0:33 _"unlike every other book when it speaks to supernaturalism"_ Adversary is here presuming _all_ pagan supernatural claims whatsoever, _not just_ of divinity and right to worship are rejected by Christians. He is presuming a Christian is viewing the story of Romulus' conception exactly as an Atheist would. We are in fact free to assume a demon did some insemination (along with sense deception about the "mating a god" thing). He is presuming a Christian views all other Floodmyths as absolute lies, when in fact it is rather common even today to view them as garbled but still recognisable memories of the actual Flood described in the Bible. He is presuming a Christian views Hercules as an Atheist would, when in fact very _few_ parts of his biography (last two labours of twelve, conception by Zeus, suckling Hera and making her squirt out the milky way, divinised and married Hebe on dying and burning on a pyre) need to be disputed by a Christian. While Samson arguably had his strength by God and Hercules arguably not, a demon could have also given such strength, including the first feat of strangling two snakes in the cradle. We don't worship Romulus or Mars, we don't worship Zeus Xenios or Jupiter Hospitalis, we don't worship Hercules, but we do not say the events are all faked and made up.
1:37 _"even through alleged primitive people"_ Fine ... here is the point. God brought it about, bc the people receiving the revelation (say Moses at the burning bush) were not what is here referred to as "primitive people". If we don't accept Moses was hallucinating, we don't accept Hesiod was hallucinating. Hesiod could have been fooled by demons (he never parted any Red Sea to prove his mission was from God) or he could have lied. In the former case, Hesiod did make a partially correct supernatural claim, he had seen spirits in the guise of maidens, and they had honoured what they considered as higher gods than themselves, including ... here is a point "Cronos of the crooked mind" ("Kronon ankylometen"). I think, given that "Cronos of the crooked mind" means "Cronos the deceiver" and that Cronos was also identified with Moloch Baal, Hesiod was deceived by demons who were worshipping their lord the devil. There were other divine names before Kronon ankylometen, but he comes last as a give-away, if not to Hesiod (he both heard that and heard insults to his profession as shepherd and fell for it!) at least to us.
There are some contradictions. There are some punctuation problems. There are places where the first four gospels, do not harmonize. It is still the inspired, word of God. It actually document's, the times God spoke, and lots of people, heard him.
Hi signsbyrusty, I think that your argument that Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen is using circular reason is defective. Let me present an argument to you (see below). 1. The claim that existential presence is possible is a necessary result of assuming omnipotence. 2. The claim that existential benevolence is possible is a necessary result of assuming omnibenevolence. 3. The claim that existential knowledge is possible is a necessary result of assuming omniscience. 4. The claim that existential power is possible is a necessary result of assuming omnipotence. 5. The concepts of omnipotence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence assume the Christian God. 6. Either the Christian God exists or relativistic concepts can be understood apart from universal concepts. 7. The concept of relativistic concepts cannot be understood apart from universal concepts. 8. Conclusion: Therefore, existential presence, benevolence, knowledge, and power are all possible. Here's the formal proof (note: for presence, I used B as an an abbreviation for being and for omnibenevolence, I used the letter O): 1. (X)(Bx) > (3X)(Bx) 2. (X)(Ox) > (3X)(Ox) 3. (X)(Kx) > (3X)(Kx) 4. (X)(PX) > (3X)(Px) 5. (X)(Gx) > {[(X)(Bx) ^ (X)(Ox)] ^ [(X)(Kx) ^ (X)(Px)]} 6. (X)(Gx) v Ar 7. -Ar / {[(3x)(Bx) ^ (3X)(Ox)] ^ [3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)]} 8. Ar v (X)(Gx) (7, Commutation) 9. (X)(Gx) (7, 8 Disjunctive Syllogism) 10. {[(X)(Bx) ^ (X)(Ox)] ^ [(X)(Kx) ^ (X)(Px)]} (5, 9 Modus Ponens) 11. [(X)(Bx) ^ (X)(Ox)] (10, Simplification) 12. {[(3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)] ^ [(3X)(Bx) ^ (3X)(Ox)] (10, Commutation) 13. [(3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)] (12, Simplification) 14. [(3X)(Ox) ^ (3X)(Bx)] (11, Commutation) 15. [(3X)(Px) ^ (3X)(Kx)] (13, Commutation) 16. (3X)(Bx) (11, Simplification) 17. (3X)(Ox) (14, Simplification) 18. (3X)(Kx) (13, Simplification) 19. (3X)(Px) (15, Simplification) 20. [(3X)(Bx) ^ (3X)(Ox)] (16. 17 Conjunction) 21. [(3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)] (18, 19 Conjunction) 22. {[(3X)(Bx) ^ (3X)(Ox)] ^ [(3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)]} (20, 21 Conjunction) In the end, your "circular reasoning" claim cannot be justified by formal logic. Take care. Best Wishes--I wish you Happy Holidays and Happy New Year! QuotidianPerfection
