@@Morewecanthink lol, its neither arbitrary nor false. A little hint though the presupp overuse of the word arbitrary is a initial sign you guys are not very bright.
Dr. Bahnsen would have destroyed these atheists without question. I like how they end it quickly and their followers don’t even think for themselves. There is nothing to applaud here besides the fact that Dr. Bahnsen has reduced them to absurdity! 🙌🏻
Yep!! like swatting a persistent fly who’s just swallowed and tried to sell you a load of bull sh…t. The irony is that Dawkins later got stripped of his “humanist of the year” award for spewing this dangerous bull sh…t that criminals such as child rapists and child murderers don’t have free will and for demeaning marginalised groups!! The fact is that Dawkins was actually stripped of his Humanist of the year award for bigotry, promoting eugenics and demeaning marginalised groups. Equally, it’s beyond ironic that Dawkins was stripped of the his “Humanist of the year award” by no other than the secular atheist organisation (The Association of Humanists). “Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values,” (Association of Humanists).
@@shawn4888 the fact that you could watch this video and then claim that Bahnsen was the one spreading absurdity is quite ironic and shows that you didn’t understand what you watched. After all, if naturalism is true, your brain is requiring you to make that claim and you didn’t actually come to this conclusion on your own. How do you know you aren’t wrong and that your brain didn’t just produce the wrong chemicals? The only way you can actually reason is if you are given the freedom to evaluate the evidence and choose which position is more rational. In your world you don’t get that choice and the decision is made for you as a result of the laws of nature that you claim to believe have no intelligence behind them.
@scottsponaas Sorry, but you have that backwards. Its you that doesnt understand. Reasoning is the label we put on the process of taking input, processing, and then responding. Doesnt matter if determinism is true, we still reason. So when bahnsen and you say idiotic things for which you have no evidence like determinism would mean we can't or don't reason, you are showing you are not very bright. Incidently, determinism is not required by naturalism, so you don't even understand the concepts involved. Really dude, learn first before you speak so you don't look so ignorant and not very bright.
@@davidcoleman5860 its a perfectly good answer to the question. If you cant grasp just how laughable bahnsen is you should probably take some classes on philisopy, logic, science etc.
Lol, why? They are familiar with bahnsens bad arguments which is the killer for presupps. Anyone familiar with the argument can point the the flaws fairly easily.
Keep in mind that the average atheist will acknowledge that they believe themselves to be a soulless ape. That’s what we are dealing with, self described soulless apes. Often they get flustered when we make this observation, and they retort with the great intellectual feat of declaring it to be true, as if that makes it so! Remember folks, we are supposed to be the dummies.
^^^ perfect example ^^^ (They can’t help it) They usually repeat the same claim, as if that proves it’s true. In psychology they used to use the word “idiot” to describe this mental disability. If you were to actually delve into the self-hating mind of the average atheist, you would find the bizarre self-defeating belief that they cannot actually be sure that they know anything. (I would tend to believe them on this claim.) Even more moronic, they often they try to drag us down into their miserable self-loathing worldview, rather than just speak for themselves. Watch.
@@deanodebo You are an ape as well. Denying it doesnt change reality. Thats the problem with these kinds of commemts. They make you look foolish, not the atheist.
@@deanodebo Just curious but why do you lie so so much? Ypu know that its the idiot presupps who declare that atheists cant know anything, not the atheists themselves.
@@shawn4888 Let’s go with that one, since you accused me of lying. If you have knowledge, how did you acquire it? By what means did you come to know something? And go ahead and give an example of something you know.
Ironically, being a calvinist, Bahnsen had no logically valid reason to believe in free will either. In Calvinism God has quite literally predetermined everything, including every thought you have, and every word you say. Including Bahnsen's words here in this video. Meaning Bahnsnen's argument falls apart given his own worldview.
calvinism actually does not believe that we dont have free will. They believe that God already knew what we were going to choose to do with our free will
Director George Sluizer explored the concept of free-will by creating an amazing film (in collaboration with Tim Krabbé) called "Spoorloos".(Hollywood subsequently created an Americanized abomination of the Sluizer's original - now renamed "The Vanishing", in which Jeff Bridges (unwisely) starred, and about which, the less said - the better. In the Dutch original Spoorloos we have an innocent vacationing couple, Rex and Saskia, whose lives are suddenly upended by a psychopath(?) Raymond Lemorne who wants to test free-will to its very limits. Lemorne recounts how, as a child, he questioned why he lacked the free-will to throw himself out of a window onto the hard concrete patio far below. Eventually he concluded his first experiment - at the cost of serious injuries - and resolved to continue his empirical exploration of free-will to higher and higher levels. Find the original movie, do please run a thousand yards from the Hollywood version, watch carefully, then draw your own conclusions.
