Greg Bahnsen - Worldviews in Conflict (part 4)

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen - Basic Training for Defending the Faith. Worldviews in Conflict - part four of six.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• epicurus
• plato
• socrates
• aristotle
• greek
• philosophy
• alvin
• plantinga
• derrida
• foucalt
• debate
• faith
• reason
• science

[kyebean]

@Refutingnonsense I don't grant your premise, and presupposing nothing, it makes sense that he, like countless other theists, disables ratings because he doesn't want viewers to have obvious evidence that he is espousing fringe beliefs (within YT community) that most of us find completely bankrupt of intelligence.

[Refutingnonsense]

@kyebean Opinions don't make the argument true or false. Given the premise that what Greg Bahnsen is saying in these series of videos is true, it does follow that the exposure of the utter inconsistency of other worldviews would result highly unpopular. And to prevent people from having a deeper bias based on opinion rather than trying to listen to the actual arguments it does make sense that ratings are disabled. Makes sense to me.

[kyebean]

When someone disables ratings, it strongly suggests, that they know they're in the wrong, or at least very unpopular. It shows that they believe they have a better chance of spreading their video if people aren't allowed to give their opinion of it. Very telling. Censorship is not a valid form of argument.

[fiercegallantry]

Evil computers....

* The moral of the story: Don't read too much into a parable.

[fiercegallantry]

LOL. I thought the same thing.

The moral of hte story: Don't

[CAndiron]

BUT IN A HOT FUDGE SUNDAY SHOP, THE BORROWER DESERVES AT LEAST PART OF THE CREDIT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE SHOP... THEREFORE BAHNSEN IS A SEMI-PELAGIAN!!! AHH!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm kidding.

[claschxtreme]

the notion "natural selection acting upon random mutations" pretty much says it all. If you have a selective function or mechanism that favors one possible outcome over others then the end result is not random, by definition. Compare it to having a lottery draw with numbered balls of different sizes.

[pikechris1]

good, you are eligible to believe what you want, however im "forced" to say experiments invalidate your position.

have a nice day. :)

[pikechris1]

last but not least, no one is immune to hyperbolic doubt. we (especially i) dont need epistemological explanations in this case, although its fine if we find them.

a simple experiment would prove it for us. program a rat with hyperbolic doubt and it dies. program a human being with hyperbolic doubt and it dies as well. and with die i dont mean dying at the end of its life cycle, but just because of hyperbolic doubt.

[pikechris1]

my english is too simplistic. well, at least we can communicate at a level where we can somewhat discuss those things, but the stress lies on "somewhat" and its evident thats not enough.

my german professor was a historian and theologian as well. so you can imagine...

concerning plantingas position; i see it invalidated. ive read trough some of his responses and he got involved, just as i would have predicted, in a semantics dispute.