@@snuzebuster Is it rational to believe in a philosophical system that does not comport to reality? Dr. Greg Bahnsen actually makes a great argument. Just Look at reality, and ask yourself what best explains the different types of things we see and experience?
@@michaelreichwein3970 Naturalism is the better explanation, IMO, requiring fewer rationalizations to make sense of the evidence of reality. I think the basic mistake in theism is to think that under naturalism one must assume that Nature as a whole has the same properties as the natural objects of our experience, when those are complex proper parts of the universe. It's a kind of fallacy of composition. The whole can very well have properties greater than the sum of its parts. I would say that my Naturalism ascribes some Godlike qualities to Nature and hence is more a kind of pantheism than atheism. More like Einstein's worldview than Lawrence Krauss'. I don't believe we are "cosmic pollution" though some of us behave that way.
He wasn’t that impressive in reality. Presuppositional apologetics serves one purpose, and one purpose alone: to give current believers false confidence so they won’t feel stupid for not being able to properly debate or defend their beliefs. It overtly and intentionally uses nearly every formal and informal fallacy, requiring every sentence to be unpacked and the fallacies worked through before being able to make any progress, only to demand what could be considered as a thorough (and acceptable) answer to hard solipsism before any fallacies can be discussed. Confuse, assert, obfuscate, assert, condescend, assert, project, personal attacks, assert, and either win by attrition or shut the conversation down completely. This is very appealing to narcissists. Greg was a narcissist. He was often very charismatic, but narcissistic nonetheless.
+Sarah Diaz Thank heavens God called him home then (I guess it wasn't his mission). Of course the failure of his heart surgery probably proves that science can't be trusted (or maybe prayers can't) (or that you should take up his cause) (or that God is mysterious) (or that none of this applies to his case) (or that all of it applies to his case and which ever carried the most weight won). I have no hard feelings for him other than I find his argument disingenuous. Having been born and raised, lets say in the Mormon faith or maybe JW, if you ever doubt one bit about the character of God (as taught to you already) your heart would already be denying God even if it lead you to a more acceptable faith? All people in all other religions in the world that do not teach Greg's God could be labeled as sinful because they question the God Greg doesn't question?
+Sarah Diaz And, by the way, the idea of God that the Psalmist had in mind is probably not the same idea of God that Greg has in his mind. So if the Hebrew Psalmist failed to forsee and accept beforehand the full, modern Christian God, he would be sinful and atheist?
***** I don't think that it's reasonable because not believing God's word leaves you with a worldview that is really reduced to absurdity. Nick, is it impossible for an all powerful all knowing Being to do the supernatural in history and then have those events recorded and preserved through time?
***** ,there is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. I can put a rock on the table and say "Look! Evidence for the God of the bible." You'll look at that same rock and say "Look! Evolution!". Every fact in the universe is clear and irrefutable evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible. My proof for the existence of God (which may or may not be persuasive) is that without God you can't prove anything. you know that God exists you merely suppress that knowledge through unrighteousness.
***** Humanism is absurd because it wants the benefits of the Christian worldview (truth, knowledge, reason, rationality, logic, uniformity of nature) without the God of the Christian worldview. The Humanist wants things his worldview cannot supply and so he has to borrow from the Christian worldview--refuting his own worldview in the process. The God of the bible says that you have enough evidence for His existence and the credibility of Christian-Theism. How much evidence do you need to believe in that God? I know things the same way you do: By and through revelation from God. You *know* things _because_ your worldview is -false-.
***** //We dont want your misoginy, homophobia, threats of torture, burning witches, sycophancy, uncaring attitude to children, acceptance of killing babies, acceptance of rape etc etc etc.// I don't accept your straw man, prejudicial conjecture. But what I'd to know is what is absolutely morally wrong with one bag of star dust bumping into another according to your worldview? //We are DECENT people. We live by the golden rule which far pre dates christianity ( in fact chrostianity tried to steal)// "Decent" by what standard? The Christian worldview is founded upon Christ who is Himself eternally God. Therefore the Christian worldview predates all other worldviews. The "golden rule" is common knowledge intrinsically as image bearers of God. So it's not a surprise when we see that moral concept synthesized and systematized in other worldviews even when they predate Christianity _per se_ (Christianity per se as part of the Christian worldview as a unit (creation, fall, redemption, restoration). //We could never lower our moral standards to the level of christianity. Christians wouldnt recognise a moral if it painted itself purple and danced naked on a harpsichorde singing 'good morals are here again"// By recognizing degrees of morals, you're presupposing an objective non arbitrary standard. Which would that be?
@nickj14711 I guess MPaulHolmes is a coward then. Synthethic propositions like that cannot prove antyhing about external, real world. Just a word game, like you said. Regards
@nickj14711 Also, I have today stumbled upon "Atheism killed n-millions people... Stalin was atheist"-bullshit, oh my god (pun intended), how this is irritating...
@@bobasking You don't think Stalin was an atheist? In 1904 Stalin was already a respected Russian Social-Democrat Bolshevik who were atheists by definition.
How does this fellow not see that referring to the contents of the claim to justify the contents of the claim is an obvious misdirection and a fallacy!??!
@davidk.1933 No it sounds like an accurate depiction of the laughable presupp non sequitur! What on earth is the darwinian position on atheistic naturalism? 😂😂😂😂
You've missed the argument. It's a presuppositionalist argument at the paradigm level. All paradigms are circular, you cannot have an infinite regress.
@heavybar3850 No its not at the paradigm level. In order to be paradigmatic it would need to be life changing information that was supported by credible evidence and presupp certainly isn't that! It's pitiful childish circular word games that can be dismissed as soon as you start with your unsubstantiated presupposition. The only thing I presuppose is that reality is real. Do you disagree with this? If so we can't even share a conversation!
@@nickjones5435 "No its not at the paradigm level" *Yes it is. Paradigm is just a perspective. Youre setting a nonsensical standard* "It's pitiful childish circular word games that can be dismissed as soon as you start with your unsubstantiated presupposition. " *Pointing out fallacies is not word games, its problems with your reasoning* "The only thing I presuppose is that reality is real." *That presupposes logical truths, free will, time, the self, reliability of your senses, which is all at the paradigm level. None of those things can be justified from an empiricist world view*
Nah, we’re just looking at what the physical evidence tells us. I’d be fine with there being a cause of some kind we don’t understand. Just trying to call the cause of this flawed universe “perfect” is the more ridiculous claim.
@@andricusthegreat2068 Can you show me one piece of actual evidence, not just a so-so story? No one ever saw any of it. It can't be repeated or observed. Thats not science, its a religion.
I used to believe it - I was government-educated. As the years go by, every piece of evidence gets falsified for one reason or another. Everything was a fairy tale and I am sure more fairy tales will be invented. It can't be falsified until they invent it.
0:591:02 apologetics is the wisdom of this world. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. If these teachers think they can have all the answers, they forget without the fear of not becoming legalistic and cold and unforgiving towards others,you forget you under his grace.
All the armchair atheist philosophers fill the comments section of Greg bahnsen videos like Peter McNeely's talking trash about Mike Tyson only to find out if they only faced the man in person, they would lose heart quickly.
I think that’s probably true. I think he was very a self assured and skilled debater. If I argued with a flat-earther who was similarly skilled, I might lose there too, but the Earth remains round regardless.
@@Detson404Isaac Newton, Georges Lamaître, Louis Pasteur, Nikola Tesla, Blaise Pascal, Max Planck, Michael Faraday... they were all stupid for believing in God. The real geniuses are conformist atheists on the interne, who say they have the right knowledge...
@@Detson404exactly. The definition of sophistry. Being skilled in weaseling your logic into convincing rhetoric which boils down to nothing more than sleight of hand and the motivation to win at all costs never acknowledging your lack of consistency and double standards.
So true. All these bottom-shelf atheists think they could out do the great Doctor when the most respected atheists of his day flat out refused to debate him.
So, in closing of this long conversation, here’s what we realize… Christians believe God can maintain moral perfection while desiring and intending for evil and suffering in order to have free will. In short hand and to the make the point, the Christian God thinks the rape, starvation, disease, and murdering of children is an acceptable cost for free will. This while being perfect and supposedly not desiring or intending for those things. The contradiction is clear to those not enslaved to a fear of hell.
God is the definition of moral perfection - whatever He does is right by definition. If you have a moral standard superior in authority to the Creator, let’s hear what it is and why we should regard it as authoritative. Furthermore, God intends and wills everything that comes to pass. So you’re 0 for 2 at this point.
@@presbydestrian Right. So perfect morality which has declared a set of moral values desires and intends for a state of affairs which is out of accord with those values. In other words, the perfect god is at conflict with itself. In worse words, the perfect god desires and intends for children to be raped and also die of horrible cancers.
@@andricusthegreat2068 God hates sin and punishes it by means of suffering and death; therefore He loves sin? Maybe we need to go back and review our non sequiturs.
@Martin Luther Never mind that I studied the bible for at least 25 years of my life... the contradiction is still there. The belief requires one to accept it and not question it. Those of us interested in coherent beliefs don't accept this.
Every Christian runs away from the perfection question and why a perfect God would want evil and suffering to exist. This is the Achille’s Heel of Christianity. The question cannot be answered, the contradiction cannot be resolved. Many have tried, including Plantinga, and all have failed.
@@andricusthegreat2068 so... Are you arguing against freewill? And why are you laying at the feet of others, the accountability for your own choices and actions?
