Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 10 of 14)

Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein - The Great Debate: Does God Exist? (part 10 of 14)

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• the
• transcendental
• argument
• for
• existence
• of
• god
• rational
• response
• squad
• apologetics
• TAG
• atheism
• richard
• dawkins

[RbnHd123456]

Bahnsen is destroying Stein!

[SaintsEdified]

@JanJiska

I notice that you keep repeating yourself in your comments to others: "Which religion? Which god? What religion are you talking about? etc..." But you need to understand that this debate was not to prove other gods wrong and the Christian God to be true. It was to prove that there is evidence for the existence of God and the unbelieving worldview is flawed. Bahnsen demonstrated that very well and Stein failed to prove his position correct.

[JanJiska]

@SaintsEdified,

"disregard what I said about you confusing the laws of logic"

Not disregared, merely rebutted.

"nor did I think you would disregard my reply to your already-answered question about Bahnsen not proving every other religion false."

Not disregared merely rebutted. Christianity is a monotheistic religion, to prove it to be true requires showing how the evidence could not be attributed to other means.

You appear to have no answer to this?

[SaintsEdified]

@JanJiska (2)

Now, if you want to assume that I have "nothing further to bring on the table" then go ahead and stick with that assumption if it makes you happy. Anyone can look at this thread and see who brought what to the table.

I'm not about wasting time, so I apologize if I seem unwilling to talk to you now, but you left me no choice but to assume that you're not considering anything I say. But I wish you the best! Take care.

[SaintsEdified]

@JanJiska (1)

There are no personal attacks, but simply an honest observation of mine. I sincerely thought that you would come back and not disregard what I said about you confusing the laws of logic nor did I think you would disregard my reply to your already-answered question about Bahnsen not proving every other religion false. You instead respond with one lousy sentence. It's clear that you are not trying to understand what you oppose; it seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

[JanJiska]

@SaintsEdified,

I did not so much disregarded what you said as rebutted it.

Sorry about the two week delay, I only use YouTube when I am at work and I was off work for Christmas.

Anyway, should I assume by you resorting to personal attacks that you have nothing further the bring to the table?

[SaintsEdified]

@JanJiska

Yeah, you pretty much disregarded everything I said. I thought after two weeks of you not responding that you would at least give a good response... I guess that's not the case with you. Take care now.

[JanJiska]

@SaintsEdified,

*Bahnsen explicitly said that this debate is "whether atheism or Christian theism are objectively true." *

Christianity is monotheistic and therefore to prove it is objectively true requires proving that nothing else can be providing the effects which are claimed as it's evidence.

[SaintsEdified]

@JanJiska (2)

logic are part of God's nature. Also, creator arguments can be used for Christian arguments. What you've done is completely miss the point of this debate. You think Bahnsen failed because he didn't thoroughly prove the Biblical God to be the only deity in the universe. If you wanted to hear a debate about which religion is true then you are on the wrong channel.