I was a student of Greg's and enrolled for a time in his study center SCCCS in the mid 90's while I was in my thirties. I was early in my healthcare IT sales career and a part-time youth pastor. I decided to confront my fears (no college just a H.S. Diploma) and study with Greg. Although unjustified, it was incredibly intimidating to enroll ("I'm not an intellectual. My dad was a fireman."). Greg quickly put me at ease and never bullied me intellectually. I've been around tons of smart people in my career and they always let you know "they're the smartest person in the room." Not true of Greg. He was so gracious and accommodating in my experience. I had another philosopher friend, who could talk circles around me say, "you're too uneducated for me to even to talk to you. You need to do a ton of reading before we can have a meaningful conversation." Greg on the other hand met me where I was. He said people's grasp is really just a difference of Degree not Kind. In other words, the most complex thoughts can be simplified and understood. He met you where you're at and helped you improve intellectually at your pace. What an awesome teacher. I listen to him and Van Til all the time. The best thing I learned about Christianity is that although your soul will be saved one day your mind can be saved right now. Greg helped save my mind. I attended his funeral service in Fountain Valley in 1995. Dr. John Frame played the organ while we sang hymns. Frame went on to say "When Greg was coming to Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia there was a stir among the faculty that one of the incoming students was more well read than they were." Then Frame said, "Their fears were justified." As one friend said, "He was the Wayne Gretzky of good and necessary consequence." So grateful in God's providence that the Lord led me to Greg.
That's a fantastic story. I remember discovering Bahnsen in the late 90s and felt sad to learn he passed away. I ate up a lot of his writings and debates. I haven't followed presup and TAG in quite a while but I have a feeling no one out there today could match Bahnsen's perspicacity on philosophy. Honestly, I'm disappointed Michael Butler hasn't taken up the banner and done something with his life. He sounded like a promising young star. But I digress.
That’s awesome to hear, nothing worse than to learn about someone and appreciate them and then find out they’re a terrible character in person, this makes me happy to here that Bahnsen wasn’t that way.
Bahnsen's life was an incredibly short one, and one fraught with sorrow and hardship. But his message, this message, has always been one of victory: the victory of Christ that defeats all powers and principalities, all worldviews and doctrines of rebellious man. It was Bahnsen's commitment to the Scriptures and the Law of God that God used to preserve my faith and to strengthen me at a time of my life when all I saw was darkness. I praise God who caused this man to walk this earth, and praise him for taking him to be with his Lord in Paradise.
I appreciate the guy filming, even though he suffered from whooping cough and had ants crawling all over him causing him to twist uncontrollably in a squeeky desk. That was real commitment for him to keep filming. 😂
I cannot wait to meet Dr. Bahnsen when we enter glory in heaven. I’m going to thank the Lord for his measure of grace by means of intelligence Dr. Bahnsen. All praise and glory to God alone.
Me to. Theyre hillarious. They constantly prove how dishonest and morally bankrupt Christianity is and how you need childish word games cos he can't provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god.
Onnie Dixon ok? Lol. I know he defeated him. I love Turek. He got me into apologetics. I saw him live back in February. It was awesome! He's an awesome and funny guy.
@@shawn4888 That's not true at all. I disagree witn turek on a lot. He's arminian, I'm reformed, but he still brings up good points, especially when he argurs morality.
I remember seeing him a couple times in person when I was a young.... his focus on watching for contradictions and arbitrariness was the basis of me learning how to THINK through issues and poke holes in things that most people fall for... I.e. Socialism in 2020
@Nick Jones "What's wrong with Socialism?" - what a troll. lol. The only people that think that question isn't completely absurd are A. people who have read zero books in their life or B. 18 yr olds. C. trolls. Guess you thought the Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mao and every other dictator just HAPPENED to be some combination of Soclialist/Communist/Fascist? The 150million people that they murdered were just a coincidence and had nothing to do with their ideology or political philosophy. Also - there is only one side that is silencing any and all opposition - THE LEFT. silencing opposition is a hallmark of all three of those - so remind me how the Right wing has anything to do with it? That second sentence is so poorly worded I have no idea what you're even saying.... Suggestion - go read some real books about the USSR, Chinese cultural revolution, Hitler and other states that have been run under those systems. And no, there are no practical difference between them, even though in theory there are - they all lead to the same thing eventually.
@Nick Jones Ahh Yes, typical left winger that can’t have an argument without personal attacks. “The right wingers generally ARNT to bright” - aren’t too - fixed that for you Proof of God - what exactly are you wanting? A picture? A blood sample? Firsthand account? Video tape? An exact description of when, how and why he exists? Obviously, none of those things are possible, but there are very complete logical arguments as to why someone exists beyond ourselves, where universal truth and morality comes from. You must be just coming to the Bahnsen videos to troll the comment section instead of actually listen and think. Typical Lefty troll. Now it’s your turn - Provide me proof of the big bang or however you think all of this popped into existence. Incontrovertible, physical proof of HOW, WHY and WHEN it happened. Can you provide ANY PROOF of how the world began? How consciousness came to be? Any proof at all? You apparently you only believe in things that you can PROVE so let's hear it. Socialism is NOT “caring for the weakest in society”. Words matter and you can’t just say whatever you want and it be true. Again, you accuse me of running from questions, but you haven’t answered a single one. From Webster since you obviously have zero idea what you’re talking about 1. Definition of socialism 2. 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 3. 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property 4. b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 5. 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done Also - you can’t provide a single shred of proof that Trump is a fascist because he's not. I can provide all kinds of proof that he's not a fascist. So go ahead sonny and let’s see all the proof that he’s some fascist dictator. Further - you left Mao, Che, Lenin, Stalin, Maduro and Chavez off your list of ‘extremists’. There are no FREE and successful Socialist countries. Zero. And don’t use the usual Lefty argument that the Baltic states are Socialist because they’re not. They built their entire economies on FREE MARKETS not socialism. They are just a highly taxed and re-distributive capitalistic society. ANSWER THOSE 2 QUESTIONS!!
@Nick Jones oh ok, so you're going to whine even tho I attempted to answer your question.... While at the same time ignoring every issue I raise with your entire arguments about socialism and any credible evidence that God doesn't exist or that the entire world just poofed into existence. That's what the Left does, accuse their opponents of the exact same crimes they commit. Sorry bud, no point in arguing with someone that can't coherently make an argument or avoid calling names and have a productive back and forth. Have good afternoon in your mom's basement eating Mac and cheese and playing your video games. Maybe read a few books about countries run by your lovely Socialists, actually do some research, do something other than parrot the talking points you here on MSNBC and then come back and try again.
@Nick Jones yeah that's why we can't stop people flooding over here...because America sucks so bad. Lmao. You still haven't pointed to a single fascist thing that Trump has done. Doofus. Other guy... Thanks for proving my point by year spewing a bunch of drivel. You can go back to playing Fortnite and eating your Mac and cheese while the adults chat.
@Nick Jones illegal immigrants in cages? Obama built all those cages, not Trump. 2 secs and Google and you could've avoided making an idiot of yourself but it's clear all you do is parrot Leftist talking points you read somehow and throw a "Sonny" in there and you think you're making a coherent statement. US Lefty media even got caught using pictures from Obama's presidency to put out the story that Trump was responsible and then all immediately shut up once they got busted out. For example... www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/baracks-ice-chief-cages-were-obamas-idea. Even the left biased Snopes had to admit Obama built them all. So who's the fascist again? You're sitting there blabbing about people that believe in angels or don't believe in evolution but you can't answer the original simple question... Give me one example of how Trump is a Fascist. And try to pick something that Trump did instead of Obama this time. And if you think the fact that hospitals expect to be paid for service is somehow fascist or somehow Trump should be responsible for a system that's been in place for decades before he was in office then there's no point in talking further because you've lost touch with reality. And no, I'm not answering your other random ridiculous questions because they're not even questions, you're just spouting off random statistics as if that is a question somehow... You do realize that the VAST majority of humans from the beginning of time until right now have some belief in God or angels or some higher being? So trying to make fun of people who may believe in angels is incredibly short sighted and shows how close minded and arrogant you are. Peace bro, you're a waste of time.. I've answered your actual questions and all u can do is say Trump is a Fascist for something that Obama did...and I'm sure you don't have the integrity to just admit you were wrong.
Nick Jones sure, you’re depending on logical absolutes, laws of induction, concepts such as self and others, and much more. You borrow these concepts from Christianity. You borrow from our epistemology and deny the ontological necessity
@Jay Gee These debates are like being on MARS HILL listening to philosophers debate Democritus cosmology of only atoms existing in the void. That all gods are the creation of men not man created by the gods.
@Jay Gee lol, you already have plenty. Why pretend otherwise? Please at least dont pretend to be dumb after talking about the topic as if you understand it That only makes you look more dishonest and disingenuous. You either know the topics, in which case you also know the flaws or you really dont and are parroting
It seems every time someone worth hearing speaks, the acoustics and video are horrible. The fluff plays back flawlessly, with perfect clarity, the profound can barely be heard and the video is so low resolution I can barely read the whiteboard.
Its in a subway...thats under an airport and has a Starbucks kiosk located in the room as evidenced by the nonstop movement of the highly caffeinated attendees.
Imagine an argument that starts with a conclusion and that conclusion necessarily being correct is in the premise. Preposterous. You could just as easily say "I have no argument, but I refuse to admit it, so I'm just gonna insist that everybody but me is wrong.." You're a special kind presupps.
Just a thought: unbelievers want historical records, written by unbelievers, to support the Bible. The problem for the unbelievers is that all the eye witness accounts are from believers, and unfortunately for them, they cannot logically connect the dots to see why that is. The Bible calls them fools for a reason. We must pray for them. They are blind in their minds and hearts just like we were too.
You disgusting evil shite. Thousands, thousands of years went by and people suffered in miserable ignorance, cowering in shivering fear at every lightning bolt and thunderclap, under Thor and Zeus and Yahweh, and you, you pieces of shit, did nothing, not one thing, not a single thing to make that situation better. You pieces of shit
Why are eyewitness accounts so reliable? Eyewitness accounts or eyewitness testimony just happens to be the most unreliable form of evidence in a court of law.
Reasoning is impossible with unreasonable people. There will always be those who refuse to believe because they are living in open rebellion toward the Lord.
@@shawn4888 I don't have evidence? A life changed is my evidence. Your request for "evidence" tells me you simply refuse to believe. If you chose to believe the truth, you could have asked me what I saw.
Slight correction: the timestamp you're referring to is actually 51:13. During this time he is revealing the contradiction of Friar Jean Paul who said: *You shouldn't suppress your freedom by allowing yourself to be told by others what you ought to do: you should live tour life choosing what you want to do.* Friar Jean Paul contradicts himself by telling others to live their lives not listening to what others tell them. So then the listener has to ask themselves and Jean Paul: *Well why should I have to listen to you?*
Dear brother, would you have the Bahnsen x Tabash full debate video? I´m interested on making a translation. My channel is focused on providing christian content with portuguese subtitles (Brazil portuguese). I would gadly provide you the *srt file if you´re interested. I´m already doing this very lecture´s subtitles. God bless.
@Dd S It seems to me that the gist of this is he demonstrates that those who claim a "rational/logical worldview" (and who claim Christians are just in fantasy land) are using, what they claim to be, irrational/illogical (read: non-scientific) presuppositions in their own worldview. This is due to the obvious fact that at a basic level the scientific method can't account for the unobservable/untestable. It is, by definition, outside the realm of science and it is the realm of philosophy. So again, to hold any worldview even an atheist/agnostic MUST hold certain non-scientific presuppositions. That is the point. We all must make some "exception", not just Christians. Once we get down to that level, we can from there debate/discuss which belief system is best. (which isn't really the topic of this lecture, but is addressed rashly, addressing muslims and hindus) But we can't get started on which belief system is best until everyone admits that they have a belief system. Too many atheists assume that they get a "pass" on their presuppositional assumptions. That is a BIG pass, that they want -- they want their beliefs to be taken as true while refuting a Christian's beliefs.
Dd S Your assertion demonstrates that you do not understand presuppositional apologetics. Finite creatures all employ circular reasoning. It is the vicious circle that leads to so many problems
Dd S Is your statement about me and others that you have derided on this channel meaningful? How do you account for meaning and purpose in your worldview? Do you understand the difference between a virtuous and vicious circle? Circular reasoning is the most reasonable form of reasoning for a finite personality. No other form of reasoning is possible. Your comments further demonstrates that the Christian and the non-Christian like are not on neutral ground both perspectives are girded by presuppositions.
