Bahnsen/Stein Debate: Does God Exist?

[_Ren]

For RoP--Sorry to have missed you this evening, bloke.

You didn't sound that convincing - sorry!
You probably should have said: "For RoP--Sorry to have missed you this evening, mate."

The usage of bloke would more be: "See that bloke over there...?"

Keep practicing though. You'll be an honourary Brit in no-time ;)


*Carries on listening to the debate before heading out...*

[_Ren]

Ok - I'm halfway though part 6 now.

At this point, I think Bahnsen is the better debater. And the better philosopher.
He's up to his eyeballs in **** mind, but still...

Bahnsen did corner Stein concerning the immaterial issue - I don't think Stein had thought that one though...

Stein isn't grasping onto Bahnsen's arguments. Bahnsen was talking about 'universal' laws, and yet Stein's reply I'm just listening to now is: "I don't think Bahnsen understands what scientific laws are.
...but Bahnsen wasn't talking about scientific laws. He was talking about universal ones.


But Bahnsen's argument! Oh my. Only someone this proficient can make such a dumb argument sound so impressive. I feel like I'm back on MAD talking to Log.
YES - without God what we consider 'universal' laws might not actually be 'univeral'. (In fact, QM is actually giving us empirical evidence that challenges all kinds of so-called 'universal laws'...) But how does this prove God again? So what if the laws we believe to be universal don't turn out to be actually universal? So what if we can't 'prove' anything to a point that fundy's approve of? So what if we can't be 100% no-doubt-at-all sure that the debate being held can actually be held to any external, ultimately objective 'standard'?

YES - without God we might not be able to say that a certain standard of morality is THE answer.

YES - and ...so what?!

How does any of this 'prove' the existence of God? How does it even approach it?
So Bahnsen can't stand to live in a world where uncertainty is permissible? Where there aren't necessarily ultimate answers to ultimate questions? Well, I feel for him. I'm sure it feels good to believe that the ship your sailing in isn't capable of sinking. In fact, I know it feels good, because I remember the feeling...
...I wouldn't call it particularly smart though...

The reason to have a debate based around reason and logic is because reason and logic have a better track record when it comes to understanding and predicting the universe around us than other methods. Needing to establish some 'ultimate' source for reason and logic before a debate based on them can even be considered legitimate is just as nonsensical as saying that everything needs a cause EXCEPT the cause we are going to call 'God'.

Bahnsen's approach is this:
"I'll talk about logic and reason when it's 'convenient' to me. But there will be a point where I will bring up something 'magical'. This 'magical' thing will not be bound to the same 'universal' laws I've been banging on about for so long. And I don't need to explain why - it just won't be. So there..."

Nope - I'm not particularly impressed so far. By either side - in truth.
I expect to hear something new and impressive from these 'official' debates. I'm always disappointed...

Don't get me wrong - it IS enjoyable. But more for the banter than anything else ;)

I mean, Stein seemed to spend nearly 10 minutes on the 'You can't prove a negative' point. I would assume that at this kind of 'level', you wouldn't need to belabour such things...

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.

There are ALL kinds of ways to construct a moral approach within a materialistic world-view. And one based on evolution would be no more 'grounded' than any other. All a moral system needs are consistent rules. You don't need to base it on evolution to have that...
I also don't see how a theistic moral view is any more grounded just because they declare it so though the power of 'magic'...

And - of course - I don't see what it has to do with the existence, or non-existence, of God either way...

[_KimberlyAnn]

But Bahnsen's argument! Oh my. Only someone this proficient can make such a dumb argument sound so impressive.

Ren, I have to agree! I've only listened through part four, but can easily tell Bahnsen is a very intelligent man. I'm not sure he's going to succeed in his mission, but it's interesting to hear him try. I do think Stein has the upper hand going into this argument. I do not believe belief in God is logical at all. Oddly, I find myself in the position of having a belief, although it's weak and periodically peaks and wanes, in some kind of God, and must therefore admit that I'm illogical. Of course, that's not news to anyone who's ever read one of my posts!

KA

[_cksalmon]

At the same link, also check out the Bahnsen radio interchange with George Smith. Smith is much more articulate than Stein and brings much more atheistic meat to the table. I wish those two had done a formal debate.