“God doesn’t act the way I want Him to” is not a contradiction. A contradiction is asserting both “A” and “not-A” at the same time. You have quite a bit more work to do to transform your hatred of the Creator into any sort of inconsistency on His part, but keep at it.
@@presbydestrian So what does “morally perfect” mean to you? What do Omni properties entail? It’s not about how I want a god to act. It’s about the asserted characteristics and if they are coherent. The Christian God’s aren’t.
John 15:19 - If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. John 18:36 - Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Romans 12:2 - And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. 1 John 2:15 - Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. John 17:14 - I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. John 8:23 - And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. John 17:16 - They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Ephesians 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places
@@paulwalters5943 Do you have evidence that ANYTHING in the bible is true? Let's start with the 'global flood'; how is it that there's ZERO evidence for that bible claim? ....there should be tons of proof for a planet wide flood event, but there isn't anything! Zero! Nadda! ZIp! Ziltch! How do you explain that?! Good luck....
"All unbelief is foolish" Take a moment and think this one through. What is belief? To accept something as fact in the absence of evidence. Unbelief is the exact opposite. To not accept something as fact until you are provided with sufficient evidence. Which one is foolish? If this was his No1 argument, then I'm afraid he just debated himself and lost.
@@presbydestrian did God himself state it as fact to you? Or did the people who wrote the Bible say that God stated it as fact? Even if that's not the case. Let's say that God indeed stated somethings as fact himself. What should we do? Should we simply accept it and take it for granted? I'll tell you what i'll do. I will question everything no matter who says it. Of course I'm not calling God a liar. Just the people who wrote the Bible and said that it is God's word.
@@chrisrea6841 You’re not calling God a liar, but you don’t believe or trust what He says. Makes sense. You must think pretty highly of yourself to be able stand in judgment of God.
@@presbydestrian it makes perfect sense when you realise that God is just another imaginary friend. I think highly of the entire human species, not just myself.
Your definition of the word 'belief' is incomplete. belief /bɪˈliːf/ noun 1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. "his belief in extraterrestrial life" 2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something) This is from the oxford dictionary. First of all God is not a thing. So definition 2 is what I must look at. When do we have faith in someone? When we have good reasons to do so right? I trust my brother because of what I know of him. I trust my wife because I have abundant reason and evidence to do so. So also my faith in God is based on good reasons and evidence.
Yes, animals reason and engage with their environment. We do it, wolves do it, birds do it. We're not that special and we're not that different! What you're trapped in is your own arrogance, and feeling that YOU are special. You're not!
@@raohnniejackson8568 Straw man argument! I said that other life forms, that share our planet, are able to reason and engage with their environment; even if it's only in their own limited way. And there's PLENTY of evidence that proves this basic fact! What there is ZERO evidence for is your faith fantasy narrative. Not one thread or hair of objective evidence has ever been shown to exist that proves god is real, and not just imagination!!! Period!
Okay, let’s see if we can actually get an answer to this question without running off to other things to avoid it… What does is it mean to say God is perfect? If you are going to claim this, it needs to be defined. So far, Christians are very afraid to answer this. They’ll say it all day long, but won’t define it.
Ok, I've seen your other comments. But they are mind numbingly dumb. On one hand, you want to say God contradicted himself, based on your theory laden interpretation of the Bible that does not match up with the proper paradigm from which one interprets the Bible, the Church. There would only be a contradiction if God said he would not allow evil to happen. And that is not what has been revealed by him. He's revealed he's given us free will and he will judge us according to how we live our lives. You are doing a straw man and basing your interpretation of revelation on your atheistic, self-refuting paradigm. And you also want to say morality is SUBJECTIVE. Then you go ahead and say God contradicted himself because his action wasn't perfect. If you want to say morals and ethics are subjective then you just refuted your whole mind numbingly stupid argument because there could be no objective measure of perfection then. You are assuming objective perfection on one hand in order to say God contradicted himself, which by the way, there could be no objective measure of perfection without God in the first place (you are assuming him even in your denial of him) yet on the other hand in another comment you say ethics are subjective. Do you not see the contradiction there? Let me explain. Implicit in your comment is that we SHOULD qualify some range of traits as PERFECT. And whenever you think something SHOULD be a certain way, that is ethics. But you just said that ethics are subjective? Well if that's the case, your argument also doesn't work because you can't get an objective ought from an is in a Godless world. In fact there is no ought, things just are, moving according to the laws of nature. Again in order for there to be an objective measure of perfection, reality would need to ultimately be grounded in a PERSONAL being, GOD. Your mind and its own definitions of perfections are not objective because your mind is not what grounds reality. You have your own made up arbitrary idea of perfection but your mind is not the grounding for the fabric of reality so your opinion of what is perfect is not objectively true, can't get an ought from an is. God by definition of the paradigm he's revealed is what is perfect and his every action is perfect. Your self-refuting materialist worldview cannot provide the basis for objective perfection, so your argument is dumb, on top of it being a straw man based on your faulty, ahistorical interpretation of the Biblical texts.
@@silassimmons8880 It’s so much simpler than that. Is the desire/intent/allowance/causation of evil and suffering a perfect state of being and moral action? Don’t worry about what scripture says for a moment. Is the claim of Christianity that God is morally perfect, there is no evil in him, it is not possible for him to do anything but good? You would agree that it is. If those are the claims, then it is impossible for such a being to purposefully create either conditions for or be the direct cause of evil/suffering without directly violating that perfect state. The perfect state which would be the *absence of all things that are evil.* This is the contradiction. It doesn’t matter what excuses might be made to try and skirt around this fundamental contradiction. The proposed state of the Christian God is completely incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering. The *only* way to get around it is to alter the Omni properties assigned to god. Christians won’t do that of course. This is so simple. A perfect god would violate its perfection to create/desire/allow/intend evil and suffering. To say otherwise is to admit that there is darkness in the god that created everything. Is that a bit less complicated?
It means that God is perfect. He is good. He is the embodiment of good. He is perfect in all of His ways; there are no flaws or blemishes in His attributes of His actions. Now we have to define good. We get our definition of good from God who is good. It's a circle. We say God is good and use God as our basis for that which is good, and He is the completeness of what good is. He is perfect. Does that make sense?
1. by using words in sentences or questions which contradict eachother. → and they aren't even aware of it. all the time. → (characteristic) behaviour of fools. 2. through their motivation and identification 3. through their works in life.
***** All of what he wrote was a nonsensical mess that was also blatant question begging, which is why I didn't address any of it. There was nothing coherent or substantive to refute or address.
***** _"If he doesn't reply then he's just a hit and run poster and not worth bothering about."_ So much for Filip. He's probably just another deluded Theist who likes to believe his own lies about Atheism like FactvsEvolution, Keith Thompson, Nephilimfree, Eve Kenian, etc. so that they can feel more secure in their fairy tale beliefs about magic ghosts in the sky.
To shut the mouths of nonbelievers. Because the infinite god of the universe wants us to sit down and shut up. Presups were bootlickers from the start.
How is asking whether God exists either accepting or denying anything in the Bible? Unless you can give a cogent answer, then you have no reason to accept the premise of this guy's argument. And even if his premise were correct, it would be viciously circular, i.e., question begging, because one first has to accept the conclusion before the argument would even begin to make sense.
Snuzebuster, like many atheists/skeptics, you have created a "red herring." Bahnsen's discussion here does not contain propositional arguments ("proofs" so-called) for the existence of God. He is stating his personal belief which "underlies" his position for God's existence, namely that the Bible is The Word of God. From that, the Scriptures say in effect that "atheism is foolishness." Bahnsen is known as a "Presuppositional Style" Apologist. But don't get worked up over that, after all, how many atheists believe as an "underlying presupposition" that Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life" (original 1859 published title) is true? I'll wager more people who have come to believe in God have read/continue to read the Bible than atheists read/continue to read Darwin. Too bad, one, I repeat "one" (1) reading of Darwin shows there is not enough evidence for "Naturalism" to make a "wig for a grape." Darwin even admits the lack of evidence in his theory (Ch. IX, "On The Imperfection Of The Geologic Record"). But, Darwin claims, intermediate forms "must" have existed. Why? Because "Naturalism" is true! Talk about a circular argument! Talk about a "faith" position! Besides the title of the book belies its content. Darwin never, ever, demonstrates with scientific evidence, the actual "origin" of any species. Yet, atheists "presuppose" the theory is true. "Presuppositionalism" (to certain degrees) is a basis for much of human experience, whether it is in the areas of theology, philosophy, experimental science, and yes, atheism! We are all involved in some type of "circularity" in our experiences. It is how we function in the world. But don't confuse that with an illogical propositionally circular epistemological argument. Bahnsen isn't making one in this context.
No, we don't have to presuppose evolution happens as we can observe it in real time with lower life forms. It also has incredible explanatory power and has never been falsified. Actually, the fossil record isn't perfect, but it's far more voluminous now than it was in Darwin's day. Also, I don't have to debunk presuppositionalism because it's an invalid argument that egregiously begs the question. ua-cam.com/video/UKrCOBK25uk/v-deo.html&ab_channel=ASkepticalHuman@@davidk.1933
The cheat code is to just assert that people are systematically deceiving themselves and just keep saying that over and over in different ways Anyone from any worldview can make this form of argument lol, everyone who thinks this guy is a legend is just soy clapping rn
And yet he has failed to stop the mouths of the unbeliever. Religion dwindles year by year. The moment religions lost the ability to coerce obedience, they were doomed.
