Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith debate (part 4 of 6)

The Case For / Against God, Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith radio debate. Part 4 of 6.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• rational
• response
• squad
• blasphemy
• challenge
• atheism
• christianity
• awesome
• god
• jesus
• atheist
• holy
• spirit
• TAG
• calvin
• sproul

[Bewareofthewolves]

The Atheist (on this occasion, George smith) is so dead in sin that they can not even begin to respond to the actual argumentation that Bahnsen is presenting. All they can do is distort Bahnsens points and attack strawmen.

[a5dr3]

No, Bahnsen is about a billion light years beyond "forgetting" the Law of Identity. He is asking for a valid epistemological system by which to justify the intelligibility of experience. The Law of Identity itself needs a basis and is only one small aspect of a system of thought. And even if you could somehow construct a system around a self proclaimed "Law" no matter how reasonable or absurd the law, it would still be upon examination just an arbitrary faith commitment.

[CaptainSmallFoot]

This isn't a debate regarding the case for or against God. This is a debate that can't stay on topic regarding the logic of consistency within a thing and ethics. =/

I find it odd that Bahnsen depraves Christianity of necessarily having anything to do with the Christian religion, and basically declares any moral person a Christian--whether they be self professed or closet-case Christians. This is basically the conversation:

Smith: I believe this because x,y,z.

Bahnsen: No, because God.

[templarart]

@reo345678 Short answer: A 'god' is a powerful, worshiped, supernatural being like Thor, Zeus, Ra etc. A god is not necessarily a creator and a creator is not necessarily a god. God (capital 'G'), is the name of the Jewish/Christian god; God the god. A non-god, (non-religion) creator is an unknown alien being, irrelevant to our lives and no different from a natural event. Deists do not believe in 'God the god' or any other gods. Deists often use the Xtian formal name 'God', but it isn't a god.

[reo345678]

@templarart Yes they do. A deist believes that God created the world and established laws and let it run by itself. Thus, they have a basis for the morality that they promote. And in case you didn't know many of the people who formulated those great documents such as Roger Sherman, George Washington, and others were Christians. Plus, the outstanding creed of an atheist is that there is no God. If a deist claims that there is a God how could you say they are the same?

[templarart]

@reo345678 I'm not sure I understand what case you've rested. What you quoted was written by a deist who did NOT believe in the Christian god. Deists and atheists are much closer in ideology than deists and theists - in fact a deist could be called a type of atheist. Note: A-Theism not A-Deism. Atheists don't believe in gods which are powerful, supernatural beings attached to religions. Deists don't believe in these thing either.

[reo345678]

@templarart "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"...I rest my case

[templarart]

@Creationcreed In the case of a god, I would expect a real god to behave differently from a fake god. I would expect real miracles, interventions, detailed-fulfilled prophecies, appearances, a book that was accurate and provided information well before its time. I would expect the clergy of a real god to be different from the conmen clergy of other gods that live off of the gullibility of their marks while lying to them. Any of these. I just expect a real god to be different from a fake god.

[Creationcreed]

@templarart You do agree we have to use logic and evidence. But what kind of evidence would you need to say "There is a God!"?

[templarart]

@Creationcreed It's the only reliable way. You can guess and be right. Your mom might tell you some old stories that may turn out to be true. You might feel a certain way that ends up being correct but none of these methods are reliable and coming to any truth in this way is just pure luck. The process of objectively examining propositions using evidence and logic is the best method of arriving at the truth.

[Creationcreed]

@templarart Do you believe that the scientific method is the only way of finding out whether or not something is real or true?