@Dd S I am not sure I understand. If you state that reason is grounded in reality, don't you confuse metaphysics with epistemology? The question first is how I can know what the "really real" is. So in order to know what "grounds" (metaphysically) my reason I must already use my reason. In that sense epistemology presupposes a metaphysics and vice versa. I think this step is inevitable, but I am open to be corrected.
@Dd S Well, try to convince a Hindu or a Zen-buddhist of this. But this is not the point. Sure I know what the really real is because I am a christian. But the point is not IF we are living in the really real (because we obviously do) but if we can account for it. The point is not material but formaly in nature. The question is what your formal appeal to reality is. This is not at all obvious. You try to clinge to some sort of common sense realism, but then again: what is obvious? Apart from that I invite you from refrain from namecalling and the sort. Either we have a reasonable dialogue or not. _Ad hominem_ arguments are not at all interesting and lead to nowhere.
@Dd S Please help me but this is the ubsurdity atheistic logic boils down to as I see it. "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting onmatter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts andmine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle ofMountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheisticallyand I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally vanishing away. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water, nothing else. Let me give give you some advice. Just say yes to God and ask Him to help you understand the objections you have. The fact that you try to help people is already proofnthere is a God since your view has no logic to care outside of brainfizz. Call out to God that has loved you and is drawing you closer. You cannot out run God.
@Dd S so what it it then? You cannot explain why you care. You are not living accouding what you clam your epistemology is. I see you struggle abit with ad hominem attacks instead of thinking and facing the truth.
@Dd S Not only is your comment entirely wrong, it shows that you are utterly ignorant of what presuppositional apologetics even is or claims to do. It's almost as if you merely saw Bahnsen's name in the title of this video, knew he was associated with the pressuppositional method, which you hate, and the proceeded to comment your pre-conceived prejudice without even watching the video in order to make something akin to an informed comment. It is very difficult to respond to someone who apparently does not care about the truth, but I will try. Presuppositional apologetics is not a method which says, "The Christian worldview is the only one that can be presupposed; all others have to be proven." On the contrary, the presuppositionalist recognizes that knowledge and morality themselves require what are called "necessary preconditions of intelligibility." For example, in order for anyone to make _any_ kind of truth claim on _any_ given topic, they must _presuppose_ that 1) the world is intelligible, 2) logic exists and is consistent and coherent, and 3) that determining the truth is something we _ought_ to do. These beliefs, of course, cannot be proven, but must be _presupposed._ Now, the question presuppositionalism seeks to answer is this: Which worldview-which is a presupposed set of beliefs in order to make sense of the world as we experience it-makes knowledge and morality possible. It is absolutely clear that it is the _Christian_ worldview, and it alone, that accomplishes this. Without the triune God of Scripture, there can be no knowledge or ethics. If all we are is merely matter and motion, as atheism claims, then there is no metaphysical basis for knowledge or morality. The same philosophical flaws can be found in all other religions, as well. They all fail at some point or another, which most of the time has to do with "the problem of the one and the many." Therefore, anyone who claims to be a non-Christian, yet who also claims to know something, is presupposing to some degree the Christian worldview, and is therefore philosophically and metaphysically inconsistent because the Christian worldview is by definition an all-or-nothing worldview; it cannot be received piecemeal. This incoherence is what presuppositionalists seek to expose, and that is how they do apologetics. Things often make more sense if you would only put forth the effort to understand them.
@Dd S A few thoughts... 1) Ridicule and mockery does not make a sound argument (neither do the use of emojis and caps). 2) Prove to me that 2+2=4 without merely asserting it is true or saying that "anyone can do it." Give me proof. 3) All knowledge is by nature circular at its deepest root, because knowledge needs a fixed and certain point of reference. This fixed point is called a worldview. Even in your very own comments, you are using the laws of logic, and even mathematics. Yet you haven't proven to me that these things exist. That's because you can't. You simply must assume their existence, accessibility, and reliability, and hope it's actually true. Do you not have a worldview? If you do, then present it and let's examine it to see if it offers the necessary preconditions of intelligibility.
@Dd S A couple more thoughts... 1) The circularity is _because_ of the fixed reference point. It's like an orbit: it is circular because it has a fixed point of reference. Your criticism here doesn't make sense at all, and I think it's because you did not read my comment or think about it at any meaningful level. It is very difficult to speak to someone who is determined to do this at every turn. Is this how you treat everyone? I do hope not. But, then again, I cannot assume that anyone who believes all we are is matter and motion would have any metaphysical basis for treating others with respect. All this is is "Exhibit A" for my argument. 2) I never said I am not convinced 2+2=4. Again, you are not interacting with me at all, but merely seeing what you want to see. On the contrary, I am _very_ convinced that 2+2=4 because my worldview allows for the possibility of universal mathematical principles able to be accessed by the human mind. Does your worldview, which I assume is atheism, do this? If so, how? Can you demonstrate it?
@Dd S Again, mockery only makes the mocker a fool. You are only making a fool of yourself. But, because I care about rational discussion, I want to actually discuss the content of your comment rather than resort to childish antics. I hope you will choose to rise above that moving forward. First, you are correct, you never said that we are only matter and motion. In fact, I never _said_ you said that. But no matter, is this no correct? Does your worldview consist of something else besides matter and motion? Do you believe in non-material entities? Spirits? Deities? Help me out. Of what does your worldview consist? Second, I assumed you knew what my fixed reference point for knowledge is: the truine God of Scripture and his revelation. Given his existence, the universe, being created by his perfect mind, has order, is consistent, and is predictable. Therefore, my worldview can account for logic, mathematics, personality, and ethics. Can yours? I cannot know until you present your worldview for examination. Third and finally, you are right that we do not need to have a worldview "worked out" in order to do math. But I never said we did. Because a worldview is a presupposed set of beliefs that cannot themselves be proven in the standard sense, one does not need to be consciously or thoughtfully cognizant of them to operate by them. I am not aware of how the support system under my house's floor works, but I don't need to know to presuppose their stability and strength to hold my floor up so I can walk on it. So, you are right, a third grader doesn't need to know about their presuppositions to be able to do math. However, the fact remains that doing math (or logic, or ethics, or whatever) _requires_ that we presuppose that the laws of math and 1) accessible by the human mind (assuming the human mind in a thing to begin with, which is not apparent in the atheist worldview), and 2) will not be different tomorrow than they were yesterday. After all, if the universe is nothing more than a mass of chaos, and meaningless, origin-less matter floating about at random, who is to say that the laws of mathematics, assuming there are any, will not change tomorrow? Given the atheist metaphysic, they very well could. Therefore, given atheism, we can know nothing.
This is the best two hours of a 40 hour seminary level apologetics course. It was done at Messiahs Covenant Community Church in Brooklyn probably around 1993. This lecture and "The Debate That never Was" are in my opinion the two meatiest and most useful samples of Bahnsens apologetic.
@Dd S Seriously, the physical universe and living things are proof positive that (1) God is and (2) God made them. The Holy Bible is God's revelation of Himself to his ultimate creation, mankind. The physical universe is there for mankind to investigate. Do so. creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing creation.com/15-questions-responses-1
@@shawn4888 - That depends on the position you take. In contradiction to you he obviously does! But what does he mean 'every time I here it! Who have ears may hear!
Very helpful perspectives and insights. I'm new to Bahnsen's work, but carry a presuppositional perspective when reasoning with unbelievers. One thing I noticed though, is he goes into manuscript evidence which would then be evidential apologetics, wouldn't it?
Dont you think presup is actually detrimental to your cause? Doesnt it give the impression that Christians have given up on trying to present credible evidence cos you havnt got any and so need to resort to childish word games?
The point there would be to show that the unbeleiver is just making bold assertions about the manuscripts being unreliable, without actually knowing anything. It wouldnt be "look at all of these manuscripts that should make you believe in God"
I never came accross Dr. Greg Bahnsen before. Interesting video. I doubt his reasoning would hold up in a modern debate however. He seems so focused on pointing out that unbelievers have their own biases (which no-one is disputing) that he forgets that this does not advance the premise that what's written in The Bible is true. By pointing out that someone is a skeptic does not dismiss any points that are raised about the legitimacy of whatever subject matter.
@@shemsuhor8763 you really are really stupid if you think any 9f those things are stolen from Christianity. It's Christianity trying to steal things. They stole their entire narrative from other religions and now Bahnsen is trying to steal ideas that predate Christianity.
@@shawn870 These beliefs were held before the other world religions came be. The term Christian was first used in Antioch as a slur against the disciples, those who followed the "book" and believed Christ was the promised Messiah of the OT.
What a sad and pitiful laughable charleton who needs childish word games because he can't provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god. Isnt this Christians in full retreat? ADDMITTING you cant provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god and so needing childish word games that no reasonable person is convinced by?
@@nickjones6651 Bahnsen invented a problem, (that never substantiated.) Bahnsen invented a solution to the problem, (that he never substantiated) that he also never substantiated. Bahnsen invented rules, (that he never justified) that say the only solution to the problem he invented (that he never substantiated) is the solution he invented (that he never substantiated.) Bahnsen then goes on to make up additional rules saying that anyone disagreeing with his made up problem, made up solution and made up rules, must first justify their position, using his made up rules, before they can disagree with his made up rules, which includes another rule stating that any position that disagrees with his made up problem and made up solution can't be justified.
@@yournightmare9562 you need to go back to your wheels of learning, because that is not the position held by Bansen. He is asserting that the atheist offers argumentation without evidence. Prove him wrong. Argue without being arbitrary.
Bahnsen gives a very factual reasoned evidenced based argument, in spite of the many comments below that deny it based on their biased opinion, not on factual truth they give that disprove the facts that are given, which is exactly what Bahsen warned most unbelievers do; unfounded reasoning. However, the greatest power of Christianity Bahsen doesn't bring to bear, that's the word of God. The word given by God for man to know God, know mans condition of lost sin filled life in need of "good news' that God has provided away to resolve this animosity towards God as enemies trying to resolve the separation can be in some way appeased by their own works ie their religion. The "modern", enlightened, man will never admit that their philosophy/religion is self, what ever you want is truth, every person it right for their right way and satisfaction and the main tennet is to be "tolerating" everyone, except Christians. They are no different than those who pursued false religions, man's way, man's truth, man is god, my idol is myself. The only solution to man has always been God's answer, which is man's answer is the problem. Only by God's grace reaching to man through a miraculous intervention by God coming to earth, Emmanuel, the Messiah, only by His means of the perfect sacrifice that does what no man can do, rise to life. The very stone you reject is the very foundation of the only salvation, becareful, be fearful, repent, believe in God His Savior, Kiss the Son. ( Mt. 4:17; Rom. 3:23; 5:6-10; 6:23; 10:9-11; Jn. 14:6; I Cor. 15:3-4; Ps. 2) If you want to know more about Jesus Christ let me know.
There's not a person alive w/o bias, but that inclination can be based on fact, truth, righteousness or lies, deception, incorrect information, ...so which is it for you, opinion based upon that which is revealed by God or you?
Bahnsen was the best apologist of all time. Like a Grandmaster who could see fives moves ahead. Other people imitate him constantly but he was special. His logic was authoritative in its ability to expose and destroy. He could grasp all the ramifications of each individual fallacious thought because he could see the whole epistemological picture and the history of western philosophy so clearly, and how each assertion was inter-related to the whole. He could helicopter out and then zoom in off the cuff in debate, in a way that was so efficacious that it sounded scripted. And all this within the context of an encyclopedic knowledge Scripture and Systematic Theology, that he constantly stood on and drew from. It’s such a shame he didn’t live long enough to wipe the floor with Hitchens, etc. He was only getting more and more skilled and knowledgeable, as he essentially died young.
I'm convinced that Dr. Bahnsen is proof that God loves atheists, because if God had allowed Dr. Bahnsen to remain on earth into old age there wouldn't be any atheists left.