[_cksalmon]

CK,
Are you eluding that this debate is going to come down to whether atheism can construct a moral system that is 'absolute'...?
...
No wonder Bahnsen wants to move away from talking about facts in the 'normal' way.

I believe that that's one implication Bahnsen undoubtedly drew to his own satisfaction, but his main point is broader than that--that an atheistic "worldview" (and see the radio interchange with Smith for his critique of Bahnsen's assumption that atheism is in fact a "worldview"--Smith disagrees, reasonably, to my mind), or a materialistic worldview, at any rate, cannot account for abstract universals. It's at this point that Stein gets flustered.

Smith is more on-point with this issue.

Best, mate.

CKS

PS. What I like about Bahnsen is that he was so very clear on his own position. He was a thorough-going presuppositionalist, obviously, and eschewed evidential apologetics (i.e., the bulk of Christian apologia). To my mind, it's more complex position than merely begging the question, but, from an outside perspective, that would be my first response to Bahnsen. Smith is useful at this point as well, if I'm remembering correctly.

[_Ren]

I believe that that's one implication Bahnsen undoubtedly drew to his own satisfaction, but his main point is broader than that--that an atheistic "worldview" (and see the radio interchange with Smith for his critique of Bahnsen's assumption that atheism is in fact a "worldview"--Smith disagrees, reasonably, to my mind), or a materialistic worldview, at any rate, cannot account for abstract universals. It's at this point that Stein gets flustered.

I agree that the atheistic / materialistic / whatever worldview doesn't necessarily account for abstract universals. Heck, the atheistic / materialistic / whatever worldview might not be able to account for universal anything.
My only objection is calling this a 'proof' for God. It's no such thing. Not even close to a cigar.

Anybody can yell 'Abracadabra' and then say 'Wow - look - an abstract universal', as they gesture towards the empty space next to them. It's not clever. And it doesn't 'prove' anything...

PS. What I like about Bahnsen is that he was so very clear on his own position. He was a thorough-going presuppositionalist, obviously, and eschewed evidential apologetics (I.e., the bulk of Christian apologia). To my mind, it's more complex position than merely begging the question, but, from an outside perspective, that would be my first response to Bahnsen. Smith is useful at this point as well, if I'm remembering correctly.

I do agree here. Bahnsen is consistent and clear on his position. Stein WAS floundering. I suppose it might be impressive for those who find such types of arguments impressive. I know quite a few people do so - meh - all power to em :) Who knows - maybe I should be impressed too if I knew better...?

Still haven't finished off the debate yet - I'll try and get to that later...

At the same link, also check out the Bahnsen radio interchange with George Smith. Smith is much more articulate than Stein and brings much more atheistic meat to the table. I wish those two had done a formal debate.

Ok, cheers - I'll check that out too.

Best, mate.

Ahh. Now that's better ;)

[_Gadianton]

Now it's all coming back to me. My friend, and fellow militant, EAllusion had a lot to say about this debate a few years ago. I still haven't listened to it since computers and sound don't mix for me right now. But this is an old debate that litters Christian website. I think the consensus on both sides is that Bahnsen won the debate. Now, that isn't really surprising. Science is harder than philosophy but scientists are often very bad philosophers and "debating" is yet another skill set. I would have been more interested in the Bahnsen/Martin debate if that would have ever happened.

A couple years ago, when I read through a number of TAG arguments, my favorite was Doug Jones's milk argument. That the only "worldview" to allow a person to successfully navigate going into a store and buying milk is the Christian one. When the Chick tracts start getting boring, you can count on presuppositionalism.

And isn't Bahnsen also the leader of "reconstructionism"? Helpless to do more than accept the Biible as a given, Bahnsen had a dream of a future society predicated on the laws of the Old Testament, stonings and all. That's better than a Chick tract, no?

I agree that the atheistic / materialistic / whatever worldview doesn't necessarily account for abstract universals

well, it's harder to see how to do this with the assumption of type physicalism. But there are also token physical and irreducible physical positions which make it easier. In fact, under supervenience physicalism, I have a hard time seeing how if there are universals, how they could be anything but physical.