Yeah that’s not what he says it’s either you completely misunderstand what he’s saying all your straw Manning, or both, that’s not what he’s saying he’s saying it must start out with a claim in order for it to be true he did not say it’s true just because it says that it’s true, and again you think it’s written by man is kind of misleading because he believes it was inspired by God,God used them them to write the Bible, I mean somebody like you could not possibly debate this guy.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 : Lol, ok. I don’t care about you or his imaginary friend also you are making wild assumptions from one sentence. Could you parce anything else out about me through that sentence? I have never seen a good theist debater and that isn’t due to a lack of trying. It’s due to a lack of strong arguments coming from the theistic side.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 : Ohh I re-listened to what he said since it has been a while. My initial comment isn’t a straw man it is word for word this guys words. FOH. Whenever you need to introduce an imaginary friend, magical thinking or some book that’s been written and translated by men as your argument you lost before the debate ever began. My initial point in my original comment is it doesn’t solve the dilemma the title of the video claims it does. It’s just another form of recycled theistic mumbo jumbo. There is no reason I or anyone should grant the theistic debater that since neither they or their God have provided good evidence of their existence.
@@KilimnikGenya yeah you have you seen Bahnsen he’s an amazing debater, and professional atheist philosophers like, Michael Martin, and George Smith agree, because unlike you professional atheist philosophers actually try to engage with the concept that their opponent is putting out, and they don’t just set up a strawman of what their opponents position is unlike you.
@@KilimnikGenya more nonsense, I never claimed I believe in God that wasn’t the point of my comment. And it’s just a caricature because God is not defined in the Bible as in imaginary friend or a sky wizard or whatever stupid character.
Seriously,to say to question if there is a God is the same as flat out saying there is no God is bullshit.Does he not know that the Apostle Paul has to persuade people to come to believe in Jesus? Because people weren’t convinced! When Paul was preaching and it says those listening searched the scriptures to see if what he was saying was correct.The Bible says taste and see that the Lord is good.Thats with the implication of trying it out.To see if it holds up to whatever it’s claiming to be.This close minded don’t ask any question idea is what makes people question the validity of Christianity.So I totally disagree with him on that point.
1:28 "The Bible has taught us that all unbelief is foolishness." A person wrote that, quite presumptuously, and offers no proof this is the case. You're literally just relying on someone asserting that unbelievers are foolish, and then that is that...That is quite a foolish argument. No evidence. No proof. Nothing at all to rely on to demonstrate what is asserted is actually true. If this is Bahnsen's starting premise on his opponent, I pity those thinking he is a "legend" or some kind of "apologetics master". Sounds incredibly foolish to me.
Isaiah 53. Who is the servant of Isaiah 53? Jesus or Israel? Was it Jesus or Israel that was buried in the rich man's tomb? Still think the God of the Bible isn't real? We can't even accurately predict a US presidential election, but how can one man, Jesus (God in the Flesh), fulfill such a detailed prophecy in Isaiah 53? I wonder. I think Isaiah just got lucky obviously.
I’m not slightly worried. I used to be, but I have now learnt to deal with people who use circular arguments. If they can be used against me, I can use them against others. Now let’s use evidence shall we. I don’t believe god exists. You now have the burden of proof.
Atheism relies on rhetoric. Using science or philosophy, makes it impossible for the atheist to generate a justified true belief. For example, by the Law of Noncontradiction and Law of Excluded Middle, if atheism claims theism is false, then that would make atheism true. Yet, atheists cannot provide ANY scientific evidence or philosophical proof for their implicit claim. Atheist have the Burden of Proof, but always shirk or circumvent it with rhetorical devices (i.e., analogy, metaphor, contradistinction, etc.).
@Adam Cosper the funny thing is.... even I don't know why I posted what I did! Lol! I must have posted to the wrong thread! After reading the post , I have to agree completely. The atheist defense is to attack the character of the person presenting their case and not the case itself. Atheism by definition, is self-refuting! For they reduce the universe down to molecules in motion and chemistry; disallowing universal, laws, or abstracts.
There are those who argue that God does not exist. Ok.... Suppose that in reality, God doesn't exist. Now what? After all... All these different types of properties in the universe still exist. And as such, still need accounting for. So what is this great naturalistic explanation that gives closure to their existence?
@Humean Lots nothing has changed except that you're making excuses. All those many different types of properties still exist in the universe... .... and you have no answer as to their existence?
@Humean Lots really? You can explain the foundations to induction without God? can you explain the foundations to morality without God? Without God how do you explain Universals, or the laws of logic? All those different types of things comport easily with theism!
@Humean Lots .....or the elements? _Are you really that stupid_ ? And duh! Of course I am asserting it! Anytime anyone makes a claim they are making an assertion! And since you haven't refuted any of the reasoning, my reasoning must be true! Oh... And BTW.... Criticism is not a rebuttal! BTW.. part 2... ... my explanations for Morality, induction, Universals, abstracts, are all in keeping with my philosophical system of thought. Theism can philosophically account for all those different types of properties that exist in the universe. While all that atheism has is atoms and chemistry😨
@Humean Lots reasoning is a form of evidence. And the conclusions to a logically deductive argument are true unless you can find errors within the argument. Btw... to use your own words against you you have to substantiate your counterclaims!
We experience creation, therefore, we can believe in God the Creator. Atheists make the mistake of mixing their opinions about physical things with nonphysical things in life. The created cannot prove the Creator does not exist. People can live better by living to honor God. Atheists mock God because God will not act as a butler. Science is nothing more than reasonable methods for dealing with physical things. Everything else about physical things is opinions. Religion is ideas for dealing with nonphysical things in life - love, hate, respect, repentance, faith, salvation, etc. Absolute truth about God is revealed in the Bible as facts and ideas in story form. Atheism makes souls mock God the Creator while they live in creation.
Mr. Bahnsen uses Bible quotations to prove the truth of the Bible and the BIblical God. May not a Zoroastrian or a Mormon employ the same method? And the passages he cites amount simply to ad hominem arguments.
You may not be using or understanding ad hominem correctly. "ad hominem /ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/ adverb & adjective 1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. "an ad hominem response" 2. relating to or associated with a particular person. "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton."
In this video, as well as other places and times, Mr. Bahnsen quotes the Bible not to "prove" God, but to show that the Bible has identified the complete foolishness of atheists. Atheists claim there is no God, but cannot show one iota of scientific evidence or philosophical proof to sustain their position. Theirs is the faith of scientism and not science. This isn't an ad hominem fallacy it is an accurate description of atheistic scientism and the rhetorical devices it deploys to even sound legitimate - albeit self-contradicting.
@@wholesoul //Atheists claim there is no God, but cannot show one iota of scientific evidence or philosophical proof to sustain their position.// You do not "prove" a negative position. Don't be so unintellectual. The burden of proof is on the positive claim. In this case, the positive claim is that the ancient middle eastern sky deity of the Israelites is the one true creator god of the universe. So far, no proof or rational reason has been given to believe this is true.
this guys argument basically is: bible is truth because bible says its true, if you dont believe that, you are foolish he doesnt even care abouth the truth, just about his ego
thats because the Holy Bible is TRUE ....see?? Truth trumps LIES...SIMPLE.... ONLY A FOOL would attempt to refute what God has ordained..... see?? or are ya a fool?
Nah mate, theres no evidence that god ordained anything. No need to refute it. Your Bible is not the 'word of God,' but stolen from pagan sources and rearranged to fit the narrative.
MrTerry6263 Ofcourse thats my opinion based on evidence and lack of evidence. Just look at 2 book which came before bible and inspired it, the “Book of the Wars of Yahweh” and the “Book of Yashar” (the Upright). Jesus miracles are also inspired by stories of Horus, Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus and other pagan gods. Truth is a verified or indisputable fact and no religious texts fit that definition entirely.
MrTerry6263 I dont see your point. Yes, internet is a great source of information and it allows to find and share information quickly. Nothing is certain mate, but evidence definetly helps to determine what is more likely. As it stands, all religions are unlikely to be truth.
MrTerry6263 Evidence doesnt work like that mate. I make no possitive claim about being your computer or whatever and I´m not trying to convince people about it, thus I dont need to prove it. Religions make a claim about existance of god or gods, thus they need to prove it.
What rubbish. As if he did not use his unaided reason and faculties to arrive at his conclusion that his god aided his reason and his faculties. Circular much?
@@pleaseenteraname1103 The answer is either, yes or no. If the answer is yes, then the laws of logic and physics are arbitrary, which means Christians are on no better footing than Atheists. If the answer is no, then God is bound by the same laws of logic and physics as the rest of us, and Christians are on no better footing than Atheists. That's why Christians refuse to acknowledge it, particularly presup apologists like Bahnsen.
@@TH3-MONK well no you misunderstand, Bahnsen has address this topic before by the way, and he doesn’t believe the laws of logic are created, The laws of logic are a fundamental necessary unchanging transcendental fact, that can only be justified and grounded by God. No god is not bound by the laws of physics, because the laws of physics don’t apply to God because he’s transcendence of the laws of physics they only apply to the natural world, the laws of logic don’t, they are an attribute of God. Your point fails because you’re assuming that God created the laws of logic when he didn’t.
Atheist are pulling the: "yeah but if you were from this religion and that book said that" card. Christianity is NOT a religion, people that don't believe in Hell still go to Hell.
Oh good so that makes Islam the largest religion on earth. I also hope you’re cool that your churches now having to pay taxes and open their books to the IRS; after all, Christianity isn’t a religion why should it get the legal protection of a religion?
A standard argument of this guy was that "If naturalism is true, the naturalist has no reason to believe in anything." He compares our thinking to weeds growing, but "less sophisticated". That is totally wrong. Thinking is on a far higher level of sophistication than weeds growing, but at least he didn't use the even more ridiculous analogy of soda fizz. Also, it follows not just the laws of physics, chemistry and biology but also evolution. And that is just where this argument falls all apart. Why? Because there is very good reason to think evolution would have a tendency toward producing minds that produce truth. Why? Because truth is the correspondence between ideas and reality. Reality is our physical environment and the better our ideas correspond with that, the more survival value they have. That doesn't mean our senses and reason, etc. are totally trustworthy. We might expect they would be if they were the creation of an all-powerful being. However, we know that they are not, because it has taken eons of cultural evolution for us to develop the scientific method that we have for correcting for our cognitive biases and this scientific method combined along with mass communication and mass education has led to the huge explosion in human knowledge of the past couple of centuries. So, it's true that the naturalist has no reason to think that his cognitive faculties are perfect or that he possesses the ultimate truth about the nature of reality. And I think you will find that very few naturalist will make such a claim of certainty. Most of us are skeptics, though not radical skeptics. There is aBIG difference. Most of us will say that we believe that no God exists, but not so many will claim they know that no God exists. I for example will say that I am almost certain that a God that reveals information to select people and acts miraculously within the world does not exist. I am far less certain that there is not some sort of cosmic mind that somehow imparts some sort of purpose to nature. I just don't see any particularly convincing evidence that that is the case. We know that it is possible for information to be encoded in physical systems and that it is even possible for reasoning to take place in those systems. Therefore, there is no reason to think that it is not possible for those things to be happening within our physical brains. How that could produce consciousness is still a mystery, and it may always remain a mystery, but that is no reason to think that it must be impossible. Anyway, the bottom line is that it is nonsense to say that a naturalist has no reason to believe anything that they think. This guy says we do not have the freedom and self awareness to evaluate evidence and make a choice...blah, blah...which is nonsense. Neither freedom nor self awareness are necessary for either of those things. Just let your butt get beaten by a chess playing computer the way I have many times, ask yourself is that computer free or self aware. No, but it can evaluate the chess game and make decisions about what move to make, so... Don't drink the Kool-Aide folks...and to mix metaphors this guy Bahnsen and all the Presupps and preachers in general are just snake oil salesmen. Please come join the Age of Reason.
XΣN I would say, yes. It may be unknowable, but unless our experience is based on an infinite regress of subjective realities, which seems highly unlikely, then it seems there must be some objective reality at the bottom of it.
Tom Paine That brings in 3 possible premises for reality: *1) Reality is an infinite regress of dependent principles* *2) Reality is founded on circular principles* *3) Reality is founded on a Basic axiomatic principle from which all else is derived*
XΣN I'd go with 3, but I'm uncomfortable with the word "principle" if it's meant in the sense of an ideal. Perhaps substance would be a better word, but I tend towards thinking that substance perhaps transcends our categories of thought that tend towards either materialism or idealism. Though I guess the task of building a coherent system has evaded some pretty high powered philosophers, I tend towards a neutral and/or dual aspect monism. My thinking is that the problem isn't with the idea of dual aspect monism, that may be the closest we can get, but rather I think the problem may be that our brains evolved for survival not for unraveling the mysteries the universe. Richard Feynman said that Nature is fundamentally a quantum phenomenon and "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." In other words, it transcends our common sense notions of the way the world works.
Brilliance, this is not. "God has reduced the thinking of unbelievers to foolishness"... even the believers can't reach agreement about who or what God is, much less reconcile all the thousands of belief systems and deities in history. There's still no answer to *which* God is correct. "The atheist believes he answers to no authority, he is his own God"... this is asinine. Atheists, as all other humans, most often will answer to authorities or face consequences for their actions in a myriad of ways. I grew up in the shaming and insidiousness of these kinds of beliefs. There's no wonder brain washing and religious belief have such incredible similarities. I could spend all day on the narcissistic carrot/stick mind control tactics of religion, but that's for another post.
"Which God is it" , is not a response or rebuttal open to the atheist. Because whatever the answer is.... it is not atheism. So, now what? Throw the baby out with the bath water?
@@michaelreichwein3970 You’re not making any sense at all. Any question is open to anyone, this presup tactic of “you can’t ask” is ridiculous. When speaking about belief systems, we are talking about the concepts of the belief system. Agnostics and atheists alike can both directly engage in questioning the belief system and the questions are valid. Try again , this time with some honesty. Cute methods to avoid answering hard questions are just that…. Cute.
@@andricusthegreat2068 you're missing the point. Atheism is self-refuting, therefore it's not an option. But so as to understand you... are you asserting that since there are a plethora gods, one supposedly being the real God. Are you asserting that this is the basis that God does not exist?
@@michaelreichwein3970 Nope. Didn’t say anything about the possibility of some kind of god existing. What I did say is that since there’s so many religions, gods, and subdivisions of religions, we can’t have any certainty about which one, if any, of them actually exist. I *can* say, however, that the Christian God is one of the more ridiculous constructs that gives me no reason to accept it. It has enough internal contradictions to render it absurd. It’s incredibly toxic and abusive as well. Strong atheism indeed has some of the same issues in making claims that are outside the scope of human epistemology. That’s why I don’t subscribe to it. It’s sufficient for me to say that all religious systems man has come up with, so far, are not believable. Next time, before you assume someone is atheist because they are rejecting your God or a number of Gods, try a more intelligent approach. You might be out of your depth here. Telling people that can't ask questions about a belief system is a manipulative, tyrannical move. I've come to expect it from believers, honestly.
wait minute... you contradicted yourself by saying you don't know everything but then turned right around and said the Buybull tells you everything? that's not arrogant, one bit...
God doesn't reveal all knowledge in the bible. That wouldn't be possible. He reveals sufficient knowledge for man to understand what He deems to be neccessary for salvation.
@@truthdefenders4694 Really? That's hilarious... No, I spelled it correctly...And who is the scared little boy, talking shit on keyboard? Sounds like another typical lame Xtian projection. Grow the fuck up, mkay...? BTW, Your name is an outright lie. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you upside the head.
@@theologian1456 Then why are there so many different interpretations? God is not universal, like it or not... Oh and that might be because he doesn't actually exist, except in the minds of delusional sheeple, umm I mean believers...
I'd wipe the floor with tis guy in a debate, and I'm sure the floor was wiped with this guy many times. He was just too wrapped up in his own idiocy to realize it. It's so sad that horribly bad arguments can make a person famous, and even worse that if you put the word God into the argument you can get herds of followers to proclaim you genius.
Then whose word are you prepared to put into the argument? Your own? Some other fallible human being? Yeah that's the point Bahnsen was making. By arguing that God's Word isn't a good argument for the truth of something you are claiming that God's Word isn't indeed God's Word. That's for you to prove
Yet you just say that without giving any rebuttal whatsoever. It like me saying I could beat up a prime Mike Tyson but I’ve never even been in a boxing match.
Greg Bahnsen was a legend
This man is brilliant.
No, not even close, unless of course you mean at making money with bad arguments against rationalism/naturalism.
@@snuzebuster Aww, did someone get their wittle foolish feelings hurt?
@@kylec8950 What? Seriously?
@@snuzebuster Is it rational to believe in a philosophical system that does not comport to reality? Dr. Greg Bahnsen actually makes a great argument. Just Look at reality, and ask yourself what best explains the different types of things we see and experience?
@@michaelreichwein3970 Naturalism is the better explanation, IMO, requiring fewer rationalizations to make sense of the evidence of reality. I think the basic mistake in theism is to think that under naturalism one must assume that Nature as a whole has the same properties as the natural objects of our experience, when those are complex proper parts of the universe. It's a kind of fallacy of composition. The whole can very well have properties greater than the sum of its parts. I would say that my Naturalism ascribes some Godlike qualities to Nature and hence is more a kind of pantheism than atheism. More like Einstein's worldview than Lawrence Krauss'. I don't believe we are "cosmic pollution" though some of us behave that way.
What I would give to sit in a lecture hall like this and hear this man of God!
The Bibliognost well said!
He wasn’t that impressive in reality. Presuppositional apologetics serves one purpose, and one purpose alone: to give current believers false confidence so they won’t feel stupid for not being able to properly debate or defend their beliefs. It
overtly and intentionally uses nearly every formal and informal fallacy, requiring every sentence to be unpacked and the fallacies worked through before being able to make any progress, only to demand what could be considered as a thorough (and acceptable) answer to hard solipsism before any fallacies can be discussed. Confuse, assert, obfuscate, assert, condescend, assert, project, personal attacks, assert, and either win by attrition or shut the conversation down completely. This is very appealing to narcissists. Greg was a narcissist. He was often very charismatic, but narcissistic nonetheless.
@Jay Gee I exist.
@@notatheist Cool opinions.
Can you imagine the theological and philosophical product we would have from his pen had he survived his heart surgery in 1995?
+Sarah Diaz Take up the baton and run with it. (relay race) :)
+Sarah Diaz Thank heavens God called him home then (I guess it wasn't his mission). Of course the failure of his heart surgery probably proves that science can't be trusted (or maybe prayers can't) (or that you should take up his cause) (or that God is mysterious) (or that none of this applies to his case) (or that all of it applies to his case and which ever carried the most weight won). I have no hard feelings for him other than I find his argument disingenuous. Having been born and raised, lets say in the Mormon faith or maybe JW, if you ever doubt one bit about the character of God (as taught to you already) your heart would already be denying God even if it lead you to a more acceptable faith? All people in all other religions in the world that do not teach Greg's God could be labeled as sinful because they question the God Greg doesn't question?