Hi Heelcather, The basis of my argumentation is that the word "some" assumes a fractional part of "all." For example, if I said that I poured a glass of orange juice and drank some of it, you would immediately infer that, at a given point in time, there was a glass of orange juice and "all" of it remained before I began drinking it. In the same vein, the term omniscience functions in the same manner, albeit on a more abstract level. The fact that I only know "some things," for instance, implies that I don't know "everything." If the amount of knowledge we can obtain, though, is limited, then it would just run out. As humans, we can't know everything. However, we can continue to learn and this cognitive ability couldn't function in this manner if it had a limit to it. The abstractions of presence, power, and goodness function in a manner similar to how knowledge functions. On the basis, we need to ask what it means to be all-powerful, present everywhere at once, eternally just and merciful, and omniscient. The last category is telling, for omniscience requires the ability to think. Hence, what is described is at least a Being. The eternal power to use this knowledge makes this Being God. Since Jesus spoke of Himself in Divine terms after His Incarnation, he demonstrated that God, like humans, is a Person, but only an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent Person. Finally, if God is eternally powerful, then He can be present everywhere at once. Here is a second approach and perhaps an easier one. 1. Make the argument that either the Biblical worldview or the unbelieving worldview is correct. 2. Point out the contradictions within the unbelieving worldview (e.g., moral relativists claiming absolutes, etc.) and how all logical contradictions are false. For example, when sociology students talk about relative societies and then how Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a universal moral wrong, ask them, "Why is FGM universally wrong? In your worldview, what is wrong for one society is right for another. Hence, FGM might be wrong for you but right for them. And, if you deny this argument, you've contradicted yourself and proved yourself incorrect, all logical contradictions are false. Also, be sure to point out that when the moral relativist labels a practice as universally wrong they are borrowing from your worldview to condemn a practice which they would not be able to if they used a consistent postmodern (i.e., everything is relative) approach. One last thing--as Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen notes, when sociologists say "Everything is relative," ask them, "Even that?" In other words, if everything is relative, then that statement , which is put forth as universal, must be relative as well. This turns that worldview into a contradiction and proves it as a logically invalid and unsound one to hold. Erstwhile, demonstrate how there are no contradictions within the Christian worldview and be sure to separate fact from opinion. For example, some will say that Christians believe that certain genres of music (e.g., rock, rap, etc.) are distasteful. You can respond to that by saying that "Rock and rap are genres are music. It's not the type of music that makes it moral or immoral. It's the lyrics which make that determination. When you say that all Christians believe that you are making a generalization, as some Christians do not believe that." 3. When their worldview is correct, only yours is left and that is the correct one. Be sure to give enough evidence to show that your worldview is not false. At the same time, illustrate how the Non-Christian's worldview disintegrates. Hence, Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen's method is not circular because, in an argument between two worldviews where one is found defective and the other isn't, the one that isn't found wanting remains. 