"I'm too uneducated to understand your argument so I think you're wrong and will belittle you for being educated. Now prove to me that God exists in a way my tiny brain can understand." - this is essentially what this dude said.
Nah, it’s more like this: Prove to me that God exists with verifiable evidence and not with unverifiable assertions that are rejected as sophistry by the vast majority of other philosophers.😉
Ultimately yes. It astounds me that people dismiss philosophy as nonsense, when that itself is a philosophical claim. To make a value judgement (axiology) about philosophy, falls under philosophy. If philosophy is nonsense, the assertion that it is nonsense, is also nonsense, because it's also philosophy. People do philosophy everyday without realizing it. The human experience is the experience of the philosopher. Just because some people are more conscious of this, and better at it, than others, doesn't mean that the less conscious and competent are much different than the more conscious and competent. They just need to pick up a philosophy book once in a while and think a bit more, or stop complaining that they can't understand it.
@@ramigilneas9274 so you're appealing to popularity rather than the arguments themselves? Plenty of credible philosophpers, even if they disagree with the arguments, acknowledge that the philosophical arguments for God are logically sound. I can only think of a handful of people who claim that the arguments are moot, like Richard Dawkins, but he is far from being a philosopher and his arguments have been torn apart time and again.
@@CasshernSinz1613 Nope, most philosophers will acknowledge that the arguments are valid… but only a small minority will say that they are sound. And the vast majority of philosophers will laugh at Bahnsens arguments and say that they are fallacious circular arguments, just a collection of baseless assertions and non sequiturs combined with special pleading. That’s why this presup nonsense is fringe even among Christian philosophers.
The questioner either didn't like the what Dr. Bahnsen was saying it didn't understand it. But it definitely wasn't because it wasn't clear or understandable.
To parallel his argument about the atheistic worldview rendering us unable to make inferences about the future: if all a car is is a bunch of pieces of metal and rubber, then it can’t be driven, as people can’t just drive a piece of metal or a piece of rubber.
That’s not a parallel argument, that’s a straw man. The atheistic worldview has baked in features that prevent the possibility of knowledge. To correct your analogy, assuming a worldview that doesn’t allow for the possibility of combustion renders a car with a working engine impossible (not speaking of electric).
@@jimurban5367 I don’t know what “supernatural phenomena” you’re referring to. How about immaterial universals? The law of identity? Do you believe in that?
@@marincusman9303 Let’s put it this way: if the explanation is that God, another deity, an angel, or a spirit did something, that would be supernatural. The Bible and the Christian faith is full of such phenomena, and none of it is verified.
@@jimurban5367 1. you didn’t answer my question. 2. I’m guessing you don’t understand God and angels the way the Bible does. 3. How would you say one would “verify” God and angels?
"My atheistic worldview is unable to account for universal, unchanging, immaterial laws of logic as a precondition of intelligibility. However, in order to prove God's existence I would like you to provide empirical evidence, which, coincidentally, relies on reason in order to be evaluated in the first place."
@@TobyJMoore "Your atheistic worldview is unable to account for universal, unchanging, immaterial laws of logic as a precondition of intelligibility!“ Ok, so how do you account for any of that? "Gawd!“ Got any evidence for your god?😂
@@ramigilneas9274 You just perfectly demonstrated the foolishness that I was drawing attention to in my comment. Just like the foolish audience member, you're asking for evidence when the things that you're going to presuppose to interpret evidence, such as truth, logic, uniformity in nature, etc. are impossible if God doesn't exist.
@@TobyJMoore I might be a fool, but at least I know the difference between making a baseless claim and demonstrating that a claim is true. Claims aren’t evidence.😂
@@TobyJMoore I presuppose them. I accept them a priori as a brute fact of reality. And no, you don’t have to know the answer where they come from or why they exist to use them, that would be like saying that I can not use my Computer because I can not explain in detail how it works. Just because no one knows the answer to some of the most fundamental details of how reality works doesn’t somehow make the answer magic or that you can make up whatever answer you want, like your god.
The validity of his argument would be applicable if he were advocating for a deistic god rather than a specific god characterized by personality. The skeptic's inquiry probably stems from a dogmatic standpoint, likely in reference to the Christian God.
You might be interested to know in his debates/lectures Bahnsen also covers that objection in detail and explains/justifies why the indirect transcendental argument proves the existence of the personal Christian God due to the impossibility of the contrary. Check it out.
@@EXTREMEKIWI115 That makes me think of the stanza from Steve Turner's Creed. "We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation."
