Your entire video is a straw man argument, followed up by poisoning the well ("the reason they believe this is..."). If you are not interested in using logic nor facts, then why do you purport to?
ya know when the world thought the earth was Flat, the Bible always said it was a sphere that hung on nothing & when everyone else saw about 9,000 stars the word said they were inumerable which was just recently descovered, but just search Fullfilled prophecoes & you'll see 1000's of prophecies such as israels return as a nation after being dispersed
You're right, the Bible gets all of its authority from God and He really doesn't come to His people and tell them that it has authority, I just hope you're right because if you're wrong that's going to suck for you but if I'm wrong in my belief we'll be in the same boat. Pascal's Wager, look it up and see it the social exchange is worth it.
The first part is incorrect, theists do not try to prove God's existence through the Bible, it'll beg the question if we left it alone to the bible to prove God's existence. So first assumed circular fallacy is itself a fallacy.
"Theists argue from emotion and desire rather than objective..."
This is a euphemism fallacy, as theists looks at God's existence from an objective, reasonable approach. So, this video is itself fallacious and it too did not catch it's own fallacies.
the bible predicts to the day, jesus would ride into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, & it describes hi crucifixion before crucifying was even invented & gives details such as being speared while being crucified,
well the 1st part is correct, but your last part is not,
if someone wrote in the year 1880 that a man named Walt Disney would build a place called Disneyland & described its rides & caricatures yada yada & ow much money would be made by its described movies like Pinocchio , you'd think this guy had some inside info , The Bible predicts things that Mere man couldnt of w/o Gods Help
No the bible doesn't. Nostradamus didn't either but there has been a lot more hype about him making predictions. Why don't we all just worship him.
Look thats how psychics work. I know they aren't real but I'm not so sure you're bright enough. If I tell you that in your future I see a man in a hat a tragedy and great emotional pain. If you meet a guy at a bar wearing a hat and you have sex somewhere you are going to remember that no the wrong predictions I made. The Bible has no tru predictions
Are you kidding? Logic is used as proof for the existence of God. Logical Absolutes! Atheism is totally illogical and intellectually indefensible. They go on the attack and try to refute all theistic proof in order to give intellectual credence to their position. You can negate Theistic proofs all day long, this still does not disprove God's existence.
Any and all questions about God will be answered with scientific facts. All answers given there are guaranteed 100% scientific fact, based 100% on observational evidence. This is a guarantee that the atheist can never provide.
Any and all questions about God will be answered with scientific facts. All answers given there are guaranteed 100% scientific fact, based 100% on observational evidence. This is a guarantee that the atheist can never provide.
No, not like that one. That is a hyperbolic and foolish series of bizarre statements, not a question, and it is also not posted on my channel, where I answer any and all questions about God with scientific facts.
The atheist is the furthest thing from honest; he makes many statements about God, positive and negative, without any access to any observational data on Him. This practice is not only the very depth of dishonesty, but it is also thoroughly unscientific.
"he makes many statements about God, positive and negative, without any access to any observational data on Him."
Him? What about HER? Sexist.
And as to your comment... NO ONE has ANY observational data on the supernatural. SCIENCE CANNOT COMMENT ON THE SUPERNATURAL. It is by definition, AN UNKNOWN.
You are the one who is projecting here, not me, and it is you who is dishonest, not me.
Correct English grammar requires the use of "him" in this context, not "her."
You have posted at least two different comments on the supernatural within this conversation, and one of them you repeated twice. This shows without doubt that you have no grasp on science, as it is you who insists that science cannot comment on the supernatural, and yet you keep commenting on it again and again.
"it is you who insists that science cannot comment on the supernatural, and yet you keep commenting on it again and again."
Again, a non sequitur. It does not follow that because I state that science cannot comment on the supernatural, somehow that must mean that I'm declaring the supernatural does not exist in a scientific context.
It follows that your statements about the supernatural are all unscientific, and this is according to your own statement. Of course, I'm beginning to see that your feeble little mind is incapable of understanding ANY logic, and so this is all quite lost on you.
Thank God that most of the readers here possess much more intelligence than you do, and will therefore understand.
You've posted at least two different comments on the supernatural here, and you stated one of them twice, thereby proving yourself to be unscientific, as you insist repeatedly that science cannot comment on the supernatural, and yet you continue to comment on it.
Thank you for showing without doubt that you have no grasp on science, the Bible, or God whatsoever. In short, you are thoroughly ignorant, through and through, and you display here a supreme lack of intelligence. Congratulations!
I am only one person, first of all, so your reference to me as "yo people" [sic] is quite bizarre.
If science can make no comments on the supernatural, then your insistence on repeatedly and spontaneously commenting on it shows you to be very unscientific.
The conversation is not over, you fool -- we are both continuing to comment! It is you who has OCD, not me! Also, I have posted no insults here, only statements of clear fact.
Whose definition of the supernatural is that? Yours?
If it were an unknown, as you claim, then it would be impossible to offer a scientific definition of it. Of course, you have not made any truly scientific statements here, and so that unscientific statement of yours is really no surprise.
In addition, the subject here is God, not the supernatural. For someone who claims to know nothing about the supernatural, you sure do insist on spontaneously posting various statements about it! LOL
"Whose definition of the supernatural is that? Yours?"
Nope.
"If it were an unknown, as you claim, then it would be impossible to offer a scientific definition of it."
Which is correct. There is NO scientific definition for the supernatural. If I'm lying and saying filthy disgusting lies as you claim, then provide a scientific definition for the Supernatural.
"In addition, the subject here is God, not the supernatural."
Then ewhose definition is it? If it is unknown to everyone, as you claim, then nobody can define it. You contradict your own foolish statements at every turn.
You state that there is no scientific definition for the supernatural, and yet you post above a supposed definition for it. You and all your foolish statements are 100% unscientific.
Without any access to any observational data on God, it is not possible to produce any scientifically factual statements about Him, and yet you posted this statement about God: "GOD is a SUPERNATURAL ENTITY."
Please state your source for this notion. I know already that your sole source is your own overactive imagination, but I'd like to see what you say. Do you in fact have access to observational data on God, or is your source indeed your fertile imagination only?
The atheist indeed has zero access to any and all observational data on God, as the above atheist commenter's silence on this question attests, and so any and all statements that he may produce about God, whether negative, or positive like the one posted by the above atheist commenter, are understood to be 100% unscientific nonsense.
Conversely, theists do indeed have access to observational data on God, and so their statements about God can be accepted as scientific facts.
To receive scientifically factual answers to your questions about God, please visit my channel, "Purushadasa."
Any and all questions about God asked there will receive scientifically factual answers. All answers given there are guaranteed to be 100% scientific fact, which is a guarantee that the atheist can never provide.
Yes you do.(now we're lying for our cause?)-you say that our universe had to come from somewhere and the universe incompasses everything.
"Since you have no evidence that He "came from" somewhere,"
all i have is your assertion, that everything must have a cause. And having evidence of god needing to come from somewhere would be like evidence that he exists in the first place, and we wouldn't be talking about it.
I never siad the quotes that you wrote -- you did. That is called straw-man logical fallacy.
I never asserted that everything must have a cause -- you did. You are the one who posited that God "came from" somewhere, and so you need to pony up the evidence, or shut it.
What you should be explaining is how you can, with a straight face, say "the universe had to come from somewhere, and everything in it was created, things don't just pop out from nothing!"
Then you turn around and say " God? Oh, he didn't come from anywhere, he just popped out of nothing."
It's called hypocracy.
You're contradicting your own statement by saying things that are capable of creating universes can just exist, but a rock~
I didn't say the quote above about the universe -- you did. I also didn't say the quote above about God -- you did. Do you have any proof that God "popped out of nothing?" If not, it is strange that you would posit such a notion.
You are employing the straw-man logical fallacy when you make bizarre statements from your own imagination, things that I never said, and then defeat your own statements. Such logical fallacies make you look lower than the stupidest fool.
"All answers given there are guaranteed to be 100% scientific fact, "
That's what you said!
You didn't mention: "oh, by the way, sometimes they're not so scientific at all, but really just my assumption based on nothing that activly contradicts the last statement I had made."
If god can come from nothing, and just exist, you have no right to say that anything else did.
@Purushadasa are yeah, you do if you want to be taken seriously.
1st of all you are making a positive claim if you are claiming that god exists.
a negetive claim would be claiming that a god doesnt exist. it is a logical, scientific and legal fact that the person making the positive claim is the only one who requires to give evidence to support their claim.
so either hold a belief and dont expect others to agree with it, or fullfill your burden of proof.
If the atheist has truly made no claim, then the facts of Theism stand unchallenged, and I don't need to say anything, because THE WHOLE WORLD is already convinced, by solid scientific evidence, that Theism is a fact. There's no need to attempt to convince the atheist of anything, as he is on the same IQ level as the lower animal and therefore cannot be convinced anyway.
For more information on these facts, see my video, "THE WORLD REJECTS ATHEIST DOGMA."
You're right that accepting logic blindly is ignorant -- that's what the atheist does. I never said logic was arbitrary or couldn't be proven, but you haven't proven it -- you've simply stated that it can. Who should blindly accept what you say?