4. At the end of the apologetic session, do what Dr. James R. White recommends: share the Gospel with the unbeliever. I don't recommend pushing the "when I was your age, everything was better" to someone much younger to your or condemning all video games, as the Scripture teaches us to teach about spiritual correctness rather than approach others with an attitude of generational or cultural superiority. I'd like to add that I am not a Theonomist (Dr. Bahnsen is a Theonomist), since I believe that the Mosaic Civil Code was specifically designed for the people living in Israel prior to Christ's Resurrection. Does that mean that homosexuality is okay? No. However, under the New Covenant, I believe that holy societies are no longer commanded to sentence gay people to death (or even, in a modern context, imprisonment). I also do not believe in "conversion therapy," since it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convert a sinner. All we can do is share the Gospel and pray with unbelievers. However, at the same time, it is important to tell members of the gay population the truth about God's justice and Hell. Homosexuals and other sinners also have to know about the one path of escape: Jesus Christ. If, for instance, gays see an Christian apologist approaching them in a society which orders their imprisonment and / or forced conversion, they'll probably run from that person. If, though, gays notice a Christian apologist in a society which just realizes homosexuality as contrary to the Word of God, they might listen. Who knows? The gays might become ex-gays and play an integral part of Reformed Christian Churches witnessing to other homosexuals. Finally, if you want to really let unbelievers know you care about them, read their literature. This will enable you to highlight sections of their work which fall victim to formal or informal logical fallacies. Personally, I'm not an apologist--my arguments, albeit theological, are academic in nature. I understand that Christmas season is fast approaching and am glad we have people out there who are giving information to others which the Holy Spirit might use to change lives forever. Take care, and I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Best Wishes, and God Bless You! QuotidianPerfection
Hi Heelcather, Circular reason can only occur if someone affirms the consequent. Let's say this: if I play Super Mario Bros. III multiple times, I will win the game. I won the game. Thus, that means that I played Super Mario Bros. III multiple times. However, it is just as likely I could have played it once and beat the game. Presuppositionalism is only invalid, in my opinion, when it affirms the consequent. When, as you say, "the law of the excluded middle" is employed to win an argument, that is perfectly valid. Take care, QP
Hi Heelcather, I used some of my material here (not yours) to argue against atheists--I hope you don't mind. I tried both arguments out and ultimately favored the second one (although I did use the first to prove God's existence). The thing is this: in any exclusive system, it is unnecessary to imply that your worldview is correct. After disproving their arguments, you can provide arguments that support the Christian worldview. This is still valid even though it is not a conditional inference. The reason is this: saying A is true and A is true is the same as saying A is true--this is called a tautology. All you really need to do, in a disjunctive setup, is disprove their worldview, since that is equivalent to saying that the negation of their worldview proves your worldview. Don't worry about how much you are challenged. If you are, have the opponent defend their perspective of the world based on relativistic. This will inevitably lead to, as Calvinist preacher and University of Oregon philosopher, Dr. Douglas Groothius points out, personal subjectivism. When worldviews are involved, atheists cannot argue anything , as Dr. Bahnsen reminds us, from a rationalistic perspective. Take care, QP
2:14 _"no other book is like that"_ That was not the exact point. The point is not that Bible is unique, the point is, the Bible contains supernatural claims, and the opponent thinks you ALWAYS discard ALL such from any other book. If you do, he has a point. I don't - it is just, I don't accept any that goes against the Bible. Hesiod and Numa Pompilius may have received revelations from maiden-spirits or spirit-maidens, the point is, since they are at variance with the truth claims of the Bible, these spirits are not from God. Nine muses teaching polytheism or Egeria teaching divination is like Djibreel to Mohammed or Moroni to Joseph Smith : NOT FROM GOD. That said, Hesiod, Numa, Mohammed and Joseph Smith having received a kind of revelation (but in each case a bad one and not one backed up by parting Red Sea or resurrecting dead before the crowds) is a claim of the supernatural I can entirely consider possible.
Boom!
Bahnsen smoked atheists before he had his morning tea.
0:33 _"unlike every other book when it speaks to supernaturalism"_
Adversary is here presuming _all_ pagan supernatural claims whatsoever, _not just_ of divinity and right to worship are rejected by Christians.