@@nw28x I am not in any way saying that my claim is due to all religions being the same. It's because the biggest obstacle to theology for atheists is their massive incredulity of the supernatural in general. It's a bigger bridge to gap than arguing the reliability of the Gospels, for example.
Ah its useless arguing with people who are filled with pride and always attacking you emotionally. Heres whats best i will pray. Instead of talking to anyone of God.
Ah, yes, the old "how can you trust your brain to function properly if it's only a bunch of atoms?" chestnut. The problem is this innocuous-looking little word, 'only', and the notion that you have to *add* something - some substance, some essence - to a bunch of atoms, to make them *not* only a bunch of atoms. There isn't; 'bunch of atoms' and 'reasoning brain' are just different _viewpoints_ , different _levels of description_ of the same entity. And if one doubts their reasoning faculties, _nothing_ can strengthen their confidence in them, and nothing can ground them more securely than their own intuition - including a God inferred via those same reasoning faculties that they doubt. We can easily turn this argument around and ask the theist, 'how can you trust your argument for God is sound?' The atheist, at least, is trying to ground our ability to reason on empirically known facts - the fact that our mental faculties evolved to help us survive, for example - that are *at least as secure as a God that's only inferred via these very suspect mental faculties* ! We know that we evolved; we know that evolution can shape adaptations to an environment, including brains; we're *seeing* it happen. No a priori argument can be _more_ secure than that. I've a better question to the theist: if God indeed exists, why the 'piles of atoms'? Why the 'sacks of meat'? You're assuming that there's an immaterial entity capable of thinking, reasoning and logic, so why would such a being *ever* go to the trouble of creating sacks of meat, with skulls filled with a greasy mess, just to reproduce what was _already_ present in Him and, presumably, other immaterial beings like angels? Doesn't it strike you as extravagantly redundant? Yet, the only answer I've ever gotten to this question is a lot of hand-waving, and maybe that 'God knows best'. In other words, we're going to just assume the world is what it is without questioning why it is like that; well, we can go one step further and cut out the extra entities from it.
@@haitaelpastor976 Even atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman admit that Jesus' tomb was empty on Easter sunday and that His disciples genuinely believed that He was raised from the dead.
@@baldwinthefourth4098 First things first: the tomb of Christ has NOT been found. Given that, what are the most simple explanations for a tomb being empty? 1) It was raided. 2) The corpse was taken to another. 3) The corpse wasn't there, so there was not a tomb in the first place.
All knowledge cannot be justified without philosophy, even science is based on philosophical presuppositions. That's why he laughed because the question is laughable
@@jhngrg8132Society is built upon philosophy. Religion, science and even law all use philosophy to justify it's individual frameworks. If philosophy has this much influence in fields of intelligent inquiry then who's to say that philosophy can't be the only thing needed to explain God?
@@patriklindholm7576 For some of us, it made perfect sense when and why he laughed. The questioner showed his misunderstanding of Bahnsen’s apologetic not just in what he asked but in how he asked it.
@@A_person_on_the_tube His argument is not uncommonly known nor commonly misunderstood. Those of us who understand his apologetic also understand that he answered the question. Here is a layman’s version of Bahnsen’s argument. ua-cam.com/video/aQ_UxcV-xcM/v-deo.htmlsi=nTtHK2bygIKNNslw
No, he made a very clear argument. He said that in Atheist we are just matter that moves around, atoms, energy etc. If that's the case we cannot say things about the future. Atoms are not rational, they are pretty random, how could you trust your mind with logic when its made up of not logical parts. As such Atheism is illogical and self-contradictory.
@@ladosdominik1506 what says atoms are "random"? They follow Physics rules and, as rational beings, we have a brain made of neurons that communicate with each other and with the rest of the nervous sistem with electric discharges. Not all atheists, but scientists try to understand things with theories that can be confirmed or can be refuted, and thanks to them we understand a lot more than when people wrote books that they said "was guided by the Finger of God" that got almost all refuted by the time (for ex. geocentric theory) because they felt the need to explain things that they couldn't with an imaginary omnipotent and omnipresent god that got us nowhere. It's religion that is irrational and wrong. Don't try to say that " there are religious scientist" because religion and science are not related, we could explain thing with science even if religion didn't exist, however if it was for religion and science didn't exist we would be just like monkeys
If life a more importantly your brain came about by an unguided random process then you can't trust its objectivity or rationality. In fact you can't trust rationality because there is no basis for rationality to exist inside a materialist worldview. If you knew the computer you are using was put together at random, would you trust the data and results it gave you?