[_cksalmon]

Now it's all coming back to me. My friend, and fellow militant, EAllusion had a lot to say about this debate a few years ago. I still haven't listened to it since computers and sound don't mix for me right now. But this is an old debate that litters Christian website. I think the consensus on both sides is that Bahnsen won the debate. Now, that isn't really surprising. Science is harder than philosophy but scientists are often very bad philosophers and "debating" is yet another skill set. I would have been more interested in the Bahnsen/Martin debate if that would have ever happened.

A couple years ago, when I read through a number of TAG arguments, my favorite was Doug Jones's milk argument. That the only "worldview" to allow a person to successfully navigate going into a store and buying milk is the Christian one. When the Chick tracts start getting boring, you can count on presuppositionalism.

And isn't Bahnsen also the leader of "reconstructionism"? Helpless to do more than accept the Biible as a given, Bahnsen had a dream of a future society predicated on the laws of the Old Testament, stonings and all. That's better than a Chick tract, no?

Well, yes he was a reconstructionist. That term has grown to have a wide range of application among various theonomic groups. I think Bahnsen was fired from some seminary or another for his views on theonomy, so I'd assume he was probably fairly (and unpleasantly) extreme. (But, then, I ain't no theonomist.)

He was a fascinating guy--sharp, articulate, and utterly unwavering in his theological views, apparently. Very, very little was negotiable--at least going on what I've heard of his lectures and debates. I haven't read any of his books.

I prefer a little more ambiguity personally...


Meh.

CKS

PS. There is very little in life "better" than a Chick tract. I recommend "Death Cookie."

[_A Light in the Darkness]

You mean this essay, don't you? :

http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/

More accurately, Doug Jones was saying the only worldview that is internally coherent is the Christian one. This applies just as much to making sense of buying milk as it does quantum mechanics. In one sense, scholars like Jones and Bahnsen are taking the insights of the moral argument for the existence of God and expanding them to topics like logic. Here Jones was reasoning that when think you make a complex array of assumptions - or presuppositions - about how the world works if you are to place any trust in that thought process. You assume the future will resemble the past in such a way that past observations can inform prediction, etc. Those assumptions necessarily include the Christian worldview; therefore, non-Christian thought is futile. It might exist and people might go about superficially denying Christianity, but their actions and thoughts imply the presupposition of Christianity. For example, if you think and act as though objective ethical norms exist, then you must presuppose God exists lest your worldview collapse into incoherence. See William Lane Craig explain this here: http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... r-god.html (This link also contains some adept refutations of potential atheist objections in the Q and A). So when an atheist objects to God on the basis of moral "problems" with God, this objection actually reveals the futility of unbelief; without God there are no real ethical objections to anything.

Strawmans are fun, aren't they Gadianton?

[_Gadianton]

You mean this essay, don't you? :

http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/

More accurately, Doug Jones was saying the only worldview that is internally coherent is the Christian one. This applies just as much to making sense of buying milk as it does quantum mechanics. In one sense, scholars like Jones and Bahnsen are taking the insights of the moral argument for the existence of God and expanding them to topics like logic. Here Jones was reasoning that when think you make a complex array of assumptions - or presuppositions - about how the world works if you are to place any trust in that thought process. You assume the future will resemble the past in such a way that past observations can inform prediction, etc. Those assumptions necessarily include the Christian worldview; therefore, non-Christian thought is futile. It might exist and people might go about superficially denying Christianity, but their actions and thoughts imply the presupposition of Christianity. For example, if you think and act as though objective ethical norms exist, then you must presuppose God exists lest your worldview collapse into incoherence. See William Lane Craig explain this here: http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/1 ... r-god.html (This link also contains some adept refutations of potential atheist objections in the Q and A). So when an atheist objects to God on the basis of moral "problems" with God, this objection actually reveals the futility of unbelief; without God there are no real ethical objections to anything.

Strawmans are fun, aren't they Gadianton?

You know aLight, if it were an atheist going into the store, he'd be buying a porterhouse along with some kind of backup like porkchops for the bbq. When will you and Doug be ready to ditch the bottle of milk and fairy tales at bedtime and join the adults for dinner?

As I mentioned to CK, I don't have a computer with sound, so I can't watch Lane work his audience.