He is presuming a Christian is viewing the story of Romulus' conception exactly as an Atheist would. We are in fact free to assume a demon did some insemination (along with sense deception about the "mating a god" thing). He is presuming a Christian views all other Floodmyths as absolute lies, when in fact it is rather common even today to view them as garbled but still recognisable memories of the actual Flood described in the Bible. He is presuming a Christian views Hercules as an Atheist would, when in fact very _few_ parts of his biography (last two labours of twelve, conception by Zeus, suckling Hera and making her squirt out the milky way, divinised and married Hebe on dying and burning on a pyre) need to be disputed by a Christian. While Samson arguably had his strength by God and Hercules arguably not, a demon could have also given such strength, including the first feat of strangling two snakes in the cradle.
We don't worship Romulus or Mars, we don't worship Zeus Xenios or Jupiter Hospitalis, we don't worship Hercules, but we do not say the events are all faked and made up.
1:37 _"even through alleged primitive people"_
Fine ... here is the point. God brought it about, bc the people receiving the revelation (say Moses at the burning bush) were not what is here referred to as "primitive people".
If we don't accept Moses was hallucinating, we don't accept Hesiod was hallucinating.
Hesiod could have been fooled by demons (he never parted any Red Sea to prove his mission was from God) or he could have lied. In the former case, Hesiod did make a partially correct supernatural claim, he had seen spirits in the guise of maidens, and they had honoured what they considered as higher gods than themselves, including ... here is a point "Cronos of the crooked mind" ("Kronon ankylometen").
I think, given that "Cronos of the crooked mind" means "Cronos the deceiver" and that Cronos was also identified with Moloch Baal, Hesiod was deceived by demons who were worshipping their lord the devil. There were other divine names before Kronon ankylometen, but he comes last as a give-away, if not to Hesiod (he both heard that and heard insults to his profession as shepherd and fell for it!) at least to us.
The bible is not one book .. its 66 books written by 40 authors over thousands of years.
Exactly. That's why I laugh when people say "you cant use the bible to prove the bible"
Or 73, depends on your denomination.
There are some contradictions. There are some punctuation problems. There are places where the first four gospels, do not harmonize. It is still the inspired, word of God. It actually document's, the times God spoke, and lots of people, heard him.
A great example of circular reasoning.
Hi signsbyrusty, I think that your argument that Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen is using circular reason is defective. Let me present an argument to you (see below).
1. The claim that existential presence is possible is a necessary result of assuming omnipotence.
2. The claim that existential benevolence is possible is a necessary result of assuming omnibenevolence.
3. The claim that existential knowledge is possible is a necessary result of assuming omniscience.
4. The claim that existential power is possible is a necessary result of assuming omnipotence.
5. The concepts of omnipotence, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence assume the Christian God.
6. Either the Christian God exists or relativistic concepts can be understood apart from universal concepts.
7. The concept of relativistic concepts cannot be understood apart from universal concepts.
8. Conclusion: Therefore, existential presence, benevolence, knowledge, and power are all possible.
Here's the formal proof (note: for presence, I used B as an an abbreviation for being and for omnibenevolence, I used the letter O):
1. (X)(Bx) > (3X)(Bx)
2. (X)(Ox) > (3X)(Ox)
3. (X)(Kx) > (3X)(Kx)
4. (X)(PX) > (3X)(Px)
5. (X)(Gx) > {[(X)(Bx) ^ (X)(Ox)] ^ [(X)(Kx) ^ (X)(Px)]}
6. (X)(Gx) v Ar
7. -Ar / {[(3x)(Bx) ^ (3X)(Ox)] ^ [3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)]}
8. Ar v (X)(Gx) (7, Commutation)
9. (X)(Gx) (7, 8 Disjunctive Syllogism)
10. {[(X)(Bx) ^ (X)(Ox)] ^ [(X)(Kx) ^ (X)(Px)]} (5, 9 Modus Ponens)
11. [(X)(Bx) ^ (X)(Ox)] (10, Simplification)
12. {[(3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)] ^ [(3X)(Bx) ^ (3X)(Ox)] (10, Commutation)
13. [(3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)] (12, Simplification)
14. [(3X)(Ox) ^ (3X)(Bx)] (11, Commutation)
15. [(3X)(Px) ^ (3X)(Kx)] (13, Commutation)
16. (3X)(Bx) (11, Simplification)
17. (3X)(Ox) (14, Simplification)
18. (3X)(Kx) (13, Simplification)
19. (3X)(Px) (15, Simplification)
20. [(3X)(Bx) ^ (3X)(Ox)] (16. 17 Conjunction)
21. [(3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)] (18, 19 Conjunction)
22. {[(3X)(Bx) ^ (3X)(Ox)] ^ [(3X)(Kx) ^ (3X)(Px)]} (20, 21 Conjunction)
In the end, your "circular reasoning" claim cannot be justified by formal logic.