Greg Bahnsen offered nothing of substance here. "I don't like implications of naturalism" is not a refutation of it. Unfortunate truths are still truths. Where is the refutation of the truth of naturalism?
@@shostycellist oh disagree. We are trying our best to understand, grasp and go through the universe. He’s trying to talk about naturalism in only one facet as though that’s all it is. Naturalism is used to help us understand this universe as best we can. We haven’t seen anything that goes against nature. To say we can’t trust our brains if they were made naturally to me shows a bias. If brains did form naturally we should trust them as much as possible. If someone else made my brain why should I trust it?
C.S. Lewis made this argument in a debate where the atheist replied that the coin operated scales which told you your weight operated on pure mechanics but gave a definite result, and Lewis felt humiliated and stopped doing apologetics, and began working on the Narnia series. Such an obvious rebuttal to point out that the machine is the product of a mind, not blind forces over time. “Mere Christianity” is almost an essential.
@@shawn4888 Her point was that a machine was able to give accurate results. The machine is not blind forces over time, and her argument suggests. It was only able to give accurate results because it was intelligently designed. An obvious point
@@shawn4888 It’s not a bad rebuttal, and the exact argument is used in debates to this day. Her point is erroneous. The machine could not have given accurate results if it were not designed to, which is what Lewis was arguing. How the machine came to be is exactly the point. It required an intelligent designer.
@@shawn4888 2) For example, Krauss argues that snowflakes don’t need to designer to look designed, only the laws of physics. Of course, he makes no attempt, nor does any other atheist, to explain how physical laws could arise without a Lawmaker. Paul Davies, an agnostic, concedes this point, and states that science begins within the faith position that the Universe is not absurd, but that there is a law-like order which is comprehensible to us, and so science can only proceed if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview. His words, and that’s presuppositional apologetics 101
Bahnsen, an example of how smart people can believe the most stupid things. Making crap up does not make it true, no matter how smart you or others think you are, it’s still crap. The vacuous and childish ignorance of religious presups.
@@bosco008 actually, if he can’t answer, it’s just further proof that God is the necessary pre-condition for the intelligibility of the universe. Atheists are unable to provide a meaningful reason for assuming that the future will be like the past. By definition this means atheists are being unreasonable. If the universe truly were just a purposeless result of an uncaused explosion and formed as a result of time and chance acting on matter, then there would not only be no reason for assuming induction, there would be no reason for assuming anything at all. You’re welcome to continue on with your foolish denial of God’s obvious existence, but one day you’re going to regret it. The fact that you’re constantly engaging in these comment battles shows that you are adamant about suppressing the truth that you know about God.
@@bosco008 And if you can't provide an answer to the question but then say "doesn't make your god real", that doesn't mean your world view is the truth either. And if you want to sit on that, then that's fine. But don't pretend neutrality and own up to your own presuppositions and please help demonstrate how your worldview is sound. Because my foundation is the Triune God who revealed to us in the Bible and has demonstrated it scientifically(talks about hydrology, earth being round, hangs the earth on nothing, that there were the same amount of stars as there are sand on the shore (which all these talked about long before anyone discovered it to be true)), archaeologically(Jerusalem is a real place, Jesus is a real person, we have thousands of manuscripts with very very little textual variants that are both viable AND meaningful and even they don't change any essential doctrines of the Christian faith), experience(testimonies of Christians lived in sin without care, and now care when they sin and have a love for Jesus Christ and willing to die for the faith and many have), miracles (historic eye-witnesses like Matthew who wrote the gospel account according to Matthew and witnessed the life of Jesus Christ, but primarily the resurrection of Jesus Christ) and prophecy (Bible claiming something to happen, and then it happens. (Daniel 2 for example that God told through a dream that Babylon will rule, then medo-persia, then greece, then Rome And that's what happened in history hundreds of years before it happened.) Or Isaiah 53 on the specific details of the crucifixion of Jesus or how Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem, same town King David was born, then be moved to Egypt and finally Nazareth and grow up there to be Jesus of Nazareth. Or how Jesus comes from the lineage of Judah, Matthew 1 records His genealogy dating all the way back to Abraham. And on and on the prophecies go. That's my foundation.
