Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein: The Great Debate (FULL)

Known as one of the better debates on the existence of God.
Christian Theist: Greg Bahnsen
Atheist: Gordon Stein

To skip introduction and go straight to the debate go to the 7:00 minute.

I want to know what you guys think. Who won the debate? and why? I personally think that Dr. Greg Bahnsen won by a landslide because Gordon Stein didn't even begin to justify his belief in laws of logic, science and morality. Without justifying those three first, he cannot move on to debate other things that follow after, like why nature is uniformed, existence of God and so on.

PDF transcript: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Ste...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Greg
• Bahnsen
• Vs
• Gordon
• Stein
• The
• Great
• Debate
• Full
• Theism
• Atheism
• Christianity
• God
• Jesus
• Bible
• Existence
• richard
• dawkins
• darwin
• intelligent
• creationism
• logic
• truth
• proof
• reason
• Philosophy
• Kant
• Hume
• Aristotle
• Nietzsche

[droptozro]

Thanks for posting this entire thing, part of it was missing from the gregbahnsen youtube site. Great apologetics even though I now use presuppositionalism against Calvinism(which is what many of those proposing it teach, like Bahnsen).  When I first came across it--it revealed how I was being idolatrous in my mind and why the debates I had never seemed to have any fruition with unbelievers. Now, after much use it's simple to see the holes in all their positions.

[ArginGerigorian]

@droptozro " I now use presuppositionalism against Calvinism"

that's like saying I'm going to use the Word of God against the Word of God. If you are a presupp. then it logically follows that you adhere to the doctrines of grace.

Can you elaborate more on what you mean?

[droptozro]

@ArginGerigorian

Calvinism is the word of God? That's...idolatry. Hope that's not what you really mean in claiming that.

I elaborated a bit below, but we could go through all 5 points. Calvinism is a worldview, a system of consistent thought that's is thought to be from the Scriptures--but if we're consistent with presuppositionalism--we know that's not true, we have a view to some degree we're imposing on Scripture no matter how objective we attempt to be--but we should seek objectivity.

[ArginGerigorian]

@droptozro I said it's like saying... as in it's like this example.

*sigh, i hate chatting over youtube. Do you have a skype or something because this is a first, I've never heard of anyone who is (might I say Arminian) and holds to presupp. It's a contradiction.

[ArginGerigorian]

@indignant99 And yet all you have done is enter the debate by name calling. You wouldn't even accept logic if it hit you right in the head.

"His logic was not logic": I don't get that, what do you mean? The Christian is the only one who can account for logic. God has made the world and everything in it (even laws of logic). Paul says, in Colossians 2:3-4 speaking about Christ. That in Him (Jesus) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. In Christ alone is there knowledge.

[RyuSei00555]

Clear Dr. Bahnsen won that debate.

BTW, since both of the debaters are dead - they both know who really won...!

[shadywolf91]

Hmm I don't think theists look very hard if they think Dr. Bahnsen is convincing. It appears that this seems convincing because of Dr. Gordon doesn't present his argument very well.

[Stevarious]

The assumption that the logical absolutes needed to be created by something or someone is as baseless as the assumption that the universe needed to be created, or that god needed to be created, because it's an argument from ignorance. You are going to have to do better than that before you can call TAG 'proof of the existence of god' - until then, TAG is simply 'circular justification for the belief that I already hold'.

[Stevarious]

TAG as presented here by Dr. Bahnsen is a fairly complex argument, but can be boiled down to a simple argument from ignorance - That is, atheists don't know where the laws of logic come from, therefore god. That is, if there's logical absolutes, something must have existed to create the logical absolutes - which contains the baseless assumption that the logical absolutes needed to be created. Which is as unsatisfying to non-believers as when an atheist asks "Well, then, who created god?"

[Stevarious]

That was a really interesting debate. How come they don't do it in this format any more? I quite enjoyed the bit where they asked each other questions and I would have really enjoyed a debate in this style between, say, WLC and Christopher Hitchens, or two similar modern luminaries.

It's quite clear that Dr. Bahnsen won the debate, as Stein had no good response to the TAG argument.

Unfortunately (for theists) that doesn't make Bahnsen right.

[Hoogz20]

@ArginGerigorian I'm not a calvinist and I hold to presuppositionalism as well. I'm a Bible believing Christian. Calvinism and Arminian beliefs are both unbiblical extremes. Let the Bible interpret the Bible!

[megenoimi]

This was an epic slaughter.

[bedajo28]

@NikTheJew The way you decide if your presuppositions are correct are by internally critiquing them. The naturalist says that everything that is is nature. But if that is the case then there are no such things such as universal concepts. Nature is all that is, is a universally concept therefore, it is a contradictory worldview and cannot be correct. I believe with absolute certainty that the only consistent and true worldview is the Reformed Christians view.

[bedajo28]

@NikTheJew I personally have not observed any obvious miracles but others have and they recorded them in the Bible. However, you do not accept that as evidence because it is contrary to your worldview to believe in the supernatural. Everyone has an ultimate standard. Yours is human autonomy and reason the Christian's is God and His scriptures. You cannot prove these ultimate standards by bringing in another standard otherwise it would not be ultimate.

[NikTheJew]

@bedajo28 Wait a minute ... can you please tell me how (if) you've observed anything outside of physical laws? And could you please tell me how it is rational to presuppose that there is anything outside of physical laws, although the evidence for such supernatural capacities has yet to be proven? So people who are completely rational, according to you, just make up stuff (like supernatural deities) and that's correct? I don't get it.

[MCulpa]

Wait a second.

a. I'm on youtube.

b. Both the highest rated comments are christian

c. The debate is highly voted when the christian obviously winning.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED