God's Indisputable Existence l Greg Bahnsen
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 бер 2023
- Greg Bahnsen gives arguments for God's Indisputable Existence
Buy the Book Expository Apologetics: store.gracefamilybaptist.net/...
Visit the Bahnsen Institute Store: www.wrathandgrace.com/thebahn...
Join this channel to support our work:
/ @gfbc1689
Check out our bookstore
store.gracefamilybaptist.net
Posted on UA-cam with the permission of The Bahnsen Institute.
www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...
#apologeticsstudybible #apologetics
apologetics,apologetics christian,apologetics voddie baucham,apologetics 101,apolegetics 101,apolegetics voddie baucham,apolegetics for teens,
Join this channel to support our work:
/ @gfbc1689
Uploaded to UA-cam with the permission of The Bahnsen Institute
www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...
greg bahnsen,critical thinking,greg bahnsen presuppositional apologetics,greg bahnsen lectures,greg bahnsen laws of logic,greg bahnsen apologetics,critical thinking for kids,critical thinking course,greg bahnsen logic,critical thinking lecture,greg bahnsen circular reasoning,greg bahnsen other religions,critical thinking skills,critical thinking questions,critical thinking examples,apologetics christian,apologetics 101,proof of god's existance
It's an interesting approach to spend that time describing a foundation of sound reason, only to move on to accusing non-believers of simply dishonestly denying knowledge of god. That's like non-believers simply accusing believers of pretending. It's not an argument. It's a bad faith biased assumption about the psychological states of the opposition.
Absolutely spot on
How do you get to say “dishonestly”…here you are presupposing truth as you define it…and since bahnsen’s argument does not fit in your presuppositions, you find it dishonest
Likewise, his presupposition is that God exists. If a person doesn’t not comport to that presupposition, that would be denying the knowledge of God.
The worldview with a presupposition where god exists sustains and conforms to human experience, morality, truth, meaning, reason etc
And since a non believer claims all that…he has to acknowledge the existence of God. Since he doesn’t, he is being dishonest.
The above reasoning is hard to understand until we see Bahnsen is reasoning at a deeper level, and his arguments are at one level deeper, one lever higher, at attacks the very foundation of his opponents methodology in denying God’s existence …his arguments transcend the plane of argument you are currently in from which you find it “dishonest”
@muthunag89 No he isn't. He's using the English definition of truth. Do you have a better definition?
And no, rejecting bahnsons childish claims of a god due to a total lack of credible evidence is the only honest and rational thing to do in reality! Though I accept that dishonesty is perfectly acceptable within your dishonest xhristian worldview!
@@muthunag89 The ironic thing here is that when I used the word "dishonest" I was referring to what Bahnsen alleged of atheists. HE is the one making the accusation. And using your reasoning, HE is the one who simply "finds it dishonest" based on his presupposition of "truth."
Further, if a person doesn't "comport" to his presupposition, then it would be denying his _presupposition_ of knowledge about god, not the knowledge about god simpliciter; that knowledge of god is the very thing being presupposed. Your claim begs the question.
Also, if you are admitting this is all contingent on presuppositions, whether his or mine or anyone else's, then you are admitting of a distinction _between_ presuppositions (which by definition cannot be substantiated and are epistemically equivalent), and so acknowledge a function of first order logic, and therefore cannot rationally hold that a presupposition can account for itself above other presuppositions with them all being foundational positions. Therefore, you have to admit that assuming his presupposition is "true" above another presupposition, based strictly on the presupposition itself is a blatant violation of the logic your own argument relies upon.
Next, a non-believer does not need to acknowledge the existence of a god presupposed by someone else's presupposition simply because it "conforms" to the same notions they believe in presuppositionally. By analogy, I can get money by legitimate work or stealing. The fact that getting money "conforms" to stealing does not mean I _must_ get money by stealing, and cannot get it through legitimate work. The fact that someone presupposes a god as the source for all these things does not require that anyone accept _that_ presupposition.
