The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Twenty Years Ago Tonight

The debate on the existence of God between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein: http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=218

Friends, if you haven't heard this, <font face="Impact">[color:"FF0000"]<font size="5">YOU SHOULD!</font>[/color]</font>


God bless,

william

Yes, it is a truly amazing debate!

Also, you can read the transcript here.

The number of straw men, presuppositions, and misunderstandings on Stein's end is amazing. I really like how Bahnsen quoted those Scriptures on God making Himself known and the folly of those who reject Him!

I also loved how Bahnsen kept driving home the idea that Stein, by the very nature of the fact he debated according to rules, made judgments about the universem, etc., was in fact borrwing from Bahnsen's worldview.

Yes, go listen. This debate is more exciting then a hockey game. (Sorry, Canadianism there.)

This is one of the best debates ever given Bahnsen demolishes Stein. Here is the debate in MP3 format for those who don't have or don't use real player Debate between Athiest and Christian

The outcome is better, too! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

I got around to listening to this about a week ago. It was a really interesting debate. I had heard before how well Bahnsen did in this debate, but I was surprised to actually hear it. It wasn't even close.

I was wondering if anyone would mind boiling down the transcendental argument to it's basic points. I have read a good bit about it in the past, but the way Bahnsen presented it wasn't quite the way I remembered it. If I followed him correctly, he basically is saying that the transcendental argument for the existence of God is that it's only by presupposing God can one have any rational discussion at all. To be honest, I was multi-tasking while listening to the debate, so my paraphrase probably isn't what he was saying. Also, I would be interested in hearing what you think about this argument, likes, dislikes, etc.

Thanks,
John

John,

One of the classic expressions of the "Transcendental Argument" for the existence of God is written by Bahsen's mentor, Cornelius Van Til, which you can find here: Why I Believe in God.

Perhaps I missed it, but I've read van Til's article twice and I still can't find the transcendental argument in there. He makes some really good points about bias, etc., and states that he believes unless you believe in God you can't know anything, but like I said, I can't find the TAG in there. Am I just tired?

I think that the term "classic expressions" is the key to why you didn't find that specific term in Van Til's argument.

That's very odd, since Van Til is the man who made the Transcendental Argument popular. That entire article is painted on the canvas of the TA. It wasn't meant to be a theological or philosophical apologetic but rather it is how the TA is expressed in a very practical way. In short, Van Til was saying that there is no truth apart from God. And, one cannot comprehend God without first believing upon Him. Truth assumes the nature and existence of God as He has revealed Himself. One cannot even "deduce" God without first assuming that He is and that all things are of His doing.

Get some sleep! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Yes, I guess it is "painted on the canvas of the TA" as you say. I was looking for a clearer elucidation in regards to the impossibility of the contrary, etc., a la The Great Debate, but I guess that wasn't the intent.

Correct. What is in that article is a presentation of how one who holds to "Presuppositionalism" would communicate the truth of God's existence to an unbeliever. Van Til's approach is similar to that used of God when He inspired the writer to pen the book of Esther. You and others may find it rather odd but fascinating that there is no mention of God whatsoever in that book. However, the entire episode of what happened during that historical event is like a painting that was put on the canvas of the Sovereign Lord Who controls all things through His all-wise and divine providence. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim, I like the way you talk <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" /> I will now read Esther,since my new bible is a joy to read <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

Neicey

Kyle,

I listened to this debate today for the first time, - it was indeed more exciting than a hockey game.

There is another very good debate between a Reformed Christian and an atheist under the articles tab at this website, http://www.rmiweb.org

It is a debate between Vincent Cheung and an atheist, Derek Samsone. It is probably a bit more passionate then this one. Demolish is the word from the get-go.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Hi Pilgrim,

I somewhat agree with Henry's point. I am fairly familiar with the article you linked too and have read it a number of times in the past, and although I do see the transcendental argument in the article, I was looking for a more technical description of the argument. If I remember correctly, a few years ago there used to be a short article by Van Til floating around the web that discussed the transcendental argument in more "philosophical" terms. I tried searching for it last week, but was unable to find it. I think the name of the article was along the lines of "The Transcendental Proof for God". I imagine it was actually an excerpt from one of his books as opposed to an actual article though. On the other hand, I could just be imagining things about the existence of that article.

