further understand Christianity.
BassP86 3 years ago
you seem to misunderstand the advancement in sciences when compared to the "advancement" of religion, in particular christian religion in the last 2000 years. the more modern the christians the more they invent new theology to keep us with the scientifically "closed gaps", perhaps except for the "creationists".
the point is, what new ideas did apologetics bring forward? any new medicine, or other applications? certainly not. it only tries to cultivate the old rhetorical fallacies...
pikechris1 3 years ago
Why must religion bring "something new"?
Are you saying religion must be scientific?
BassP86 3 years ago
in principle, religion doesnt have to bring anything new. it can be just as dogmatic as it was in its best dogmatic phase. but from another point of view it already had a phase of development since the first days of (pagan) religions. what is actually religion about? its supposed to give explanations and perhaps some (even eternal) comfort. heres the problem, we have a competing body called science and those two seem to contradict quite often.
no, religion doesnt have to be scientific...
pikechris1 3 years ago
I wish that George Smith would have been pressed on the question of abstractions.
Atheists cannot account for abstractions on the basis of their materialistic worldview.
Google "Vincent Cheung v. Derek Sansone" to see how Biblical presuppositionalism destroys atheism.
theweakarefree 3 years ago
It's absolutely incredible how Bahnsen perfectly uses every second of this short debate to summarize all the different major problems with Smiths worldview. It's like he scripted it all. I just don't think there will ever be another polemicist so fast on their feet. -Except maybe Max
a5dr3 3 years ago
really... how does bahnsen know? does g-d tell him. does he communicate with g-d? oh yes, he does, doesnt he... :)
pikechris1 3 years ago
Bahnsen pulverized the atheist bad.
albval1 4 years ago
you mean bahnsen is pulverized... :p
pikechris1 4 years ago
Where's the rest of it? It just cuts out?
everything4every1 4 years ago
Max got OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jd311989 4 years ago
Dance Bahnsen dance. Ignorance incarnate.
motile 4 years ago
This argument is so incredibly stupid that I won't waste my time on it. What is there to address but bald-faced self delusion and ignorance? You have to believe in a big Genie in the sky to have reason? That's so incredibly stupid that of course most people won't know how to address it! It's like going up to Stephen Hawking and telling him he doesn't know math because he doesn't understand Leprechauns - how do you address that?
templarart 4 years ago
Yeah, exactly.
motile 4 years ago
No, it's like saying why are you using the scientific method when you believe everything happens by chance and there isn't any reason for anything anyway?
1980PintoMan 4 years ago 2
There is are lots of reasons... for everything. Banana splits taste good so people have a reason to make them. Cars cut down on travel time so I have a reason to use them.
Why wouldn't I use the scientific method when it is the only effective way to evaluate the validity of a concept?
templarart 4 years ago
Because you don't believe in the scientific method, quit saying you do. Everything happened by random chance right? How is that scientific? Why are there laws? Why does gravity always work? You say there isn't consistency and then say there is. You can't have it both ways.
1980PintoMan 4 years ago
No one says there isn't consistency - in fact that is the very basis of the scientific method.
"Why are there laws? Why does gravity work?" Interesting questions and questions we will be dealing with for millenia but the answer is certainly not an ancient Hebrew tribal god anymore than it is Zeus, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny or Fairy Godparents.
templarart 4 years ago
The problem for you is that there is consistency. Deal with that. You are supposed to be for a, it all happened by chance universe. In your world there shouldn't be consistency.
1980PintoMan 4 years ago
who is talking about chance? why shouldnt there be consistency? a theistic world with all those wonders and stuff resembles the world of alice... :)
our understanding of world is naturalistic and experiments and theoretical physics already leave almost no place for a creator deity. and yes, those explanations even if incomplete are much better then invoking an ancient mystical deity. :)
pikechris1 4 years ago
That caller was so frustrated with that Bahnsen moron - I would've told the drooling idiot that he shouldn't be debating people but instead sitting in a grade school science class and maybe learning something.
templarart 4 years ago
After following your trail templ. I'm realizing you don't know much about philosophy or Christian theology. I would highly recommend you check out the other stuff on this page and then google the written Hitchens-Wilson and Frame-Martin debates. Also google transcendental arguments.
You don't know enough about whats happening yet to be interjecting your opinions.
a5dr3 4 years ago
Bahnsen was like the Timothy to the Paul (Van Til) who crystallized the certain and inescapable argument for the existence of God.
Praise God for their ministries.
For all human experience presuppose Christian Theism.
mardvegas 4 years ago
When you think you proved God with logic. Start searching for what caused the tautology.
olavka 4 years ago
At the 5:00 minute mark, it says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Questioning the existence of something we have not a shred of evidence for doesn't just "seem" right. It is right. And believing in something you have not a shred of evidence for doesn't just "seem" wrong. It absolutley is wrong. It is a practice that leads to something worse than death - being inhuman. Sorry. I didn't make the rules. I just live by them.
DoctorMurky 4 years ago
You simply dont understand transcendental argumentation, and 500 words isn't enough for me to explain it adequately. Listen to the Stein debate and the course that will be posted by the end of the week. If you still disagree lets debate then.
a5dr3 4 years ago
Yes. I don't understand "transcendental argumentation". That's because I never heard of such a thing. "If you still disagree..." Disagree with what?
DoctorMurky 4 years ago
Disagree that the existence of the Christian God has not been proven. Most arguments for the God are ridiculous and also unscriptural. The Biblically fidelitous method of defending the faith has come to be called presuppositional apologetics or transcendental argumentation. It is the way that the Bible defends itself but is unfortunately not often utilized or well known even among Christians. The method is used by Bahnsen in the Stein debate and is taught in the Defending the Faith series.
a5dr3 4 years ago
well, all we need to do is to call upon the help of physics. modern physics disproves all this mumbo jumbo. the places which you can occupy with the christian god have been decreasing in numbers ever since. "semantics dishonesty" wont help you either.
pikechris1 4 years ago
What's dishonest about examining whether a worldview comports with itself? Why is it so difficult to understand that when a person wants to say that the Bible is irrational and therefore shouldn't be believed while at the same time relying on an overall worldview that not only can't explain objective standards of rationality but would in principle even destroy the possibility of it existing at all, he is arbitrary and incoherent? -Physics disproves what? The need to justify induction?
a5dr3 4 years ago