Think for ourselves, or listen to you? If the former, then why do you post? Are you qualified to teach? Of course not, but I want to see your response.
You are the one who chooses to be ignorant, not me. I question everything you say.
True. It is the atheist who fails to question things, such as his own flawed mind, his premature conclusions, and his entirely unscientific beliefs in regards to God.
Oh preach it! Exposit the holy text of logic (1 Logic 3:2). When Christians use this argument, it is definitely circular, but it does not follow that the bible is not the word of God. It only follows this argument is circular. Also, I found it ironic that you assumed that the principles of logic have authority in your life (compared to that of the Bible in the Christian's life) to argue your case. Not that it means that the principles of logic are circular. That are true! (2 logic 5:5).
The principles of logic are tried and true. They can be proven.
Don't assume that atheists are trying to destroy your faith. We simply want folks to believe THE truth, (like you do). The only difference seems to be that we use more sources to find the truth than you do. It's a healthy habit.
The author of this video is trying to point out how it's a logical fallacy to blindly believe a source JUST because that source claims to be true in itself.
All the sources of the atheist simply claim to be true in themselves without any actual backing in reality. Logic included, scientific method included. Your arbitrary theory that "the principles of logic... can be proven" is also included in this group of flimsy and unproven sources.
You simply claim this notion to be true, but you offer no proof of your concocted theory.
Your argument boils down, from any and every angle, to having blind faith in whatever source you claim on a particular day.
"All the sources of the atheist simply claim to be true in themselves without any actual backing in reality."
If you insist. The availability of evidence suggests otherwise.
"Logic included, scientific method included."
And yet, logic and the scientific method, for which you claim them to have no basis in reality, have provided you with the electricity and the means to type your comment and post it here on this site. Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.
Your above statement regarding the supposed availability of "evidence" also simply claims to be true in itself, with no evidence offered, or in existence, for that matter. This is par for the course with the atheist.
You are the one who stated that scientific method and logic have no basis in reality, not me. In reality, neither scientific method nor logic provide electricity -- what a foolish thing for you to say!
Yes, your hypocrisy is ugly, and so is your deep ignorance.
"You are the one who stated that scientific method and logic have no basis in reality, not me."
Oh really? Did I now? Then what's this?
"All the sources of the atheist simply claim to be true in themselves without any actual backing in reality. Logic included, scientific method included."
Don't claim not to have said something when your comment is available for all to see.
"In reality, neither scientific method nor logic provide electricity"
I did not say "basis in reality," I said "any actual backing in reality." Those are different statements. Can't read? Or is it that you enjoy misquoting people as much as you enjoy misquoting the Bible?
You stated that logic and scientific method provide electricity -- that is a downright retarded statement! LOL
"I said "any actual backing in reality." Those are different statements."
They amount to stating that the scientific method and logic have no backing in reality. You people enjoy playing semantics games don't you?
"You stated that logic and scientific method provide electricity"
Yes. Without scientific inquiry to have discovered HOW electricity works and HOW to utilise it, you would not be sat in front of your PC typing your filth.
You are the one playing semantic games, not me. The two statements in question have entirely different meanings.
I would not be sat? Your grammar is infantile, your fund of knowledge is extremely poor, your grasp on science is miniscule, and your understanding of the Bible and God is nil.
For the record: neither scientific method nor logic have the ability to magically produce electricity, as you insist they do. What a sorry little fool, and what an ignorant buffoon you are! ROFLMAO!!!
"I would not be sat? Your grammar is infantile, your fund of knowledge is extremely poor, your grasp on science is miniscule, and your understanding of the Bible and God is nil."
Sure, if you misinterpret my statements as you deliberately do... Let's see an example of this now, shall we?
"neither scientific method nor logic have the ability to magically produce electricity, as you insist they do."
I insist they magically produce electricity? What planet did you get THAT interpretation from?
Those are not insults, they are statements of fact -- more like diagnoses.
So, are you admitting your utter defeat this time, the second time you said you'd shut up, or is this statement also a lie, like the last one was? LOL
By the way, you seem very angry and unhappy, but I'm having a great time! Why so glum, chum? Could it be that a good relationship with God provides true happiness, and that lack of such a relationship provides the opposite, as the scriptures state? Food for thought!
"Could it be that a good relationship with God provides true happiness, and that lack of such a relationship provides the opposite, as the scriptures state?"
Why have you stated 6 or 7 times that you're going away and will not comment any more, and that the conversation is over, and then keep coming back and commenting further?
You dolt -- you do not realize that every time you comment, you continue the very conversation that you are attempting to insist is over! I have honestly never met a buffoon as stupid as you are! LOL!!!
This is one of many examples of how most of the atheist's statements contradict themselves.
"well as the right to go out and kill non-believers."
No... Society rules universally (at least in our civilized western world) that murder is wrong.
Oh... And we ARE unbelievers. Shall we start killing ourselves? No actually... Don't answer that, the answer would most likely be yes. After all, we're heathens aren't we?
"Also, it is the scriptures that state "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and disobeying this is a strictly atheistic tendency."
The ten commandment state thou shalt not kill... Yet the very same Bible also states that the Israelites are commanded to go kill the men, children and babies, and that you can keep the women for yourselves. Don't talk to me about Atheism promoting killing. We don't. I abhor violence, unlike you.
You have no basis for calling our lack of a belief incorrect...
You have no evidence for the supernatural, much less your particular theistic belief. Only you cannot see that as you are a fundamentalist radical.
"You are unteachable, and your anger management issues bore me."
I'm not angry. You're projecting your own character traits onto me. That is not welcome.
It is you who is unteachable. Keep your beliefs to yourself instead of trying to ram them down our throats with threats of hell and torture. Good day to you. Conversation over.
Reputable sources ALWAYS place chapter and verse numbers in Biblical quotes. Disreputable sources usually fail to include chapter and verse, as you have failed to do above, and usually for the express purpose of purposely misquoting the Bible for their own selfish ends.
In any case, you are the furthest thing from a Biblical scholar, your understanding of the Bible is deeply flawed, and your statement above regarding killing is yours alone, and appears nowhere in the Bible.
You are the one who has failed to provide any evidence for your unscientific claims.
You also misquoted the Bible and failed to provide chapter and verse numbers. The reason why you failed to do so is that your misquote is obviously a dirty lie, and you are afraid to be proven wrong on this point, as you have foolishly done on so many others.
Thank you for admitting that I am right, but that is already quite obvious.
You state above that science cannot comment on the supernatural. That is itself a comment on the supernatural, and so it is definitely an unscientific statement, as are all the rest of your foolish statements.
I have not ever attempted to prove the supernatural -- you have a very vivid imagination!
You are the insane fanatic here, not me.
You cannot provide chapter and verse for your biblical misquote because it is your statement alone, and appears nowhere in the Bible.
"Yes, atheism does have fear inducement, a set of rules to live by,"
How does saying "I don't believe in fairy tales" a set of rules to live by? Get a clue. Rules are determined by societal need. Those are the rules I live by, my society's.
"a counterfeit "god" to worship (actually, many),"
Name one.
"and a declaration that a chosen group will gain eternal favor over others.."
We cease to be in the future. We are NOT eternal. This invalidates your projection.
"I'm a priest, not a doctor; your post is 100% nonsensical and irrelevant. "
Well done. It doesn't justify your Bible's proclamation that
"Nothing will be impossible to you" when you have unswerving faith because lots of people have unswerving faith in Christianity in it's various forms, yet double blind study results have demonstrated that when it comes to the power of prayer, "nothing will be impossible to you" actually means "lots of things will be impossible to you".
The Bible was not referring to unswerving faith in Christianity, it was referring to unswerving faith in God.
You are not qualified to judge who does and who does not have unswerving faith, nor is any double-blind test qualified to judge how much swerve someone's faith has.
"The Bible was not referring to unswerving faith in Christianity, it was referring to unswerving faith in God."
Same difference. These people have unswerving faith in their God, yet they suffer despite the promises specifically stated in the Bible that prayer works (when anyone who has a brain can see they don't).
"You are not qualified to judge who does and who does not have unswerving faith, nor is any double-blind test..."
Neither do you. The test demonstrated that prayer doesn't work.
Look up John Robbins of Trinity Foundation, and listen to his lectures on "How Not To Do Apologetics". You'll see how rational true Scripturalism truly is, and how much atheism begs the question.
By my comment, I mean that the usual arguments for God have the same philosophical problems as the atheist, who begins with an assumption he can't prove.
The lack of a belief in a diety is agnosticism. The assertion that there is no diety is atheism.
Theism: The belief or conviction held in respect of a specific religious belief as defined by a series of holy texts or scriptures eg the Bible/Quran.
A-Theism: The lack... Of such beliefs.
Agnosticism: The polar opposite of Gnosticism: Gnosticism is the conviction that you know the nature of the supernatural. Agnosticism is the recognition that you cannot or do not.
Just as counterfeit bills have all the external trappings, but lack real value, so the counterfeit religion, atheism, has all the external trappings of any authentic religion, but lacks the real valuable item: love of God.
The atheist wrongly believes that God somehow doesn't exist, but theists have no beliefs or disbeliefs about God, only factual knowledge.