Completely avoided the question! Instead came up with word soup, zero actual proof as asked, and still left the question unaswered! There is a reason he won't answer the question, and a reason that no one will answer it! Because they can't! They would rather keep lieing to themselves and others for their own purposes! 1 because they won't admit they can't answer it, 2 they won't admit they don't have the knowledge to answer it, and 3 they have no way of answering the question because there is no proof to answer the question with!
1:40 onward is a very simple breakdown of what his argument for the implausibility of atheism. The bulk of his answer explains the utility of that argument within the scope of his greater argument for God. If that's unsatisfactory, I suggest finding the more complicated, detailed, philisophical answer he gives earlier in the lecture. Or you can complain that the complicated answer is too complicated and the simple answer too simple, if you just like complaining. Just don't expect to learn anything with that attitude.
The question was “prove God in a way my stupid pea brain can understand”. There’s not much reason you can give to someone who rejects the premise of all prior arguments based off the fact that he just doesn’t get it
@@reasonablebro sorry, but that isn't what it stated! I have asked this my self. Prive your God exists without referring to the Bible or any other man written word, and without asking me a single question! That is being pea brained that is making the person prove that their belief is actually fact, with hard irrefutable evidence! In other words actual fact!
@@ProfesserLuigi wow, if you truly believe that, then you are truly brainwashed! 1 you have zero logical ability, and 2. You are so indoctrinated that you have lost the reality you live in. It is quite simple, I can prove I exist by simply looking into any reflective material. Taking a picture, with time stamp, and show it. I can prove I exist by simply walking in to someone! I can keep going with these but I hope you get the point. Tabgelable irrefutable evidence! It truly is that simple! The fact remains there is no such evidence for thus god, in any way what so ever! Only what bother have told others have told others have told others.....ect it is the longest game of telephone in the history of the world! Makes me wonder just how much different it will be in the next hundred years! It sure has changed in the last hundred, and the hundred before that, I wonder how long it will be before it is unrecognizable from today? Further by what is actually in the buble I can prove this god doesnt exist simply by what is written! Why, because man wrote the Bible. Flawed human being willing to put forth there own agendas, which is why there are some major contradictions I the bible that prive this god doesnt exist! If you don't know what the contradictions are, I suggest you go read your bible til you find them! Or search for it, plenty of references to them! I found them out the hard way, on my own doing exactly what I suggested you do! The bible is what caused my atheism, nothing else!
If I could have my time again I would not give philosophy of any kind one iota of my mental attention. I only watched this video to see if if he would answer the question. Alas he did not.
Silly. Rocks are just atoms bumping into each other. Animals are alive, metabolize and have an energy that produces wakefulness. Atheism is the result of balancing probabilities. Everyone should think and believe what they want without foolishly misrepresenting people who hold different opinions.
@@joe5959 Since Evolution compells us to "survive as long as possible" - this creates religious promises of "survival after Death' in exchange for Money... What's new?
@@DookyButter Basically, if you don't accept that my imaginary friend exists, then you are dumb and cannot know anything exists. Well, prove that is true. LOL
@@ScootTooner Nope, everyone who understands the argument immediately realizes how stupid the argument is. The argument was created to convince those who want it to be true but don’t understand it.😂
I hate philosophical justifications for God's existence. Just Christ. That's why I believe. No other reason. He makes a lot more sense than anyone else out there, including Buddha, including Muhammad, and including Confucius or Pythagoras. Although I present a few, they're not circled back to transcendental reasons.
@@BKNeifert The “Jesus making sense” part is philosophical justification for God’s existence. Throughout the Acts, Paul reasoned with many people in various places proving that Jesus is the Christ. He didn’t simply say, “Here is Jesus; he makes the most sense.” He connected the dots for both Jews and Gentiles giving a reasoned defense for who Jesus is. This is philosophical justification. The difference with Bahnsen and so many other Christian philosophers is that he doesn’t reason to God but from God. He shows how you can’t have reason without the God of scripture.
@@nw28x But you can't be circular. Why believe on God if you don't have a reason? I think the Morals laid down by Christ are my reason, and He even says, "He who builds his foundation upon this rock, when the waves come, will stand." And the scripture says, "The Law converts the heart." Why? Because it's true, and people understand that inherently. We all are born with an inherent conscience, and that's the only way to minister to people.
