Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 1 of 14)

i must say that the comment on this video are amazing, i mean i didn't even watch the video.

for all practical purposes, God kills every human that has ever existed. He is the Giver and Taker of life.

as the Creator, God has the right to do with His creation what He wants.

God does not give us a morally sufficient reason for everything He does, but He does tell us (in the Bible--God's revelation of Himself to humans) that He has one.

this is irrelevant. God is not Who i, or anyone else, decide He should be--God IS.

He has told us Who He is and THANK GOD that He is good.

"God IS"?

I know that's supposed to sound terribly profound, but really, it's just an example of bad grammar. :)

ClumsyRoot:

"God Is" is just as grammatically correct as the following statements...

I AM. I (the subject) AM (the predicate).

Judy Runs. Judy (the subject) runs (the predicate).

GOD IS. God (the subject) IS (the predicate).

A good place to begin is 1st grade english.

Perhaps in first grade they will explain to you the difference between an action verb and a helping verb.

If I told you, "He was," your reaction would be, "He was WHAT"? My sentence is lacking a direct object, and it's obvious.

I understand the intent of the sentence "God is."--it's to underscore that God doesn't just exist, He is existence itself. I know that to believers that sounds awfully mysterious and profound, but to those of us who use reason, it's just incoherent.

well, i understand what you are saying....but in the Cartesian sense of the words "am" or "is" (as in I think therefore I am) is correct..."Is" is an action verb in this sense because it means to exist... philosophically speaking.

I think we're in agreement. There are two issues: whether God exists, and whether God is existence itself. Like I said, the latter concept makes no sense to me.

Exactly.  I agree.

I'm sorry for getting a little snarky there.

The first time I read Paul Tillich's "God is" statement, I was appalled. Here was a theologian attempting to resolve a serious dilemma--how it is that God exists in the first place--through a grammatical sleight-of-hand.

It's not enough to make such an assertion--one must be able to explain what it actually MEANS. Otherwise, it's just so much philosophical claptrap.

Yeah. Slick Linguistic Tricks are always a way out of dealing with problems for those who have no real explanations.