"People think they have the right to just believe whatever they want when it comes to religion." Well, yes! I do think I have that right. I think that statement pretty well sums up Dr. Bahnsens brand of apologetics. He seems to feel that a person has no right to believe anything contrary to what he believes. Dr. Bahnsen cautions one to look for arbitrariness and contradiction, yet his entire belief-system was arbitrary and filled with contradiction. And ultimately it was based on an unsound argument, viz., the transcendental argument for the existence of god. Cornelius van Til's presuppositional argument for Christian theism, which Dr. Bahner embraced - and many would claim that he presented more cogently than did van Til - depends upon the soundness of the transcendental argument. However, numerous philosophers over the past sixty years or so - notably Prof. Barry Stroud of U. Cal. Berkeley and Prof Stefan Korner of Bristol University - have shown that the transcendental argument is not sound, and thus not adequate to carry the weight of presuppositional Christian apologetics, and reduces the position to, "the Bible is true because I believe it is true." Ultimately, that's not all that persuasive to a nonbeliever. Dr. Bahner, a much-admired man and scholar to be sure, was I think so completely convinced of the truth of his beliefs and the soundness of his arguments that he was unable to see the problems with these beliefs and arguments. For example, he begins this video setting up a strawman non-believer who is arguing that the New Testament has not been, or may not have been, accurately handed down since the various books were originally written, and Dr. Bahner counters this this strawman by pointing out that we have complete books of the New Testament dating to the Third Century and a virtually complete New Testament dating to the Fourth. The problem is, so what? No atheist of my acquaintance doubts the existence of these manuscripts or argues that they don't accurately reflect the original writings. They just don't believe the Bible is true. And by that, I don't mean they are arguing that much of the history set out in the New Testament is false, but rather that the claims of miracles and of Jesus's divinity are not true. The people who wrote the books of the New Testament, primarily St. Paul and the Gospel writers, were not eye-witnesses to the events they were reporting. There is no basis whatsoever to accept that the events they reported actually happened except faith. None. Plenty of people in American today believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 Presidential election despite overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. And that event happened three short years ago and was obsessively documented and examined, yet still they believe. So what is to keep Paul and the gospel writers from incorporating unproven stories of miracles and Jesus's claim of divinity? Nothing, really. Clearly Dr. Bahnsen was a believer, and his belief was so strong, so unshakeable, that he was unable to see that his claim that Christian theism is true is an unfalsifiable claim, and thus is unprovable, just as no one can prove that his claim is false. It comes down to belief. Dr. Bahnsen really couldn't accept that there is no proof.
And yet here you are generalizing logic and morality being entirely consistent with Christianity while dismissing Christianity (which is to be inconsistent) and ultimately playing yourself.
@@chiefofsinners5272 That is the usual moronic hogwash I expect from presuppositionalists. Everyone else is 'borrowing' from the Christian worldview, whether we know it or not. I have never read or heard one single cogent argument supporting that position, and that concludes Bahner. Whenever presuppositional apologists get to the part about how the TAG argument leads inevitably to Christian theism, the whole discourse becomes a bit fuzzy. Most of them do what you have done, and just assert it with no backup whatsoever. I love your handle though. Kingofsinners. Embracing that sin, 'Oh, Lordy, Lordy, I am a sinner. But I have seen the light, and Jesus is my redeemer!" What a bunch of nonsensical drivel.
@@Contagious93812 I seen this German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. She says there is NO Free will because Consciousness is an ILLUSION. The mind playing a trick upon itself. She makes good videos for somebody that doesn't Really exist
@@joehinojosa24 the idea that consciousness is an illusion she probably got from daniel dennet, Sam Harris believes that consciousness exists and it's immaterial
Bahnsen states to be on the look out for "prejudicial conjecture"/arbitrariness. Well, that is what we can consider the Christian claim that all the propositions in the Bible are true. Bahnsen is claiming that critics are just giving the educated opinions against Christianity and nothing more which is not the case at all. There are many critics of Christianity that hold Ph.D.'s in Biblical topics that were once devoted Christians. They know the Bible much better than Bahnsen and they reject Christianity based on the evidence; not merely opinion. The arguments against Christianity do come from scholarship and NOT "prejudicial conjecture" as Bahnsen claims. I have a 3-part series on my UA-cam channel where I offer my reasons against Christianity. I challenge the Christians here to watch it and then debate me on the issues I bring forward.
Please note: in the following comment I am not trying to say the Bible is inaccurate, only that small insignificant changes have occurred. I am thankful for the Bible and it's message. Greg asks at 5:50: "what's the basis for your saying that [the biblical texts have been changed and modified in various revisions over time]?" An easy answer I would think most Christians would accept is the Bible itself. Go and get your Bible and turn to the end of the gospel of Mark (chapter 16). You'll note that after verse 8, the commentary in the Bible says that "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20." So the Bible says the Bible has been changed over time. This is hardly an "arbitrary presupposition."
I wouldn't dismiss this footnote simply for being a footnote. The Bible wasn't written in English, which means it's translated, which is why there are different versions with different words. From these foreign translated texts comes a Bible that is not compiled from a single text, but compiled from multiple texts - called codices - which is used to compile the Bible you find on your bookshelf. For instance, which version of the original scripture might be considered God's unchanged word? It's compiled from Codex Bobiensis, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and other manuscript sources. I agree that the critical message of the Bible is preserved, but a belief that not one word of the Bible has changed over time doesn't seem fully accurate.
My apologies for assuming. Here are some questions for you so that I can understand you better: 1. Are you seeking greater biblical understanding? 2. Do you believe the Bible was written in English? 3. What version of the Bible do you trust as the unchangeable word of God? 4. Why do you trust your version over other versions? 5. Does your Bible include verses 9-20 in Mark 16? 6. Does your Bible include a commentary about those verses? 7. If so, what do you think the meaning of that commentary implies? 8. What language(s) do you believe the bible was translated from? 9. Do you recognize the uncial codices as reliable original sources of translation? 10. Do you believe these codices have any differences in their wording or content at all? 10. If not the codices, what do you believe is the original, oldest, and most reliable primary source for the version of the bible you trust?
Len Schulwitz, I think it is sad that quite a few Christians are not aware of passages like that, or their history. I also don't find it to be a particularly damning example of a "changed and modified" Bible. Your Mark example, and passages like the adultery pericope in John 8 and other insertions, can be removed without changing any Biblical theology. Usually the claim of "changed and modified" passages is meant to convey that the message of the Bible is now different from what was originally written (along with a conspiracy to suppress the originals), not that it is the same with a few extra stories that shouldn't be in there. Besides, how do we know they were changed? Well, we found even earlier copies that didn't have the passages. What was the response of Christians? Some clung to the old passages and their old translations and rejected the new texts, but the vast majority of modern translations either move the inserted passages to a footnote, or bracket the passage and add a footnote explaining the lack historical precedent. Christians on the whole are committed to the historically accurate texts rather than the insertions. And moreover, a big reason we know they are insertions is that the earliest texts we now have are remarkably consistent with the later copies; the copyists took great care to preserve the original text and avoid changing it. The vast majority of changes are in spelling and minor grammar changes. The popular theory about how these passages came to be included is that they were margin notes or unrelated texts copied onto blank bits of pages (writing supplies were very expensive), and later copyists, not wanting to omit any part of scripture and unsure how to take the insertions, took the safe answer and preserved rather than omitted the insertions. That indicates that the copyists' purpose was to not change the Bible.
Len - the important thing is not the autographic manuscript, but the autographic text. There are errors when human transmission enters into the picture, (if there wasn't it would lead to an absurd conclusion that God must somehow protect the copying, textual criticism, translation, editions, teaching, preaching, sacraments, confessions, creeds, traditions, human reception, interpretation, and understanding of a text so that no error ever enters into it any aspect.) - but there is nothing within a million years of affecting any doctrine or message. The Bible is a giant jigsaw puzzle where texts elucidates other texts that were written thousands of years apart. All doctrine is derived from multiple Scriptures. If you throw out an entire book of the Bible you won't change the message, you'll only affect its precision. If you try to add a book to the Bible you'll find that it contradicts the unified message of Scripture. It is so absurdly easy for any fair enquirer to see that the Bible is supernatural in origin when it is studied. There are so many reasons, in fact, from the thousands of fulfilled prophecies to the majesty of the character of Christ and the story of salvation, that we will be without excuse on judgement day for living in rebellion against His Word.
A translation of any text, does not change its content. Just because some manuscripts do not contain certain verses (which is fallacious because the manuscripts don't contain verses), is not a basis to believe it has been changed or is u reliable. We have more manuscripts than any other collection of writings of antiquity. The more, the better, and all textual critics agree with this.
you cant feed a dog that isnt hungry...the starting point should always be are you hungry? if not, game over, the rest of time is in vain. this is NOT about reason! it is about will--the heart condition.
Jesus said " be wise as serpents, and gentle as doves". And Apostle Paul " be living epistles to all men". Lastly Hebrews 4v12. Must have Christ wisdom that knows the hearts of men. Jermaine 17v9.-10.
It’s a sane and solid argument. It’s what finally freed me from the prison if lifelong indoctrination into materialism. 1. All worldviews have presuppositions. Which (if any) cancreate a coherent worldview. 2. Materialism is (and monisms are) incoherent and contradictory. Certainly that worldview cannot work. 3. Dualism is much less contradictory and more coherent. 4. There is one issue with it, the bridge. 5. The only way to a self-consistent worldview is a transcendent being. 6. In other classes: let’s look at the various worldviews with transcendent beings. No one in the comments has offered a single objection. Theyve just said prove God, as if it’s an evidentiary argument. It’s not. It *does not* assume materialism and then try to prove God. It’s not about burden of proof. It’s about whether any coherent worldview exists. And that all worldviews have presuppositions. If you want to comment on what’s actually heing said that’s fine. You’ll be the first in this comment thread.
if Greg was alive today, the whole world would believing by now. haha. there a person in this video that has a cough and is sooo annoying.I think Bahnsen almost broke. check out 1:06:24 lol
@@shawn4888 “You wish” The irony is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that (nobody took no time to turn nothing into everything) a belief that at worst is synonymous with the belief in magic and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles. I don’t need secular myths and secular religion to know what right and wrong is!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to gaslight or lecture a bereaved mother during a pandemic who’s only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife. My favourite are the atheists who believe it’s their moral imperative to lecture believers who are in mourning that they will never ever see their loved ones again. However, the question is why do atheists behave this way? Is it because… (A) Atheists are more intelligent, empathic, compassionate and caring? (B) Atheists know everything as they are more highly evolved than everyone else? (C) Atheists have “proven” beyond doubt that (nobody took no time to turn nothing into everything)? (D) Atheists who feel that it’s their moral imperative to tell people who are bereaved that there is no afterlife are douche bags.? Please Vote Now.
How is a belief that the dead do not rise in harmony with abiogenesis? There is an assumption that once a conscious life is "spent" it cannot be recovered. Once the individual molecules that made the conscious being have dissipated, even if they reassembled would not bring back the original conscious identity, but maybe a new one..
How is this not a blatant case of prejudice, bias, special pleading and conjecture, to say that "if this is the very word of god, then it is to be treated differently...?"
Michael Reichwein 7:38 he is saying a lot of big what ifs, and making conjectures about a book being the very word of God. He uses the word "different " or "differently " as if other books or playing the game of telephone can garble up messages, but not this bible, because....God..?
Jistheman100 I don't believe you fully grasp what dr. Greg bahnsen is stating. if the Bible is what it claims to be then that in itself is a very big statement. the Bible is not stating that there is vanilla and chocolate please oh please pick vanilla. that is.... that there are many paths to heaven, and the Bible being just one of them. the Bible is saying that if you reject its truth, .....the word of God. Then you cannot make sense of anything! take away God, ....and you can no longer count for induction or the uniformity of nature. take away God, ... you lose that absolute standard by which we all make ethical evaluations. Please understand that the foundation's to epistemology do not live in isolationism. for every "why", or "how", I believe there is excess baggage that accompanies it. I wonder what is meant by the phrase ,"then it should be treated differently". quoting the above gentlemen. maybe the real question is... is the Bible the actual word of God given to mankind?
Michael Reichwein if that is the real question that you are asking...then how exactly, what method are we to use to determine if said collection of books combined into one book actually comes from a God?
Jistheman100 well that is the million-dollar question. and it even may come down to what you accept as being evidence either for or against the authenticity of scripture. but something to keep in mind from the outset is that the scripture, given that they're comprised of 66 different books over a long period of time, are not presented as bedtime stories nor given as fantasy, but rather as a documented testimony of the interactions between man and God. you might say that if we were in a court of law you would be looking at 66 different affidavits, all testifying to the power and Majesty of God. there is another gentleman that has posted that the sole purpose of religion is to con man out of his money. well if that was the case, then the 12 apostles that follow Christ where shafted the most, for most of them were killed for what they believed in.
Bahnsen is teaching Presuppositionalism - just presuppose your sect's brand of Christianity is the total truth, then ignore every other possibility. Pay no attention to the fact religion is not rational. Most people die in whatever religion they were raised. Indoctrination is powerful and keeps people from thinking rationally. Fortunately, that is starting to change as more and more people leave religion behind.
Christianity has more converts from a different culture/religion than any other in the world. Christianity makes more change, impossible change to loving their enemy, that no other religion comes close to, that's because it's a work of God to bring ones soul to life, "born again", this is what you need to see God and understand what His word declares, you cannot understand anything past "all have sinned" and repent and believe in Jesus Christ paying for your sins and rose to life.
5 років тому
@@vaughnlonganecker986 the bible god was created by Bronze Age men 3,000 years ago in a multi-billion year old universe. And all gods are man-made myths.
