Greg Bahnsen's Closing Statement in The Great Atheism-Theism Debate.wmv

[jporter91]

the fact the someone is an atheist says nothing about their worldview. its retarded how people talk about the worldview of atheists as if they automatically know everything about them... it's like talking about the worldview of a non-buddhist while knowing nothing else about the person

[GenRev1611]

@jporter91 If you listen to Bahsen's debate with George Smith, Mr. Smith brings up that very objection. Bahnsen is specifically referring here to the materialist outlook on reality. The materialist denies the existence of the metaphysical. Bahnsen contends that abstract laws are metaphysical in nature. You are right, their are idealist atheists and such others.

[bengphoenix]

@ cafeeine

Why would Christian apologetics need progression if atheists cannot answer the fundamental questions that Bahnsen poses here? Let atheists give a cohesive account for the universality of the Laws of Logic and absolute morality, and then we can move on to new approaches.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix For future reference, you may hit the 'reply' button next to my comment, so that I will be informed of your reply.

On to your query, you cannot account for existent things with non-existent things. First you need to show a god exists before you can say it accounts for anything. Otherwise you're putting the cart before the spectral horse.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine There is a difference between "invisible," and "non-existent." Take the Laws of Logic, for instance. Can you give me empirical evidence that the Laws of Logic exist? You cannot, because they are invisible. Laws of science? Once again, you cannot give empirical evidence because "laws" are not material entities that you can measure with instruments. So, just like all people, you also operte by faith in things which are not seen

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix You need to project on me a very crude materialism to make your point.

The laws of logic are a reflection of the operation of reality. They are demonstrable through their application to our every observation.

I didn't say invisible = non-existent, please pay attention. However just as you cannot assert god into existence, you cannot assert a causal relationship and then use it to "prove" god's existence.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine Which reality would that be? Is it the one that you have assumed to be, or is it the one that you know for certain is? But how would you know for certain that this material universe is reality without first assuming it to be so?

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix Reality is the subject of the sum total of our observations. As humans, we observe reality long before we start to ponder ontological questions about its nature. Even abstract objects, like fictional characters, moral precepts, logical laws and (IMO of course) even gods are derived from our experience of this reality. You assume I need to assert ontological certainty, when I need nothing of the sort.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine I think you'd have to admit that human observations fall far short of the "total sum" of reality. Therefor, you only know in part. Therefor, everything you know could be wrong. But why are you lumping together Laws of Logic with fictional characters? Are Laws of Logic simply fabrications of the human mnd, just like matters of fiction?

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix I do admit all that, and never said otherwise and this applies to both of us. It is usually theists who insist that I must assert complete knowledge, to mirror their own claims I suppose. However, the possibility of disproof does not hurt my position, in fact it strengthens it, as I go where the evidence leads.

We know of logic in the same way we know of fictional characters, observation of reality. Even the fiction we create ourselves is based on our knowledge of the world.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine Hey dude, I understand people create gods to help cope with the questions and concerns of this life, but there is truly a God in heaven who created all things. What account do you have of the beginning of time, the existence of moral absolutes, and the reality of truth in the world (also Laws of Logic)? These ideas are transcendent, yet they are also necessary for everyday life. People do not develop things such as these, because they are, by nature, objective. If truth and logic....

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine ..were fabricated by humans, then they would lose all objectivity. Everything would be subjective in that case. You say that A cannot be non-A, but I say A can be non-A. Who is right? The Laws of Logic are true whether or not a human mind has apprehended them.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix You didn't read me properly. The concept of the Laws of Logic require a mind to be apprehended. The patterns of reality they describe do not. They are how reality works and as far as we know, require no accounting. F=GmM/r^2 required a mind to apprehend it, but gravity existed long before Newton.

If you were to say "A s not-A", even if every mind agrees with you, reality will behave differently.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine Require no accounting for? As far as who knows? I would be quite surprised if you did not have within you at least a hint of a desire to know why the universe has come about in the first place, and what your purpose might be in it. IMHO, if you disregard the "why" you've lost what it means to truly be human. "Why" is what separates humans from animals, as it is in our nature to question transcendental ideas. Life does have a transcendental purpose, else why even bother to ask?

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix I agree that humans have a tendency to ask "why", which is why we have in our history managed to anthropomorphize everything, from storms, to rivers, to animals, to abstract concepts. We tend to think of things as results of actors, since we are actors ourselves. However, our experience has shown that "how" is a better question than "why", as it doesn't make unwarranted assumptions.

Also please note the inherent arrogance in stating that our own self-importance MUST be warranted!

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine Who decides which question is better to ask? Wouldn't it seem a strange thing that nature would just blindly "evolve" the desire for humans to ponder philosophical and existential ideas? What a cruel thing that nature just happened to randomly develop. Perhaps questions about your purpose in this life do not bother you. I tried to convince myself that I didn't care why I was here or what the purpose of anything was...all I got was hopelessness and despair. But there is hope, bro.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix We decide, but "how" is a better question because its a more open-ended one. "How" doesn't exclude an intelligent agent, but "why" requires one.

I care to know the truth. Whether its cruel or not, I want to know it, so I can deal with it. Better a cruel reality than sweet fantasy taken as reality.

