Greg Bahnsen - Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews (part 3)

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen - Basic Training for Defending the Faith. Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews - part three of nine.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• christianity
• debate
• philosophy
• stephen
• gould
• gary
• Demar
• Kenneth
• Gentry
• Westminster

[JohnO318]

w/o exaggerating, one of the very best Christian teachers who Ever lived, Greg Bahnsen.

[mindwis3]

Hi fmmetamc

"@mindwis3 that's a complete mischaracterization ... "

can you specify 'that' ^^ , it was a year ago and you're not so specific so i don't quite follow which remark you are referring to. :)

Thanks,

[fmmetamc]

@mindwis3 that's a complete mischaracterization, and any christian would agree that believing what you said the way you said it is foolish. good thing no christian worth his salt thinks any of those straw men are true.

[plato7770]

Any specific blog?? Tag cannot b refuted!!! Hahahaha

[actionjackson864]

any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to

bahnsenburner.blogspot.com

and prepare to have your arguement incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol

[hydrolito]

@freshmuzic Where is proof god exist? Also if he exist that he is good? If god created all things then he created death, murder, hate, etc. so would be the most evil of all.

[hydrolito]

Morals of Bible god was crude justifying murder of men women and children, rape of virgin women they kept for themselves after killing everyone else, selling a rape victim to rapists, etc are taught in the Bible. Society has evolved we no longer sacrifice people to non existant gods. From Christian stand point no right or wrong as old testament and new testament contradict each other. To religious good is whatever evolkes approval of your god.

[jkeuwk]

Well no, if you're espousing that God must be the standard for morality because the concept of human-defined morality makes you uncomfortable and you'd rather attribute your opinions to the divine so you can say they have "Ontic capacity" then, well, fair enough. Doesn't make it right, but hey, that's your prerogative.

I approve of something because I judge it good, to answer your question. I'd thought it was rhetorical.

[jkeuwk]

The concept does not escape me. You ignore all instances of moral choice where a person is not involved. I get the concept, but it's incorrect. Furthermore, it's irrelevant. The absence of a good God does not erase the presence of all other people on the earth whom one would have an obligation to, so even if I too were to ignore all such instances, it wouldn't matter.

You do like arguing semantics and tangents that let you show off your vocabulary, don't you? Philosophy major at a Christian U?

[jkeuwk]

Of course one can feel an obligation of morality to a nonperson. Vegetarians (the non health-based ones, anyway) feel they are every day. You fail to understand that simply because you are incapable of opening your mind a little bit doesn't mean that everybody else on the planet is similarly limited.