+Sarah Diaz And, by the way, the idea of God that the Psalmist had in mind is probably not the same idea of God that Greg has in his mind. So if the Hebrew Psalmist failed to forsee and accept beforehand the full, modern Christian God, he would be sinful and atheist?
we lost a great mind, teacher, Pastor.....
Yes, idolatry is sinful. Was there any doubt in the mind of any person who's read the Bible regarding the nature of idolatry?
Where is this video from? Is it a course?
Genius
*****
What makes you believe that the Bible is a fairytale?
*****
I don't think that it's reasonable because not believing God's word leaves you with a worldview that is really reduced to absurdity.
Nick, is it impossible for an all powerful all knowing Being to do the supernatural in history and then have those events recorded and preserved through time?
*****
,there is no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. I can put a rock on the table and say "Look! Evidence for the God of the bible." You'll look at that same rock and say "Look! Evolution!".
Every fact in the universe is clear and irrefutable evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible. My proof for the existence of God (which may or may not be persuasive) is that without God you can't prove anything.
you know that God exists you merely suppress that knowledge through unrighteousness.
*****
Humanism is absurd because it wants the benefits of the Christian worldview (truth, knowledge, reason, rationality, logic, uniformity of nature) without the God of the Christian worldview. The Humanist wants things his worldview cannot supply and so he has to borrow from the Christian worldview--refuting his own worldview in the process.
The God of the bible says that you have enough evidence for His existence and the credibility of Christian-Theism. How much evidence do you need to believe in that God?
I know things the same way you do: By and through revelation from God. You *know* things _because_ your worldview is -false-.
*****
//We dont want your misoginy, homophobia, threats of torture, burning witches, sycophancy, uncaring attitude to children, acceptance of killing babies, acceptance of rape etc etc etc.//
I don't accept your straw man, prejudicial conjecture. But what I'd to know is what is absolutely morally wrong with one bag of star dust bumping into another according to your worldview?
//We are DECENT people. We live by the golden rule which far pre dates christianity ( in fact chrostianity tried to steal)//
"Decent" by what standard?
The Christian worldview is founded upon Christ who is Himself eternally God. Therefore the Christian worldview predates all other worldviews. The "golden rule" is common knowledge intrinsically as image bearers of God. So it's not a surprise when we see that moral concept synthesized and systematized in other worldviews even when they predate Christianity _per se_ (Christianity per se as part of the Christian worldview as a unit (creation, fall, redemption, restoration).
//We could never lower our moral standards to the level of christianity. Christians wouldnt recognise a moral if it painted itself purple and danced naked on a harpsichorde singing 'good morals are here again"//
By recognizing degrees of morals, you're presupposing an objective non arbitrary standard. Which would that be?
No... I think: "I dont have the epistmological means to know of a god exist or not, and I have yet to see an argument that justifies believing in one"
I would love to see him debate Hitchens but yet again that would have been much of a debate would it
@nickj14711 haha no
@nickj14711 I guess MPaulHolmes is a coward then. Synthethic propositions like that cannot prove antyhing about external, real world. Just a word game, like you said.
Regards
@nickj14711 Also, I have today stumbled upon "Atheism killed n-millions people... Stalin was atheist"-bullshit, oh my god (pun intended), how this is irritating...
@@bobasking You don't think Stalin was an atheist?
In 1904 Stalin was already a respected Russian Social-Democrat Bolshevik who were atheists by definition.
It would’ve been incredibly interesting to see how he would debate new atheists.
How does this fellow not see that referring to the contents of the claim to justify the contents of the claim is an obvious misdirection and a fallacy!??!
Sounds like the Darwinian position on Atheistic Naturalism!
@davidk.1933 No it sounds like an accurate depiction of the laughable presupp non sequitur!
What on earth is the darwinian position on atheistic naturalism? 😂😂😂😂
You've missed the argument. It's a presuppositionalist argument at the paradigm level. All paradigms are circular, you cannot have an infinite regress.
@heavybar3850 No its not at the paradigm level. In order to be paradigmatic it would need to be life changing information that was supported by credible evidence and presupp certainly isn't that!
It's pitiful childish circular word games that can be dismissed as soon as you start with your unsubstantiated presupposition.
The only thing I presuppose is that reality is real. Do you disagree with this? If so we can't even share a conversation!
@@nickjones5435 "No its not at the paradigm level" *Yes it is. Paradigm is just a perspective. Youre setting a nonsensical standard*
"It's pitiful childish circular word games that can be dismissed as soon as you start with your unsubstantiated presupposition. " *Pointing out fallacies is not word games, its problems with your reasoning*
"The only thing I presuppose is that reality is real." *That presupposes logical truths, free will, time, the self, reliability of your senses, which is all at the paradigm level. None of those things can be justified from an empiricist world view*
Today unbelievers actually think their ancestor was a fish, before that a worm and given time - BOOM! A man. Incredible.
@nickj14711 Today MOST unbelievers actually think their ancestor was a fish, before that a worm and given time - BOOM! A man. Incredible.
@nickj14711 Why would anyone believe a peer-reviewed paper? Gatekeepers keeping the sheep in a pen. Wake up.
Nah, we’re just looking at what the physical evidence tells us. I’d be fine with there being a cause of some kind we don’t understand. Just trying to call the cause of this flawed universe “perfect” is the more ridiculous claim.
@@andricusthegreat2068 Can you show me one piece of actual evidence, not just a so-so story? No one ever saw any of it. It can't be repeated or observed. Thats not science, its a religion.
I used to believe it - I was government-educated. As the years go by, every piece of evidence gets falsified for one reason or another. Everything was a fairy tale and I am sure more fairy tales will be invented. It can't be falsified until they invent it.
0:59 1:02 apologetics is the wisdom of this world. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. If these teachers think they can have all the answers, they forget without the fear of not becoming legalistic and cold and unforgiving towards others,you forget you under his grace.
All the armchair atheist philosophers fill the comments section of Greg bahnsen videos like Peter McNeely's talking trash about Mike Tyson only to find out if they only faced the man in person, they would lose heart quickly.
I think that’s probably true. I think he was very a self assured and skilled debater. If I argued with a flat-earther who was similarly skilled, I might lose there too, but the Earth remains round regardless.
@@Detson404Isaac Newton, Georges Lamaître, Louis Pasteur, Nikola Tesla, Blaise Pascal, Max Planck, Michael Faraday... they were all stupid for believing in God.
The real geniuses are conformist atheists on the interne, who say they have the right knowledge...
@@Detson404exactly. The definition of sophistry. Being skilled in weaseling your logic into convincing rhetoric which boils down to nothing more than sleight of hand and the motivation to win at all costs never acknowledging your lack of consistency and double standards.
So true. All these bottom-shelf atheists think they could out do the great Doctor when the most respected atheists of his day flat out refused to debate him.
A straight up rockstar
THAT was nothing but dishonest gibberish!
So, in closing of this long conversation, here’s what we realize…
Christians believe God can maintain moral perfection while desiring and intending for evil and suffering in order to have free will. In short hand and to the make the point, the Christian God thinks the rape, starvation, disease, and murdering of children is an acceptable cost for free will. This while being perfect and supposedly not desiring or intending for those things. The contradiction is clear to those not enslaved to a fear of hell.
God is the definition of moral perfection - whatever He does is right by definition. If you have a moral standard superior in authority to the Creator, let’s hear what it is and why we should regard it as authoritative. Furthermore, God intends and wills everything that comes to pass. So you’re 0 for 2 at this point.
@@presbydestrian Right. So perfect morality which has declared a set of moral values desires and intends for a state of affairs which is out of accord with those values. In other words, the perfect god is at conflict with itself. In worse words, the perfect god desires and intends for children to be raped and also die of horrible cancers.
@@andricusthegreat2068 God hates sin and punishes it by means of suffering and death; therefore He loves sin? Maybe we need to go back and review our non sequiturs.
@Martin Luther Never mind that I studied the bible for at least 25 years of my life... the contradiction is still there. The belief requires one to accept it and not question it. Those of us interested in coherent beliefs don't accept this.
@Martin Luther So tell me how it’s possible for a God to have no evil in it and yet purposefully instantiate a state of affairs for evil to exist?
“… because the bible.” Lmao
What do you have when it comes to what you believe and why?
Every Christian runs away from the perfection question and why a perfect God would want evil and suffering to exist. This is the Achille’s Heel of Christianity. The question cannot be answered, the contradiction cannot be resolved. Many have tried, including Plantinga, and all have failed.
@Craig Kelly It's easy. Please tell me what is more powerful than an omni being to force it to instantiate anything against its deisres and will.
@@andricusthegreat2068 so... Are you arguing against freewill? And why are you laying at the feet of others, the accountability for your own choices and actions?
“God doesn’t act the way I want Him to” is not a contradiction. A contradiction is asserting both “A” and “not-A” at the same time. You have quite a bit more work to do to transform your hatred of the Creator into any sort of inconsistency on His part, but keep at it.
@@presbydestrian So what does “morally perfect” mean to you? What do Omni properties entail? It’s not about how I want a god to act. It’s about the asserted characteristics and if they are coherent. The Christian God’s aren’t.
