Bahnsen/Stein Debate: Does God Exist?

[_cksalmon]

This will be of interest to some of those who find formal debate stimulating.

Audio only on YouTube (in 14 parts).

I'm a Bahnsen fan, but this is quite an enjoyable debate from both sides, regardless of which side you come down on, I think.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?u ... ahnsen&p=r

Best.

CKS

PS. Disclaimer: It's Real Snarky. I think that'll fit in with our crew here.

[_cksalmon]

I believe that Stein is off-base about the nature of the laws of logic. For him, they are perhaps sociological, or, more fairly, based on oft-tested consensus. Thus, the three laws of logic (which are really the same law worded differently) are merely useful, while not being universal or necessary in nature. It doesn't, to my mind, seem that he answers this objection sufficiently.

CKS

[_KimberlyAnn]

Thanks, CKS, for the link to the debate.

I've listened to the first two parts so far and think the debate will prove interesting, though for me, it's likely to result in further confusion!

KA

[_cksalmon]

Thanks, CKS, for the link to the debate.

I've listened to the first two parts so far and think the debate will prove interesting, though for me, it's likely to result in further confusion!

KA

It's a good listen, I think. Hope it's not confusing, though it might be to me, as well! Bahnsen is now deceased, by the way, not that that's important to the debate.

Bahnsen was a radically-confirmed high Calvinist; thus, many of Stein's arguments are misguided, it seems to me.

Still, good listening.

CKS

[_Ren]

On up to the first half of part 3 so far.

From Bahnsen we've had:

The 'crackers in the pantry' fallacy
...well, I don't remember hearing the part where Bahnsen says that all factual questions have to be answered in 'exactly in the same way'. I heard the words 'in the same manner as other facts are investigated'.
...I'm guessing he probably meant in the sense that it's not unnecessarily good enough to talk about the idea of God JUST making 'logical sense', or the idea of God making JUST 'moral sense' etc.

I think Bahnsen is probably attacking a straw-man here. Or at the very least a hideous distortion of Stein's real point...

Stein is not neutral in his approach to his investigation of 'facts'. He assumes that 'logic' and 'reason' are essential requirements in such an investigation.
...well, good on Stein. Would Bahnsen prefer rolling die, or reading tarot cards perhaps...? Bahnsen doesn't go on to describe what his idea of 'normal, garden variety' proof actually is at this point, but since he may attempt to assert that it wouldn't necessarily be based on logic and reason, I'm sure he's best - for the sake of appearances - not to go into too much detail there...! At least not without an impressive build-up...

And ermm - the 'testimony' of the solar system?! The persuasion of the sea?! The 'wonder' of the Bible?
...is this a debate, or a poetry reading?

Stein is pre-supposed against super-natural explanations. He 'begs the question' when it comes to even the possibility of God.
It's the first point Bahnsen makes that I can take seriously - it's actually a decent point. He's right in part, but I don't think he's hit this one dead on.

Yes, if Stein is discarding ALL aspects of super-natural possibility out of hand, then discussing the idea of a 'God' with him would be a waste of time.
But what I imagine Stein is eluding to is something like this:

It may be claimed that God is a super-natural being, but if this being did reach into this world and - say - raise Jesus from the dead, then that would be a naturalistic event, that could be (at the very least potentially) investigated in the same manner as other naturalistic events...

And now Bahnsen's laugh-out-loud line:
"We can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary!"

Fantastic! So - I'm guessing that Bahnsen will want to move this debate as far away from real-world evidence as he possibly can, and drown it in pure philosophy!
...never ceases to amaze me how people can claim to identify with science when they clearly find it's most basic ideals so abhorrent.

Well, haven't got more time to listen to this tonight. And I'll be out mostly tomorrow. But I'll be sure to try and pick this up again on Sunday. Should be interesting ;)

[_cksalmon]

Yes, if Stein is discarding ALL aspects of super-natural possibility out of hand, then discussing the idea of a 'God' with him would be a waste of time.
But what I imagine Stein is eluding to is something like this:

It may be claimed that God is a super-natural being, but if this being did reach into this world and - say - raise Jesus from the dead, then that would be a naturalistic event, that could be (at the very least potentially) investigated in the same manner as other naturalistic events...