@@bosco008 ok, I’ll leave you with this. Know that you can always come to Christ, He died on the cross to pay for sin. And all you must do is turn away from your old life and believe that Jesus paid for your sins and follow Him. And you will struggle in this life as a Christian but have great reward afterwards. But reject Jesus, and you’ll only have condemnation and face hell for eternity. I recommend you at least read the gospel of John. God bless.
@Language and Programming Channel And such a search doesnt come up with anything close to bahnsens. If you are going to make a claim that is so obviously and easily checked to be false you probably shouldn't make it.
@@shawn4888 You’re very present in Bahnsen videos, insulting him, dismissing him, yet not providing a single shred of proof to justify your statements. Me thinks you doth protest too much.
Bahnsen was one of the greatest intellectuals of the 20th
century
Not even close
@@shawn4888 Close enough.
@@williamlucas4181 nowhere near.
@@shawn4888 - What's your basis for your arbitrary false conjecture?
@@Morewecanthink lol, its neither arbitrary nor false.
A little hint though the presupp overuse of the word arbitrary is a initial sign you guys are not very bright.
Dr. Bahnsen would have destroyed these atheists without question. I like how they end it quickly and their followers don’t even think for themselves. There is nothing to applaud here besides the fact that Dr. Bahnsen has reduced them to absurdity! 🙌🏻
Just These particular atheists?
Yep!! like swatting a persistent fly who’s just swallowed and tried to sell you a load of bull sh…t.
The irony is that Dawkins later got stripped of his “humanist of the year” award for spewing this dangerous bull sh…t that criminals such as child rapists and child murderers don’t have free will and for demeaning marginalised groups!!
The fact is that Dawkins was actually stripped of his Humanist of the year award for bigotry, promoting eugenics and demeaning marginalised groups. Equally, it’s beyond ironic that Dawkins was stripped of the his “Humanist of the year award” by no other than the secular atheist organisation (The Association of Humanists).
“Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values,” (Association of Humanists).
Lol, yet Bahnsen was the one spreading absurdity.
@@shawn4888 the fact that you could watch this video and then claim that Bahnsen was the one spreading absurdity is quite ironic and shows that you didn’t understand what you watched.
After all, if naturalism is true, your brain is requiring you to make that claim and you didn’t actually come to this conclusion on your own. How do you know you aren’t wrong and that your brain didn’t just produce the wrong chemicals?
The only way you can actually reason is if you are given the freedom to evaluate the evidence and choose which position is more rational. In your world you don’t get that choice and the decision is made for you as a result of the laws of nature that you claim to believe have no intelligence behind them.
@scottsponaas Sorry, but you have that backwards. Its you that doesnt understand.
Reasoning is the label we put on the process of taking input, processing, and then responding. Doesnt matter if determinism is true, we still reason.
So when bahnsen and you say idiotic things for which you have no evidence like determinism would mean we can't or don't reason, you are showing you are not very bright.
Incidently, determinism is not required by naturalism, so you don't even understand the concepts involved.
Really dude, learn first before you speak so you don't look so ignorant and not very bright.
Bahnsen absolutely dominant here.
Lol, you are funny
@@shawn4888 How so?
@@davidcoleman5860 because irs laughable.
@@shawn4888That's not an answer. Look, you don't know me. I'm simply asking for an explanation.
@@davidcoleman5860 its a perfectly good answer to the question.
If you cant grasp just how laughable bahnsen is you should probably take some classes on philisopy, logic, science etc.
I would have loved to see Dr. Bahnsen debate Krauss and Dawkins.
Lol, why? They are familiar with bahnsens bad arguments which is the killer for presupps. Anyone familiar with the argument can point the the flaws fairly easily.
@@shawn4888 ok 🤡😂😂😂
@@joshcornell8510 you look kinda stupid with the emojis.
Bahnsen was a one trick pony whose trick is now too well know to be useful.
@@shawn4888 - On what basis?
@@Morewecanthink lol, reality.
Keep in mind that the average atheist will acknowledge that they believe themselves to be a soulless ape.