@@andricusthegreat2068 You have yet to state any incoherency.
John 15:19 - If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
John 18:36 - Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Romans 12:2 - And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
1 John 2:15 - Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
John 17:14 - I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 8:23 - And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
John 17:16 - They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Ephesians 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places
Referring to the claims of the bible to justify the claims of the bible is a doomed fallacy!
@@shawnmalloy2919 only if the Bible is not true.
@@paulwalters5943 Do you have evidence that ANYTHING in the bible is true?
Let's start with the 'global flood'; how is it that there's ZERO evidence for that bible claim? ....there should be tons of proof for a planet wide flood event, but there isn't anything! Zero! Nadda! ZIp! Ziltch!
How do you explain that?!
Good luck....
"All unbelief is foolish"
Take a moment and think this one through.
What is belief? To accept something as fact in the absence of evidence.
Unbelief is the exact opposite. To not accept something as fact until you are provided with sufficient evidence.
Which one is foolish?
If this was his No1 argument, then I'm afraid he just debated himself and lost.
Um, no. Belief is to accept as fact what God states as fact. Unbelief is to call the sovereign, omniscient God of the universe a liar.
@@presbydestrian did God himself state it as fact to you? Or did the people who wrote the Bible say that God stated it as fact?
Even if that's not the case. Let's say that God indeed stated somethings as fact himself. What should we do? Should we simply accept it and take it for granted? I'll tell you what i'll do. I will question everything no matter who says it.
Of course I'm not calling God a liar. Just the people who wrote the Bible and said that it is God's word.
@@chrisrea6841 You’re not calling God a liar, but you don’t believe or trust what He says. Makes sense. You must think pretty highly of yourself to be able stand in judgment of God.
@@presbydestrian it makes perfect sense when you realise that God is just another imaginary friend.
I think highly of the entire human species, not just myself.
Your definition of the word 'belief' is incomplete.
belief
/bɪˈliːf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)
This is from the oxford dictionary. First of all God is not a thing. So definition 2 is what I must look at. When do we have faith in someone? When we have good reasons to do so right? I trust my brother because of what I know of him. I trust my wife because I have abundant reason and evidence to do so. So also my faith in God is based on good reasons and evidence.
How do yo know what it means to reason? Do animals reason as well? Are we more than simply animals?
Raohnnie Jackson yes we are.
Your very question answers it.
Yes, animals reason and engage with their environment. We do it, wolves do it, birds do it. We're not that special and we're not that different!
What you're trapped in is your own arrogance, and feeling that YOU are special. You're not!
@@shawnmalloy2919 Give me an example of an animal reasoning the way a human being uses reason to make sense of the world, morality, purpose, etc…
@@raohnniejackson8568 Straw man argument! I said that other life forms, that share our planet, are able to reason and engage with their environment; even if it's only in their own limited way. And there's PLENTY of evidence that proves this basic fact!
What there is ZERO evidence for is your faith fantasy narrative. Not one thread or hair of objective evidence has ever been shown to exist that proves god is real, and not just imagination!!! Period!
Okay, let’s see if we can actually get an answer to this question without running off to other things to avoid it…
What does is it mean to say God is perfect? If you are going to claim this, it needs to be defined. So far, Christians are very afraid to answer this. They’ll say it all day long, but won’t define it.
Ok, I've seen your other comments. But they are mind numbingly dumb. On one hand, you want to say God contradicted himself, based on your theory laden interpretation of the Bible that does not match up with the proper paradigm from which one interprets the Bible, the Church. There would only be a contradiction if God said he would not allow evil to happen. And that is not what has been revealed by him. He's revealed he's given us free will and he will judge us according to how we live our lives. You are doing a straw man and basing your interpretation of revelation on your atheistic, self-refuting paradigm. And you also want to say morality is SUBJECTIVE. Then you go ahead and say God contradicted himself because his action wasn't perfect. If you want to say morals and ethics are subjective then you just refuted your whole mind numbingly stupid argument because there could be no objective measure of perfection then. You are assuming objective perfection on one hand in order to say God contradicted himself, which by the way, there could be no objective measure of perfection without God in the first place (you are assuming him even in your denial of him) yet on the other hand in another comment you say ethics are subjective. Do you not see the contradiction there? Let me explain. Implicit in your comment is that we SHOULD qualify some range of traits as PERFECT. And whenever you think something SHOULD be a certain way, that is ethics. But you just said that ethics are subjective? Well if that's the case, your argument also doesn't work because you can't get an objective ought from an is in a Godless world. In fact there is no ought, things just are, moving according to the laws of nature. Again in order for there to be an objective measure of perfection, reality would need to ultimately be grounded in a PERSONAL being, GOD. Your mind and its own definitions of perfections are not objective because your mind is not what grounds reality. You have your own made up arbitrary idea of perfection but your mind is not the grounding for the fabric of reality so your opinion of what is perfect is not objectively true, can't get an ought from an is. God by definition of the paradigm he's revealed is what is perfect and his every action is perfect. Your self-refuting materialist worldview cannot provide the basis for objective perfection, so your argument is dumb, on top of it being a straw man based on your faulty, ahistorical interpretation of the Biblical texts.
@@silassimmons8880 It’s so much simpler than that. Is the desire/intent/allowance/causation of evil and suffering a perfect state of being and moral action? Don’t worry about what scripture says for a moment. Is the claim of Christianity that God is morally perfect, there is no evil in him, it is not possible for him to do anything but good? You would agree that it is. If those are the claims, then it is impossible for such a being to purposefully create either conditions for or be the direct cause of evil/suffering without directly violating that perfect state. The perfect state which would be the *absence of all things that are evil.* This is the contradiction. It doesn’t matter what excuses might be made to try and skirt around this fundamental contradiction. The proposed state of the Christian God is completely incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering. The *only* way to get around it is to alter the Omni properties assigned to god. Christians won’t do that of course.
This is so simple. A perfect god would violate its perfection to create/desire/allow/intend evil and suffering. To say otherwise is to admit that there is darkness in the god that created everything. Is that a bit less complicated?
Yes we are very afraid 😆
He didn’t avoid anything, and no Christians are not afraid to answer the question.
It means that God is perfect. He is good. He is the embodiment of good. He is perfect in all of His ways; there are no flaws or blemishes in His attributes of His actions. Now we have to define good. We get our definition of good from God who is good. It's a circle. We say God is good and use God as our basis for that which is good, and He is the completeness of what good is. He is perfect. Does that make sense?
worrying about debating fools? who deny reason, logic .....
+filip s
LOL! How do Atheists deny reason and logic?
1. by using words in sentences or questions which contradict eachother.
→ and they aren't even aware of it.
all
the
time.
→ (characteristic) behaviour of fools.
2. through their motivation and identification
3. through their works in life.
*****
All of what he wrote was a nonsensical mess that was also blatant question begging, which is why I didn't address any of it.
There was nothing coherent or substantive to refute or address.
*****
_"If he doesn't reply then he's just a hit and run poster and not worth bothering about."_
So much for Filip. He's probably just another deluded Theist who likes to believe his own lies about Atheism like FactvsEvolution, Keith Thompson, Nephilimfree, Eve Kenian, etc. so that they can feel more secure in their fairy tale beliefs about magic ghosts in the sky.
***** quote "How do Atheists deny reason and logic?"
If attempting to prove God's existence is tantamount to a denial of God's existence, why does he debate?
The same reason youre in this specific chanel making this question.
He gives the answer to your question in the video, just sayin...
@@sarahcooper5715 When
@@mrquestion72 1:08-1:10 "my job is to..."
To shut the mouths of nonbelievers. Because the infinite god of the universe wants us to sit down and shut up. Presups were bootlickers from the start.
How is asking whether God exists either accepting or denying anything in the Bible? Unless you can give a cogent answer, then you have no reason to accept the premise of this guy's argument. And even if his premise were correct, it would be viciously circular, i.e., question begging, because one first has to accept the conclusion before the argument would even begin to make sense.
Snuzebuster, like many atheists/skeptics, you have created a "red herring." Bahnsen's discussion here does not contain propositional arguments ("proofs" so-called) for the existence of God. He is stating his personal belief which "underlies" his position for God's existence, namely that the Bible is The Word of God. From that, the Scriptures say in effect that "atheism is foolishness." Bahnsen is known as a "Presuppositional Style" Apologist.
But don't get worked up over that, after all, how many atheists believe as an "underlying presupposition" that Darwin's "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life" (original 1859 published title) is true? I'll wager more people who have come to believe in God have read/continue to read the Bible than atheists read/continue to read Darwin. Too bad, one, I repeat "one" (1) reading of Darwin shows there is not enough evidence for "Naturalism" to make a "wig for a grape." Darwin even admits the lack of evidence in his theory (Ch. IX, "On The Imperfection Of The Geologic Record"). But, Darwin claims, intermediate forms "must" have existed. Why? Because "Naturalism" is true! Talk about a circular argument! Talk about a "faith" position! Besides the title of the book belies its content. Darwin never, ever, demonstrates with scientific evidence, the actual "origin" of any species. Yet, atheists "presuppose" the theory is true.
"Presuppositionalism" (to certain degrees) is a basis for much of human experience, whether it is in the areas of theology, philosophy, experimental science, and yes, atheism! We are all involved in some type of "circularity" in our experiences. It is how we function in the world. But don't confuse that with an illogical propositionally circular epistemological argument. Bahnsen isn't making one in this context.