Finally, Bahnsen's arguments are not at a "deeper" level. It's a religiously biased presupposition, which analytically cannot be "deeper" than any other presupposition. To even recognize a presupposition is to acknowledge the stance-dependent nature of it, and the inability of it to exceed any distinct presupposition. By definition a presupposition is not substantiated by anything else, which means it cannot be shown to be superior to any other presupposition, and to attempt to do so by nature of itself would be a violation of logic which it itself relies upon in argument. This means you cannot rationally hold that it is "deeper" or "higher" than any other relevant presupposition, and by referring to it as a presupposition you are acknowledging that very fact of logic.
@@muthunag89 Lol You claim I'm denying god. Which god am I denying?
Appears that the last part of the discussion was cut off at the end unfortunately
That is true. It was cut off.
ua-cam.com/video/SVwSKxGmnwE/v-deo.html this should be the whole thing
Nobody better than Bahnsen the bulldog
To God be the Glory
I call him Bahnsen The Beast lol
Are you kidding? Bahnson makes you Christians look phenomenally bad.
Certainly not many worse! 😂😂😂😂
Which is surprising considering how bad Christian appologists are.
He seemed to be a beast. His adoptive daughter has filed a lawsuit for abuse in their home.
26.40.....Errrr.....nope greg!
Why allow the trolls get rid of them
Bahnsen was a theological laser.
Semper Reformanda
and an abuser of children
@@einsameskind7704 you are a broken individual
Oh dear! I sat through every pitiful one of 43 pitiful minutes!
EPIC FAILURE BY BAHNSON YET AGAIN!
Why upload this video when it is incomplete?
Damn right it's incomplete. Absolutely nothing to indicate the existence of a god.
😂😂😂😂😂 27.00 😂😂😂😂 I can't stop laughing!!! 😂😂😂 Gregs big argument with more holes than a tea bag has just been revealed!!!
Sorry but i cant stop laughing! 😂😂😂😂😂
The glory belongs to God.
Greg doesn't win, God does.
Thanks for listening
@@gfbc1689 Have you seen the channel called Truth is Christ? It shows some of the complex mathematical structure of the KJV Bible
@@gfbc1689
God showed me this:
Psalms 14:1
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalms 53:1
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
The square root of two is
1.4142...
Psalms 14:1 is verse number 142 of Psalms
The square root of the square root of two is
1.189...
There are 1189 Chapters in the KJV.
God used Greg Bahnsen to display His glory.
@@mrslisabairdIt's just a cheap attempt at division.
He tried to put God against His own servants.
13.10.....And now we get to bahnsons BLATANT LIES!
like your spelling “skills”
@charlesheck6812 Naw not really. My ambivalence to irrelevancies, prefering substance over style really isn't a blatant lie. It's obvious in every post I make.
Now do you have ANYTHING of substance to say?
Well im half way through and theres absolutely no indisputable proof of a god. Merely a childish attempt from bahnson ti repeatedly poisen the well and appeals to an already totally discredited silly book of fairytales!
Lol Where was the indisputable evidence of gods existence as there was absolutely nothing close to that in the video?
Well if you don't understand philosophy, than nobody can help you with that
@thelobsterking1055 Lol Yeah I understand philosophy. If you don't understand logical fallacies I really can't help you.
I reiterate.......where was the indisputable evidence of gods existence?
@thelobsterking1055 I'm waiting sonny. Please tell me how, if I can't justify induction, or anything else it means an unembodied mind with the power to speak universes into existence and read the thoughts of everyone in that universe just popped into existence without a cause?
Or is that a total non sequitur?
@@nickjones5435 any order in the world relys on a mind that create this order
There is an order that exist outside of human mind. Thus it must be work of a mind that existed before human mind.
The Divine Mind.
@thelobsterking1055 Why did you run away from my question? Please answer it now.
Please tell me how, if I can't justify induction, or anything else it means an unembodied mind with the power to speak universes into existence and read the thoughts of everyone in that universe just popped into existence without a cause?