I didn't state which religion is fastest growing, however, no one knows the immense increase in Christianity in China which could have more Christians than the western world, but which religion brings about change from other religions. Now this statistic is a hard one to measure and it could be that the forced conversions of Islam could be more than Christianity today, but historically no religion comes close to bringing people out of false religions be it paganism, idolatry, Buddhism, Hinduism, and there are large numbers of Muslims coming to Christ, but like in the religions of Communism, the Islamic world will not allow Christians to proclaim their faith openly and freely. But all this is not the main point, unlike all other religions, who correctly to your suspicions have no merit to them as they are made by man, Christianity is the work of God, the Creator who made you. Gen. 1:1; Jn. 1:1
1:30:04 - 1:31:05 What the fuck is wrong with this guy? He "sensitively" used his opponent's murdered relatives to make a point in a debate? And then bragged about it in this lecture instead of being ashamed of it? Oh yeah, clearly he gets what morality is all about.
Unless you're going to offer some justification for your beliefs, you are also just providing an opinion. As an atheist I have one position: all efforts to convince me a god exists have failed. Look, nothing arbitrary or inconsistent. Now what? So, what do you believe and why? Convince me. Lastly and of most importance: Could you be wrong?
1:20:43 _"You can't say the material world is predictable because its nature is to be predictable."_ This coming from the guy that says: God is always truth revealing because its his nature to be always truth revealing God is moral because its his nature to be moral God is logical because its his nature to be logical God is (______) because its his nature to be (________). (Kind, loving, just, merciful, etc) Take *ANY* criticism that Bahnsen levies at any other worldview and apply it to his and he has the same problem (usually many times over) but all good presuppers will bully their way through the conversation and not allow those sort of criticisms because that's the only way his stupid apologetic can ever "work" (and by work, I mean appear to win an argument, not to actually change anybody's mind)
Im 10 minutes in and all i had heard so far is strawman after strawman. Of course he knocks everything out of the park! Let's see him stealman something and see how he does.
1:05 _"No one is allowed to be arbitrary if you're trying to present a rational basis for what you believe."_ NINETEEN SECONDS LATER WITHOUT A HINT OF IRONY 1:24 _"I don't know if I can justify this statistic, but subjectively it seems to me, probably 80% of your work in apologetics is taken care of if you'll just be on the lookout for people saying anything they want to say."_
That did appear contradictory. But it actually was not. Theres nothing arbitrary there. He clearly said it his subjective estimate based on his personal experience of talking to unbelievers.
@My Bad _"AJ Hieb is just running around pulling things out of context to create a strawman."_ What context can you add back that changes anything to be contrary to my point?
As to Bahnsen's first point against naturalism. He says that since we would be an evolved species, the chemicals in our brain would dictate our behavior and free logic goes out the window. What about the idea of our consciousness evolving and spawning our self awareness? Then argument would again have meaning.
But...that would be an illusion, right?. You would be a creature that thinks it has the ability to be unconstrained by their chemical thinking but this thought itself and all subsequent thoughts are also determined by your chemical makeup. Yeah, I think it would only offer the illusion of freedom from deterministic constraints. How would you even ascertain that anyway? Being self aware of the fact of the naturalistic process doesn't let you eschew that process, I guess. It's just a part of it.
Around the 35:00 mark, Bahnsem states that the unbeliever has an "unargued philosophical bias" when "the unbeliever brings him or hers autonomy to bear in the argument but is not recognizing that they are already begging the question by assuming as philosophical baggage an argued point of view philosophically." Presuppositionalists do the same with the foundational presuppositions as well. In fact, Bahnsen admits this when he states that in his "The myth of neutrality" lecture that "when it gets around to verifying that ultimate authority against the other person's ultimate authority, I will end up eventually assuming my ultimate authority but so will the unbeliever." So here we see the very common double standard that Presuppositionalists try to pull where they perform an external critique on their opponent's worldview but expect an internal critique on their own. He goes on the state that "we need to as Presuppositionalists expose the philosophical pre-commitments of the critic which are taken for granted rather than openly acknowledged in some way argued for and supported." The Presuppositionalists (as Bahnsen admits) has philosophical pre-commitments that are unargued(unless he begs the question) as well so again he is a hypocrite in his apologetic approach.
Ok.... so what's left. We all just set in our Ivory Towers making faces at each other. Or do we examine the world around us, and decides which philosophical system comports..?
@@michaelreichwein3970 We should perform internal critiques (as Van Til recommended) on both worldviews. So far I have found Christianity does not comport with the world around us but naturalism does.
Not through yet either, but he is clearly demonstrating how the "unbeliever" who claims the "don't believe" anything, just uses science, makes many assumptions. It is a less eloquent Socratic method. Drilling down on the unbeliever, instead of taking what they say for granted, shows they don't "know" what they think they know. They must admit that they "believe" in their worldview too. Atheist hate admitting that they believe in anything. Though if they were rational and logical they would admit such.
@Michael Peele - You didn't get it that it's about nothing else than about the burden of proof of the unbeliever that he understands the valid foundation of reason, do you?
Shawn H I would love to accept your challenge but I need to ask you something first. Is logic, regardless of the form of logic, a convention that is man made or is logic universal and functions with a Law like nature?
Ron Kauffman Btw, you are going to want to be a tad more clear in the future which usage of words you are using. For example when mentioning logic are you refferring to the field of study, reasoning in general, the logical absolutes or laws derived from the logical absolutes?
Ron Kauffman So are you going to take the challenge? Because i must say you are not off to great start with the potential equivocation fallacy and depending on your intended response to the answer to your question a potential shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. Oh and btw, besides the issue with not being clear on which usage of logic you are using, your question was also a loaded one as you didnt offer all the possible choices.
Shawn H I’m referring to any and all aspects of logic. Every example you just gave assumes that we as humans have the ability to be logical and rational. Just look at your categories: "the field of study" - This at its basis assumes a consistent ability to be Rational and that to have an entire field dedicated to Logic proves that Logic works on a Law like basis. "reasoning in general" - Generalities require some sort of Objective basis that is uniformed and consistent. "the logical absolutes or laws derived from the logical absolutes?" - Absolutes also require some sort of Objective basis that is uniformed and consistent. I only asked the question because I feel that you have certain assumptions about Logic and reason and so I wanted to be a little more clear. As for backing up my claims as a Christian. I think there is more than enough evidence out there for the truth and reality of God. But what I want to know is what your specific view of reality is that causes you to look at that evidence and come to the conclusions that you do. Because your challenge, at its core, is completely based on a certain bias on how you view reality, and so that is what I want to deal with. And I’m not trying to debate you to “win some kind of argument”. Rather, I want to have the respectful opportunity to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with you.
I was a student of Greg's and enrolled for a time in his study center SCCCS in the mid 90's while I was in my thirties. I was early in my healthcare IT sales career and a part-time youth pastor. I decided to confront my fears (no college just a H.S. Diploma) and study with Greg. Although unjustified, it was incredibly intimidating to enroll ("I'm not an intellectual. My dad was a fireman."). Greg quickly put me at ease and never bullied me intellectually. I've been around tons of smart people in my career and they always let you know "they're the smartest person in the room." Not true of Greg. He was so gracious and accommodating in my experience. I had another philosopher friend, who could talk circles around me say, "you're too uneducated for me to even to talk to you. You need to do a ton of reading before we can have a meaningful conversation." Greg on the other hand met me where I was. He said people's grasp is really just a difference of Degree not Kind. In other words, the most complex thoughts can be simplified and understood. He met you where you're at and helped you improve intellectually at your pace. What an awesome teacher. I listen to him and Van Til all the time. The best thing I learned about Christianity is that although your soul will be saved one day your mind can be saved right now. Greg helped save my mind. I attended his funeral service in Fountain Valley in 1995. Dr. John Frame played the organ while we sang hymns. Frame went on to say "When Greg was coming to Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia there was a stir among the faculty that one of the incoming students was more well read than they were." Then Frame said, "Their fears were justified." As one friend said, "He was the Wayne Gretzky of good and necessary consequence." So grateful in God's providence that the Lord led me to Greg.
You are one very blessed, fortunate guy! Lovely account and tribute.....Thank you !🙏👍
What a privilege you had, Adam.
That's a fantastic story. I remember discovering Bahnsen in the late 90s and felt sad to learn he passed away. I ate up a lot of his writings and debates. I haven't followed presup and TAG in quite a while but I have a feeling no one out there today could match Bahnsen's perspicacity on philosophy. Honestly, I'm disappointed Michael Butler hasn't taken up the banner and done something with his life. He sounded like a promising young star. But I digress.
That’s awesome to hear, nothing worse than to learn about someone and appreciate them and then find out they’re a terrible character in person, this makes me happy to here that Bahnsen wasn’t that way.
😍
Bahnsen's life was an incredibly short one, and one fraught with sorrow and hardship. But his message, this message, has always been one of victory: the victory of Christ that defeats all powers and principalities, all worldviews and doctrines of rebellious man. It was Bahnsen's commitment to the Scriptures and the Law of God that God used to preserve my faith and to strengthen me at a time of my life when all I saw was darkness. I praise God who caused this man to walk this earth, and praise him for taking him to be with his Lord in Paradise.
Amen. I really couldn't have said it better
Agreed! My mentor introduced me to his materials back in the 90's. I still review these videos!
jojo, you have a talent for text writing!
Amen jojo!
jojo erasquin a
Awesome, jojo. Thank you for sharing that!
I appreciate the guy filming, even though he suffered from whooping cough and had ants crawling all over him causing him to twist uncontrollably in a squeeky desk. That was real commitment for him to keep filming. 😂
Haha. I aspire to this good spirited humour. Well done sir.
Hahahahahhahahaha
Most underrated comment on the internet.
lol 😂
Not to mention the airport next door.
"Shaffer, Clark and Van Til don't mean the same thing by presupposition." Excellent statement!
I cannot wait to meet Dr. Bahnsen when we enter glory in heaven. I’m going to thank the Lord for his measure of grace by means of intelligence Dr. Bahnsen. All praise and glory to God alone.
Lol. They really indoctrinated YOU didn't they Lisa?
Thanks so much for this upload. Peace of Christ to you, brother!
I could listen to men like Bahnsen and Boice all day long.
Me to. Theyre hillarious. They constantly prove how dishonest and morally bankrupt Christianity is and how you need childish word games cos he can't provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god.
@@nickjones5435 you must be Bahnsen's number 1 fan I see you on all videos about him 😅
@jakepatterson2798 Well he certainly has "comedy value' despite lacking in integrity and intellect!
So sad he passed. Would loved to have seen a debate between him and hitchens...
Onnie Dixon ok? Lol. I know he defeated him. I love Turek. He got me into apologetics. I saw him live back in February. It was awesome! He's an awesome and funny guy.
Onnie Dixon lol, not really. Hitchens addressed all his points, if you said it was the hitchens craig debate you could say that but not this one.
Shane Ingle Turek is a rather bad apologist, he hasnt made a good point yet in any debate.
@@shawn4888 That's not true at all. I disagree witn turek on a lot. He's arminian, I'm reformed, but he still brings up good points, especially when he argurs morality.
Shane Ingle Sorry but its very true. His moral arguments are the easiest to defeat.
Cant wait for apologia studios to complete their Bahnsen University project.
That's so exciting! I didn't even know about Apologia Studios.
Have they finished it yet, and if so how would one be able to partake of it? Thank you!
I remember seeing him a couple times in person when I was a young.... his focus on watching for contradictions and arbitrariness was the basis of me learning how to THINK through issues and poke holes in things that most people fall for... I.e. Socialism in 2020
@Nick Jones "What's wrong with Socialism?" - what a troll. lol. The only people that think that question isn't completely absurd are A. people who have read zero books in their life or B. 18 yr olds. C. trolls.
Guess you thought the Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mao and every other dictator just HAPPENED to be some combination of Soclialist/Communist/Fascist? The 150million people that they murdered were just a coincidence and had nothing to do with their ideology or political philosophy.
Also - there is only one side that is silencing any and all opposition - THE LEFT. silencing opposition is a hallmark of all three of those - so remind me how the Right wing has anything to do with it?
That second sentence is so poorly worded I have no idea what you're even saying....
Suggestion - go read some real books about the USSR, Chinese cultural revolution, Hitler and other states that have been run under those systems. And no, there are no practical difference between them, even though in theory there are - they all lead to the same thing eventually.
@Nick Jones Ahh Yes, typical left winger that can’t have an argument without personal attacks.
“The right wingers generally ARNT to bright” - aren’t too - fixed that for you
Proof of God - what exactly are you wanting? A picture? A blood sample? Firsthand account? Video tape? An exact description of when, how and why he exists? Obviously, none of those things are possible, but there are very complete logical arguments as to why someone exists beyond ourselves, where universal truth and morality comes from. You must be just coming to the Bahnsen videos to troll the comment section instead of actually listen and think. Typical Lefty troll.
