Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein debated this question at the University of This debate has influenced a large number of people. This is the famous formal debate between Dr. Bahnsen and atheist promoter Dr. Gordon Stein held at the university of California (Irvine) in Hear how hard. Greg L. Bahnsen (September 17, – December 11, ) was an American Calvinist The debate with Stein marked one of the earliest uses of a transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). In a controversy emerged.
|Published (Last):||16 September 2010|
|PDF File Size:||5.73 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.36 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Something not extended in space.
I want something even beginning to be an answer or how a naturalist would justify a universal, abstract, entity. Calling for intelligent reflection upon issues which are philosophical or theological in character. There is the evidence of the created order itself testifying to the wisdom, power, plan and glory of God. Simpler I said, not similar.
They are answered by the use of certain methods, though, that are the same; reason, logic, and presenting evidence, and facts.
Only if you think all factual questions are answered in the very same way would you even assume that by thinking there are two immaterial things they must be identical. In passing we would note how unclear he is, by the way, in speaking of the evidence which must be used, describing in variously as steon, facts, or reason. Is this a questions about my first opening statement? Any system which seems to fail in its application as frequently as Christianity does is not a very good or practical system for mankind to follow.
Bahnsen is perhaps best known for his debates with such leading atheists as George H. The only reason I asked about the soul is because this is a simpler immaterial object that most people would hold is also immaterial.
Marquis de Sade enjoyed torturing women. Then we have the argument from revealed theology which seems to be one of Dr. Bahnsen tried very hard to keep the debate focused on issues which were more fundamental than those Dr. Please prayerfully consider donating to Credo House as part of your year-end donations.
Rather an atheist says that he has debare the proofs that are offered by the theist and he finds them inadequate. Now if he were God he might reveal that to us as I think God has revealed certain things to us about the operation of the universe.
I imagine Dr, Bahnsen saying that God does exist, but that we cannot prove it in any conclusive way. I hear this a lot on the campuses.
He seemed stuck on the details within the knowledge base, without even recognizing that there is a philosophy to compare the knowledge base to. Therefore, the existence of a god was necessary to create life. An atheist universe then bahnaen on the basis of the fact that matter has certain intrinsic behavior patterns.
Greg Bahnsen – Wikipedia
In fact, most scientists, in fact science itself is atheistic. They are conventions but they are conventions that are self-verifying. Is organ transplant evil? Stein told you well we use the laws of logic because we can make accurate predictions using them. Electrons, oppositely charged things attract, the same charges repel.
When we consider that the lectures and essays that are written by logicians and others are not likely filled with uninterrupted series of tautologies we can examine those propositions which logicians are most concerned to convey.
The existence of these values cannot be explained unless they were implanted in people by a god, therefore god exists. They are feelings that we have inside of us, but you cannot demonstrate them ztein another person, they cannot be used as evidence.
They are, if you will, a reflection of the way God thinks and expects us to think. If god did not have a cause than not everything must have a cause. Play in new window Download. Stein says that he will not restrict himself to the Christian conception of God.
Does God Exist? Bahnsen vs Stein (Debate Transcript)
But you know I have yet to find any reason not to believe them. In other words if we have two things that… if you want to make a comparative evil statement which is more evil than than another the thing is more evil which causes more people to be unhappy. Now if the Bible is not the word of god, in this case, then we cannot give any real weight to the fact that is mentions that god exists.
Rushdoony Andrew Sandlin Ray Sutton. He could also say that, the old argument about free will which is basically a morass into which he may fall if he wishes, will not do. Bahnsen remarked on various portions of this debate. I have read David Hume.
He wondered how relevant it might be. It has a mathematical and linguistic basis.