No, we don't have to presuppose evolution happens as we can observe it in real time with lower life forms. It also has incredible explanatory power and has never been falsified. Actually, the fossil record isn't perfect, but it's far more voluminous now than it was in Darwin's day. Also, I don't have to debunk presuppositionalism because it's an invalid argument that egregiously begs the question.
ua-cam.com/video/UKrCOBK25uk/v-deo.html&ab_channel=ASkepticalHuman@@davidk.1933
The cheat code is to just assert that people are systematically deceiving themselves and just keep saying that over and over in different ways
Anyone from any worldview can make this form of argument lol, everyone who thinks this guy is a legend is just soy clapping rn
He is a cheat code
I can’t tell if you mean that in a good or bad way.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 a good way
No; just a cheat!
And yet he has failed to stop the mouths of the unbeliever. Religion dwindles year by year. The moment religions lost the ability to coerce obedience, they were doomed.
So because a book written by man says it, it has to be true. That’s terrible evidence.
Yeah that’s not what he says it’s either you completely misunderstand what he’s saying all your straw Manning, or both, that’s not what he’s saying he’s saying it must start out with a claim in order for it to be true he did not say it’s true just because it says that it’s true, and again you think it’s written by man is kind of misleading because he believes it was inspired by God,God used them them to write the Bible, I mean somebody like you could not possibly debate this guy.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 : Lol, ok. I don’t care about you or his imaginary friend also you are making wild assumptions from one sentence. Could you parce anything else out about me through that sentence?
I have never seen a good theist debater and that isn’t due to a lack of trying. It’s due to a lack of strong arguments coming from the theistic side.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 : Ohh I re-listened to what he said since it has been a while. My initial comment isn’t a straw man it is word for word this guys words. FOH. Whenever you need to introduce an imaginary friend, magical thinking or some book that’s been written and translated by men as your argument you lost before the debate ever began. My initial point in my original comment is it doesn’t solve the dilemma the title of the video claims it does. It’s just another form of recycled theistic mumbo jumbo. There is no reason I or anyone should grant the theistic debater that since neither they or their God have provided good evidence of their existence.
@@KilimnikGenya yeah you have you seen Bahnsen he’s an amazing debater, and professional atheist philosophers like, Michael Martin, and George Smith agree, because unlike you professional atheist philosophers actually try to engage with the concept that their opponent is putting out, and they don’t just set up a strawman of what their opponents position is unlike you.
@@KilimnikGenya more nonsense, I never claimed I believe in God that wasn’t the point of my comment. And it’s just a caricature because God is not defined in the Bible as in imaginary friend or a sky wizard or whatever stupid character.
Seriously,to say to question if there is a God is the same as flat out saying there is no God is bullshit.Does he not know that the Apostle Paul has to persuade people to come to believe in Jesus? Because people weren’t convinced! When Paul was preaching and it says those listening searched the scriptures to see if what he was saying was correct.The Bible says taste and see that the Lord is good.Thats with the implication of trying it out.To see if it holds up to whatever it’s claiming to be.This close minded don’t ask any question idea is what makes people question the validity of Christianity.So I totally disagree with him on that point.
Jesus is King.
Errrr nope. Charles the third is king.
Are there no schools in your country?
1:28 "The Bible has taught us that all unbelief is foolishness."
A person wrote that, quite presumptuously, and offers no proof this is the case. You're literally just relying on someone asserting that unbelievers are foolish, and then that is that...That is quite a foolish argument. No evidence. No proof. Nothing at all to rely on to demonstrate what is asserted is actually true.
If this is Bahnsen's starting premise on his opponent, I pity those thinking he is a "legend" or some kind of "apologetics master". Sounds incredibly foolish to me.
lmao this isn't a debate dumbass.
Isaiah 53. Who is the servant of Isaiah 53? Jesus or Israel? Was it Jesus or Israel that was buried in the rich man's tomb? Still think the God of the Bible isn't real? We can't even accurately predict a US presidential election, but how can one man, Jesus (God in the Flesh), fulfill such a detailed prophecy in Isaiah 53? I wonder. I think Isaiah just got lucky obviously.
Ironic, presuming someone wrote something out of presumption.
I’m not slightly worried. I used to be, but I have now learnt to deal with people who use circular arguments. If they can be used against me, I can use them against others. Now let’s use evidence shall we. I don’t believe god exists. You now have the burden of proof.
Is bahnsen using circular reasoning? Why?
Atheism relies on rhetoric. Using science or philosophy, makes it impossible for the atheist to generate a justified true belief. For example, by the Law of Noncontradiction and Law of Excluded Middle, if atheism claims theism is false, then that would make atheism true. Yet, atheists cannot provide ANY scientific evidence or philosophical proof for their implicit claim. Atheist have the Burden of Proof, but always shirk or circumvent it with rhetorical devices (i.e., analogy, metaphor, contradistinction, etc.).
Trevor Austin you have a foolish state of mind.
You do realize that circular reasoning is a flaw? And that two wrongs do not make it right!
@Adam Cosper the funny thing is.... even I don't know why I posted what I did! Lol! I must have posted to the wrong thread! After reading the post , I have to agree completely. The atheist defense is to attack the character of the person presenting their case and not the case itself. Atheism by definition, is self-refuting! For they reduce the universe down to molecules in motion and chemistry; disallowing universal, laws, or abstracts.
There are those who argue that God does not exist. Ok.... Suppose that in reality, God doesn't exist. Now what? After all... All these different types of properties in the universe still exist. And as such, still need accounting for. So what is this great naturalistic explanation that gives closure to their existence?
@Humean Lots nothing has changed except that you're making excuses. All those many different types of properties still exist in the universe...
.... and you have no answer as to their existence?
@Humean Lots really? You can explain the foundations to induction without God? can you explain the foundations to morality without God? Without God how do you explain Universals, or the laws of logic?
All those different types of things comport easily with theism!
@Humean Lots
.....or the elements?
_Are you really that stupid_ ?
And duh! Of course I am asserting it! Anytime anyone makes a claim they are making an assertion! And since you haven't refuted any of the reasoning, my reasoning must be true!
Oh...
And BTW....
Criticism is not a rebuttal!
BTW.. part 2...
... my explanations for Morality, induction, Universals, abstracts, are all in keeping with my philosophical system of thought. Theism can philosophically account for all those different types of properties that exist in the universe. While all that atheism has is atoms and chemistry😨
@Humean Lots reasoning is a form of evidence. And the conclusions to a logically deductive argument are true unless you can find errors within the argument.
Btw... to use your own words against you you have to substantiate your counterclaims!
@Humean Lots having trouble reading my last post?
We experience creation, therefore, we can believe in God the Creator.
Atheists make the mistake of mixing their opinions about physical things with nonphysical things in life. The created cannot prove the Creator does not exist. People can live better by living to honor God. Atheists mock God because God will not act as a butler.
Science is nothing more than reasonable methods for dealing with physical things. Everything else about physical things is opinions.
Religion is ideas for dealing with nonphysical things in life - love, hate, respect, repentance, faith, salvation, etc. Absolute truth about God is revealed in the Bible as facts and ideas in story form. Atheism makes souls mock God the Creator while they live in creation.
In that case, God is exactly as real or unreal as parallel lines. He’s an idea. An abstraction. Which is pretty much what atheists say.
Mr. Bahnsen uses Bible quotations to prove the truth of the Bible and the BIblical God. May not a Zoroastrian or a Mormon employ the same method? And the passages he cites amount simply to ad hominem arguments.
The determining factor for a correct reading of any book is consistency and the word of God is consistent within itself
You may not be using or understanding ad hominem correctly. "ad hominem
/ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton."
In this video, as well as other places and times, Mr. Bahnsen quotes the Bible not to "prove" God, but to show that the Bible has identified the complete foolishness of atheists. Atheists claim there is no God, but cannot show one iota of scientific evidence or philosophical proof to sustain their position. Theirs is the faith of scientism and not science. This isn't an ad hominem fallacy it is an accurate description of atheistic scientism and the rhetorical devices it deploys to even sound legitimate - albeit self-contradicting.
@Ἰωάννης Μιχάλης Amen
@@wholesoul //Atheists claim there is no God, but cannot show one iota of scientific evidence or philosophical proof to sustain their position.//
You do not "prove" a negative position. Don't be so unintellectual. The burden of proof is on the positive claim. In this case, the positive claim is that the ancient middle eastern sky deity of the Israelites is the one true creator god of the universe. So far, no proof or rational reason has been given to believe this is true.
this guys argument basically is: bible is truth because bible says its true, if you dont believe that, you are foolish
he doesnt even care abouth the truth, just about his ego
thats because the Holy Bible is TRUE ....see?? Truth trumps LIES...SIMPLE.... ONLY A FOOL would attempt to refute what God has ordained..... see?? or are ya a fool?
Nah mate, theres no evidence that god ordained anything. No need to refute it. Your Bible is not the 'word of God,' but stolen from pagan sources and rearranged to fit the narrative.
MrTerry6263 Ofcourse thats my opinion based on evidence and lack of evidence. Just look at 2 book which came before bible and inspired it, the “Book of the Wars of Yahweh” and the “Book of Yashar” (the Upright). Jesus miracles are also inspired by stories of Horus, Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus and other pagan gods. Truth is a verified or indisputable fact and no religious texts fit that definition entirely.
MrTerry6263 I dont see your point. Yes, internet is a great source of information and it allows to find and share information quickly. Nothing is certain mate, but evidence definetly helps to determine what is more likely. As it stands, all religions are unlikely to be truth.
