I listened to the first part of the debate this weekend. The main line that Bahnsen follows is the transcendental argument for the existence of God. If I understand it correctly, it basically says that unless God exists, then there is no rational basis for anything, even the debate itself. He is trying to get Stein to realize that Stein's philosophical base is flawed. I do find this a very compelling line of reasoning. However, is this the line of reasoning that Christians should really be following? I think that the most appropriate proof that God exists is Scripture because it is God's testimony about himself. Some would argue it's circular, which someone like Van Til would state up front and say it doesn't hurt the proof regardless. Shouldn't God's eternal Word be the first proof any Christian resorts too?

Bahnsen seems to go in this direction later in the debate, but in the beginning he really only tries to undermine Stein's philosophical base. By focusing on the transcendental argument instead of Scripture, I wonder if he is nearly losing the debate from the start. By this I mean that, of course, if their is no God, there is no meaning. So Bahnsen tries to argue that their must be a God because there is meaning. But, in this case maybe it is the case that there is no meaning at all. One of the original 11 proofs that Stein mentions was the argument from Scripture, which Bahnsen says at one point that he is not here to debate any of the 11 proofs Stein mentioned. I think he may have been mistaken to throw out the proof of God from Scripture so quickly.

Any thoughts?

John