"has all the external trappings of any authentic religion"
Such as fear inducement, a set of rules to live by, a God to worship, and a declaration that a chosen group will gain eternal favour over all others as well as the right to go out and kill non believers?
In the same way that counterfeit bills are not money, atheism is not a religion. It is a counterfeit religion.
Yes, atheism does have fear inducement, a set of rules to live by, a counterfeit "god" to worship (actually, many), and a declaration that a chosen group will gain eternal favor over others as well as the right to go out and kill non-believers.
All the above are coming from your atheistic consciousness, not from theism.
"In the same way that counterfeit bills are not money, atheism is not a religion. It is a counterfeit religion."
You can keep plugging those finders in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you I believe in God Atheism is the work of the Devil" all you want... Doesn't change the fact that Atheism makes NO statements other than "I don't believe in any Gods".
"All the above are coming from your atheistic consciousness, not from theism."
Thr problem is, no logical theist or Creationist would argue like that. You're completely right, those are illogical, but I believe in logic, which is why I'm not an atheist.
I would say that it is the same because they (all the propositions) are just as well known as each other (i.e., they all have the same amount of evidence and same logical basis).
Also, the alleged literary work of god (the bible) is filled with misunderstandings of science, self-contradictions, etc. and therefore does not make the idea of god any stronger than that of the Easter Bunny.
Honestly "Harry Potter" is a stronger literary force in the realm of fact than the bible.
I have read the transcript of the Bahnsen v. Stein debate and I am ready to dissect it.
(Note: I apologize for how I have broken down my response, but it was necessarily long.)
Bahnsen starts the debate with a straw man: he mentions that Stein has said that the question of god should be approached like any other matter of fact -- he then goes on to talk about various questions (boxes of crackers, barometric pressure, etc.) --
completely missing Stein's point that ALL questions should be investigated logically/methodically (NOT that all things should be evaluated using the exact same steps). That is to say, when reasoning methodically/logically, we start off assuming a null hypothesis (that our hypothesis is wrong), and then we collect data in an attempt to reject that null and affirm our alternative hypothesis.
Also, he brings up political obligations and beauty under the heading of facts to be investigated; when, in reality, these are subjective human concepts and not facts. A fact is objectively true; an opinion, such as saying that a particular person or object is beautiful, is NOT a fact. Purely human constructions such as these have no place in a debate regarding fact (or validity of a philosophical system),
and Bahnsen is engaging in a straw man by a) ignoring/not getting Stein's point that all claims should be approached using a logical method (Stein did NOT mean that all claims should be approached with the exact same steps as Bahnsen implies), and b) by clumping subjective human constructs, such as aesthetics, art, law, etc. into the category of 'facts.'
Also, if one is to then say that the question of the existence of god is not one of fact, then since either way the triune Christian god would not be a matter of fact, trying to defend it would be a wholly pointless endeavor. Essentially, there is no point in trying to defend a conception if you admit that that conception is not even a matter of fact; this is why Christians logically must defend their god (try to provide evidence) as if it were a matter of fact.
Next, Bahsen talks of Stein's claims that logic and reason are the only ways to objectively gain data/test hypotheses. We can see that Stein's claims are valid by using counter-examples against all forms of data collection/hypothesis testing (such as anecdotal stories, personal 'feelings', subjective perceptions [which cognitive psychology has shown can, and often are, quite incorrect, etc.]).
Essentially, logic and reason are the only methods that, when applied correctly (emphasis on the word 'correctly') ALWAYS can test a claim (statistically speaking).
If we were to claim that only paths of knowledge-gathering that actually lead to facts are valid, then all that we are left with is logic and reason
(i.e., only logic and reasoning are convergent thought processes when applied to claim testing; personal feelings, etc. are divergent methods of thinking [they can have the same start point and lead to radically different subjective answers]).
If you know of another method that can be used to test a claim, one that always works when applied correctly and leads to convergent thinking when applied to the same situation, then please state it now.
Next, Bahnsen goes on to speak of "evidences for god".
-He talks about the order of creation. I have multiple points here (I will list them in order of importance). 1) Things that are completely random (expect for the physical principles governing them) can SEEM ordered, when they are not. One cannot 'infer' design because human minds often SEE design where there is none -- this has been shown in psychological research (paredolia, random computer-generated patterns, etc.).
2) Even if we made the absurd presupposition of order, and that order implied an 'orderer', then Bahnsen is jumping to a hasty conclusion that the 'orderer' is his god, and not another god, such as Thor. Also, this argument refutes itself because it claims that order had to be ordered, but that the orderer (who would clearly be ordered) did not have an orderer [hence, this is self-refuting] (when applied honestly, this logic leads to an infinite regression of deities).
-He talks about historical evidence. 1) There is NO archeological/outside historical sources to support the thousands of Jewish slaves leaving Egypt (escaping slavery), 2) no evidence of the resurrection of a rabble-rouser known as Jesus after his death [This is a baseless assertion that Bahnsen repeats far too often.],
3) no evidence from contemporaneous historians, etc. of any such thing as a virgin birth (interesting side note -- men have claimed to have been of virgin-birth LONG before the 'time of Jesus', and many claimed the same during the time of Jesus -- including other self-proclaimed prophets at the same time). This list could go on, but I digress.
3) no evidence from contemporaneous historians, etc. of any such thing as a virgin birth (interesting side note -- men have claimed to have been of virgin-birth LONG before the 'time of Jesus', and many claimed the same during the time of Jesus -- including other self-proclaimed prophets at the same time). This list could go on, but I digress.
-He talks about the Bible's 'historical accuracy', coherence over time, etc. 1) MANY religions/fictional stories in the past incorporated SOME fact into their stories, but, just like the Bible, there are many stories (such as the resurrection) that are wholly unsupported by evidence. The bible is not unique (just look at the fact that many old Greek stories do the same thing).
2) The bible is not even internally coherent, nor do its 'morals' have any place in modern society (such as killing those who work Sundays). ETC.
Basically, Bahnsen has made many radical assertions that the evidence actually CONTRADICTS. His argument thus far is filled with assertion, holes, and other flaws.
Next he brings up the transcendental argument for his god (TAG). This is an old one that has been beaten down MANY times, but I will do it again.
First off, this argument does not support any particular deity. Using this argument, we can argue just as easily for Thor or Vishnu or any other made-up concept of supernatural power in the form of a deity(or deities) as we can for the Christian god.
Also, just because an individual (such as Bahnsen) may not be able to understand the world unless they view it through the conceptual framework of a deity does NOT mean that that deity exists. In fact, it may speak more to the inability of the individual to understand reality without creating extra, unnecessary, layers of conceptualization.
Also, the TAG uses circular reasoning; it presupposes that there is a particular deity before it tries to claim that all things only make sense in light of that presupposition. This presuppositional reasoning is the heart of the TAG; when this same reasoning is applied to any other topic we clearly see that it does not result in convergent thinking/objective truth. It can be used to justify ANY observed phenomenon/result while claiming the existence of any god(s).
Also, the argument presupposes an absolute morality, and since morality is merely a human construct, and it is known that all people/cultures have different morals, we know that this is a patently false presupposition.
Note that saying that absolute morals do not exist is an absolute claim, but that it is not self-refuting because it is not an absolute moral claim (too often people do not understand that moral claims are a subset of all claims, and therefore saying that there are no absolute moral truths is not an absolute moral truth because it is a truth that is outside of the subset of moral truths).
I will not comment on Stein's opening comments (I will say this: sadly, I find that he does not develop on the points quite as much/in the direction that I have).
In the following sections Bahnsen misunderstands Steins' questions; or intentionally engages in red herrings to avoid them (e.g., Bahnsen uses circular reasoning regarding the bible, god, etc. and Stein calls him on it, but Bahnsen sidesteps the issue multiple times).
Also, Bahnsen claims that his god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. First off, omnipotence is an inherently self-refuting idea (think of this: Can this god make a rock that he cannot lift? Either answer contradicts omnipotence). Also, these three things cannot exist unless benevolence is defined as "whatever occurs; no matter how harmful it is, or who it harms"
(think of the classic problem of evil -- omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence cannot coexist in one being unless the human construction known as "good" is strictly defined as "whatever occurs is what the presupposed deity wants, and the deity is presupposed to be good, therefore all seemingly bad/harmful things that happen are actually from this "good" deity and are therefore inherently good;
Bahnsen also misunderstands the definition of an atheist. An atheist is merely one who does not believe in any god, (s)he does not 'deny' god anymore than the Christian 'denies' the existence of Zeus. An atheist is simply someone who has logically reasoned (usually based on the burden of proof, parsimony, etc.) that there are no god(s); just as most people reason that there is no Easter Bunny.
Bahnsen also misunderstands that this definition of atheism does not make is always true as he suggests; it merely relies on the burden of proof, and since theists such as himself cannot provide ONE piece of material evidence/ONE logical philosophical argument for god, it does mean that atheism is the logical position; just as a non-belief in the Easter Bunny is the logical position since no one has yet provided any evidence of the Easter Bunny.
Also, Bahnsen then attempts to address the fact that many people think in logical contradictions, but in his argument in which he tries to suggest that logical reasoning is universal, he ignores the fact that the majority of mankind engages in illogical reasoning on a regular basis without even realizing that their reasoning is illogical.
