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.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
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
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
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.
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?
Henry said: Perhaps I missed it, but I've read van Til's article twice and I still can't find the transcendental argument in there.
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="" />
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.
Henry said: 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="" />
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.
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="" />
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
Denny
Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." [John 6:68]