@@BKNeifert All reasoning is circular. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is that the former's reasoning is virtuous, and the latter's is vicious. The believer first uses his ability to reason to know that God is the justification for his ability to reason to know that God is the justification for his ability to reason... The unbeliever uses his ability to reason to justify his ability to reason to justify his ability to reason... The believer's ability to reason is actually justified because it can only be so with the God that is described in the Bible--one who knows all things, is holy, and can not lie. He created us with the ability to think his thoughts after him as he expects us to do so. The unbeliever can never actually justify his reasoning ability as he could be reasoning wrongly about the reliability of his reasoning if his reasoning is indeed unreliable. He can be self-deceived and never really know that he is. It's a vicious circle.
A Cristian philosopher: it’s so ridiculous that even he has to laugh with such a premise. Philosophy is for thinkers. Theology is for believers in the cuckoo’s nest.
This just makes you a bigot. First, you would remove all philosophers, scientists, etc that believe in Christ and then you will go around laughing about how there is no reason to believe in God.
Wow, you’re so right! Never, mind all those silly famous big thinkers and so called “learned men” who built our western civilization. You, the random person on UA-cam who can’t even spell “Christian” right, clearly are able to say with a certainty who is and isn’t a philosopher! Please take some time to do some self reflection for once, better yet do some research too while you’re at it!
nobody was asking about atheism there. but it seems to be a convenient way to dodge the question. the more or less hidden answer to the question "does god exist" is "we don't know". people always think, because he either exists or not, we have to decide. also his logic in disproving atheists is lacking af. very very VERY plain and insinuative on the description of his opposition and their arguments. i am a big fan of falsification to prove things. but at least do it right. it is only really utilized with the help of creativity. let's say there are 5 arguments. you believe one of them, your opposition believes another one, which leaves us with 3 undiscovered possibilities. what he did, is saying "the argument of my opposition is irrational, so mine is correct". if what he concluded to be irrational was 100% correct, proving 1/5 possibilities wrong doesn't make yours correct. and yet his conclusion was lacking there too. like i said, there are big holes in that logic. it is simply incomplete and really plain
When he speaks of the impossibility of the contrary, he is saying that ALL non-Christian worldviews are false. he does not simply dismiss 1 rival and therefore concludes that his position must be correct. His opponent in that debate was a Naturalist and that's why he focused on that.
Well, the argument of the questioner is irrational. Imagine a someone explaining how the human body works, and in response the person says "well that all sounds like abstract nonsense, I have a body of my own and know how to use it, can't be that complicated." This betrays the ignorance of the person rather than any flaws in the logic of anatomy. In fact, you can't really talk about ANYTHING without abstracting it from reality, let alone God who is outside of time and space itself... in other words it's a silly question and I'm not really sure how you can answer it without patronizing the person (e.g. "the foot bone's connected to the - leg bone!")
"I'm too uneducated to understand your argument so I think you're wrong and will belittle you for being educated. Now prove to me that God exists in a way my tiny brain can understand." - this is essentially what this dude said.
Nah, it’s more like this:
Prove to me that God exists with verifiable evidence and not with unverifiable assertions that are rejected as sophistry by the vast majority of other philosophers.😉
Ultimately yes. It astounds me that people dismiss philosophy as nonsense, when that itself is a philosophical claim. To make a value judgement (axiology) about philosophy, falls under philosophy. If philosophy is nonsense, the assertion that it is nonsense, is also nonsense, because it's also philosophy. People do philosophy everyday without realizing it. The human experience is the experience of the philosopher. Just because some people are more conscious of this, and better at it, than others, doesn't mean that the less conscious and competent are much different than the more conscious and competent. They just need to pick up a philosophy book once in a while and think a bit more, or stop complaining that they can't understand it.
"Any Fool Can Make Something Complicated, It Takes A Genius To Make It Simple"
@@ramigilneas9274 so you're appealing to popularity rather than the arguments themselves? Plenty of credible philosophpers, even if they disagree with the arguments, acknowledge that the philosophical arguments for God are logically sound.
I can only think of a handful of people who claim that the arguments are moot, like Richard Dawkins, but he is far from being a philosopher and his arguments have been torn apart time and again.
@@CasshernSinz1613
Nope, most philosophers will acknowledge that the arguments are valid… but only a small minority will say that they are sound.
And the vast majority of philosophers will laugh at Bahnsens arguments and say that they are fallacious circular arguments, just a collection of baseless assertions and non sequiturs combined with special pleading.
That’s why this presup nonsense is fringe even among Christian philosophers.
The questioner either didn't like the what Dr. Bahnsen was saying it didn't understand it. But it definitely wasn't because it wasn't clear or understandable.
I'm just gonna comment/like/follow to boost this video to the algorythm so that more people can see it.