His basic ignorance of cognitive science as it pertains to logic betrays him here; because if all people do not gravitate towards logical reasoning, then his TAG based on logic is inherently flawed; cognitive science has shown us that many people do not even recognize illogical arguments (and in fact, they engage in them on a regular basis), this means that Bahnsen's TAG based on logic is inherently flawed.
Also, the same TA could be used as an alleged 'proof' for Zeus or even Athena -- The argument is also circular in that it presupposed that existence of a deity based on nothing.
The reality is that the laws of logic are objectively true simply because, when applied properly, they always result in the correct conclusion; however, most people do not naturally gravitate towards logical reasoning, which was the basic assumption of Bahnsen's argument (he claimed universality of logic; which is clearly not so [also note that logic is quite different in many eastern philosophies than in western philosophies]).
In other words (slightly oversimplified words), logic is similar to a yardstick -- when used properly you always will get the same measurements (statistically speaking), no matter who uses it. However, not everyone knows how to properly use it.
Even though we can never account for 100% of all possible cases, all observations to date validate logic (just as all observations to date validate gravity, conservation of energy, evolution, etc.). This is what is meant by Stein; and this is what Bahnsen does not seem to understand.
Vexen [DOT] co [DOT] uk/religion/god_logic [DOT] html
Next, Bahnsen misunderstands that evolution/the chemical process of abiogenesis are not random, and he also uses a proof by assertion fallacy when he claims that life is more than electrochemical complexes; there is no evidence that life is anything more than electrochemical processes --
Bahnsen sure does like to make absurd assertions that have no basis, and, in fact, ignore observations of physical reality -- he style very much reminds me of a politician trying to trick the ignorant masses into following him even though there is no substance behind his words.
Stein hits the nail right on the head when he points out that the first cause arguments and design arguments ask the wrong questions; that is to say that they presuppose things that are simply not reasonable to presuppose. (Also, both of these arguments suffer from a recursive regression [i.e., infinite regression] fallacy which renders them useless, OR they refute themselves by discarding their own logic).
In the second segment Bahnsen engages in a red herring by merely asserting that Stein is simply name calling while avoiding Stein's valid logical criticisms of Bahnsen's TAG. Bahnsen is being intellectually dishonest by using a red herring.
Also, he clearly did not listen to Stein; he claims that Stein merely asserted that the laws of logic are so -- what Stein ACTUALLY did was essentially say that since every time that they have been observed they behave in a certain manner, we can assume that things act in that manner.
I have slightly oversimplified his argument, but that is the core of it. Bahnsen seems very bad at understanding Stein's arguments, perhaps he should have been paying more attention during the debate.
Bahnsen continues on in this vein for a while; I am highly disappointed in Bahnsen, he could have actually tried to address Stein's arguments, but instead he chose to ignore what Stein said, and engage in a straw man and a red herring. Truly disappointing (esp. the repeated straw men from Bahnsen).
The debate goes on without Bahnsen actually addressing Stein's points for a while, and Stein repeating the same points to Bahnsen, asking for rebuttals of the logical points but getting none -- this stagnation lasts for quite some time...
Your entire video is a straw man argument, followed up by poisoning the well ("the reason they believe this is..."). If you are not interested in using logic nor facts, then why do you purport to?
Ant1Live 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i rather see it ad hominom
1TheAsad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I rather see it ad hominom.
1TheAsad 1 year ago
@Docteur4u Good question & Fair enough,
ya know when the world thought the earth was Flat, the Bible always said it was a sphere that hung on nothing & when everyone else saw about 9,000 stars the word said they were inumerable which was just recently descovered, but just search Fullfilled prophecoes & you'll see 1000's of prophecies such as israels return as a nation after being dispersed
ncwdane 1 year ago
You're right, the Bible gets all of its authority from God and He really doesn't come to His people and tell them that it has authority, I just hope you're right because if you're wrong that's going to suck for you but if I'm wrong in my belief we'll be in the same boat. Pascal's Wager, look it up and see it the social exchange is worth it.
amalgah 1 year ago
The first part is incorrect, theists do not try to prove God's existence through the Bible, it'll beg the question if we left it alone to the bible to prove God's existence. So first assumed circular fallacy is itself a fallacy.
"Theists argue from emotion and desire rather than objective..."
This is a euphemism fallacy, as theists looks at God's existence from an objective, reasonable approach. So, this video is itself fallacious and it too did not catch it's own fallacies.
atheismexposed 2 years ago
the bible predicts to the day, jesus would ride into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, & it describes hi crucifixion before crucifying was even invented & gives details such as being speared while being crucified,
ncwdane 2 years ago
well the 1st part is correct, but your last part is not,
if someone wrote in the year 1880 that a man named Walt Disney would build a place called Disneyland & described its rides & caricatures yada yada & ow much money would be made by its described movies like Pinocchio , you'd think this guy had some inside info , The Bible predicts things that Mere man couldnt of w/o Gods Help
ncwdane 2 years ago
No the bible doesn't. Nostradamus didn't either but there has been a lot more hype about him making predictions. Why don't we all just worship him.
Look thats how psychics work. I know they aren't real but I'm not so sure you're bright enough. If I tell you that in your future I see a man in a hat a tragedy and great emotional pain. If you meet a guy at a bar wearing a hat and you have sex somewhere you are going to remember that no the wrong predictions I made. The Bible has no tru predictions
tehonlycandyman 2 years ago
@tehonlycandyman nOSTRADAMOUS HAS HAD FALSE PROPHECIES, nAME ONE WATER TIGHT ARGUEMENT OVER A fALSE PROPHECY of the bible
ncwdane 1 year ago
atheists must send this video to retarded fallacy-using creatards all the time.
They come here and try thier fallacy again, like a parrot, then down-click every comment that scares them.
go ahead, vote down this comment you mental midget, that'll make you feel better!
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
Are you kidding? Logic is used as proof for the existence of God. Logical Absolutes! Atheism is totally illogical and intellectually indefensible. They go on the attack and try to refute all theistic proof in order to give intellectual credence to their position. You can negate Theistic proofs all day long, this still does not disprove God's existence.
miket1m 3 years ago
test
Purushadasa 3 years ago
FACTS ABOUT GOD: Ask and ye shall receive.
Have a question about God that you need answered?
Go to my channel, "Purushadasa," and ask there.
Any and all questions about God will be answered with scientific facts. All answers given there are guaranteed 100% scientific fact, based 100% on observational evidence. This is a guarantee that the atheist can never provide.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 2
God's scriptures state "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and disobeying this commandment is a strictly atheistic tendency.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 2
FACTS ABOUT GOD: Ask and ye shall receive.
Have a question about God that you need answered?
Go to my channel, "Purushadasa," and ask there.
Any and all questions about God will be answered with scientific facts. All answers given there are guaranteed 100% scientific fact, based 100% on observational evidence. This is a guarantee that the atheist can never provide.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Lol, good one.
JonO387 3 years ago
Thank you. I'm glad you like it.
The facts are there, but the atheist does not have them. All you need to do is ask the right source.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"Any and all questions about God will be answered with scientific facts."
Like this one? "Let there be light." *POOF!* "Let there be man!" *POOF* "Let there be woman!" *Squelch* *POOF!*
"All answers given there are guaranteed 100% scientific fact, based 100% on observational evidence."
Like Noah's Ark? The Global Flood which should have created a uniform sedimentary layer across the whole planet?
"This is a guarantee that the atheist can never provide."
That's because we're honest.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
No, not like that one. That is a hyperbolic and foolish series of bizarre statements, not a question, and it is also not posted on my channel, where I answer any and all questions about God with scientific facts.
The atheist is the furthest thing from honest; he makes many statements about God, positive and negative, without any access to any observational data on Him. This practice is not only the very depth of dishonesty, but it is also thoroughly unscientific.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"The atheist is the furthest thing from honest;"
Projection.
"he makes many statements about God, positive and negative, without any access to any observational data on Him."
Him? What about HER? Sexist.
And as to your comment... NO ONE has ANY observational data on the supernatural. SCIENCE CANNOT COMMENT ON THE SUPERNATURAL. It is by definition, AN UNKNOWN.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
You are the one who is projecting here, not me, and it is you who is dishonest, not me.
Correct English grammar requires the use of "him" in this context, not "her."
You have posted at least two different comments on the supernatural within this conversation, and one of them you repeated twice. This shows without doubt that you have no grasp on science, as it is you who insists that science cannot comment on the supernatural, and yet you keep commenting on it again and again.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"it is you who insists that science cannot comment on the supernatural, and yet you keep commenting on it again and again."
Again, a non sequitur. It does not follow that because I state that science cannot comment on the supernatural, somehow that must mean that I'm declaring the supernatural does not exist in a scientific context.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
I know that, and that is beside the point, moron.
It follows that your statements about the supernatural are all unscientific, and this is according to your own statement. Of course, I'm beginning to see that your feeble little mind is incapable of understanding ANY logic, and so this is all quite lost on you.
Thank God that most of the readers here possess much more intelligence than you do, and will therefore understand.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
You've posted at least two different comments on the supernatural here, and you stated one of them twice, thereby proving yourself to be unscientific, as you insist repeatedly that science cannot comment on the supernatural, and yet you continue to comment on it.
