Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith debate (part 1 of 6)

The Case For / Against God, Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith radio debate. Part 1 of 6.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• dawkins
• god
• delusion
• apologetics
• atheism
• hitchens
• harris
• evolution
• TAG
• philosophy
• bible
• jesus
• bahnsen

[steveb0503]

@assasinof6 Wow, you kinda missed the point of my comment. Perhaps that was not the most fool-proof example that I could have given, but I would ask you: Can you think of NO example where lying would be the moral thing to do?

My point was more about the dangers of absolute thinking - where regardless of the circumstances involved, the is only a one-size-fits-all answer. There is a legal term: extenuating circumstances, which is apropos here.

[assasinof6]

@steveb0503

Lying is lying; I would tell him she was indeed there, tell him he has no right to be on my premises, shut and lock the door, and phone the police.

[steveb0503]

@JPBuysjr Cont.

Furthermore, the point you are continuing to miss here is that I don't HAVE to come up with an answer - yours was, is, and ever will be an argument from ignorance: You, me, nor anyone else can come up with an answer - therefore there must be a "God", and he did it - there, now it IS explained.

Really?

Do you truly consider that adequate justification upon which to hang your hat - I mean, considering the importance you attach to this concept?

[steveb0503]

@JPBuysjr Cont.

Secondly, I realize you have been reassured (and subsequently accepted) that we cannot assume anything about reality without first presupposing God, but that assertion is even more baseless than you would claim ours is - you are STILL trying to explain something by the invocation of something which is even more inexplicable - STILL trying to define into existence the ULTIMATE un-caused cause.

If we don't get a free pass, then neither does your "GOD".

[steveb0503]

@JPBuysjr Gawd... not this piffle again.

First of all we're not talking about moralistic standards, but I would point out that even God's moral standards can be viewed in a relativistic light, e.g.; is it ALWAYS wrong to lie? Consider: what if your neighbor - who was being beaten by her husband - sought immediate refuge at your home, only to be sought out by said husband, asked that that you lie and tell him she wasn't there? Wouldn't your moral obligation be to proceed to lie to her husband?

[RandolphLevin]

What a bizarre epistemological assumption Bahnsen entertains. Is his argument a variant of the transcendental argument? What silliness!

[JPBuysjr]

@Raskolnikhov No, he didn't waste it. Your life on earth doesn't really matter because you cease to exist after death. The purpose of life is subjective and Bahnsen chose to spend his one and only life as a professor. He doesnt exist anymore, and he will spend eternity non existent. Thats the Atheist worldview. No sense of purpose, its all subjective. Who are you to say he wasted his life, maybe I think your wasting your life? Why am i wrong in saying that?

[JPBuysjr]

@steveb0503 cont. materialism cannot account for. They steal from the Christian worldview to answer and try to account for these laws. And getting back, you said you see no reason to think God is the reason for the beginning or the uniformity of the universe, then what is the reason?It just happened because it is? thats called begging the question my friend, or it happened by itself?What empirical evidence do you have to support that, there is none. Science doesn't allow anything to come from 0