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

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

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Atheist
• Christian
• God
• Atheism
• Agnostic
• Scientist
• Psalms
• George
• Bush
• Prejudice
• Bible

[MCulpa]

This debate was neither person's best work, but part of that is du

I don't know much about Smith, but Bahnsen's debate with Stein is much better than this one!

[CaptainSmallFoot]

I find no relationship between the title of these videos and the content. I've read many of Smith's published lectures, media material, articles and books, and only recently came across Bahnsen on youtube. I think both of them were severely under-performing in this "debate." I honestly feel like I wasted my time watching these. =(

[niggaids]

On top of, it's hard to understand his argument in one sitting but if we can abstract things like love/mathematics/gravity and put them into categories then we can do that with God too but He isn't literally just an abstraction (an idea) because He created "logic" and "ideas". God reveals Himself to us the sense that we're made in His image, since we can abstract things in the universe that He made, we can do the same with Him but He's more than just an abstraction.

[niggaids]

@mgt247 I don't think you heard him out either. Basically Bahnsen proves that in an atheist universe, only materials exist, that meaning that "abstractions," or ideas we put on things/categories, aren't necessary in the sense that the brain shouldn't need categories; it should just take us along for a ride and we're not making choices, we're just by products of chemicals, "thought is unnecessary." that doesn't make sense and thus how can we even know if we're dealing with reality?

[templarart]

@emptyquarter1 I never get an answer to that question. You see this whole presup thing is really nothing more than a semantic sleight of hand meant to trap your opponent with fallacious arguments inside fallacious arguments inside fallacious arguments. Asking a simple, straightforward question like: "What method would you use to discern fact from fiction." wipes all the 3-Card Monty semantic tricks off the table leaving you with a real, relevant question that Christians won't answer..

[AOPrinciple]

@emptyquarter1 We're just retreading old ground at this point, and I'm just waiting for you to openly admit what you've implicitly admitted several times already.

[AOPrinciple]

@emptyquarter1

You conceded that the edifice of scientific inquiry presupposes axioms unprovable on grounds other than an appeal to their own authority. In admitting that you have conceded that science is not a method capable of evaluating every kind of claim. Back to Bahnsen's point; one kind of claim science (aka the materialist's worldview) is that abstract entities "exist." Logic, aesthetic values, etc...

[AOPrinciple]

@emptyquarter1

Of course, I'm not suggesting that science has not been a fruitful pursuit in human history, and it's foolish to infer that I was making that point. The efficacy of medical and technological advancements is a red herring. Obviously, if science presupposes axioms that it is not in a position to validate, such as math or logic, then science is not the end-all of human knowledge; other non-scientific endeavors are legitimate as well. And you've virtually conceded that.

[AOPrinciple]

@emptyquarter1

3

If science can't address something, you don't relegate that question to innanity, you investigate in an appropriate way. Science will never, and could never (ever [ever]) validate or falsify the existence of the laws of logic, mathematical theories, aesthetic values, etc... Science, to operate, presupposes math and logic, as well as the scientific method itself. The kind of logical positivism you seem to espouse has been long regarded as self-referentially incoherent.

[AOPrinciple]

@emptyquarter1

2

When you use the word "science" I get the feeling that you mean methodological naturalism, and beyond the scope of that method, assignments of truth and falsity have no meaning, or are at least groundless. I think you need to wake up and realize that by definition, the scientific method is imply not equipped to address some issues and concerns. How could empirical observation ever validate or falsify theories regarding IMmaterial, abstract entities and concepts?