Thank you for showing without doubt that you have no grasp on science, the Bible, or God whatsoever. In short, you are thoroughly ignorant, through and through, and you display here a supreme lack of intelligence. Congratulations!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"You've posted at least two different comments on the supernatural here,"
Yes. Science cannot make any statements, pro or con, on the existence of the supernatural.
"and you stated one of them twice, thereby proving yourself to be unscientific,"
Amazing non sequitur you have there.
"you display here a supreme lack of intelligence."
Relying on insults is the hallmark of yo people. And despite my saying this "discussion" is over, you continue to post this rubbish. Do you have OCD?
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
I am only one person, first of all, so your reference to me as "yo people" [sic] is quite bizarre.
If science can make no comments on the supernatural, then your insistence on repeatedly and spontaneously commenting on it shows you to be very unscientific.
The conversation is not over, you fool -- we are both continuing to comment! It is you who has OCD, not me! Also, I have posted no insults here, only statements of clear fact.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
Whose definition of the supernatural is that? Yours?
If it were an unknown, as you claim, then it would be impossible to offer a scientific definition of it. Of course, you have not made any truly scientific statements here, and so that unscientific statement of yours is really no surprise.
In addition, the subject here is God, not the supernatural. For someone who claims to know nothing about the supernatural, you sure do insist on spontaneously posting various statements about it! LOL
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"Whose definition of the supernatural is that? Yours?"
Nope.
"If it were an unknown, as you claim, then it would be impossible to offer a scientific definition of it."
Which is correct. There is NO scientific definition for the supernatural. If I'm lying and saying filthy disgusting lies as you claim, then provide a scientific definition for the Supernatural.
"In addition, the subject here is God, not the supernatural."
GOD is a SUPERNATURAL ENTITY. Hello?
"LOL"
Yeah, funny.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Then ewhose definition is it? If it is unknown to everyone, as you claim, then nobody can define it. You contradict your own foolish statements at every turn.
You state that there is no scientific definition for the supernatural, and yet you post above a supposed definition for it. You and all your foolish statements are 100% unscientific.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
Yawn...
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Without any access to any observational data on God, it is not possible to produce any scientifically factual statements about Him, and yet you posted this statement about God: "GOD is a SUPERNATURAL ENTITY."
Please state your source for this notion. I know already that your sole source is your own overactive imagination, but I'd like to see what you say. Do you in fact have access to observational data on God, or is your source indeed your fertile imagination only?
Which one is it? LOL
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
What part of "I'm ot interested" do you not understand, sir?
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
You are interested enough to keep posting foolish comments, like the one you posted above, clown! LOL
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
he he he
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
CONCLUSION:
The atheist indeed has zero access to any and all observational data on God, as the above atheist commenter's silence on this question attests, and so any and all statements that he may produce about God, whether negative, or positive like the one posted by the above atheist commenter, are understood to be 100% unscientific nonsense.
Conversely, theists do indeed have access to observational data on God, and so their statements about God can be accepted as scientific facts.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
To receive scientifically factual answers to your questions about God, please visit my channel, "Purushadasa."
Any and all questions about God asked there will receive scientifically factual answers. All answers given there are guaranteed to be 100% scientific fact, which is a guarantee that the atheist can never provide.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 10
what's hilarious, is that i tried to send you a question, but you have bloody friend-lock on.
where did god come from?
"accepting logic blindly is ignorant "
That's why people laugh at creationists.
They don't trust their own eyes.
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
First of all, are you positing that God "came from" somewhere? If so, what evidence do you have that He did?
Purushadasa 2 years ago
"First of all, are you positing that God "came from" somewhere? If so, what evidence do you have that He did? "
your assumption that everything else MUST come from somewhere, therefore, your god comes from somewhere.
It's regression.
Either you have an infinite amount of deities creating the next, or- that things don't need to be created, contradicting your original premise.
I can't have evidence that he came from somewhere, due to the utter lack of evidence that he even exists.
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
I didn't make any such assumption. Also, God is not mine; you and I both belong to Him.
Since you have no evidence that He "came from" somewhere, your assumption that He did is illogical, and your question is nonsensical.
God is the causeless cause of all causes. All material energies and objects have a beginning and an end, but God has no beginning and no end.
I will pray for you.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
"I didn't make any such assumption."
Yes you do.(now we're lying for our cause?)-you say that our universe had to come from somewhere and the universe incompasses everything.
"Since you have no evidence that He "came from" somewhere,"
all i have is your assertion, that everything must have a cause. And having evidence of god needing to come from somewhere would be like evidence that he exists in the first place, and we wouldn't be talking about it.
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
I never siad the quotes that you wrote -- you did. That is called straw-man logical fallacy.
I never asserted that everything must have a cause -- you did. You are the one who posited that God "came from" somewhere, and so you need to pony up the evidence, or shut it.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
There are many other fallacies out there, you creatards don't always have to use the straw man.
I assumed you believed that all of existance needed a cause because you believe in god.
I didn't present a distorted view of your argument, because you haven't presented one yet.
You've simply been asking for evidence that a being that you can't prove exists in the first place had to come from somewhere.
Which you know is Impossible.
If god needs no cause, nothing does.
If he has a cause, what?
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
"I never asserted that everything must have a cause "
so what doesn't need a cause, and why?
I want scientific evidence, not asking me for evidence about something that has no evidence to actually exist.
Thats like saying gremlins are real, and I ask what type of shoes do they wear, and you saying "what evidence do you have that they wear shoes?"
"causeless" isn't a scientific option, unless we are refering to space, which is nothingness.
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
What proof do you have that only ONE god created existance?
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
You are far too stupid to warrant any kind of continued discussion. I will pray for you.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
"You are far too stupid to warrant any kind of continued discussion."
A childish attempt to avoid looking childish.
What I see is: "I cannot defend myself intellectually, so I shall call you stupid(without addressing why) and run away!
I sit around saying that I have 'scientific' proof that god exists, and when people ask for them, I call them stupid and run away."
Sad.
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
"I will pray for you."
Don't.
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
"God is the causeless"
I know your position already.
What you should be explaining is how you can, with a straight face, say "the universe had to come from somewhere, and everything in it was created, things don't just pop out from nothing!"
Then you turn around and say " God? Oh, he didn't come from anywhere, he just popped out of nothing."
It's called hypocracy.
You're contradicting your own statement by saying things that are capable of creating universes can just exist, but a rock~
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
I didn't say the quote above about the universe -- you did. I also didn't say the quote above about God -- you did. Do you have any proof that God "popped out of nothing?" If not, it is strange that you would posit such a notion.
You are employing the straw-man logical fallacy when you make bizarre statements from your own imagination, things that I never said, and then defeat your own statements. Such logical fallacies make you look lower than the stupidest fool.
Purushadasa 2 years ago
"Do you have any proof that God "popped out of nothing?" If not, it is strange that you would posit such a notion"
Niether I, nor ANYONE ELSE has proof that god even exists.Therefore, proof about his cause is also missing.
Where did he come from if he (as you seem to be implying) didn't pop out of nowhere?
How could he "just exist" when everything else needs a cause?
That's all! You are a liar for saying you had "scientific proof", you have dumber arguments than Kirk fucking carmeron.
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
"All answers given there are guaranteed to be 100% scientific fact, "
That's what you said!
You didn't mention: "oh, by the way, sometimes they're not so scientific at all, but really just my assumption based on nothing that activly contradicts the last statement I had made."
If god can come from nothing, and just exist, you have no right to say that anything else did.
"God has no beginning and no end."
Then he doesn't exist.
(that isn't very "scientific" purushadasa...)
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
@Purushadasa Atheist are not making any positive claims, therefore, logically, they are not required to provide anything.
can you provide any evidence that Shiva does not exist?
i have a question about god. if god is omnipotent, can he create an object so impervious that he himself could not destroy it?
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82 You say that the atheist has made no claim. Therefore, I need not provide a response.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
@Purushadasa are yeah, you do if you want to be taken seriously.
1st of all you are making a positive claim if you are claiming that god exists.
a negetive claim would be claiming that a god doesnt exist. it is a logical, scientific and legal fact that the person making the positive claim is the only one who requires to give evidence to support their claim.
so either hold a belief and dont expect others to agree with it, or fullfill your burden of proof.
so make with the response =P
robertwc82 1 year ago
If the atheist has truly made no claim, then the facts of Theism stand unchallenged, and I don't need to say anything, because THE WHOLE WORLD is already convinced, by solid scientific evidence, that Theism is a fact. There's no need to attempt to convince the atheist of anything, as he is on the same IQ level as the lower animal and therefore cannot be convinced anyway.
For more information on these facts, see my video, "THE WORLD REJECTS ATHEIST DOGMA."
God bless you!
Purushadasa 1 year ago 5
@Purushadasa You are a very convincing troll. You got me fooled for a minute. :)
YouKilledYourMaster 3 months ago
I have no further interest in discussing the matter with someone so closed minded. Good day to you sir.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
It is you who is closed-minded, not me.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Of course. I'm a devil-worshipping Atheist, aren't I?