Now it’s your turn - Provide me proof of the big bang or however you think all of this popped into existence. Incontrovertible, physical proof of HOW, WHY and WHEN it happened. Can you provide ANY PROOF of how the world began? How consciousness came to be? Any proof at all? You apparently you only believe in things that you can PROVE so let's hear it.
Socialism is NOT “caring for the weakest in society”. Words matter and you can’t just say whatever you want and it be true. Again, you accuse me of running from questions, but you haven’t answered a single one.
From Webster since you obviously have zero idea what you’re talking about
1. Definition of socialism
2. 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
3. 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
4. b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
5. 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Also - you can’t provide a single shred of proof that Trump is a fascist because he's not. I can provide all kinds of proof that he's not a fascist. So go ahead sonny and let’s see all the proof that he’s some fascist dictator.
Further - you left Mao, Che, Lenin, Stalin, Maduro and Chavez off your list of ‘extremists’. There are no FREE and successful Socialist countries. Zero. And don’t use the usual Lefty argument that the Baltic states are Socialist because they’re not. They built their entire economies on FREE MARKETS not socialism. They are just a highly taxed and re-distributive capitalistic society.
ANSWER THOSE 2 QUESTIONS!!
@Nick Jones oh ok, so you're going to whine even tho I attempted to answer your question.... While at the same time ignoring every issue I raise with your entire arguments about socialism and any credible evidence that God doesn't exist or that the entire world just poofed into existence. That's what the Left does, accuse their opponents of the exact same crimes they commit. Sorry bud, no point in arguing with someone that can't coherently make an argument or avoid calling names and have a productive back and forth. Have good afternoon in your mom's basement eating Mac and cheese and playing your video games. Maybe read a few books about countries run by your lovely Socialists, actually do some research, do something other than parrot the talking points you here on MSNBC and then come back and try again.
@Nick Jones yeah that's why we can't stop people flooding over here...because America sucks so bad. Lmao. You still haven't pointed to a single fascist thing that Trump has done. Doofus.
Other guy... Thanks for proving my point by year spewing a bunch of drivel. You can go back to playing Fortnite and eating your Mac and cheese while the adults chat.
@Nick Jones illegal immigrants in cages? Obama built all those cages, not Trump. 2 secs and Google and you could've avoided making an idiot of yourself but it's clear all you do is parrot Leftist talking points you read somehow and throw a "Sonny" in there and you think you're making a coherent statement. US Lefty media even got caught using pictures from Obama's presidency to put out the story that Trump was responsible and then all immediately shut up once they got busted out.
For example... www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/baracks-ice-chief-cages-were-obamas-idea. Even the left biased Snopes had to admit Obama built them all.
So who's the fascist again? You're sitting there blabbing about people that believe in angels or don't believe in evolution but you can't answer the original simple question... Give me one example of how Trump is a Fascist. And try to pick something that Trump did instead of Obama this time. And if you think the fact that hospitals expect to be paid for service is somehow fascist or somehow Trump should be responsible for a system that's been in place for decades before he was in office then there's no point in talking further because you've lost touch with reality.
And no, I'm not answering your other random ridiculous questions because they're not even questions, you're just spouting off random statistics as if that is a question somehow... You do realize that the VAST majority of humans from the beginning of time until right now have some belief in God or angels or some higher being? So trying to make fun of people who may believe in angels is incredibly short sighted and shows how close minded and arrogant you are. Peace bro, you're a waste of time.. I've answered your actual questions and all u can do is say Trump is a Fascist for something that Obama did...and I'm sure you don't have the integrity to just admit you were wrong.
Like warm, cosy cement for your faith!
This is my first time listening to this guy and wow! He is great!
This is first time for me to listening his teaching.. it's amazing and excellent
Listening to this probably for the 3rd or 4th time
Same here.
Nick Jones you’re not listening
Nick Jones sure, you’re depending on logical absolutes, laws of induction, concepts such as self and others, and much more. You borrow these concepts from Christianity. You borrow from our epistemology and deny the ontological necessity
That’s game over friend
Nick Jones God governs the universe consistently by his nature. There. Now you proved induction using induction! Congrats you proved my point 🥳
He only lived to 47. Such a loss for all of us.
@Jay Gee Isn't Sye Bruggengate a Van Til " Presupposirional" apologist? I'm just an informal amateur for now
@Jay Gee These debates are like being on MARS HILL listening to philosophers debate Democritus cosmology of only atoms existing in the void. That all gods are the creation of men not man created by the gods.
@Jay Gee The 4 Horsemen: Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet (or Aron Ra) vs the " Christians" on the UTUBE
@Jay Gee lol, yet his arguments are all flawed in very obvious ways and why he accolades just look lile fools.
@Jay Gee lol, you already have plenty.
Why pretend otherwise?
Please at least dont pretend to be dumb after talking about the topic as if you understand it
That only makes you look more dishonest and disingenuous.
You either know the topics, in which case you also know the flaws or you really dont and are parroting
The room they’re in is either near an airport or a racetrack
It seems every time someone worth hearing speaks, the acoustics and video are horrible.
The fluff plays back flawlessly, with perfect clarity, the profound can barely be heard and the video is so low resolution I can barely read the whiteboard.
Its in a subway...thats under an airport and has a Starbucks kiosk located in the room as evidenced by the nonstop movement of the highly caffeinated attendees.
That's what I thought. Why not put the microphone right next to him and away from everyone who are clearing their throats and coughing.
Imagine an argument that starts with a conclusion and that conclusion necessarily being correct is in the premise. Preposterous. You could just as easily say "I have no argument, but I refuse to admit it, so I'm just gonna insist that everybody but me is wrong.." You're a special kind presupps.
Atheists evangelizing on Christian apologetic videos are a peculiar breed themselves.
Thank you so much for posting this! Amazing intellect and a beautiful Christian.
Reasoning with believers is a much more difficult task, am I right?
Just a thought: unbelievers want historical records, written by unbelievers, to support the Bible. The problem for the unbelievers is that all the eye witness accounts are from believers, and unfortunately for them, they cannot logically connect the dots to see why that is. The Bible calls them fools for a reason. We must pray for them. They are blind in their minds and hearts just like we were too.
@@rationalevidence9095 yeah! So true. Thank you for putting that more accurately:)
@@rationalevidence9095 The problem is there is no evidence if any eye witness accounts.
Theists are deluded scum parasites upon science and technology.
You disgusting evil shite. Thousands, thousands of years went by and people suffered in miserable ignorance, cowering in shivering fear at every lightning bolt and thunderclap, under Thor and Zeus and Yahweh, and you, you pieces of shit, did nothing, not one thing, not a single thing to make that situation better. You pieces of shit
Why are eyewitness accounts so reliable? Eyewitness accounts or eyewitness testimony just happens to be the most unreliable form of evidence in a court of law.
thanks for uploading this.
Dropping gems!!!
Praise God...AMAZING TEACHING!
Reasoning is impossible with unreasonable people. There will always be those who refuse to believe because they are living in open rebellion toward the Lord.
And the unreasonable people are believers who dont use reason for their beliefs.
@@shawn4888 Then there are people like me who believe because we died and came back to life having seen what's "on the other side."
@@michaelg7904 Except you dont have evidence that you saw the other side.
@@shawn4888 I don't have evidence? A life changed is my evidence. Your request for "evidence" tells me you simply refuse to believe. If you chose to believe the truth, you could have asked me what I saw.
@@michaelg7904 You literally couldn't have evidence that you saw the other side.
Thanks for all your posts!!!!!!!!
Thanks for sharing. Where did u get these videos?
Hey, guys. Could you please help me understanding what he says right after "do what you ought to do" in 50:13?
Thank you!
Slight correction: the timestamp you're referring to is actually 51:13. During this time he is revealing the contradiction of Friar Jean Paul who said:
*You shouldn't suppress your freedom by allowing yourself to be told by others what you ought to do: you should live tour life choosing what you want to do.*
Friar Jean Paul contradicts himself by telling others to live their lives not listening to what others tell them. So then the listener has to ask themselves and Jean Paul:
*Well why should I have to listen to you?*
@@jeremiahcastro9700 You´re right about the timing. Thank you, brother.
Dear brother, would you have the Bahnsen x Tabash full debate video? I´m interested on making a translation. My channel is focused on providing christian content with portuguese subtitles (Brazil portuguese).
I would gadly provide you the *srt file if you´re interested.
I´m already doing this very lecture´s subtitles.
God bless.
It’s available now
Dude was a brilliant thinker
You're shittin' me
@Dd S you got a PhD in strawmanning didn't you?
@Dd S ok then, where's your refutation, specifically, of something he said?
Brilliant for a babybrain.
@Dd S It seems to me that the gist of this is he demonstrates that those who claim a "rational/logical worldview" (and who claim Christians are just in fantasy land) are using, what they claim to be, irrational/illogical (read: non-scientific) presuppositions in their own worldview.
This is due to the obvious fact that at a basic level the scientific method can't account for the unobservable/untestable. It is, by definition, outside the realm of science and it is the realm of philosophy.
So again, to hold any worldview even an atheist/agnostic MUST hold certain non-scientific presuppositions. That is the point. We all must make some "exception", not just Christians.
Once we get down to that level, we can from there debate/discuss which belief system is best. (which isn't really the topic of this lecture, but is addressed rashly, addressing muslims and hindus) But we can't get started on which belief system is best until everyone admits that they have a belief system. Too many atheists assume that they get a "pass" on their presuppositional assumptions. That is a BIG pass, that they want -- they want their beliefs to be taken as true while refuting a Christian's beliefs.
Thanks for the video
At 30:20-35. "....We know that miracles are impossible?! Play the part of Columbo...."
It seems Greg Koukl got his "Columbo tactic" from Greg Bahnsen.
Thanks for posting!
0:20 early signs of corona...
I need a transcript of this. This is brilliant.
Dd S Your assertion demonstrates that you do not understand presuppositional apologetics. Finite creatures all employ circular reasoning. It is the vicious circle that leads to so many problems
Dd S Is your statement about me and others that you have derided on this channel meaningful? How do you account for meaning and purpose in your worldview? Do you understand the difference between a virtuous and vicious circle? Circular reasoning is the most reasonable form of reasoning for a finite personality. No other form of reasoning is possible. Your comments further demonstrates that the Christian and the non-Christian like are not on neutral ground both perspectives are girded by presuppositions.
@Dd S
Do you think that anyones reasoning is in the last analysis not circular? Even Ozymandias Ramses II does agree with this.
@Dd S
I am not sure I understand. If you state that reason is grounded in reality, don't you confuse metaphysics with epistemology? The question first is how I can know what the "really real" is. So in order to know what "grounds" (metaphysically) my reason I must already use my reason. In that sense epistemology presupposes a metaphysics and vice versa. I think this step is inevitable, but I am open to be corrected.
@Dd S
Well, try to convince a Hindu or a Zen-buddhist of this.
But this is not the point. Sure I know what the really real is because I am a christian. But the point is not IF we are living in the really real (because we obviously do) but if we can account for it. The point is not material but formaly in nature. The question is what your formal appeal to reality is. This is not at all obvious. You try to clinge to some sort of common sense realism, but then again: what is obvious?
Apart from that I invite you from refrain from namecalling and the sort. Either we have a reasonable dialogue or not. _Ad hominem_ arguments are not at all interesting and lead to nowhere.
Clark agreed with reducing the argument to absurdity.
G. Bahnsen is a linguistic machine😣 🔫
@Dd S why would.you care? Please answer according to you beliefs/proofs
@Dd S you have not answered on why you care. You just say you care. Ok. Is your care determined or free and why?
@Dd S
Please help me but this is the ubsurdity atheistic logic boils down to as I see it. "If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting onmatter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts andmine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle ofMountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheisticallyand I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions.
Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally vanishing away. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water, nothing else.
Let me give give you some advice. Just say yes to God and ask Him to help you understand the objections you have. The fact that you try to help people is already proofnthere is a God since your view has no logic to care outside of brainfizz. Call out to God that has loved you and is drawing you closer. You cannot out run God.
@Dd S so what it it then? You cannot explain why you care. You are not living accouding what you clam your epistemology is. I see you struggle abit with ad hominem attacks instead of thinking and facing the truth.
@Dd S thanks for a bit better answer although not satisfyingly answered at all.
one of God's great Marcos lopez - Brazil
Glad i found this
Oh how I wish that it never ended
Astounding!
Would have loved to see this guy go at Hitchens.
MountainDew7 hitchens would have torn him apart.