To parallel his argument about the atheistic worldview rendering us unable to make inferences about the future: if all a car is is a bunch of pieces of metal and rubber, then it can’t be driven, as people can’t just drive a piece of metal or a piece of rubber.
That’s not a parallel argument, that’s a straw man. The atheistic worldview has baked in features that prevent the possibility of knowledge. To correct your analogy, assuming a worldview that doesn’t allow for the possibility of combustion renders a car with a working engine impossible (not speaking of electric).
@@marincusman9303 Except we have verifiable evidence that combustion is a thing. The same cannot be said about supernatural phenomena.
@@jimurban5367 I don’t know what “supernatural phenomena” you’re referring to. How about immaterial universals? The law of identity? Do you believe in that?
@@marincusman9303 Let’s put it this way: if the explanation is that God, another deity, an angel, or a spirit did something, that would be supernatural. The Bible and the Christian faith is full of such phenomena, and none of it is verified.
@@jimurban5367 1. you didn’t answer my question.
2. I’m guessing you don’t understand God and angels the way the Bible does.
3. How would you say one would “verify” God and angels?
"My atheistic worldview is unable to account for universal, unchanging, immaterial laws of logic as a precondition of intelligibility. However, in order to prove God's existence I would like you to provide empirical evidence, which, coincidentally, relies on reason in order to be evaluated in the first place."
@@TobyJMoore
"Your atheistic worldview is unable to account for universal, unchanging, immaterial laws of logic as a precondition of intelligibility!“
Ok, so how do you account for any of that?
"Gawd!“
Got any evidence for your god?😂
@@ramigilneas9274 You just perfectly demonstrated the foolishness that I was drawing attention to in my comment. Just like the foolish audience member, you're asking for evidence when the things that you're going to presuppose to interpret evidence, such as truth, logic, uniformity in nature, etc. are impossible if God doesn't exist.
@@TobyJMoore
I might be a fool, but at least I know the difference between making a baseless claim and demonstrating that a claim is true.
Claims aren’t evidence.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Did you use reason to reach that conclusion? How do you account for the laws of logic that govern reasoning?
@@TobyJMoore
I presuppose them.
I accept them a priori as a brute fact of reality.
And no, you don’t have to know the answer where they come from or why they exist to use them, that would be like saying that I can not use my Computer because I can not explain in detail how it works.
Just because no one knows the answer to some of the most fundamental details of how reality works doesn’t somehow make the answer magic or that you can make up whatever answer you want, like your god.
Who is this guy?
I think you might find the answer at 0:00
@@Ricolietsinteresting all I heard is question for "Doctor Bahnsen" so who is this guy?
@@IsraelCountryCube Greg Bahnsen.
The validity of his argument would be applicable if he were advocating for a deistic god rather than a specific god characterized by personality. The skeptic's inquiry probably stems from a dogmatic standpoint, likely in reference to the Christian God.
You might be interested to know in his debates/lectures Bahnsen also covers that objection in detail and explains/justifies why the indirect transcendental argument proves the existence of the personal Christian God due to the impossibility of the contrary. Check it out.
@@JP_21M
Unfortunately Bahnsen never proves anything… he asserts it with zero supporting evidence.😂
The gap between a deistic God and Yahweh, is very, very small compared to bridging the incredulity of deity in general.
@@EXTREMEKIWI115 That makes me think of the stanza from Steve Turner's Creed.
"We believe that all religions are basically the same,
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation."
@@nw28x I am not in any way saying that my claim is due to all religions being the same.
It's because the biggest obstacle to theology for atheists is their massive incredulity of the supernatural in general. It's a bigger bridge to gap than arguing the reliability of the Gospels, for example.
1
Funny!
Ah its useless arguing with people who are filled with pride and always attacking you emotionally. Heres whats best i will pray. Instead of talking to anyone of God.
Which god?
Абрахам причао са Богом и оставио савез - доказ - знак за припадност том народу који ће послије доћи
- кажеш није
- зашто јесте тако
Ah, yes, the old "how can you trust your brain to function properly if it's only a bunch of atoms?" chestnut. The problem is this innocuous-looking little word, 'only', and the notion that you have to *add* something - some substance, some essence - to a bunch of atoms, to make them *not* only a bunch of atoms. There isn't; 'bunch of atoms' and 'reasoning brain' are just different _viewpoints_ , different _levels of description_ of the same entity.
