Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 6 of 14)

Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein - The Great Debate: Does God Exist? (part 6 of 14)

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• christianity
• debate
• philosophy
• dawkins
• harris
• apologetics
• TAG
• empiricism
• materialism

[fiercegallantry]

You're insane. Stein looks like a complete poltroon.  So do you.

[fiercegallantry]

Sorry, you really do not know what you are talking about. Your appeal to anti-intellectualism is rather humorous in light of the common atheist pretenses.

Science presupposes categories, concepts, numbers, law of logic, principles of mathematics, and the "uniformity of nature." In this sense, science depends on philosophical assumptions. Undeniably so.

[FreakShizzlez]

@fiercegallantry "Science" itself is the presupposition of empiricism. The belief that "empiricism is all there is" is a believer's mantra and a philosophical/religious doctrine, as there is no empirical way to prove such a thing.

[JanJiska]

@Invictaism,

Which god? There are thousands which have been worshipped across the world since the dawn of man - which one will always win?

[Invictaism]

wow dr. bahnsen is annihilated stein. God will win. Always.

[1noen1]

The laws of logic are based on observation????

You see, what happens is these idiots think that because they managed to get a PhD. that they then know everything.

[JanJiska]

Which God?

There are thousands to choose from all claiming that they are the only one which is true and right.

[megenoita]

You created a non-existent caricature of the transcendental argument. It doesn't say "I have a better epistemology"; it says the atheist's is incoherent, and the Christian Theist's is the ONLY one that is logically coherent. Once that is established, it is the only logical conclusion that God must be true.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Oh, and lets not lose sight of what you are trying to prove:

The Magic Man in the sky.

If you actually want to make a positive argument towards that idea, go right ahead!

Most of you children havn't even started to define and justify that silly little thing before you arrogantly cry about this bullshit, so try to work towards that, boy. I'll wait.

[ThatOneQuestion]

Remember when I said:

Try actually making a real argument based on something substantial, or just dont bother.

That comment didn't qualify.

Dont make shit up, like that bogus appeal, and try again.

Your categories of "philosophy" are a joke.

Do you have anything else?

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Sorry, you really do not know what you are talking about."

That is exactly what can be said about your laughable comment.

You are a retard, and clearly not worth much effort. You are still an ignorant fool without much of an education, and making shit up like your "appeal to anti-intellectualism" really makes me laugh.

Have a nice day, kid.