That’s what we are dealing with, self described soulless apes.
Often they get flustered when we make this observation, and they retort with the great intellectual feat of declaring it to be true, as if that makes it so!
Remember folks, we are supposed to be the dummies.
And all humans are apes, and no one has shown a soul exists.
^^^ perfect example ^^^
(They can’t help it)
They usually repeat the same claim, as if that proves it’s true. In psychology they used to use the word “idiot” to describe this mental disability.
If you were to actually delve into the self-hating mind of the average atheist, you would find the bizarre self-defeating belief that they cannot actually be sure that they know anything.
(I would tend to believe them on this claim.)
Even more moronic, they often they try to drag us down into their miserable self-loathing worldview, rather than just speak for themselves. Watch.
@@deanodebo You are an ape as well. Denying it doesnt change reality.
Thats the problem with these kinds of commemts. They make you look foolish, not the atheist.
@@deanodebo Just curious but why do you lie so so much?
Ypu know that its the idiot presupps who declare that atheists cant know anything, not the atheists themselves.
@@shawn4888
Let’s go with that one, since you accused me of lying. If you have knowledge, how did you acquire it? By what means did you come to know something? And go ahead and give an example of something you know.
Alvin Plantinga's version of this argument is a bit tighter.
Ironically, being a calvinist, Bahnsen had no logically valid reason to believe in free will either. In Calvinism God has quite literally predetermined everything, including every thought you have, and every word you say. Including Bahnsen's words here in this video. Meaning Bahnsnen's argument falls apart given his own worldview.
ahmen.
Someone doesn’t know Calvinistic theology …. Calvinist don’t deny that humans have free will lol
calvinism actually does not believe that we dont have free will. They believe that God already knew what we were going to choose to do with our free will
Director George Sluizer explored the concept of free-will by creating an amazing film (in collaboration with Tim Krabbé) called "Spoorloos".(Hollywood subsequently created an Americanized abomination of the Sluizer's original - now renamed "The Vanishing", in which Jeff Bridges (unwisely) starred, and about which, the less said - the better. In the Dutch original Spoorloos we have an innocent vacationing couple, Rex and Saskia, whose lives are suddenly upended by a psychopath(?) Raymond Lemorne who wants to test free-will to its very limits. Lemorne recounts how, as a child, he questioned why he lacked the free-will to throw himself out of a window onto the hard concrete patio far below. Eventually he concluded his first experiment - at the cost of serious injuries - and resolved to continue his empirical exploration of free-will to higher and higher levels. Find the original movie, do please run a thousand yards from the Hollywood version, watch carefully, then draw your own conclusions.
🔥
Greg Bahnsen offered nothing of substance here. "I don't like implications of naturalism" is not a refutation of it. Unfortunate truths are still truths. Where is the refutation of the truth of naturalism?
You “don’t have a very well thought out view” about anything, sir.
Bingo
Bingo??
@@guyjosephs5654 Well said, nailed it, right on the money, slam dunk, this is it, bingo
@@shostycellist sorry I should have said what was the bingo towards? There was few things said so wasn’t sure what you were referring to exactly.
@@guyjosephs5654 Oh, the whole Bahnsen clip.
@@shostycellist oh disagree. We are trying our best to understand, grasp and go through the universe. He’s trying to talk about naturalism in only one facet as though that’s all it is. Naturalism is used to help us understand this universe as best we can. We haven’t seen anything that goes against nature. To say we can’t trust our brains if they were made naturally to me shows a bias. If brains did form naturally we should trust them as much as possible. If someone else made my brain why should I trust it?
C.S. Lewis made this argument in a debate where the atheist replied that the coin operated scales which told you your weight operated on pure mechanics but gave a definite result, and Lewis felt humiliated and stopped doing apologetics, and began working on the Narnia series. Such an obvious rebuttal to point out that the machine is the product of a mind, not blind forces over time. “Mere Christianity” is almost an essential.
It's a bad rebuttal and likely why he didn't use it.
@@shawn4888
Her point was that a machine was able to give accurate results. The machine is not blind forces over time, and her argument suggests. It was only able to give accurate results because it was intelligently designed. An obvious point
@Michael Hurwitz again it's a very bad rebuttal. It's doesn't matter how the machine came to be because the machine isn't conscience or intelligent.