And if one doubts their reasoning faculties, _nothing_ can strengthen their confidence in them, and nothing can ground them more securely than their own intuition - including a God inferred via those same reasoning faculties that they doubt. We can easily turn this argument around and ask the theist, 'how can you trust your argument for God is sound?' The atheist, at least, is trying to ground our ability to reason on empirically known facts - the fact that our mental faculties evolved to help us survive, for example - that are *at least as secure as a God that's only inferred via these very suspect mental faculties* ! We know that we evolved; we know that evolution can shape adaptations to an environment, including brains; we're *seeing* it happen. No a priori argument can be _more_ secure than that.
I've a better question to the theist: if God indeed exists, why the 'piles of atoms'? Why the 'sacks of meat'? You're assuming that there's an immaterial entity capable of thinking, reasoning and logic, so why would such a being *ever* go to the trouble of creating sacks of meat, with skulls filled with a greasy mess, just to reproduce what was _already_ present in Him and, presumably, other immaterial beings like angels? Doesn't it strike you as extravagantly redundant? Yet, the only answer I've ever gotten to this question is a lot of hand-waving, and maybe that 'God knows best'. In other words, we're going to just assume the world is what it is without questioning why it is like that; well, we can go one step further and cut out the extra entities from it.
When was the last time philosophy proved something?
When was the last time philosophy was never used?
Anytime you make an ought statement you invoke philosophy
@@Ozymandias23448 And it never proves anything.
@@haitaelpastor976 and that is bad because?
@@Ozymandias23448 Because it may be an amusing hobby, but not a source of knowledge.
@@haitaelpastor976 and you have used philosophy to prove your point.
Congrats you played yourself
History and archeology demonstrate significant weight that New Testament documents are true… show Jesus existed and died on a cross. And… rose again
Examples, please. Of the latter in particular.
@@haitaelpastor976 Even atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman admit that Jesus' tomb was empty on Easter sunday and that His disciples genuinely believed that He was raised from the dead.
@@baldwinthefourth4098 Yes, because the Guy resurrecting is the only explanation for a tomb being empty (tomb that hasn't been found).
@@haitaelpastor976 Well, let's hear your explanation. Why was it empty?
@@baldwinthefourth4098 First things first: the tomb of Christ has NOT been found.
Given that, what are the most simple explanations for a tomb being empty? 1) It was raided. 2) The corpse was taken to another. 3) The corpse wasn't there, so there was not a tomb in the first place.
Completely dodged the question.
All knowledge cannot be justified without philosophy, even science is based on philosophical presuppositions. That's why he laughed because the question is laughable
@@jhngrg8132Society is built upon philosophy. Religion, science and even law all use philosophy to justify it's individual frameworks. If philosophy has this much influence in fields of intelligent inquiry then who's to say that philosophy can't be the only thing needed to explain God?
@@TicuTK you need philosophy, faith and communication with god in order to understand him.
The moment he laughed he revealed he knew he's lost the debate. And his reputation.
What a sad commentary you give.
@@electriccowboy4747 True, though.
It's laughable because philosophy is the tool in order to prove anything. Science and logic itself are based on philosophical presuppositions
@@patriklindholm7576 For some of us, it made perfect sense when and why he laughed. The questioner showed his misunderstanding of Bahnsen’s apologetic not just in what he asked but in how he asked it.
He actually won the debate and his reputation is fine.
As expected, he made a soup of words without answering the question
@@A_person_on_the_tube His argument is not uncommonly known nor commonly misunderstood. Those of us who understand his apologetic also understand that he answered the question.
Here is a layman’s version of Bahnsen’s argument.
ua-cam.com/video/aQ_UxcV-xcM/v-deo.htmlsi=nTtHK2bygIKNNslw
No, he made a very clear argument. He said that in Atheist we are just matter that moves around, atoms, energy etc. If that's the case we cannot say things about the future. Atoms are not rational, they are pretty random, how could you trust your mind with logic when its made up of not logical parts.
As such Atheism is illogical and self-contradictory.
@@ladosdominik1506 what says atoms are "random"? They follow Physics rules and, as rational beings, we have a brain made of neurons that communicate with each other and with the rest of the nervous sistem with electric discharges.
Not all atheists, but scientists try to understand things with theories that can be confirmed or can be refuted, and thanks to them we understand a lot more than when people wrote books that they said "was guided by the Finger of God" that got almost all refuted by the time (for ex. geocentric theory) because they felt the need to explain things that they couldn't with an imaginary omnipotent and omnipresent god that got us nowhere.
It's religion that is irrational and wrong.