However, I find no despair in this outlook of life. I do not feel hopeless, so I suspect that its not just lack of god that made you feel that

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine Why are you trying to avoid an "intelligent agent?" Don't you find it odd that men have within them the yearning to ask "why?" Where does that sort of thing come from if not from God? Nowhere else in the entire universe, whether animate or inanimate objects, do you see anything questioning "why?" I'd say that makes humans unique. But if you want to stop asking the question "why," I'm gonna guess things will start getting pretty bleak for you.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix Are you reading my comments? I repeat ""How" doesn't exclude an intelligent agent". I'm not trying to avoid one. You, however, want to avoid the possibility of a non-intelligent causation.

I explained why I think we look for agency. I'm beginning to think you're not paying attention to what I write.

Things are not at all bleak for me, but thanks for caring.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine That hope is found in Jesus Christ, who is the focal point of all human history. It's not arrogant to suggest that humans are of importance, its biblical. Plus, if humans weren't of any importance, why would you care about having any sort of morals whatsoever? That's not how the world operates, not with a Righteous King who reigns from Heaven.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix It is arrogant to suggest that humans are of objective importance, especially based on ancient scriptures WRITTEN by humans (their divine inspiration is a matter of contention).

Humans are of extreme importance to other humans. We have morals because otherwise we couldn't live in society with each other. We have assembled our morals through trial and error, not ordained from above from Anu, or Zeus, or Yahweh.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine So, according to you, morality is all relative. If its not God who decides what is right and wrong, then anything humanly conceivable could possibly be right or wrong. Maybe ethnic cleansing will come full circle, and we'll start killing millions of Jews again because it's "morally justified." And why wouldn't it be? Morality is simply a human convention (in your opinion) and at the discretion of those who "develop" it.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix Ethnic cleansing does not help us to live together in society, does it? I can't fathom why you'd think that, unless you have no inkling to how morality works. Ethnic cleansing has historically been correlated with high levels of religiosity, as is true with the examples you offered.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix I never said morality was 'all relative'. I said morality was relative to humanity. That is a quite different thing than saying it is arbitrary, as you seem to imply. In effect religious morality is arbitrary, as it is based on divine whim (and that's why there is no way for believers to determine which god's morals are better, as they have no independent basis to do so.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix Note that I said "every mind", not every human mind, as all minds we know are human. You position puts you in a quite interesting position with this. Do you believe that God made it so that A≠(-A) and could make it again that logically A=(-A)? If so, you're rejecting the premise that logic is objective, as its subject to god's will (even if he never changes his mind). If not, then God is irrelevant to to the existence of logic.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine God can do whatever He wants, because He is God. If He were to rearrange logic so that A is equal to non-A, then He could do so. All things actual and conceivable are subject to His will. This is not denying the objectivity of logic, this is simply re-stating that all things find their objectivity in an unchanging Source.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix An unchanging source by definition cannot do whatever it wants. Of course, since you ascribe your god with the capability to rearrange logic, it probably doesn’t trouble you that what you propose is patently illogical, which is the problem in your whole argument. By abandoning logic where it suits you, you can prove anything, including gods.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine God has created this universe in a particular way. He could have made it differently if He wanted. The Laws of Logic are built into the universe....which was build by the Word of God. We think logically only when we ascertain some sort aspect of the mind of God.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix That makes no sense, since you have admitted that god is beyond logic, and therefore illogical. And lets note that all of these assertions about what divine properties entail remain unproven. You can't use the transcendent nature of logic to extrapolate a divine mind, and then claim that that logic is now subject to the whims of that mind, as it demolishes your own argument.

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine You're right on this one. Thanks for the clarity. Obviously it doesn't change my position, nor does it imply that God is a fabrication of human minds. The fact remains that "Laws" of logic can only exist if they are transcendent in nature, lest they be subject to the fallible discretion of humans and only subjective conventions.

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix Glad we had this discussion. Merry Christmas :)

[bengphoenix]

@Cafeeine

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Merry Christmas!

[Cafeeine]

@bengphoenix As for the Laws of Logic, i.e the formulations like "the Law of Identity", these are fabrications of the human mind, and they reflect the behavior of reality as we have observe it, just as the Law of Gravity is a human fabrication, made to reflect the process of gravitation, which isn't a human creation.

[kberka]

Welcome aboard! You are now a member of the fastest growing non-faith based religion ever created by human kind. New Atheism. Enjoy it! You are not alone.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that Atheism must be considered a Religion in order to come under court authority for first amendment protection by the first amendment law. Therefore, presto, Atheism is religion. Even though it is non-faith based religion, it still gets to be religion. The court is the final arbiter. Cheers!

[VeritasLiber]

Ah I love this argument. The ole 'The god that I can't prove exists is demonstrated through absolute morality...which is another thing I can't prove exists.'

Shell game anyone?

[Cafeeine]

Thanks for putting this up. Its a good reminder that christian apologetics hasn't really progressed much since 85.

[theocratickingdom30]

@Cafeeine: Spoken like a true fundamentalist.

[Cafeeine]

@theocratickingdom30 If by this comment you mean to imply that fundamentalists at their core are characterized by sober assessment of arguments, I'm sure you'd like to think so. However it seems to me you're just name-calling, and in that case your choice of invective amuses me.