@@shawn4888
It’s not a bad rebuttal, and the exact argument is used in debates to this day. Her point is erroneous. The machine could not have given accurate results if it were not designed to, which is what Lewis was arguing. How the machine came to be is exactly the point. It required an intelligent designer.
@@shawn4888
2) For example, Krauss argues that snowflakes don’t need to designer to look designed, only the laws of physics. Of course, he makes no attempt, nor does any other atheist, to explain how physical laws could arise without a Lawmaker. Paul Davies, an agnostic, concedes this point, and states that science begins within the faith position that the Universe is not absurd, but that there is a law-like order which is comprehensible to us, and so science can only proceed if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview. His words, and that’s presuppositional apologetics 101
Bahnsen, an example of how smart people can believe the most stupid things.
Making crap up does not make it true, no matter how smart you or others think you are, it’s still crap.
The vacuous and childish ignorance of religious presups.
@Malik If he can't answer your question, you still aren't right. No matter how many people say "I don't know", doesn't make your god real. Sorry bro.
@@bosco008 actually, if he can’t answer, it’s just further proof that God is the necessary pre-condition for the intelligibility of the universe. Atheists are unable to provide a meaningful reason for assuming that the future will be like the past. By definition this means atheists are being unreasonable.
If the universe truly were just a purposeless result of an uncaused explosion and formed as a result of time and chance acting on matter, then there would not only be no reason for assuming induction, there would be no reason for assuming anything at all.
You’re welcome to continue on with your foolish denial of God’s obvious existence, but one day you’re going to regret it. The fact that you’re constantly engaging in these comment battles shows that you are adamant about suppressing the truth that you know about God.
@@bosco008 And if you can't provide an answer to the question but then say "doesn't make your god real", that doesn't mean your world view is the truth either. And if you want to sit on that, then that's fine. But don't pretend neutrality and own up to your own presuppositions and please help demonstrate how your worldview is sound. Because my foundation is the Triune God who revealed to us in the Bible and has demonstrated it
scientifically(talks about hydrology, earth being round, hangs the earth on nothing, that there were the same amount of stars as there are sand on the shore (which all these talked about long before anyone discovered it to be true)),
archaeologically(Jerusalem is a real place, Jesus is a real person, we have thousands of manuscripts with very very little textual variants that are both viable AND meaningful and even they don't change any essential doctrines of the Christian faith),
experience(testimonies of Christians lived in sin without care, and now care when they sin and have a love for Jesus Christ and willing to die for the faith and many have),
miracles (historic eye-witnesses like Matthew who wrote the gospel account according to Matthew and witnessed the life of Jesus Christ, but primarily the resurrection of Jesus Christ)
and prophecy (Bible claiming something to happen, and then it happens. (Daniel 2 for example that God told through a dream that Babylon will rule, then medo-persia, then greece, then Rome And that's what happened in history hundreds of years before it happened.) Or Isaiah 53 on the specific details of the crucifixion of Jesus or how Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem, same town King David was born, then be moved to Egypt and finally Nazareth and grow up there to be Jesus of Nazareth. Or how Jesus comes from the lineage of Judah, Matthew 1 records His genealogy dating all the way back to Abraham. And on and on the prophecies go. That's my foundation.
@@Niko-zg6uq I’m not reading this Wall of text
@@bosco008 ok, I’ll leave you with this. Know that you can always come to Christ, He died on the cross to pay for sin. And all you must do is turn away from your old life and believe that Jesus paid for your sins and follow Him. And you will struggle in this life as a Christian but have great reward afterwards. But reject Jesus, and you’ll only have condemnation and face hell for eternity. I recommend you at least read the gospel of John. God bless.
Wow Bahnsen sure wasn't the brightest person out there.
@Language and Programming Channel Except Chomsky didnt make the same arguments.
@Language and Programming Channel And such a search doesnt come up with anything close to bahnsens.
If you are going to make a claim that is so obviously and easily checked to be false you probably shouldn't make it.
@@shawn4888 You’re very present in Bahnsen videos, insulting him, dismissing him, yet not providing a single shred of proof to justify your statements. Me thinks you doth protest too much.
@@curedbytheonomy Bahnsen is the evidence of my claims btw.
@@shawn4888 If you think that’s a valid argument, Bahnsen’s intelligence isn’t the one in question.
Atheist applauding themselves lol