MrTerry6263 Evidence doesnt work like that mate. I make no possitive claim about being your computer or whatever and I´m not trying to convince people about it, thus I dont need to prove it. Religions make a claim about existance of god or gods, thus they need to prove it.
they cover the same issues, every time, eh...
They cover what they need to.
What rubbish. As if he did not use his unaided reason and faculties to arrive at his conclusion that his god aided his reason and his faculties. Circular much?
What have you got? ... Hm?
Could God make a triangle with more or less than 3 sides?
Could God make a rock so big he couldn't lift it?
@@pleaseenteraname1103 What??? Your reply makes no sense?
That is so dumb answer because that wouldn’t make any sense.
Sorry my comment got auto corrected.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 The answer is either, yes or no.
If the answer is yes, then the laws of logic and physics are arbitrary, which means Christians are on no better footing than Atheists.
If the answer is no, then God is bound by the same laws of logic and physics as the rest of us, and Christians are on no better footing than Atheists.
That's why Christians refuse to acknowledge it, particularly presup apologists like Bahnsen.
@@TH3-MONK well no you misunderstand, Bahnsen has address this topic before by the way, and he doesn’t believe the laws of logic are created, The laws of logic are a fundamental necessary unchanging transcendental fact, that can only be justified and grounded by God. No god is not bound by the laws of physics, because the laws of physics don’t apply to God because he’s transcendence of the laws of physics they only apply to the natural world, the laws of logic don’t, they are an attribute of God. Your point fails because you’re assuming that God created the laws of logic when he didn’t.
Atheist are pulling the: "yeah but if you were from this religion and that book said that" card. Christianity is NOT a religion, people that don't believe in Hell still go to Hell.
Oh good so that makes Islam the largest religion on earth. I also hope you’re cool that your churches now having to pay taxes and open their books to the IRS; after all, Christianity isn’t a religion why should it get the legal protection of a religion?
A standard argument of this guy was that "If naturalism is true, the naturalist has no reason to believe in anything." He compares our thinking to weeds growing, but "less sophisticated".
That is totally wrong. Thinking is on a far higher level of sophistication than weeds growing, but at least he didn't use the even more ridiculous analogy of soda fizz. Also, it follows not just the laws of physics, chemistry and biology but also evolution. And that is just where this argument falls all apart.
Why? Because there is very good reason to think evolution would have a tendency toward producing minds that produce truth.
Why? Because truth is the correspondence between ideas and reality. Reality is our physical environment and the better our ideas correspond with that, the more survival value they have.
That doesn't mean our senses and reason, etc. are totally trustworthy. We might expect they would be if they were the creation of an all-powerful being. However, we know that they are not, because it has taken eons of cultural evolution for us to develop the scientific method that we have for correcting for our cognitive biases and this scientific method combined along with mass communication and mass education has led to the huge explosion in human knowledge of the past couple of centuries.
So, it's true that the naturalist has no reason to think that his cognitive faculties are perfect or that he possesses the ultimate truth about the nature of reality. And I think you will find that very few naturalist will make such a claim of certainty. Most of us are skeptics, though not radical skeptics. There is aBIG difference. Most of us will say that we believe that no God exists, but not so many will claim they know that no God exists.
I for example will say that I am almost certain that a God that reveals information to select people and acts miraculously within the world does not exist. I am far less certain that there is not some sort of cosmic mind that somehow imparts some sort of purpose to nature. I just don't see any particularly convincing evidence that that is the case.
We know that it is possible for information to be encoded in physical systems and that it is even possible for reasoning to take place in those systems. Therefore, there is no reason to think that it is not possible for those things to be happening within our physical brains. How that could produce consciousness is still a mystery, and it may always remain a mystery, but that is no reason to think that it must be impossible.
Anyway, the bottom line is that it is nonsense to say that a naturalist has no reason to believe anything that they think.
This guy says we do not have the freedom and self awareness to evaluate evidence and make a choice...blah, blah...which is nonsense. Neither freedom nor self awareness are necessary for either of those things. Just let your butt get beaten by a chess playing computer the way I have many times, ask yourself is that computer free or self aware. No, but it can evaluate the chess game and make decisions about what move to make, so...
Don't drink the Kool-Aide folks...and to mix metaphors this guy Bahnsen and all the Presupps and preachers in general are just snake oil salesmen.
Please come join the Age of Reason.
So there _is_ an objective reality.
XΣN I would say, yes. It may be unknowable, but unless our experience is based on an infinite regress of subjective realities, which seems highly unlikely, then it seems there must be some objective reality at the bottom of it.
Tom Paine
That brings in 3 possible premises for reality:
*1) Reality is an infinite regress of dependent principles*
*2) Reality is founded on circular principles*
*3) Reality is founded on a Basic axiomatic principle from which all else is derived*
XΣN I'd go with 3, but I'm uncomfortable with the word "principle" if it's meant in the sense of an ideal. Perhaps substance would be a better word, but I tend towards thinking that substance perhaps transcends our categories of thought that tend towards either materialism or idealism. Though I guess the task of building a coherent system has evaded some pretty high powered philosophers, I tend towards a neutral and/or dual aspect monism.
My thinking is that the problem isn't with the idea of dual aspect monism, that may be the closest we can get, but rather I think the problem may be that our brains evolved for survival not for unraveling the mysteries the universe.
Richard Feynman said that Nature is fundamentally a quantum phenomenon and "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." In other words, it transcends our common sense notions of the way the world works.
Where is Richard Feynman?
Brilliance, this is not. "God has reduced the thinking of unbelievers to foolishness"... even the believers can't reach agreement about who or what God is, much less reconcile all the thousands of belief systems and deities in history. There's still no answer to *which* God is correct. "The atheist believes he answers to no authority, he is his own God"... this is asinine. Atheists, as all other humans, most often will answer to authorities or face consequences for their actions in a myriad of ways.
I grew up in the shaming and insidiousness of these kinds of beliefs. There's no wonder brain washing and religious belief have such incredible similarities. I could spend all day on the narcissistic carrot/stick mind control tactics of religion, but that's for another post.
"Which God is it" , is not a response or rebuttal open to the atheist. Because whatever the answer is.... it is not atheism. So, now what? Throw the baby out with the bath water?
@@michaelreichwein3970 You’re not making any sense at all. Any question is open to anyone, this presup tactic of “you can’t ask” is ridiculous. When speaking about belief systems, we are talking about the concepts of the belief system. Agnostics and atheists alike can both directly engage in questioning the belief system and the questions are valid. Try again , this time with some honesty. Cute methods to avoid answering hard questions are just that…. Cute.
@@andricusthegreat2068 you're missing the point. Atheism is self-refuting, therefore it's not an option.
But so as to understand you... are you asserting that since there are a plethora gods, one supposedly being the real God. Are you asserting that this is the basis that God does not exist?
@@michaelreichwein3970 Nope. Didn’t say anything about the possibility of some kind of god existing. What I did say is that since there’s so many religions, gods, and subdivisions of religions, we can’t have any certainty about which one, if any, of them actually exist. I *can* say, however, that the Christian God is one of the more ridiculous constructs that gives me no reason to accept it. It has enough internal contradictions to render it absurd. It’s incredibly toxic and abusive as well.
Strong atheism indeed has some of the same issues in making claims that are outside the scope of human epistemology. That’s why I don’t subscribe to it. It’s sufficient for me to say that all religious systems man has come up with, so far, are not believable.
Next time, before you assume someone is atheist because they are rejecting your God or a number of Gods, try a more intelligent approach. You might be out of your depth here. Telling people that can't ask questions about a belief system is a manipulative, tyrannical move. I've come to expect it from believers, honestly.
Christianity is self refuting as well ;)
Unfortunately I think this mans death was suspicious
God did it. I wonder why..??
wait minute... you contradicted yourself by saying you don't know everything but then turned right around and said the Buybull tells you everything? that's not arrogant, one bit...
God doesn't reveal all knowledge in the bible. That wouldn't be possible. He reveals sufficient knowledge for man to understand what He deems to be neccessary for salvation.
The what? Oh I see, you are scared to say "Bible", that's ok little boy don't be scared.
That’s not what he said what he was saying is everything we need to know is revealed in the Bible.
@@truthdefenders4694 Really? That's hilarious... No, I spelled it correctly...And who is the scared little boy, talking shit on keyboard? Sounds like another typical lame Xtian projection. Grow the fuck up, mkay...? BTW, Your name is an outright lie. You wouldn't know the truth if it hit you upside the head.
@@theologian1456 Then why are there so many different interpretations? God is not universal, like it or not... Oh and that might be because he doesn't actually exist, except in the minds of delusional sheeple, umm I mean believers...
I'd wipe the floor with tis guy in a debate, and I'm sure the floor was wiped with this guy many times. He was just too wrapped up in his own idiocy to realize it.
It's so sad that horribly bad arguments can make a person famous, and even worse that if you put the word God into the argument you can get herds of followers to proclaim you genius.
Then whose word are you prepared to put into the argument? Your own? Some other fallible human being? Yeah that's the point Bahnsen was making.
By arguing that God's Word isn't a good argument for the truth of something you are claiming that God's Word isn't indeed God's Word. That's for you to prove
you are hilariously ignorant
Sit down pipsqueek
Not defeated even once in a debate. The opponents lost by turning up. There can be no basis for a debate apart from the exidtence of God.
Bye
Yet you just say that without giving any rebuttal whatsoever. It like me saying I could beat up a prime Mike Tyson but I’ve never even been in a boxing match.