Problem in Tabash's response bringing in other religions is: The Christian worldview states that all men have the law written on their hearts. Meaning morality is "built in" to all of us, by God. If you deny him, you still have it, you still know "right from wrong" deep down.
Tabash's response here could be considered reasonable except that it fails to factor everything else into the picture. It's not *just* morality, but morality + uniformity + logic + human dignity + expression of thought + everything else in reality. All of it collectively together--the total of experience of reality--must be accounted for. Bahnsen is saying that only with the Christian worldview does all reality comport. Saying that other philosophical religions or ideologies can make some sense of morality isn't sufficient to disprove Bahnsen's claim because as soon as one of those "systems of thought" can be shown to not satisfy an element of intelligibility, it fails as a subtle contender. Moreover, as soon as Tabash can provide his own ultimate authority, he will find that he cannot adequately justify that authority apart from itself -- otherwise it wouldn't be his ultimate authority. So to bring that circular charge against Christianity is rather lame since he is similarly guilty. Bahnsen challenge is a battle of ultimate authorities. Which one actually comports with reality?
in my mind Bahnsen is saying the Atheist has no rock for its foundation and very being. Tabash is saying the rock is not necessary for being and/or "maybe its some other rock other than the only rock". its actually confusing to think about and explain/pin down a coherent atheistic perspective, go figure!
Problem in Tabash's response bringing in other religions is: The Christian worldview states that all men have the law written on their hearts. Meaning morality is "built in" to all of us, by God. If you deny him, you still have it, you still know "right from wrong" deep down.
Tabash's response here could be considered reasonable except that it fails to factor everything else into the picture. It's not *just* morality, but morality + uniformity + logic + human dignity + expression of thought + everything else in reality. All of it collectively together--the total of experience of reality--must be accounted for. Bahnsen is saying that only with the Christian worldview does all reality comport. Saying that other philosophical religions or ideologies can make some sense of morality isn't sufficient to disprove Bahnsen's claim because as soon as one of those "systems of thought" can be shown to not satisfy an element of intelligibility, it fails as a subtle contender.
Moreover, as soon as Tabash can provide his own ultimate authority, he will find that he cannot adequately justify that authority apart from itself -- otherwise it wouldn't be his ultimate authority. So to bring that circular charge against Christianity is rather lame since he is similarly guilty. Bahnsen challenge is a battle of ultimate authorities. Which one actually comports with reality?
Excellent comment!
Can the full debate be found somewhere?
Sermon audio
@@provotoprevo2609
Thank you. It wasn't there yet the last time I looked for it.
in my mind Bahnsen is saying the Atheist has no rock for its foundation and very being. Tabash is saying the rock is not necessary for being and/or "maybe its some other rock other than the only rock". its actually confusing to think about and explain/pin down a coherent atheistic perspective, go figure!
This explains so much of his thinking