@Dd S Not only is your comment entirely wrong, it shows that you are utterly ignorant of what presuppositional apologetics even is or claims to do. It's almost as if you merely saw Bahnsen's name in the title of this video, knew he was associated with the pressuppositional method, which you hate, and the proceeded to comment your pre-conceived prejudice without even watching the video in order to make something akin to an informed comment. It is very difficult to respond to someone who apparently does not care about the truth, but I will try.
Presuppositional apologetics is not a method which says, "The Christian worldview is the only one that can be presupposed; all others have to be proven." On the contrary, the presuppositionalist recognizes that knowledge and morality themselves require what are called "necessary preconditions of intelligibility." For example, in order for anyone to make _any_ kind of truth claim on _any_ given topic, they must _presuppose_ that 1) the world is intelligible, 2) logic exists and is consistent and coherent, and 3) that determining the truth is something we _ought_ to do. These beliefs, of course, cannot be proven, but must be _presupposed._
Now, the question presuppositionalism seeks to answer is this: Which worldview-which is a presupposed set of beliefs in order to make sense of the world as we experience it-makes knowledge and morality possible. It is absolutely clear that it is the _Christian_ worldview, and it alone, that accomplishes this. Without the triune God of Scripture, there can be no knowledge or ethics. If all we are is merely matter and motion, as atheism claims, then there is no metaphysical basis for knowledge or morality. The same philosophical flaws can be found in all other religions, as well. They all fail at some point or another, which most of the time has to do with "the problem of the one and the many."
Therefore, anyone who claims to be a non-Christian, yet who also claims to know something, is presupposing to some degree the Christian worldview, and is therefore philosophically and metaphysically inconsistent because the Christian worldview is by definition an all-or-nothing worldview; it cannot be received piecemeal. This incoherence is what presuppositionalists seek to expose, and that is how they do apologetics.
Things often make more sense if you would only put forth the effort to understand them.
@Dd S A few thoughts...
1) Ridicule and mockery does not make a sound argument (neither do the use of emojis and caps).
2) Prove to me that 2+2=4 without merely asserting it is true or saying that "anyone can do it." Give me proof.
3) All knowledge is by nature circular at its deepest root, because knowledge needs a fixed and certain point of reference. This fixed point is called a worldview. Even in your very own comments, you are using the laws of logic, and even mathematics. Yet you haven't proven to me that these things exist. That's because you can't. You simply must assume their existence, accessibility, and reliability, and hope it's actually true.
Do you not have a worldview? If you do, then present it and let's examine it to see if it offers the necessary preconditions of intelligibility.
@Dd S A couple more thoughts...
1) The circularity is _because_ of the fixed reference point. It's like an orbit: it is circular because it has a fixed point of reference. Your criticism here doesn't make sense at all, and I think it's because you did not read my comment or think about it at any meaningful level. It is very difficult to speak to someone who is determined to do this at every turn. Is this how you treat everyone? I do hope not. But, then again, I cannot assume that anyone who believes all we are is matter and motion would have any metaphysical basis for treating others with respect. All this is is "Exhibit A" for my argument.
2) I never said I am not convinced 2+2=4. Again, you are not interacting with me at all, but merely seeing what you want to see. On the contrary, I am _very_ convinced that 2+2=4 because my worldview allows for the possibility of universal mathematical principles able to be accessed by the human mind. Does your worldview, which I assume is atheism, do this? If so, how? Can you demonstrate it?
@Dd S Again, mockery only makes the mocker a fool. You are only making a fool of yourself. But, because I care about rational discussion, I want to actually discuss the content of your comment rather than resort to childish antics. I hope you will choose to rise above that moving forward.
First, you are correct, you never said that we are only matter and motion. In fact, I never _said_ you said that. But no matter, is this no correct? Does your worldview consist of something else besides matter and motion? Do you believe in non-material entities? Spirits? Deities? Help me out. Of what does your worldview consist?
Second, I assumed you knew what my fixed reference point for knowledge is: the truine God of Scripture and his revelation. Given his existence, the universe, being created by his perfect mind, has order, is consistent, and is predictable. Therefore, my worldview can account for logic, mathematics, personality, and ethics. Can yours? I cannot know until you present your worldview for examination.
Third and finally, you are right that we do not need to have a worldview "worked out" in order to do math. But I never said we did. Because a worldview is a presupposed set of beliefs that cannot themselves be proven in the standard sense, one does not need to be consciously or thoughtfully cognizant of them to operate by them. I am not aware of how the support system under my house's floor works, but I don't need to know to presuppose their stability and strength to hold my floor up so I can walk on it.
So, you are right, a third grader doesn't need to know about their presuppositions to be able to do math. However, the fact remains that doing math (or logic, or ethics, or whatever) _requires_ that we presuppose that the laws of math and 1) accessible by the human mind (assuming the human mind in a thing to begin with, which is not apparent in the atheist worldview), and 2) will not be different tomorrow than they were yesterday. After all, if the universe is nothing more than a mass of chaos, and meaningless, origin-less matter floating about at random, who is to say that the laws of mathematics, assuming there are any, will not change tomorrow? Given the atheist metaphysic, they very well could.
Therefore, given atheism, we can know nothing.
1:18:45
This was my favourite part.
Why is that your favourite part?
@@daithiocinnsealach1982Gordon Stein debate mentioned, most of us learned about Bahnsen from that video.
Anyone that's watching THIS that is currently rejecting the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... He, the Lord Almighty, is drawing you.
Do you have any background on where this was taught and for what occasion?
This is the best two hours of a 40 hour seminary level apologetics course. It was done at Messiahs Covenant Community Church in Brooklyn probably around 1993. This lecture and "The Debate That never Was" are in my opinion the two meatiest and most useful samples of Bahnsens apologetic.
+Rodriguez Sounds Cmf should have audio and video for sale.
@@a5dr3 Fuck hate to hear the 38 other hours. So thats the best??
@Dd S Seriously, the physical universe and living things are proof positive that (1) God is and (2) God made them. The Holy Bible is God's revelation of Himself to his ultimate creation, mankind. The physical universe is there for mankind to investigate. Do so.
creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing
creation.com/15-questions-responses-1
@@prudencegrahame1519 Who forced you to listen to this much?
Great lecture. What year was this recorded, please?
BluePurpleAndScarlett early to mid 90s
1000yrs bc
Probably around 1993.
This blesses me every time I here it
Jeremy Veras Then you dont pay very good attention.
@@shawn4888 - That depends on the position you take. In contradiction to you he obviously does! But what does he mean 'every time I here it! Who have ears may hear!
@@Morewecanthink He still obviously doesn't.
Don't be an idiot.
I hope the guy with the cough is feeling better
Laws of logic are material; they exists as representations in human brains, using matter
May God's PRESENCE WISDOM AND LOVE BE WITH YOU NOW AND FOREVERMORE SELAH
Very helpful perspectives and insights. I'm new to Bahnsen's work, but carry a presuppositional perspective when reasoning with unbelievers. One thing I noticed though, is he goes into manuscript evidence which would then be evidential apologetics, wouldn't it?
Dont you think presup is actually detrimental to your cause?
Doesnt it give the impression that Christians have given up on trying to present credible evidence cos you havnt got any and so need to resort to childish word games?
No, there’s a good discussion from revealed apologetics about presup and evidentialism, and concludes that presup uses everything as evidence for God
The point there would be to show that the unbeleiver is just making bold assertions about the manuscripts being unreliable, without actually knowing anything.
It wouldnt be "look at all of these manuscripts that should make you believe in God"
Did presuppositional apologetics become a robust and honest argument? Did I miss a meeting?
I never came accross Dr. Greg Bahnsen before. Interesting video. I doubt his reasoning would hold up in a modern debate however. He seems so focused on pointing out that unbelievers have their own biases (which no-one is disputing) that he forgets that this does not advance the premise that what's written in The Bible is true. By pointing out that someone is a skeptic does not dismiss any points that are raised about the legitimacy of whatever subject matter.
@@shemsuhor8763 well said.
@@shemsuhor8763 lol, yet it's never been shown to be logical or rational.
@@shemsuhor8763 Its funny how dishonest bahnsen was considering he knew he couldn't justify his own position.
@@shemsuhor8763 you really are really stupid if you think any 9f those things are stolen from Christianity. It's Christianity trying to steal things. They stole their entire narrative from other religions and now Bahnsen is trying to steal ideas that predate Christianity.
@@shawn870 These beliefs were held before the other world religions came be. The term Christian was first used in Antioch as a slur against the disciples, those who followed the "book" and believed Christ was the promised Messiah of the OT.
What a great man of God
What a sad and pitiful laughable charleton who needs childish word games because he can't provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god.
Isnt this Christians in full retreat? ADDMITTING you cant provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god and so needing childish word games that no reasonable person is convinced by?
@@nickjones6651 Bahnsen invented a problem, (that never substantiated.)
Bahnsen invented a solution to the problem, (that he never substantiated) that he also never substantiated.
Bahnsen invented rules, (that he never justified) that say the only solution to the problem he invented (that he never substantiated) is the solution he invented (that he never substantiated.)
Bahnsen then goes on to make up additional rules saying that anyone disagreeing with his made up problem, made up solution and made up rules, must first justify their position, using his made up rules, before they can disagree with his made up rules, which includes another rule stating that any position that disagrees with his made up problem and made up solution can't be justified.
@@yournightmare9562 you need to go back to your wheels of learning, because that is not the position held by Bansen. He is asserting that the atheist offers argumentation without evidence. Prove him wrong. Argue without being arbitrary.
@@michaelreichwein3970 he doesn’t just asserted his nephews of argumentation is to disprove the contrary.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 ??? You need better translation software!
It's just a shame the unbelievers I encounter aren't as reasonable as Greg Bahnsen.
Steve Carroll or it could be you are the unreasonable one.
Until that hairy sky ped creep turns up. Stop trying to prove its existence on hearsay. Honesty is
Mind blown at 44:47...
This is a Japanese apologetic ministry?
COUGH! COUGH!
Yes very distracting.
Bahnsen gives a very factual reasoned evidenced based argument, in spite of the many comments below that deny it based on their biased opinion, not on factual truth they give that disprove the facts that are given, which is exactly what Bahsen warned most unbelievers do; unfounded reasoning. However, the greatest power of Christianity Bahsen doesn't bring to bear, that's the word of God.
The word given by God for man to know God, know mans condition of lost sin filled life in need of "good news' that God has provided away to resolve this animosity towards God as enemies trying to resolve the separation can be in some way appeased by their own works ie their religion. The "modern", enlightened, man will never admit that their philosophy/religion is self, what ever you want is truth, every person it right for their right way and satisfaction and the main tennet is to be "tolerating" everyone, except Christians. They are no different than those who pursued false religions, man's way, man's truth, man is god, my idol is myself.
The only solution to man has always been God's answer, which is man's answer is the problem. Only by God's grace reaching to man through a miraculous intervention by God coming to earth, Emmanuel, the Messiah, only by His means of the perfect sacrifice that does what no man can do, rise to life.
The very stone you reject is the very foundation of the only salvation, becareful, be fearful, repent, believe in God His Savior, Kiss the Son. ( Mt. 4:17; Rom. 3:23; 5:6-10; 6:23; 10:9-11; Jn. 14:6; I Cor. 15:3-4; Ps. 2) If you want to know more about Jesus Christ let me know.
?
That's just your biased opinion.
There's not a person alive w/o bias, but that inclination can be based on fact, truth, righteousness or lies, deception, incorrect information, ...so which is it for you, opinion based upon that which is revealed by God or you?
@@vaughnlonganecker986 he didnt present evidence.
Gravity doesn't work
are you from japan?
Yes...yes I am, how did you know?
CaliFishga are you a presuppositionalist?
I must be an OLDTIMER. I still Remember chalk boards
Bahnsen was the best apologist of all time. Like a Grandmaster who could see fives moves ahead. Other people imitate him constantly but he was special. His logic was authoritative in its ability to expose and destroy. He could grasp all the ramifications of each individual fallacious thought because he could see the whole epistemological picture and the history of western philosophy so clearly, and how each assertion was inter-related to the whole. He could helicopter out and then zoom in off the cuff in debate, in a way that was so efficacious that it sounded scripted. And all this within the context of an encyclopedic knowledge Scripture and Systematic Theology, that he constantly stood on and drew from.
It’s such a shame he didn’t live long enough to wipe the floor with Hitchens, etc. He was only getting more and more skilled and knowledgeable, as he essentially died young.
True and true. But by Gods grace Dr Bahnsens training can launch many of us as skilled Apologists too, right?
PS: Using this video in our homeschooling to train our kids to think & evangelize for Christ honorably !
@@davida1610 lol, then you are teaching them how to lie and be dishonest.