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
I dunno -- are you?
I'm not sure that I know precisely WHAT you are. For that little tidbit of information, I'm afraid you'll have to ask your mother.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
Logic is arbitrary and cannot be proven? That's a fallacy. Logic was devised over thousands of years to conform to the reality that's all around us.
Anyone who blindly accepts logic because they're told to do so, is as ignorant as someone who believes the bible for the same reason.
It all boils down to this:
THINK FOR YOURSELF. Question everything. Be skeptical, or do not expect to be taken seriously.
The choice is yours. Personally, my friend, I don't care if you choose to be ignorant.
Sectorsophia 3 years ago
You're right that accepting logic blindly is ignorant -- that's what the atheist does. I never said logic was arbitrary or couldn't be proven, but you haven't proven it -- you've simply stated that it can. Who should blindly accept what you say?
Think for ourselves, or listen to you? If the former, then why do you post? Are you qualified to teach? Of course not, but I want to see your response.
You are the one who chooses to be ignorant, not me. I question everything you say.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
First off, I commend you for thinking for yourself and questioning things. Many fail to do so.
Second, I do choose to be ignorant. Just kidding.
Sectorsophia 3 years ago
True. It is the atheist who fails to question things, such as his own flawed mind, his premature conclusions, and his entirely unscientific beliefs in regards to God.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
Oh preach it! Exposit the holy text of logic (1 Logic 3:2). When Christians use this argument, it is definitely circular, but it does not follow that the bible is not the word of God. It only follows this argument is circular. Also, I found it ironic that you assumed that the principles of logic have authority in your life (compared to that of the Bible in the Christian's life) to argue your case. Not that it means that the principles of logic are circular. That are true! (2 logic 5:5).
crothell 3 years ago
The principles of logic are tried and true. They can be proven.
Don't assume that atheists are trying to destroy your faith. We simply want folks to believe THE truth, (like you do). The only difference seems to be that we use more sources to find the truth than you do. It's a healthy habit.
The author of this video is trying to point out how it's a logical fallacy to blindly believe a source JUST because that source claims to be true in itself.
Be skeptical. That's all we ask.
Sectorsophia 3 years ago
All the sources of the atheist simply claim to be true in themselves without any actual backing in reality. Logic included, scientific method included. Your arbitrary theory that "the principles of logic... can be proven" is also included in this group of flimsy and unproven sources.
You simply claim this notion to be true, but you offer no proof of your concocted theory.
Your argument boils down, from any and every angle, to having blind faith in whatever source you claim on a particular day.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"All the sources of the atheist simply claim to be true in themselves without any actual backing in reality."
If you insist. The availability of evidence suggests otherwise.
"Logic included, scientific method included."
And yet, logic and the scientific method, for which you claim them to have no basis in reality, have provided you with the electricity and the means to type your comment and post it here on this site. Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Your above statement regarding the supposed availability of "evidence" also simply claims to be true in itself, with no evidence offered, or in existence, for that matter. This is par for the course with the atheist.
You are the one who stated that scientific method and logic have no basis in reality, not me. In reality, neither scientific method nor logic provide electricity -- what a foolish thing for you to say!
Yes, your hypocrisy is ugly, and so is your deep ignorance.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"You are the one who stated that scientific method and logic have no basis in reality, not me."
Oh really? Did I now? Then what's this?
"All the sources of the atheist simply claim to be true in themselves without any actual backing in reality. Logic included, scientific method included."
Don't claim not to have said something when your comment is available for all to see.
"In reality, neither scientific method nor logic provide electricity"
Wow... Just... Wow.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
I did not say "basis in reality," I said "any actual backing in reality." Those are different statements. Can't read? Or is it that you enjoy misquoting people as much as you enjoy misquoting the Bible?
You stated that logic and scientific method provide electricity -- that is a downright retarded statement! LOL
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"I said "any actual backing in reality." Those are different statements."
They amount to stating that the scientific method and logic have no backing in reality. You people enjoy playing semantics games don't you?
"You stated that logic and scientific method provide electricity"
Yes. Without scientific inquiry to have discovered HOW electricity works and HOW to utilise it, you would not be sat in front of your PC typing your filth.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
You are the one playing semantic games, not me. The two statements in question have entirely different meanings.
I would not be sat? Your grammar is infantile, your fund of knowledge is extremely poor, your grasp on science is miniscule, and your understanding of the Bible and God is nil.
For the record: neither scientific method nor logic have the ability to magically produce electricity, as you insist they do. What a sorry little fool, and what an ignorant buffoon you are! ROFLMAO!!!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"I would not be sat? Your grammar is infantile, your fund of knowledge is extremely poor, your grasp on science is miniscule, and your understanding of the Bible and God is nil."
Sure, if you misinterpret my statements as you deliberately do... Let's see an example of this now, shall we?
"neither scientific method nor logic have the ability to magically produce electricity, as you insist they do."
I insist they magically produce electricity? What planet did you get THAT interpretation from?
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Everyone knows that logic is a thought process, not an electrical generator, you buffoon. Everyone except you, that is! LOLOLOLOL!!!
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
Bye bye little one.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
"What a sorry little fool, and what an ignorant buffoon you are!"
This is your only recourse. Insults. Hardly surprising since you have no arguments worthy of merit, so you have to use ridicule instead.
"ROFLMAO!!!"
Insane people laugh at the most ridiculous things.
"I would not be sat? Your grammar is infantile,"
Again, focusing on something trivial instead of the actual argument. How original of you people.
This is my very last post to you. Your insults and infantile babbling bore me.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Those are not insults, they are statements of fact -- more like diagnoses.
So, are you admitting your utter defeat this time, the second time you said you'd shut up, or is this statement also a lie, like the last one was? LOL
By the way, you seem very angry and unhappy, but I'm having a great time! Why so glum, chum? Could it be that a good relationship with God provides true happiness, and that lack of such a relationship provides the opposite, as the scriptures state? Food for thought!
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
"By the way, you seem very angry and unhappy,"
Appearances can be deceptive.
"Could it be that a good relationship with God provides true happiness, and that lack of such a relationship provides the opposite, as the scriptures state?"
Nope. Good day to you sir.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
Actually, yes, it is a fact.
Why have you stated 6 or 7 times that you're going away and will not comment any more, and that the conversation is over, and then keep coming back and commenting further?
You dolt -- you do not realize that every time you comment, you continue the very conversation that you are attempting to insist is over! I have honestly never met a buffoon as stupid as you are! LOL!!!
This is one of many examples of how most of the atheist's statements contradict themselves.
Purushadasa 3 years ago 3
Dude, he's right. You are a fucking idiot! It's shitheads like you who give atheism a bad name.
AtheosZero 3 years ago 6
"Dude, he's right. You are a fucking idiot!"
Well thank you for that assessment, sir. I now know to ignore all future comments from one so florid as yourself.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
"well as the right to go out and kill non-believers."
No... Society rules universally (at least in our civilized western world) that murder is wrong.
Oh... And we ARE unbelievers. Shall we start killing ourselves? No actually... Don't answer that, the answer would most likely be yes. After all, we're heathens aren't we?
fs3d 3 years ago
Actually, the atheist believes, incorrectly, that God somehow doesn't exist.
Also, it is the scriptures that state "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and disobeying this is a strictly atheistic tendency.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"Also, it is the scriptures that state "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and disobeying this is a strictly atheistic tendency."
The ten commandment state thou shalt not kill... Yet the very same Bible also states that the Israelites are commanded to go kill the men, children and babies, and that you can keep the women for yourselves. Don't talk to me about Atheism promoting killing. We don't. I abhor violence, unlike you.
You have no basis for calling our lack of a belief incorrect...
fs3d 3 years ago
You have no evidence for the supernatural, much less your particular theistic belief. Only you cannot see that as you are a fundamentalist radical.
"You are unteachable, and your anger management issues bore me."
I'm not angry. You're projecting your own character traits onto me. That is not welcome.
It is you who is unteachable. Keep your beliefs to yourself instead of trying to ram them down our throats with threats of hell and torture. Good day to you. Conversation over.
fs3d 3 years ago
:::yawn:::
Purushadasa 3 years ago
My thought exactly.
fs3d 3 years ago
Is that what you do when you accidentally display yet another contradiction in Christianity?
17Yankees17 3 years ago
Reputable sources ALWAYS place chapter and verse numbers in Biblical quotes. Disreputable sources usually fail to include chapter and verse, as you have failed to do above, and usually for the express purpose of purposely misquoting the Bible for their own selfish ends.
In any case, you are the furthest thing from a Biblical scholar, your understanding of the Bible is deeply flawed, and your statement above regarding killing is yours alone, and appears nowhere in the Bible.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"Reputable sources ALWAYS place chapter and verse numbers in Biblical quotes."
"Reputable" sources like yours don't provide ANY evidence whatsoever for their claims.
As for the rest of your attempt to smear my character... If you insist, you're right. Absolutely right. You people are never EVER wrong.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
You are the one who has failed to provide any evidence for your unscientific claims.
You also misquoted the Bible and failed to provide chapter and verse numbers. The reason why you failed to do so is that your misquote is obviously a dirty lie, and you are afraid to be proven wrong on this point, as you have foolishly done on so many others.