I really like the transcendental argument though and think it makes a lot of sense, but sometimes I think even it has somewhat of a subjective part that I don't like. Personally, I find the most sure proof of God to be the Bible since it is God's testimony about himself. If God is truly God, then his word (testimony) about himself is absolute proof of his existence. Of course, due to the depravity of the human nature, though, only by the Holy Spirit are we able to accept God's word for what it truly is. What are your opinions of this like of thinking?

John

Pilgrim: Here’s Greg Bahnsen’s take on the article.


Van Til’s..Why I Believe in God, by Dr Greg Bahnsen

Dave

I'll have to read the Bahnsen article! I loved the Van Til article because it was so, well, "homey." He explained it in the way we all think not the way we debate.

John,

Try these out for size:

The Transcendental Perspective by Robert Knudsen
Van Til FEM
Transcendental Arguments, by John Frame
Van Til’s Critique of Human Thought, by William D. Dennison

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

Thanks for the links. They are at the top of my reading list when I get some free time.

John

Marie,

I really want to read this debate!! I have tried to download the PDF file three or four times, but it keeps making my computer freeze up. Can you attach the file for me?

Thanks,
Kim

Kim,

I tried, but it is larger than 100,000 bytes. Is it something wrong with your computer? I know that I have had some trouble viewing PDF's, as I have dialup. I tried copying and pasting the text, but it would not let me.

What's worked for me with problematic PDF's is to leave the window open and in front of everything. Don't minimize or open other windows. Then, read it through and then exit out of it.

Or, you could use a different computer to view it. Perhaps Pilgrim or someone else has any other ideas?

I'm not sure if it's my computer or the website. I have done some major changes on my computer in the last few days but all seem positive and I haven't experienced any other problems. Maybe I need to tweek something. I've never had problems launching Adobe before.

Thanks for trying, Marie! I appreciate it! I'll try what you recommended.

Blessings,
Kim

It must be your computer, since the PDF is working fine for me. Hopefully you can get the problem fixed soon <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Marie,

I did what you suggested and it didn't freeze up this time, but I did get a message:

"Could not find external Window handler."

I probably did something with my new spyware program that is interferring with the Adobe. Thanks for helping me get far enough to at least get an error message!

"Sometimes" if you will save the PDF file to your computer first (right click on the link and select "save target as") and then attempt to open it this will work when the other (opening directly from the web) fails.--not always, but sometimes.....

Well, I tried to go into add/remove programs and do a repair, but when I hit the fix button, I kept getting a message that Acrobat Reader 6.1 is currently running and needed to be closed down! And I don't even have that version on my computer! Hmmm.

I would suggest that you open Windows Explorer, and to to C:\Program Files\Adobe. Delete anything associated with version 6 and try again. If necessary, you might have to uninstall version 7.0 (I'm assuming that's what you are using), remove any and all related files of Adobe Acrobat Reader, and perhaps even look through the Registry for Adobe, Acrobat, etc., entries and remove them. (last resort to be sure and only if you are familiar with the Registry, know how to do a backup, and are confident to do this! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) After removing all files (use the "Search" utility) from your C:drive, reinstall Acrobat Reader 7.0.

You might want to browse around the Adobe Acrobat Reader site and see if they have a "Clean/Removal Tool", which would get rid of not only the files but Registry entries too. That would be ideal! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Thanks! I'll see if I can find a clean/removal tool first!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" />

Adobe is fixed and I have the debate printed out! It only printed 50 pages, less than I expected. Off to read. . .thanks, all!

I listened to the debate last night, and was surprised at how unprepared or unconfident Stein was. He never really seemed to connect to the conversation, especially the point about logic being an immaterial law. That was frustrating for me. It was a lot like participating in a debate with the Arminian who refuses to acknowledge that all human choices are caused.