Hitchins would have wiped the floor with him.
He's on his knees in front jesus,and he aint praying.!
I'm convinced that Dr. Bahnsen is proof that God loves atheists, because if God had allowed Dr. Bahnsen to remain on earth into old age there wouldn't be any atheists left.
Lol
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
Yo.... you cracked me up with that one! I couldn't have said it any better!
Jim Hampton It was supposed to be a joke, no need for doing any critical analysis on his comment.
Would any of you be interested in doing a google hangout to discuss presuppositionalism?
"People think they have the right to just believe whatever they want when it comes to religion." Well, yes! I do think I have that right. I think that statement pretty well sums up Dr. Bahnsens brand of apologetics. He seems to feel that a person has no right to believe anything contrary to what he believes.
Dr. Bahnsen cautions one to look for arbitrariness and contradiction, yet his entire belief-system was arbitrary and filled with contradiction. And ultimately it was based on an unsound argument, viz., the transcendental argument for the existence of god. Cornelius van Til's presuppositional argument for Christian theism, which Dr. Bahner embraced - and many would claim that he presented more cogently than did van Til - depends upon the soundness of the transcendental argument. However, numerous philosophers over the past sixty years or so - notably Prof. Barry Stroud of U. Cal. Berkeley and Prof Stefan Korner of Bristol University - have shown that the transcendental argument is not sound, and thus not adequate to carry the weight of presuppositional Christian apologetics, and reduces the position to, "the Bible is true because I believe it is true." Ultimately, that's not all that persuasive to a nonbeliever.
Dr. Bahner, a much-admired man and scholar to be sure, was I think so completely convinced of the truth of his beliefs and the soundness of his arguments that he was unable to see the problems with these beliefs and arguments.
For example, he begins this video setting up a strawman non-believer who is arguing that the New Testament has not been, or may not have been, accurately handed down since the various books were originally written, and Dr. Bahner counters this this strawman by pointing out that we have complete books of the New Testament dating to the Third Century and a virtually complete New Testament dating to the Fourth. The problem is, so what? No atheist of my acquaintance doubts the existence of these manuscripts or argues that they don't accurately reflect the original writings. They just don't believe the Bible is true. And by that, I don't mean they are arguing that much of the history set out in the New Testament is false, but rather that the claims of miracles and of Jesus's divinity are not true. The people who wrote the books of the New Testament, primarily St. Paul and the Gospel writers, were not eye-witnesses to the events they were reporting. There is no basis whatsoever to accept that the events they reported actually happened except faith. None. Plenty of people in American today believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 Presidential election despite overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. And that event happened three short years ago and was obsessively documented and examined, yet still they believe. So what is to keep Paul and the gospel writers from incorporating unproven stories of miracles and Jesus's claim of divinity? Nothing, really.
Clearly Dr. Bahnsen was a believer, and his belief was so strong, so unshakeable, that he was unable to see that his claim that Christian theism is true is an unfalsifiable claim, and thus is unprovable, just as no one can prove that his claim is false. It comes down to belief. Dr. Bahnsen really couldn't accept that there is no proof.
And yet here you are generalizing logic and morality being entirely consistent with Christianity while dismissing Christianity (which is to be inconsistent) and ultimately playing yourself.
@@chiefofsinners5272 That is the usual moronic hogwash I expect from presuppositionalists. Everyone else is 'borrowing' from the Christian worldview, whether we know it or not. I have never read or heard one single cogent argument supporting that position, and that concludes Bahner. Whenever presuppositional apologists get to the part about how the TAG argument leads inevitably to Christian theism, the whole discourse becomes a bit fuzzy. Most of them do what you have done, and just assert it with no backup whatsoever. I love your handle though. Kingofsinners. Embracing that sin, 'Oh, Lordy, Lordy, I am a sinner. But I have seen the light, and Jesus is my redeemer!" What a bunch of nonsensical drivel.
I'm not a Presupp but THIS GUY IS GOOD!
he's a free advertisment for atheism, he created Darth Dawkins.
@@Contagious93812 I seen this German physicist Sabine Hossenfelder. She says there is NO Free will because Consciousness is an ILLUSION. The mind playing a trick upon itself. She makes good videos for somebody that doesn't Really exist
@@joehinojosa24 the idea that consciousness is an illusion she probably got from daniel dennet, Sam Harris believes that consciousness exists and it's immaterial
@@Contagious93812 " Immaterial"? My Woo Woo alarm just went off
@@joehinojosa24 you are simply wrong, its the free will part that is an illusion
Bahnsen states to be on the look out for "prejudicial conjecture"/arbitrariness. Well, that is what we can consider the Christian claim that all the propositions in the Bible are true.
Bahnsen is claiming that critics are just giving the educated opinions against Christianity and nothing more which is not the case at all. There are many critics of Christianity that hold Ph.D.'s in Biblical topics that were once devoted Christians. They know the Bible much better than Bahnsen and they reject Christianity based on the evidence; not merely opinion.
The arguments against Christianity do come from scholarship and NOT "prejudicial conjecture" as Bahnsen claims. I have a 3-part series on my UA-cam channel where I offer my reasons against Christianity. I challenge the Christians here to watch it and then debate me on the issues I bring forward.
Please note: in the following comment I am not trying to say the Bible is inaccurate, only that small insignificant changes have occurred. I am thankful for the Bible and it's message.
Greg asks at 5:50: "what's the basis for your saying that [the biblical texts have been changed and modified in various revisions over time]?"
An easy answer I would think most Christians would accept is the Bible itself. Go and get your Bible and turn to the end of the gospel of Mark (chapter 16). You'll note that after verse 8, the commentary in the Bible says that "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20."
So the Bible says the Bible has been changed over time. This is hardly an "arbitrary presupposition."
I wouldn't dismiss this footnote simply for being a footnote. The Bible wasn't written in English, which means it's translated, which is why there are different versions with different words. From these foreign translated texts comes a Bible that is not compiled from a single text, but compiled from multiple texts - called codices - which is used to compile the Bible you find on your bookshelf. For instance, which version of the original scripture might be considered God's unchanged word? It's compiled from Codex Bobiensis, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and other manuscript sources.
I agree that the critical message of the Bible is preserved, but a belief that not one word of the Bible has changed over time doesn't seem fully accurate.
My apologies for assuming. Here are some questions for you so that I can understand you better:
1. Are you seeking greater biblical understanding?
2. Do you believe the Bible was written in English?
3. What version of the Bible do you trust as the unchangeable word of God?
4. Why do you trust your version over other versions?
5. Does your Bible include verses 9-20 in Mark 16?
6. Does your Bible include a commentary about those verses?
7. If so, what do you think the meaning of that commentary implies?
8. What language(s) do you believe the bible was translated from?
9. Do you recognize the uncial codices as reliable original sources of translation?
10. Do you believe these codices have any differences in their wording or content at all?
10. If not the codices, what do you believe is the original, oldest, and most reliable primary source for the version of the bible you trust?
Len Schulwitz, I think it is sad that quite a few Christians are not aware of passages like that, or their history. I also don't find it to be a particularly damning example of a "changed and modified" Bible. Your Mark example, and passages like the adultery pericope in John 8 and other insertions, can be removed without changing any Biblical theology. Usually the claim of "changed and modified" passages is meant to convey that the message of the Bible is now different from what was originally written (along with a conspiracy to suppress the originals), not that it is the same with a few extra stories that shouldn't be in there.
Besides, how do we know they were changed? Well, we found even earlier copies that didn't have the passages. What was the response of Christians? Some clung to the old passages and their old translations and rejected the new texts, but the vast majority of modern translations either move the inserted passages to a footnote, or bracket the passage and add a footnote explaining the lack historical precedent. Christians on the whole are committed to the historically accurate texts rather than the insertions.
And moreover, a big reason we know they are insertions is that the earliest texts we now have are remarkably consistent with the later copies; the copyists took great care to preserve the original text and avoid changing it. The vast majority of changes are in spelling and minor grammar changes. The popular theory about how these passages came to be included is that they were margin notes or unrelated texts copied onto blank bits of pages (writing supplies were very expensive), and later copyists, not wanting to omit any part of scripture and unsure how to take the insertions, took the safe answer and preserved rather than omitted the insertions. That indicates that the copyists' purpose was to not change the Bible.
Len - the important thing is not the autographic manuscript, but the autographic text. There are errors when human transmission enters into the picture, (if there wasn't it would lead to an absurd conclusion that God must somehow protect the copying, textual criticism, translation, editions, teaching, preaching, sacraments, confessions, creeds, traditions, human reception, interpretation, and understanding of a text so that no error ever enters into it any aspect.) - but there is nothing within a million years of affecting any doctrine or message. The Bible is a giant jigsaw puzzle where texts elucidates other texts that were written thousands of years apart. All doctrine is derived from multiple Scriptures. If you throw out an entire book of the Bible you won't change the message, you'll only affect its precision. If you try to add a book to the Bible you'll find that it contradicts the unified message of Scripture. It is so absurdly easy for any fair enquirer to see that the Bible is supernatural in origin when it is studied. There are so many reasons, in fact, from the thousands of fulfilled prophecies to the majesty of the character of Christ and the story of salvation, that we will be without excuse on judgement day for living in rebellion against His Word.
A translation of any text, does not change its content. Just because some manuscripts do not contain certain verses (which is fallacious because the manuscripts don't contain verses), is not a basis to believe it has been changed or is u reliable. We have more manuscripts than any other collection of writings of antiquity. The more, the better, and all textual critics agree with this.
you cant feed a dog that isnt hungry...the starting point should always be are you hungry? if not, game over, the rest of time is in vain. this is NOT about reason! it is about will--the heart condition.
Jesus said " be wise as serpents, and gentle as doves". And Apostle Paul " be living epistles to all men". Lastly Hebrews 4v12. Must have Christ wisdom that knows the hearts of men. Jermaine 17v9.-10.
This is a giant lesson on how to shift the burden of proof. Literally the most disenguous way of arguing your claim that a god DOES exist.
No, Christians have presented the evidence in the Bible. He's dealing with the reasons why atheists /non believers reject the testimony of Scripture
It’s a sane and solid argument. It’s what finally freed me from the prison if lifelong indoctrination into materialism.
1. All worldviews have presuppositions. Which (if any) cancreate a coherent worldview.
2. Materialism is (and monisms are) incoherent and contradictory. Certainly that worldview cannot work.
3. Dualism is much less contradictory and more coherent.
4. There is one issue with it, the bridge.
5. The only way to a self-consistent worldview is a transcendent being.
6. In other classes: let’s look at the various worldviews with transcendent beings.
No one in the comments has offered a single objection. Theyve just said prove God, as if it’s an evidentiary argument. It’s not. It *does not* assume materialism and then try to prove God. It’s not about burden of proof. It’s about whether any coherent worldview exists. And that all worldviews have presuppositions. If you want to comment on what’s actually heing said that’s fine. You’ll be the first in this comment thread.
if Greg was alive today, the whole world would believing by now. haha. there a person in this video that has a cough and is sooo annoying.I think Bahnsen almost broke. check out 1:06:24 lol
dustydirt lol, you wish
@Dd S - Flat-bottomed jaws like you just don't get it.
@@shawn4888
“You wish”
The irony is that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism basically says that (nobody took no time to turn nothing into everything) a belief that at worst is synonymous with the belief in magic and at best it’s synonymous with the belief in myths and miracles. I don’t need secular myths and secular religion to know what right and wrong is!! I wouldn’t have the arrogance to gaslight or lecture a bereaved mother during a pandemic who’s only consolation is the hope of being reunited with her child in some kind of afterlife.
My favourite are the atheists who believe it’s their moral imperative to lecture believers who are in mourning that they will never ever see their loved ones again. However, the question is why do atheists behave this way? Is it because…
(A) Atheists are more intelligent, empathic, compassionate and caring?
(B) Atheists know everything as they are more highly evolved than everyone else?
(C) Atheists have “proven” beyond doubt that (nobody took no time to turn nothing into everything)?
(D) Atheists who feel that it’s their moral imperative to tell people who are bereaved that there is no afterlife are douche bags.?
Please Vote Now.
@@georgedoyle7971 Why lie in such obvious ways?
@@georgedoyle7971 everything you just says you have no clue.
Honesty is best policy. This guy 👦 used a lot of projection.
How is a belief that the dead do not rise in harmony with abiogenesis?
There is an assumption that once a conscious life is "spent" it cannot be recovered. Once the individual molecules that made the conscious being have dissipated, even if they reassembled would not bring back the original conscious identity, but maybe a new one..
Its called fertilizer.
You should read a book on abiogenisis.
The Title is incorrect - it is impossible to reason with unbelievers.
Unbelievers are not reasonable, they will not believe reality.