Thank you for admitting that I am right, but that is already quite obvious.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"You are the one who has failed to provide any evidence for your unscientific claims."
Science cannot comment on the supernatural. Your attempt to prove the supernatural with the scientific method fails on every account.
"You also misquoted the Bible and failed to provide chapter and verse numbers."
That's easily rectified.
"The reason why you failed to do so is that your misquote is obviously a dirty lie,"
If you insist, fanatic.
"and you are afraid to be proven wrong-"
I'm not insane.
FSAthe1st 3 years ago
You state above that science cannot comment on the supernatural. That is itself a comment on the supernatural, and so it is definitely an unscientific statement, as are all the rest of your foolish statements.
I have not ever attempted to prove the supernatural -- you have a very vivid imagination!
You are the insane fanatic here, not me.
You cannot provide chapter and verse for your biblical misquote because it is your statement alone, and appears nowhere in the Bible.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"Yes, atheism does have fear inducement, a set of rules to live by,"
How does saying "I don't believe in fairy tales" a set of rules to live by? Get a clue. Rules are determined by societal need. Those are the rules I live by, my society's.
"a counterfeit "god" to worship (actually, many),"
Name one.
"and a declaration that a chosen group will gain eternal favor over others.."
We cease to be in the future. We are NOT eternal. This invalidates your projection.
fs3d 3 years ago
You are unteachable, and your anger management issues bore me. End conversation.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FACTS ABOUT GOD: Ask and ye shall receive.
Have a question about God that you need answered?
Go to my channel, "Purushadasa," and ask there.
Any and all questions will be answered with factual knowledge about God. The facts are there; you have just been asking in the wrong place!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"FACTS ABOUT GOD: Ask and ye shall receive."
Cool. Cure all disease.
No?
Oh yeah... Guess it's not meant to be a literal interpretation after all.
fs3d 3 years ago
I'm a priest, not a doctor; your post is 100% nonsensical and irrelevant.
I guarantee factual answers to questions about God at my channel, "Purushadasa." Go there today for the answers to your questions!
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"I'm a priest, not a doctor; your post is 100% nonsensical and irrelevant. "
Well done. It doesn't justify your Bible's proclamation that
"Nothing will be impossible to you" when you have unswerving faith because lots of people have unswerving faith in Christianity in it's various forms, yet double blind study results have demonstrated that when it comes to the power of prayer, "nothing will be impossible to you" actually means "lots of things will be impossible to you".
fs3d 3 years ago
The Bible is not mine.
The Bible was not referring to unswerving faith in Christianity, it was referring to unswerving faith in God.
You are not qualified to judge who does and who does not have unswerving faith, nor is any double-blind test qualified to judge how much swerve someone's faith has.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"The Bible was not referring to unswerving faith in Christianity, it was referring to unswerving faith in God."
Same difference. These people have unswerving faith in their God, yet they suffer despite the promises specifically stated in the Bible that prayer works (when anyone who has a brain can see they don't).
"You are not qualified to judge who does and who does not have unswerving faith, nor is any double-blind test..."
Neither do you. The test demonstrated that prayer doesn't work.
fs3d 3 years ago
Look up John Robbins of Trinity Foundation, and listen to his lectures on "How Not To Do Apologetics". You'll see how rational true Scripturalism truly is, and how much atheism begs the question.
Hockeyfan22168 4 years ago
Hockeyfan
Wouldn't that depend on the particular Scripture.
Wouldn't you need a true Scripture to "see how rational true Scripturalism truly is"
I will go and listen to JR because I must be missing the point.
Atheism doesn't beg a question. It is simply the lack of belief in a deity.
hilbert54 3 years ago
By my comment, I mean that the usual arguments for God have the same philosophical problems as the atheist, who begins with an assumption he can't prove.
The lack of a belief in a diety is agnosticism. The assertion that there is no diety is atheism.
Hockeyfan22168 3 years ago
The lack of knowledge of one's own beliefs is agnosticism. The lack of leaps of faith is atheism.
Gugolpl0x 3 years ago
Theism: The belief or conviction held in respect of a specific religious belief as defined by a series of holy texts or scriptures eg the Bible/Quran.
A-Theism: The lack... Of such beliefs.
Agnosticism: The polar opposite of Gnosticism: Gnosticism is the conviction that you know the nature of the supernatural. Agnosticism is the recognition that you cannot or do not.
I am an Agnostic Atheist.
fs3d 3 years ago
No, atheism is a counterfeit religion.
Just as counterfeit bills have all the external trappings, but lack real value, so the counterfeit religion, atheism, has all the external trappings of any authentic religion, but lacks the real valuable item: love of God.
The atheist wrongly believes that God somehow doesn't exist, but theists have no beliefs or disbeliefs about God, only factual knowledge.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
You just keep telling yourself that.
Good luck.
hilbert54 3 years ago
"No, atheism is a counterfeit religion."
Atheism isn't a religion.
"has all the external trappings of any authentic religion"
Such as fear inducement, a set of rules to live by, a God to worship, and a declaration that a chosen group will gain eternal favour over all others as well as the right to go out and kill non believers?
Get a clue.
fs3d 3 years ago
In the same way that counterfeit bills are not money, atheism is not a religion. It is a counterfeit religion.
Yes, atheism does have fear inducement, a set of rules to live by, a counterfeit "god" to worship (actually, many), and a declaration that a chosen group will gain eternal favor over others as well as the right to go out and kill non-believers.
All the above are coming from your atheistic consciousness, not from theism.
Purushadasa 3 years ago
"In the same way that counterfeit bills are not money, atheism is not a religion. It is a counterfeit religion."
You can keep plugging those finders in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you I believe in God Atheism is the work of the Devil" all you want... Doesn't change the fact that Atheism makes NO statements other than "I don't believe in any Gods".
"All the above are coming from your atheistic consciousness, not from theism."
Freudian Projection on your part.
fs3d 3 years ago
Thr problem is, no logical theist or Creationist would argue like that. You're completely right, those are illogical, but I believe in logic, which is why I'm not an atheist.
gontisq 4 years ago
gontisq
I tend to agree, no logical theist would make that argument.
Although all logical people occasionally make illogical statements and actions.
Are there any logical creationists?
I know plenty of illogical atheists, but what is illogical about atheism?
hilbert54 3 years ago
Believing in logic is a leap of faith.
Gugolpl0x 3 years ago
"Believing in logic is a leap of faith."
Uhhhh... Okay.
fs3d 3 years ago
Yurp.
Can you logically justify the existence of logic?
Gugolpl0x 3 years ago
yawn........its bash religion time ...again ...how original..........yawn I think Ill go back to Kant...to jump start mon tete...adieu
trompette1 4 years ago
Nietzsche pwns Kant
gistambo 4 years ago
I would say that it is the same because they (all the propositions) are just as well known as each other (i.e., they all have the same amount of evidence and same logical basis).
Also, the alleged literary work of god (the bible) is filled with misunderstandings of science, self-contradictions, etc. and therefore does not make the idea of god any stronger than that of the Easter Bunny.
Honestly "Harry Potter" is a stronger literary force in the realm of fact than the bible.
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
I have read the transcript of the Bahnsen v. Stein debate and I am ready to dissect it.
(Note: I apologize for how I have broken down my response, but it was necessarily long.)
Bahnsen starts the debate with a straw man: he mentions that Stein has said that the question of god should be approached like any other matter of fact -- he then goes on to talk about various questions (boxes of crackers, barometric pressure, etc.) --
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
completely missing Stein's point that ALL questions should be investigated logically/methodically (NOT that all things should be evaluated using the exact same steps). That is to say, when reasoning methodically/logically, we start off assuming a null hypothesis (that our hypothesis is wrong), and then we collect data in an attempt to reject that null and affirm our alternative hypothesis.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, he brings up political obligations and beauty under the heading of facts to be investigated; when, in reality, these are subjective human concepts and not facts. A fact is objectively true; an opinion, such as saying that a particular person or object is beautiful, is NOT a fact. Purely human constructions such as these have no place in a debate regarding fact (or validity of a philosophical system),
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
and Bahnsen is engaging in a straw man by a) ignoring/not getting Stein's point that all claims should be approached using a logical method (Stein did NOT mean that all claims should be approached with the exact same steps as Bahnsen implies), and b) by clumping subjective human constructs, such as aesthetics, art, law, etc. into the category of 'facts.'
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, if one is to then say that the question of the existence of god is not one of fact, then since either way the triune Christian god would not be a matter of fact, trying to defend it would be a wholly pointless endeavor. Essentially, there is no point in trying to defend a conception if you admit that that conception is not even a matter of fact; this is why Christians logically must defend their god (try to provide evidence) as if it were a matter of fact.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Next, Bahsen talks of Stein's claims that logic and reason are the only ways to objectively gain data/test hypotheses. We can see that Stein's claims are valid by using counter-examples against all forms of data collection/hypothesis testing (such as anecdotal stories, personal 'feelings', subjective perceptions [which cognitive psychology has shown can, and often are, quite incorrect, etc.]).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Essentially, logic and reason are the only methods that, when applied correctly (emphasis on the word 'correctly') ALWAYS can test a claim (statistically speaking).