Take care.
Best Wishes--I wish you Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!
QuotidianPerfection
Hi Heelcather, The basis of my argumentation is that the word "some" assumes a fractional part of "all." For example, if I said that I poured a glass of orange juice and drank some of it, you would immediately infer that, at a given point in time, there was a glass of orange juice and "all" of it remained before I began drinking it. In the same vein, the term omniscience functions in the same manner, albeit on a more abstract level. The fact that I only know "some things," for instance, implies that I don't know "everything." If the amount of knowledge we can obtain, though, is limited, then it would just run out. As humans, we can't know everything. However, we can continue to learn and this cognitive ability couldn't function in this manner if it had a limit to it. The abstractions of presence, power, and goodness function in a manner similar to how knowledge functions. On the basis, we need to ask what it means to be all-powerful, present everywhere at once, eternally just and merciful, and omniscient. The last category is telling, for omniscience requires the ability to think. Hence, what is described is at least a Being. The eternal power to use this knowledge makes this Being God. Since Jesus spoke of Himself in Divine terms after His Incarnation, he demonstrated that God, like humans, is a Person, but only an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent Person. Finally, if God is eternally powerful, then He can be present everywhere at once.
Here is a second approach and perhaps an easier one.
1. Make the argument that either the Biblical worldview or the unbelieving worldview is correct.
2. Point out the contradictions within the unbelieving worldview (e.g., moral relativists claiming absolutes, etc.) and how all logical contradictions are false. For example, when sociology students talk about relative societies and then how Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a universal moral wrong, ask them, "Why is FGM universally wrong? In your worldview, what is wrong for one society is right for another. Hence, FGM might be wrong for you but right for them. And, if you deny this argument, you've contradicted yourself and proved yourself incorrect, all logical contradictions are false. Also, be sure to point out that when the moral relativist labels a practice as universally wrong they are borrowing from your worldview to condemn a practice which they would not be able to if they used a consistent postmodern (i.e., everything is relative) approach. One last thing--as Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen notes, when sociologists say "Everything is relative," ask them, "Even that?" In other words, if everything is relative, then that statement , which is put forth as universal, must be relative as well. This turns that worldview into a contradiction and proves it as a logically invalid and unsound one to hold.
Erstwhile, demonstrate how there are no contradictions within the Christian worldview and be sure to separate fact from opinion. For example, some will say that Christians believe that certain genres of music (e.g., rock, rap, etc.) are distasteful. You can respond to that by saying that "Rock and rap are genres are music. It's not the type of music that makes it moral or immoral. It's the lyrics which make that determination. When you say that all Christians believe that you are making a generalization, as some Christians do not believe that."
3. When their worldview is correct, only yours is left and that is the correct one. Be sure to give enough evidence to show that your worldview is not false. At the same time, illustrate how the Non-Christian's worldview disintegrates. Hence, Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen's method is not circular because, in an argument between two worldviews where one is found defective and the other isn't, the one that isn't found wanting remains.