Are you stupid?
You actually have that backwards
@@shawn4888 I actually have it exactly correct.
@@mateuszs.9773 Look in the mirror to see stupid.
@@DavidParker-cf2km Really? I don't write idiotic comments like you. Better think, before you write something.
How is this not a blatant case of prejudice, bias, special pleading and conjecture, to say that "if this is the very word of god, then it is to be treated differently...?"
Jistheman100 how is he saying that it should be treated differently?
Michael Reichwein 7:38 he is saying a lot of big what ifs, and making conjectures about a book being the very word of God. He uses the word "different " or "differently " as if other books or playing the game of telephone can garble up messages, but not this bible, because....God..?
Jistheman100 I don't believe you fully grasp what dr. Greg bahnsen is stating. if the Bible is what it claims to be then that in itself is a very big statement. the Bible is not stating that there is vanilla and chocolate please oh please pick vanilla. that is.... that there are many paths to heaven, and the Bible being just one of them. the Bible is saying that if you reject its truth, .....the word of God. Then you cannot make sense of anything! take away God, ....and you can no longer count for induction or the uniformity of nature. take away God, ... you lose that absolute standard by which we all make ethical evaluations. Please understand that the foundation's to epistemology do not live in isolationism. for every "why", or "how", I believe there is excess baggage that accompanies it.
I wonder what is meant by the phrase ,"then it should be treated differently". quoting the above gentlemen. maybe the real question is... is the Bible the actual word of God given to mankind?
Michael Reichwein if that is the real question that you are asking...then how exactly, what method are we to use to determine if said collection of books combined into one book actually comes from a God?
Jistheman100 well that is the million-dollar question. and it even may come down to what you accept as being evidence either for or against the authenticity of scripture. but something to keep in mind from the outset is that the scripture, given that they're comprised of 66 different books over a long period of time, are not presented as bedtime stories nor given as fantasy, but rather as a documented testimony of the interactions between man and God. you might say that if we were in a court of law you would be looking at 66 different affidavits, all testifying to the power and Majesty of God. there is another gentleman that has posted that the sole purpose of religion is to con man out of his money. well if that was the case, then the 12 apostles that follow Christ where shafted the most, for most of them were killed for what they believed in.
as soon as he starts someone is caughing like theyre dying . Nice. haha.. anyway this is cool stuff.
WuzZz Da DeAL! 👑✝️👑
Bahnsen is teaching Presuppositionalism - just presuppose your sect's brand of Christianity is the total truth, then ignore every other possibility. Pay no attention to the fact religion is not rational. Most people die in whatever religion they were raised. Indoctrination is powerful and keeps people from thinking rationally. Fortunately, that is starting to change as more and more people leave religion behind.
Christianity has more converts from a different culture/religion than any other in the world. Christianity makes more change, impossible change to loving their enemy, that no other religion comes close to, that's because it's a work of God to bring ones soul to life, "born again", this is what you need to see God and understand what His word declares, you cannot understand anything past "all have sinned" and repent and believe in Jesus Christ paying for your sins and rose to life.
@@vaughnlonganecker986 the bible god was created by Bronze Age men 3,000 years ago in a multi-billion year old universe. And all gods are man-made myths.
I didn't state which religion is fastest growing, however, no one knows the immense increase in Christianity in China which could have more Christians than the western world, but which religion brings about change from other religions. Now this statistic is a hard one to measure and it could be that the forced conversions of Islam could be more than Christianity today, but historically no religion comes close to bringing people out of false religions be it paganism, idolatry, Buddhism, Hinduism, and there are large numbers of Muslims coming to Christ, but like in the religions of Communism, the Islamic world will not allow Christians to proclaim their faith openly and freely.
But all this is not the main point, unlike all other religions, who correctly to your suspicions have no merit to them as they are made by man, Christianity is the work of God, the Creator who made you. Gen. 1:1; Jn. 1:1
Prove what you say
You have given no evidence for your claims only degrading and swearing, does this give veracity to your position?
1:08:00
Get that guy a cough drop.
1:30:04 - 1:31:05 What the fuck is wrong with this guy? He "sensitively" used his opponent's murdered relatives to make a point in a debate? And then bragged about it in this lecture instead of being ashamed of it? Oh yeah, clearly he gets what morality is all about.
Oy regeneration can change the atheist.
Unless you're going to offer some justification for your beliefs, you are also just providing an opinion. As an atheist I have one position: all efforts to convince me a god exists have failed. Look, nothing arbitrary or inconsistent. Now what?
So, what do you believe and why? Convince me.
Lastly and of most importance: Could you be wrong?
Just asking religious people to define a belief would keep them occupied for a bit.
Reasoning with antinomianistic Christians feels like dealing with unbelievers at times. So Slippery/obtuse...
Because they are
1:20:43 _"You can't say the material world is predictable because its nature is to be predictable."_
This coming from the guy that says:
God is always truth revealing because its his nature to be always truth revealing
God is moral because its his nature to be moral
God is logical because its his nature to be logical
God is (______) because its his nature to be (________). (Kind, loving, just, merciful, etc)
Take *ANY* criticism that Bahnsen levies at any other worldview and apply it to his and he has the same problem (usually many times over) but all good presuppers will bully their way through the conversation and not allow those sort of criticisms because that's the only way his stupid apologetic can ever "work" (and by work, I mean appear to win an argument, not to actually change anybody's mind)
Lol there is a big difference between defining the nature of God, versus defining the nature of a material substance.
@@saint-jiub Yeah, material things actually exist.
@@ajhieb but not all things are material.
@@saint-jiub I didn't say otherwise.
@@ajhieb My apologies, I misread your original comment.
God is immortal: If Jesus ever died, under any circumstances, then he was not God.
Im 10 minutes in and all i had heard so far is strawman after strawman. Of course he knocks everything out of the park! Let's see him stealman something and see how he does.
Low iq take. #steelman
I want to get that guy who keeps coughing and throw him out of the room.
Should have been kicked out.
1:05 _"No one is allowed to be arbitrary if you're trying to present a rational basis for what you believe."_
NINETEEN SECONDS LATER WITHOUT A HINT OF IRONY
1:24 _"I don't know if I can justify this statistic, but subjectively it seems to me, probably 80% of your work in apologetics is taken care of if you'll just be on the lookout for people saying anything they want to say."_
That did appear contradictory. But it actually was not. Theres nothing arbitrary there. He clearly said it his subjective estimate based on his personal experience of talking to unbelievers.
@My Bad except it isn't a strawman. It's actually an arbitrary statistic he admits he can't justify.
@@ibperson7765 except it is arbitrary by his definition of arbitrary.
@My Bad Sorry, I am not Aj. I responded because Charlie responded to a few of my comments on this video a little while ago.
@My Bad _"AJ Hieb is just running around pulling things out of context to create a strawman."_ What context can you add back that changes anything to be contrary to my point?
As to Bahnsen's first point against naturalism. He says that since we would be an evolved species, the chemicals in our brain would dictate our behavior and free logic goes out the window. What about the idea of our consciousness evolving and spawning our self awareness? Then argument would again have meaning.
I don't quite get what you're saying. Wouldn't this self-consciousness be as much a predetermined chemical process as anything else?
Yes it would be. But then we would be free of the constraint of chemical-designed thinking.
But...that would be an illusion, right?. You would be a creature that thinks it has the ability to be unconstrained by their chemical thinking but this thought itself and all subsequent thoughts are also determined by your chemical makeup.
Yeah, I think it would only offer the illusion of freedom from deterministic constraints. How would you even ascertain that anyway? Being self aware of the fact of the naturalistic process doesn't let you eschew that process, I guess. It's just a part of it.
An immaterial conscious cannot "evolve" from physical processes. That's a category error fallacy.
Because naturalism does not leave room for any orderly assumptions.
Around the 35:00 mark, Bahnsem states that the unbeliever has an "unargued philosophical bias" when "the unbeliever brings him or hers autonomy to bear in the argument but is not recognizing that they are already begging the question by assuming as philosophical baggage an argued point of view philosophically."
Presuppositionalists do the same with the foundational presuppositions as well. In fact, Bahnsen admits this when he states that in his "The myth of neutrality" lecture that "when it gets around to verifying that ultimate authority against the other person's ultimate authority, I will end up eventually assuming my ultimate authority but so will the unbeliever."
So here we see the very common double standard that Presuppositionalists try to pull where they perform an external critique on their opponent's worldview but expect an internal critique on their own.
He goes on the state that "we need to as Presuppositionalists expose the philosophical pre-commitments of the critic which are taken for granted rather than openly acknowledged in some way argued for and supported."
The Presuppositionalists (as Bahnsen admits) has philosophical pre-commitments that are unargued(unless he begs the question) as well so again he is a hypocrite in his apologetic approach.
Ok.... so what's left. We all just set in our Ivory Towers making faces at each other. Or do we examine the world around us, and decides which philosophical system comports..?
@@michaelreichwein3970 We should perform internal critiques (as Van Til recommended) on both worldviews. So far I have found Christianity does not comport with the world around us but naturalism does.
@@FloydFp is naturalism a philosophical hypothesis as an explanation, and will it stand the test of the scientific method?
@@michaelreichwein3970 Science presupposes methodological naturalism so how would it fail against science?
@@FloydFp does not science make presuppositions about nature?
I didn't listen to the entire thing. Did he ever bring up the burden of proof?
Develop an attention span and see.
Why would he, that would defeat his purpose.
Not through yet either, but he is clearly demonstrating how the "unbeliever" who claims the "don't believe" anything, just uses science, makes many assumptions. It is a less eloquent Socratic method. Drilling down on the unbeliever, instead of taking what they say for granted, shows they don't "know" what they think they know. They must admit that they "believe" in their worldview too. Atheist hate admitting that they believe in anything. Though if they were rational and logical they would admit such.
@Michael Peele - You didn't get it that it's about nothing else than about the burden of proof of the unbeliever that he understands the valid foundation of reason, do you?
subtlety the unbelievers sucks you into his worldview...oh sir, your subtlety is award winning
I am offerring an open challenge to any presupps to back up theirs claims without logical fallacies.
Shawn H I would love to accept your challenge but I need to ask you something first. Is logic, regardless of the form of logic, a convention that is man made or is logic universal and functions with a Law like nature?
Ron Kauffman Its your job to demonstrate your claims. Whichever one you want to assert, just go right on ahead and demonstrate it.
Ron Kauffman Btw, you are going to want to be a tad more clear in the future which usage of words you are using. For example when mentioning logic are you refferring to the field of study, reasoning in general, the logical absolutes or laws derived from the logical absolutes?
Ron Kauffman So are you going to take the challenge? Because i must say you are not off to great start with the potential equivocation fallacy and depending on your intended response to the answer to your question a potential shifting of the burden of proof fallacy.
Oh and btw, besides the issue with not being clear on which usage of logic you are using, your question was also a loaded one as you didnt offer all the possible choices.
Shawn H I’m referring to any and all aspects of logic. Every example you just gave assumes that we as humans have the ability to be logical and rational. Just look at your categories:
"the field of study" - This at its basis assumes a consistent ability to be Rational and that to have an entire field dedicated to Logic proves that Logic works on a Law like basis.
"reasoning in general" - Generalities require some sort of Objective basis that is uniformed and consistent.
"the logical absolutes or laws derived from the logical absolutes?" - Absolutes also require some sort of Objective basis that is uniformed and consistent.
I only asked the question because I feel that you have certain assumptions about Logic and reason and so I wanted to be a little more clear.
As for backing up my claims as a Christian. I think there is more than enough evidence out there for the truth and reality of God. But what I want to know is what your specific view of reality is that causes you to look at that evidence and come to the conclusions that you do. Because your challenge, at its core, is completely based on a certain bias on how you view reality, and so that is what I want to deal with.
And I’m not trying to debate you to “win some kind of argument”. Rather, I want to have the respectful opportunity to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with you.
Even if there weren't scribal errors, it's still just an old collection of myths.
Come children, gather around so that I may educate you on how to bring people into our cult.
I am listening
said the secular materialist
@@ibperson7765 which isnt a cult. But it should be pointed out you don't know if the person is a materialist.
My theory is Greg Bahnsen faked his death and became Darth Dawkins.
Jesus didn't resurrect from the dead -- the disciples robbed the grave.
Presuppositions are just assumptions. Bahnsen assumes his arbitrary interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one among many options.
What the hell is going on in this video? It sounds like there's someone in the death throes of tuberculosis in the background. Jesus!
hahahaha
Don't blaspheme
Dr. Bahnsen's view on the Bhagavad-gita is completely topsy-turvy. I do not know where he got his information from.
If he was wrong on the Bhagavad-gita, then do you care to provide some personal insight on it?