Or is that a total non sequitur?
Secondly there is order in the fact that all bodies of mass have a gravitational attraction to me. Please present credible evidence that your god has anything whatsoever to do with that? First you'll have to show your god exists!
Bahnsen abused children and allowed sexual assault in his home - he was a fool.
His actions speak louder than words to those who have suffered abuse. His words are hollow.
Is that true? I would not be surprised from such a charlatan.
2.40 errrrr.....I see tge lying and moving goalposts has started already! You claimed to have PROOF but already its changed to " you have an argument ' !!!! No doubt a pitiful pathetic logically fallacious PHILOSOPHICAL argument at that!
It didn't take you long to fail did it bahnson? 😢😢😢😢😂😂😂😂
Damn right convincing someone who's simple minded that he can't justify induction or the laws of logic does not in any way mean the rest of your worldview such as an unembodied mind with the power to speak universes into existence and simultaneously read the thoughts of everyone in that universe just popped into existence without a cause, exists!;
You've just blown your whole argument with your own words Greg!
Lol......And on 6 mins we have the normal trick of poisoning the well.
Wow.....bahanson just fails fails fails and fails again in this pitiful video doesn't he?
I love Bahnsen, but I lost a lost a lot of respect when he made such a terrible strawman version of the Cosmological Argument. It has NEVER been "everything that exists has a cause." Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. The "who made God argument" is the most juvenile atheist nonsense to dodge the actual argument. Shame on Bahnsen for sinking to their level. The beginning of the universe is known to be the beginning of time, space, and matter. By definition, nature needs a supernatural cause. Something bound by the laws of nature cannot create the laws of nature.
Why on earth would you love bahnson?
Are you claiming that your god didn't begin to exist? Isn't THAT juvenile?
And did you really say that someone who creates the laws of nature can't be created by the laws of nature?
This is utterly pathetic. I have always heard that Bahnsen was the presuppositionalist extraordinaire, but this is just weak. In this video, he claims to be offering the church audience indisputable proof of god's existence, and then he quotes Romans 1. That is simply sad. Any ill-trained Sunday school teacher could manage that. He then reverts to the equally lame argument that the only sort of morality that can exist is objective morality, and thus when an 'unbeliever,' as he likes to call us, asserts a moral position - "murder is bad" - we are unwittingly adopting a Christian world view. Not only is this classical Apologetics 101, not something one would think a person with Bahnsen's reputation would have resorted to, particularly as a presuppositionalist, but he offers no supporting argument. He then wanders into a lukewarm presentation of the presuppositional argument, presuming I suppose that his audience wouldn't understand a more sophisticated approach, setting out the transcendental argument which he wrongly believed supported his and van Til's position. This is unimaginably, almost laughably weak.
@@user-iz9ic7fp3p You make two points, both of which are interesting. To be fair, I understand that Dr. Bahnsen was a smart and well-educated man, with a doctorate in philosophy from a highly-regarded university, but I would stand by my view that he was a poor reasoner with respect to the things that mattered, which I think you concede when you agree that his presuppositional approach "blinded him to some extent.' The center of his worldview was Van Til's presuppositional apologetics, and Dr. Bahnsen - and Prof. Van Til, for that matter - seemed utterly unable to see the problems with it. Their entire apologetic methodology depended upon the soundness of the transcendental argument, and after the arguments fifty years ago among Sir Peter Strawson of Oxford, Prof. Barry Stroud of U. Cal.