If we were to claim that only paths of knowledge-gathering that actually lead to facts are valid, then all that we are left with is logic and reason
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
(i.e., only logic and reasoning are convergent thought processes when applied to claim testing; personal feelings, etc. are divergent methods of thinking [they can have the same start point and lead to radically different subjective answers]).
If you know of another method that can be used to test a claim, one that always works when applied correctly and leads to convergent thinking when applied to the same situation, then please state it now.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Next, Bahnsen goes on to speak of "evidences for god".
-He talks about the order of creation. I have multiple points here (I will list them in order of importance). 1) Things that are completely random (expect for the physical principles governing them) can SEEM ordered, when they are not. One cannot 'infer' design because human minds often SEE design where there is none -- this has been shown in psychological research (paredolia, random computer-generated patterns, etc.).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
2) Even if we made the absurd presupposition of order, and that order implied an 'orderer', then Bahnsen is jumping to a hasty conclusion that the 'orderer' is his god, and not another god, such as Thor. Also, this argument refutes itself because it claims that order had to be ordered, but that the orderer (who would clearly be ordered) did not have an orderer [hence, this is self-refuting] (when applied honestly, this logic leads to an infinite regression of deities).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
-He talks about historical evidence. 1) There is NO archeological/outside historical sources to support the thousands of Jewish slaves leaving Egypt (escaping slavery), 2) no evidence of the resurrection of a rabble-rouser known as Jesus after his death [This is a baseless assertion that Bahnsen repeats far too often.],
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
3) no evidence from contemporaneous historians, etc. of any such thing as a virgin birth (interesting side note -- men have claimed to have been of virgin-birth LONG before the 'time of Jesus', and many claimed the same during the time of Jesus -- including other self-proclaimed prophets at the same time). This list could go on, but I digress.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
3) no evidence from contemporaneous historians, etc. of any such thing as a virgin birth (interesting side note -- men have claimed to have been of virgin-birth LONG before the 'time of Jesus', and many claimed the same during the time of Jesus -- including other self-proclaimed prophets at the same time). This list could go on, but I digress.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
-He talks about the Bible's 'historical accuracy', coherence over time, etc. 1) MANY religions/fictional stories in the past incorporated SOME fact into their stories, but, just like the Bible, there are many stories (such as the resurrection) that are wholly unsupported by evidence. The bible is not unique (just look at the fact that many old Greek stories do the same thing).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
2) The bible is not even internally coherent, nor do its 'morals' have any place in modern society (such as killing those who work Sundays). ETC.
Basically, Bahnsen has made many radical assertions that the evidence actually CONTRADICTS. His argument thus far is filled with assertion, holes, and other flaws.
Next he brings up the transcendental argument for his god (TAG). This is an old one that has been beaten down MANY times, but I will do it again.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
First off, this argument does not support any particular deity. Using this argument, we can argue just as easily for Thor or Vishnu or any other made-up concept of supernatural power in the form of a deity(or deities) as we can for the Christian god.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, just because an individual (such as Bahnsen) may not be able to understand the world unless they view it through the conceptual framework of a deity does NOT mean that that deity exists. In fact, it may speak more to the inability of the individual to understand reality without creating extra, unnecessary, layers of conceptualization.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, the TAG uses circular reasoning; it presupposes that there is a particular deity before it tries to claim that all things only make sense in light of that presupposition. This presuppositional reasoning is the heart of the TAG; when this same reasoning is applied to any other topic we clearly see that it does not result in convergent thinking/objective truth. It can be used to justify ANY observed phenomenon/result while claiming the existence of any god(s).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, the argument presupposes an absolute morality, and since morality is merely a human construct, and it is known that all people/cultures have different morals, we know that this is a patently false presupposition.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Note that saying that absolute morals do not exist is an absolute claim, but that it is not self-refuting because it is not an absolute moral claim (too often people do not understand that moral claims are a subset of all claims, and therefore saying that there are no absolute moral truths is not an absolute moral truth because it is a truth that is outside of the subset of moral truths).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
I will not comment on Stein's opening comments (I will say this: sadly, I find that he does not develop on the points quite as much/in the direction that I have).
In the following sections Bahnsen misunderstands Steins' questions; or intentionally engages in red herrings to avoid them (e.g., Bahnsen uses circular reasoning regarding the bible, god, etc. and Stein calls him on it, but Bahnsen sidesteps the issue multiple times).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, Bahnsen claims that his god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. First off, omnipotence is an inherently self-refuting idea (think of this: Can this god make a rock that he cannot lift? Either answer contradicts omnipotence). Also, these three things cannot exist unless benevolence is defined as "whatever occurs; no matter how harmful it is, or who it harms"
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
(think of the classic problem of evil -- omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence cannot coexist in one being unless the human construction known as "good" is strictly defined as "whatever occurs is what the presupposed deity wants, and the deity is presupposed to be good, therefore all seemingly bad/harmful things that happen are actually from this "good" deity and are therefore inherently good;
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
This would mean that rape (and all other harmful actions) is considered good according to this presupposed deity;
also think about the contradiction of omniscience and free will -- they are mutually exclusive ideas).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Bahnsen also misunderstands the definition of an atheist. An atheist is merely one who does not believe in any god, (s)he does not 'deny' god anymore than the Christian 'denies' the existence of Zeus. An atheist is simply someone who has logically reasoned (usually based on the burden of proof, parsimony, etc.) that there are no god(s); just as most people reason that there is no Easter Bunny.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Bahnsen also misunderstands that this definition of atheism does not make is always true as he suggests; it merely relies on the burden of proof, and since theists such as himself cannot provide ONE piece of material evidence/ONE logical philosophical argument for god, it does mean that atheism is the logical position; just as a non-belief in the Easter Bunny is the logical position since no one has yet provided any evidence of the Easter Bunny.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, Bahnsen then attempts to address the fact that many people think in logical contradictions, but in his argument in which he tries to suggest that logical reasoning is universal, he ignores the fact that the majority of mankind engages in illogical reasoning on a regular basis without even realizing that their reasoning is illogical.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
His basic ignorance of cognitive science as it pertains to logic betrays him here; because if all people do not gravitate towards logical reasoning, then his TAG based on logic is inherently flawed; cognitive science has shown us that many people do not even recognize illogical arguments (and in fact, they engage in them on a regular basis), this means that Bahnsen's TAG based on logic is inherently flawed.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, the same TA could be used as an alleged 'proof' for Zeus or even Athena -- The argument is also circular in that it presupposed that existence of a deity based on nothing.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
The reality is that the laws of logic are objectively true simply because, when applied properly, they always result in the correct conclusion; however, most people do not naturally gravitate towards logical reasoning, which was the basic assumption of Bahnsen's argument (he claimed universality of logic; which is clearly not so [also note that logic is quite different in many eastern philosophies than in western philosophies]).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
In other words (slightly oversimplified words), logic is similar to a yardstick -- when used properly you always will get the same measurements (statistically speaking), no matter who uses it. However, not everyone knows how to properly use it.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Even though we can never account for 100% of all possible cases, all observations to date validate logic (just as all observations to date validate gravity, conservation of energy, evolution, etc.). This is what is meant by Stein; and this is what Bahnsen does not seem to understand.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
For a slightly different perspective, see:
Vexen [DOT] co [DOT] uk/religion/god_logic [DOT] html
Next, Bahnsen misunderstands that evolution/the chemical process of abiogenesis are not random, and he also uses a proof by assertion fallacy when he claims that life is more than electrochemical complexes; there is no evidence that life is anything more than electrochemical processes --
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Bahnsen sure does like to make absurd assertions that have no basis, and, in fact, ignore observations of physical reality -- he style very much reminds me of a politician trying to trick the ignorant masses into following him even though there is no substance behind his words.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Stein hits the nail right on the head when he points out that the first cause arguments and design arguments ask the wrong questions; that is to say that they presuppose things that are simply not reasonable to presuppose. (Also, both of these arguments suffer from a recursive regression [i.e., infinite regression] fallacy which renders them useless, OR they refute themselves by discarding their own logic).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
In the second segment Bahnsen engages in a red herring by merely asserting that Stein is simply name calling while avoiding Stein's valid logical criticisms of Bahnsen's TAG. Bahnsen is being intellectually dishonest by using a red herring.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Also, he clearly did not listen to Stein; he claims that Stein merely asserted that the laws of logic are so -- what Stein ACTUALLY did was essentially say that since every time that they have been observed they behave in a certain manner, we can assume that things act in that manner.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
I have slightly oversimplified his argument, but that is the core of it. Bahnsen seems very bad at understanding Stein's arguments, perhaps he should have been paying more attention during the debate.
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
Bahnsen continues on in this vein for a while; I am highly disappointed in Bahnsen, he could have actually tried to address Stein's arguments, but instead he chose to ignore what Stein said, and engage in a straw man and a red herring. Truly disappointing (esp. the repeated straw men from Bahnsen).
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago
The debate goes on without Bahnsen actually addressing Stein's points for a while, and Stein repeating the same points to Bahnsen, asking for rebuttals of the logical points but getting none -- this stagnation lasts for quite some time...
(c...)
GreenDragon23 4 years ago