4. At the end of the apologetic session, do what Dr. James R. White recommends: share the Gospel with the unbeliever. I don't recommend pushing the "when I was your age, everything was better" to someone much younger to your or condemning all video games, as the Scripture teaches us to teach about spiritual correctness rather than approach others with an attitude of generational or cultural superiority.
I'd like to add that I am not a Theonomist (Dr. Bahnsen is a Theonomist), since I believe that the Mosaic Civil Code was specifically designed for the people living in Israel prior to Christ's Resurrection. Does that mean that homosexuality is okay? No. However, under the New Covenant, I believe that holy societies are no longer commanded to sentence gay people to death (or even, in a modern context, imprisonment). I also do not believe in "conversion therapy," since it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convert a sinner. All we can do is share the Gospel and pray with unbelievers. However, at the same time, it is important to tell members of the gay population the truth about God's justice and Hell. Homosexuals and other sinners also have to know about the one path of escape: Jesus Christ. If, for instance, gays see an Christian apologist approaching them in a society which orders their imprisonment and / or forced conversion, they'll probably run from that person. If, though, gays notice a Christian apologist in a society which just realizes homosexuality as contrary to the Word of God, they might listen. Who knows? The gays might become ex-gays and play an integral part of Reformed Christian Churches witnessing to other homosexuals.
Finally, if you want to really let unbelievers know you care about them, read their literature. This will enable you to highlight sections of their work which fall victim to formal or informal logical fallacies.
Personally, I'm not an apologist--my arguments, albeit theological, are academic in nature. I understand that Christmas season is fast approaching and am glad we have people out there who are giving information to others which the Holy Spirit might use to change lives forever.
Take care, and I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Best Wishes, and God Bless You!
QuotidianPerfection
Hi Heelcather, Circular reason can only occur if someone affirms the consequent. Let's say this: if I play Super Mario Bros. III multiple times, I will win the game. I won the game. Thus, that means that I played Super Mario Bros. III multiple times. However, it is just as likely I could have played it once and beat the game. Presuppositionalism is only invalid, in my opinion, when it affirms the consequent. When, as you say, "the law of the excluded middle" is employed to win an argument, that is perfectly valid.
Take care,
QP
Hi Heelcather, I used some of my material here (not yours) to argue against atheists--I hope you don't mind.
I tried both arguments out and ultimately favored the second one (although I did use the first to prove God's existence).
The thing is this: in any exclusive system, it is unnecessary to imply that your worldview is correct. After disproving their arguments, you can provide arguments that support the Christian worldview. This is still valid even though it is not a conditional inference. The reason is this: saying A is true and A is true is the same as saying A is true--this is called a tautology. All you really need to do, in a disjunctive setup, is disprove their worldview, since that is equivalent to saying that the negation of their worldview proves your worldview.
Don't worry about how much you are challenged. If you are, have the opponent defend their perspective of the world based on relativistic. This will inevitably lead to, as Calvinist preacher and University of Oregon philosopher, Dr. Douglas Groothius points out, personal subjectivism.
When worldviews are involved, atheists cannot argue anything , as Dr. Bahnsen reminds us, from a rationalistic perspective.
Take care,
QP
2:14 _"no other book is like that"_
That was not the exact point.
The point is not that Bible is unique, the point is, the Bible contains supernatural claims, and the opponent thinks you ALWAYS discard ALL such from any other book.
If you do, he has a point.
I don't - it is just, I don't accept any that goes against the Bible.
Hesiod and Numa Pompilius may have received revelations from maiden-spirits or spirit-maidens, the point is, since they are at variance with the truth claims of the Bible, these spirits are not from God. Nine muses teaching polytheism or Egeria teaching divination is like Djibreel to Mohammed or Moroni to Joseph Smith : NOT FROM GOD.
That said, Hesiod, Numa, Mohammed and Joseph Smith having received a kind of revelation (but in each case a bad one and not one backed up by parting Red Sea or resurrecting dead before the crowds) is a claim of the supernatural I can entirely consider possible.
2:33 _"only one or two other claims even come close to that"_
That was about truth claim, not about supernatural claim in general.