-Berkely and Prof. Stephan Körner of Bristol University, it it fairly well accepted in the philosophical community that the transcendental argument is not up to the task of proving there is a god. It is a complicated discussion, and I can't say that I am able to follow the nuances of the argument, but the upshot is that as a philosophical matter, the transcendental argument can't prove the existence of god. This all played out when Dr. Bahnsen was a young man, and it is not credible that, given his interests and training, he wasn't aware of the arguments going on among the leaders of his discipline. I have yet in a video or a paper by Dr. Bahnsen that I have read to see any acknowledgment of the problem. He was a true believer, and his desperate need for 'proof' of god's existence led him to ignore arguments that undercut such proof. That's what I mean by him being a poor reasoner. You can't reason if you can't see past your most dearly held beliefs. I might add that as a contrast my late wife was a devout jew, and her faith was utterly independent of any proof. It didn't matter to her, and her faith wouldn't have wavered if someone had presented he with proof that god existed or that he didn't. Finally on this point, if you are interested, this link to to an excellent piece setting out the transcendental argument for god, with its strengths and weaknesses, by Michael Butler, who I believe was a colleague of Dr. Bahnsen. www.butler-harris.org/tag/
You are of course correct regarding subjective morality. I disagree with you whether there can be morality other than objective morality, but it's clearly a problem. As I am sure you know, I take morality to be nothing more than the social contract. 'I won't kill you if you agree not to kill me, and we agree to set up structures - the police, the courts, prisons - to enforce that agreement.' There are arguments that human morality developed as part of the evolutionary process, and that thus morals are something we are born with (perhaps a form of objective morality?), but I'm not sure I find these arguments convincing. I think it is simply the social contract. I might add, along with other 'unbelievers' as Dr. Bahnsen would have it, I think that the Bible isn't a very good guide in this respect. God told Moses and the Hebrews that they shouldn't kill, and then he tells Saul to go slaughter the Amalekites - men, women, children and even their animals. Which is it? What is the moral here? David, certainly a favorite of god, does all sorts of reprehensible things. Dr. Bahnsen and his ilk tend to gloss over these problems, at least in public discourse.
>this argument is lame!
>How dare he categorize us as unbelievers!
>His presentation is lukewarm
>This is laughably weak
What’s stupid is believing that you can appeal to a higher authority than God to prove God exists.
@@joshcornell8510 I'm not sure that I understand the comment. Who is appealing to a higher authority than god to prove god exists? If you mean Dr. Bahner, he is appealing to logic in his faulty reliance on the transcendental argument, and he has stated that logic is a creation of god, so he's not appealing to a higher authority. And I'm certainly not appealing to a higher authority, since I am not attempting to prove that a god exists, as I believe that there are no gods. I don't mean to be rude, but this comment doesn't make a lot of sense.
Few problems with what you said but I'm not going to list them. Easy one is that he's not saying that you dont know morally that murder is bad but without the Christian God, you can't justify a reason why you believe it. You know it's bad but why?
Greg was wrong and Paul was wrong. This is just a bad ad hominem argument. It is not meant to convince: it is meant to make sheep feel more confident.
Also: peaches come from a can; they were put there by a man 🎶
How is it ad hominem that knowledge can’t be known outside of the fear of God? This actually proves Gods existence and destroys moral relativism at the same time. You even making the claim that Greg and Paul were wrong is a claim to some sort of standard in which right and wrong matter objectively. You know God exists because He is self aware evident, but here you are making truth claims without a basis to do so. Don’t you see how foolish that is?
@@Yela927 I should have been more clear. By accusing the atheist of "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" a priori, you are both poisoning the well of their arguments and pushing a personal moral judgment. You can keep it as scripture, but it is a bad faith argument to use in open dialog.
@@Yela927 Compare Romans 1 to the common atheist accusation that Christians are suppressing the truth out of superstition or ignorance. It's not an argument - it's an insult.
great refutation!!
Not to mention that Bahnsen was guilty of circular reasoning and special pleading. Presuppositionalism is a repellent for questions the apologists can't answer in the evidentiary approach.
LOL Arguments when you have NOTHING. Silly theist.
Psalm 14:1.
In the Beginning God...
@@marleyandme447 That's a fallacy, and a stupidly obvious argument. Next.
@@gfbc1689 "In the Beginning God." Describe your methodology for determining the truth and how you apply that methodology without hypocrisy to every situation. (This is where you run away)
@@frosted1030 Would love to hear your proof of the opposite, your Big Bang theory is severely flawed 😂