There're some good zingers on both sides, to be sure.

I think Bahnsen's underlying point is that the atheist worldview cannot account for universalities of any sort. Thus, no universal or necessary morality (Hitler, the marquis de sade, etc., are no more or less moral than anyone else--thus, the atheist cannot impose his own ungrounded, non-universal, contingent, sociological, mores on them--there is no basis for doing so); no universal or necessary canon of logic (though that phrase was not used)--thus, the laws of logical consistency are arbitrary and there is no necessary or universally-presupposed reason for believing that such are universally valid--per an atheistic worldview, they're just not; and, no reason whatsoever for intuiting or presupposing or operating upon the assumption of any sort of universal consistency of thought in any domain whatsoever. It's all matter in motion, with no universality or universal applicability of any presupposed starting point in any domain--other than an appeal to the status quo: well, experience tells us this is that.

To suggest otherwise, I think, per Bahnsen, is to capitulate to the idea that abstract universals exist. If one doesn't believe that, then it makes little sense to appeal to abstract universals in the furtherance of one's philosophical agenda. But, if they do exist, then it makes little sense to assume a worldview that eschews them.

The only option, for the atheist, it seems, is to assume non-universal, but mutually-beneficial, mores, for example, that have no underlying ontological validity and whose only authority is based upon a might-makes-right worldview. But, there is no objective or universally-compelling reason to assume any sort of universally-binding morality, or canon of logic, or law of rational thought. Per a materialistic worldview, there is no such thing as an abstract universal, and so the atheist's pronouncements on morality, for example, are utterly ungrounded in anything other than, I suppose, evolution.

I don't worship evolution, personally. And I don't consider its ungrounded, non-universal, hypostatized "laws" binding.

My $0.02.

CKS

PS. It is a good listen, though. I hope you carry through to the end, RoP. Are you on Skype tonight?

[_Ren]

CK,
Are you eluding that this debate is going to come down to whether atheism can construct a moral system that is 'absolute'...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU7LZts87Zg

No wonder Bahnsen wants to move away from talking about facts in the 'normal' way.

If I want to know whether there are kangaroos living in the Arctic, I wouldn't consider it my first plan of attack to decide whether the absence of Kangaroo's in the arctic would affect whether I could know FOR SURE if it's OK for me to drink coffee, play sports on Sundays or have sex with a girl before she's married...

Oh - and I've got no doubt it's a good listen - I will finish it off when I next get the chance...

I'd reply with more, but it's getting late here. I'm gonna get to bed. So no - I won't be around for skype-age.
Next time though for sure :)

[Guest]

I don't buy his argument at all, as you've summarized it. At the moment, I have no sound card to listen on any computer I have access to.

Why do atheists have to be materialists? Dave Chalmers - case in point.

And if atheists are materialists, why do they have to ignore the force of logic? There's a slippery slope from counterfactuals to notions of logical possibility and so on. David Lewis, Saul Kripke et al. The importance here is how logic works into the very definition of materialism.

In general, I don't give a rat's ... if morals are contingent. All you have to do is look around the world a little bit and basic common sense throws out the window ideal notions of absolutism or objectivity. While I believe it's possible to make arguments for moral realism as an atheist, I just don't see the point. I'm more interested in how things really are rather than how I can make them what I want them to be. And the thing is, for me, I don't see the advantage of "real" morals anyway.

Anyway, these kinds of questions can't really be explored to much in a debate and do much more than scratch the surface. There are so many positions and subpositions just to define things like "materialism" in the first place that can matter a lot but that probably have to be glossed over for the sake of getting anywhere in a short conversation.

[_cksalmon]

Meh.

For RoP--Sorry to have missed you this evening, bloke. (Is that acceptable in Britian? I dunno. *Trying to fit in* Yeah, it's a good listen all the way through).

For Gadianton--

I hear ya.

It's still an interesting listen, though.

Best to you both.

CKS

[_Gadianton]

j.