Don't try to say that " there are religious scientist" because religion and science are not related, we could explain thing with science even if religion didn't exist, however if it was for religion and science didn't exist we would be just like monkeys
Exactly. A soup of words. And a failure to answer the question. @@ladosdominik1506
@@ladosdominik1506the other guy is right. He just gave a politician answer about nothing
This is really dumb
If life a more importantly your brain came about by an unguided random process then you can't trust its objectivity or rationality. In fact you can't trust rationality because there is no basis for rationality to exist inside a materialist worldview. If you knew the computer you are using was put together at random, would you trust the data and results it gave you?
Completely avoided the question!
Instead came up with word soup, zero actual proof as asked, and still left the question unaswered!
There is a reason he won't answer the question, and a reason that no one will answer it! Because they can't! They would rather keep lieing to themselves and others for their own purposes!
1 because they won't admit they can't answer it, 2 they won't admit they don't have the knowledge to answer it, and 3 they have no way of answering the question because there is no proof to answer the question with!
1:40 onward is a very simple breakdown of what his argument for the implausibility of atheism. The bulk of his answer explains the utility of that argument within the scope of his greater argument for God. If that's unsatisfactory, I suggest finding the more complicated, detailed, philisophical answer he gives earlier in the lecture.
Or you can complain that the complicated answer is too complicated and the simple answer too simple, if you just like complaining. Just don't expect to learn anything with that attitude.
The question was “prove God in a way my stupid pea brain can understand”. There’s not much reason you can give to someone who rejects the premise of all prior arguments based off the fact that he just doesn’t get it
@@reasonablebro sorry, but that isn't what it stated!
I have asked this my self.
Prive your God exists without referring to the Bible or any other man written word, and without asking me a single question!
That is being pea brained that is making the person prove that their belief is actually fact, with hard irrefutable evidence! In other words actual fact!
@@billwilliams7285 It can't be proved that you exist under those conditions.
@@ProfesserLuigi wow, if you truly believe that, then you are truly brainwashed! 1 you have zero logical ability, and 2. You are so indoctrinated that you have lost the reality you live in.
It is quite simple, I can prove I exist by simply looking into any reflective material. Taking a picture, with time stamp, and show it. I can prove I exist by simply walking in to someone! I can keep going with these but I hope you get the point.
Tabgelable irrefutable evidence! It truly is that simple! The fact remains there is no such evidence for thus god, in any way what so ever! Only what bother have told others have told others have told others.....ect it is the longest game of telephone in the history of the world!
Makes me wonder just how much different it will be in the next hundred years! It sure has changed in the last hundred, and the hundred before that, I wonder how long it will be before it is unrecognizable from today?
Further by what is actually in the buble I can prove this god doesnt exist simply by what is written! Why, because man wrote the Bible. Flawed human being willing to put forth there own agendas, which is why there are some major contradictions I the bible that prive this god doesnt exist!
If you don't know what the contradictions are, I suggest you go read your bible til you find them! Or search for it, plenty of references to them! I found them out the hard way, on my own doing exactly what I suggested you do!
The bible is what caused my atheism, nothing else!
If I could have my time again I would not give philosophy of any kind one iota of my mental attention. I only watched this video to see if if he would answer the question. Alas he did not.
Silly. Rocks are just atoms bumping into each other. Animals are alive, metabolize and have an energy that produces wakefulness. Atheism is the result of balancing probabilities. Everyone should think and believe what they want without foolishly misrepresenting people who hold different opinions.
Humanity may have created some 3.600 Religions, but they all share the
same message; "Give us your money and you'll live forever and ever!"
I'd be interested in seeing your proof of this claim.
@@TopJazzCat As soon as you prove to me that I need to prove anything to you, I'll send you my proof Air Mail.
@@markgendala5689So you dont want to be questioned, great, we dont care what your input is and will disregard it until you ellaborate.
@@joe5959 Since Evolution compells us to "survive as long as possible" - this creates
religious promises of "survival after Death' in exchange for Money... What's new?
Basically, if you don't accept that my imaginary friend exists, then you cannot know anything exists.
Well, prove that is true.
LOL
You are another one that just doesn’t understand the argument
Translation: "My brain can't think more than two thoughts ahead."
Just say that next time instead.
@@DookyButter
Basically, if you don't accept that my imaginary friend exists, then you are dumb and cannot know anything exists.
Well, prove that is true.
LOL
@@ScootTooner
Nope, everyone who understands the argument immediately realizes how stupid the argument is.
The argument was created to convince those who want it to be true but don’t understand it.😂
I hate philosophical justifications for God's existence. Just Christ. That's why I believe. No other reason. He makes a lot more sense than anyone else out there, including Buddha, including Muhammad, and including Confucius or Pythagoras. Although I present a few, they're not circled back to transcendental reasons.
@@BKNeifert The “Jesus making sense” part is philosophical justification for God’s existence.
Throughout the Acts, Paul reasoned with many people in various places proving that Jesus is the Christ. He didn’t simply say, “Here is Jesus; he makes the most sense.” He connected the dots for both Jews and Gentiles giving a reasoned defense for who Jesus is. This is philosophical justification.
The difference with Bahnsen and so many other Christian philosophers is that he doesn’t reason to God but from God. He shows how you can’t have reason without the God of scripture.
Fideism is a heresy,if you reject knowledge for the source of your belief as christian you're a heretic
@@nw28x This is true. I just made that argument, actually. Good one.
@@nw28x But you can't be circular. Why believe on God if you don't have a reason? I think the Morals laid down by Christ are my reason, and He even says, "He who builds his foundation upon this rock, when the waves come, will stand." And the scripture says, "The Law converts the heart." Why? Because it's true, and people understand that inherently. We all are born with an inherent conscience, and that's the only way to minister to people.
@@BKNeifert All reasoning is circular. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is that the former's reasoning is virtuous, and the latter's is vicious.
The believer first uses his ability to reason to know that God is the justification for his ability to reason to know that God is the justification for his ability to reason...
The unbeliever uses his ability to reason to justify his ability to reason to justify his ability to reason...
The believer's ability to reason is actually justified because it can only be so with the God that is described in the Bible--one who knows all things, is holy, and can not lie. He created us with the ability to think his thoughts after him as he expects us to do so.
The unbeliever can never actually justify his reasoning ability as he could be reasoning wrongly about the reliability of his reasoning if his reasoning is indeed unreliable. He can be self-deceived and never really know that he is. It's a vicious circle.
A Cristian philosopher: it’s so ridiculous that even he has to laugh with such a premise. Philosophy is for thinkers. Theology is for believers in the cuckoo’s nest.
This just makes you a bigot. First, you would remove all philosophers, scientists, etc that believe in Christ and then you will go around laughing about how there is no reason to believe in God.
Wow, you’re so right! Never, mind all those silly famous big thinkers and so called “learned men” who built our western civilization. You, the random person on UA-cam who can’t even spell “Christian” right, clearly are able to say with a certainty who is and isn’t a philosopher! Please take some time to do some self reflection for once, better yet do some research too while you’re at it!
FYI - "Philosophy is for thinkers" is a theological claim. Doesn't that make you twice a theologian?
@@KalebOfAxum12 Philosophy my eager beaver believer is not a science. But you can keep rejoicing, infinitely in your case, about a spelling mistake :)
@@JP_21M no
nobody was asking about atheism there. but it seems to be a convenient way to dodge the question. the more or less hidden answer to the question "does god exist" is "we don't know". people always think, because he either exists or not, we have to decide.
also his logic in disproving atheists is lacking af. very very VERY plain and insinuative on the description of his opposition and their arguments.
i am a big fan of falsification to prove things. but at least do it right. it is only really utilized with the help of creativity. let's say there are 5 arguments. you believe one of them, your opposition believes another one, which leaves us with 3 undiscovered possibilities. what he did, is saying "the argument of my opposition is irrational, so mine is correct". if what he concluded to be irrational was 100% correct, proving 1/5 possibilities wrong doesn't make yours correct. and yet his conclusion was lacking there too. like i said, there are big holes in that logic. it is simply incomplete and really plain
When he speaks of the impossibility of the contrary, he is saying that ALL non-Christian worldviews are false. he does not simply dismiss 1 rival and therefore concludes that his position must be correct. His opponent in that debate was a Naturalist and that's why he focused on that.
Well, the argument of the questioner is irrational.
Imagine a someone explaining how the human body works, and in response the person says "well that all sounds like abstract nonsense, I have a body of my own and know how to use it, can't be that complicated."
This betrays the ignorance of the person rather than any flaws in the logic of anatomy. In fact, you can't really talk about ANYTHING without abstracting it from reality, let alone God who is outside of time and space itself...
in other words it's a silly question and I'm not really sure how you can answer it without patronizing the person (e.g. "the foot bone's connected to the - leg bone!")
just admit you dont like your parents and want to do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like
@@halo_1232
Are you on drugs? If not, _should_ you be?
@@avishevin1976 are you on weight loss pills? if not, should you be?
No amount of pseudo philosophical word salad wont poof your cult deity into existence
No amount of denial is going to deal with the argument.