Many Reformed Christians have either heard about or listened to the debate between Bahnsen and an atheist by the name of Stein. What I am interested in reading about is the fruit of that debate, not just from Christian sources. Anyone know about this aspect?
All the Jews I know agree.... Bahnsen won! Even though he was debating from the Christian perspective, the debate was purely about God and any theist would probably agree with my assesment. One of my friends did point out however, Stein was not a good debater and was thoroughly outclassed by Bahnsen and most likely would have lost ANY debate.
plt I would like to know if your friends were specific on any points that Bahnsen said that they particularly agreed with?
Also you said:
Quote
One of my friends did point out however, Stein was not a good debater and was thoroughly outclassed by Bahnsen and most likely would have lost ANY debate.[quote]
That is quite surprising concidering the qualification of Stein. Among those qualifications (which I have included below is the following. [quote]* Author of 2 pamphlets including "How to Argue with a Theist and Win"
Gordon Stein. Senior Editor of Free Inquiry Gordon Stein died August 27, at Buffalo General Hospital after a brief illness. He was 55. Gordon received a Ph.D. in physiology from Ohio State University in 1974. He later obtained a second master's degree in library science at University of California at Los Angeles. He taught at the University of Rhode Island. At the time of his death he was Director of Libraries at the Center for Inquiry. He was making excellent progress in amassing the largest collection of freethought and skeptical literature in the world. In addition to his work for Free Inquiry, he edited the magazine American Rationalist. His books included Robert G. Ingersoll (1969), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism (1980), and The Encyclopedia of Unbelief (1985). Gordon was also a well-known authority on hoaxes and deceptions. For several years prior to his death he was a Technical Consultant to the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, headquartered at The Center for Inquiry. He was editor of the Encyclopedia of Hoaxes (1993) and, most recently, The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal (1996), published by Prometheus Books. His two areas of specialty, humanism and hoaxes, combined to make him an authority on Spiritualism (the supposed communication with spirits of the dead) as well. He wrote and lectured extensively on that subject, and he penned a biography of the notorious spiritualist medium D. D. Home, called The Sorcerer of Kings (1993). Just over two weeks before his death, although he was very ill (his cancer having progressed further than any of us knew), he insisted on accompanying a group who were attending the Center for Inquiry Institute on a trip to the Spiritualist colony at Lily Dale, New York. While his chemotherapy treatment caused him to tire quickly, he shared with everyone his vast knowledge of Spiritualism and helped make the outing especially educational. Survivors include a former wife, Barbara (Laiks) Stein, and their daughter Karen. He is also survived by another former wife, Eve Triffo, and his only sister, Irna S. Jay. In keeping with his wishes, his remains were cremated. Gifts to the Library Fund in memory of Gordon Stein will be gratefully received. — Joe Nickell George Stein’s other credentials include: * President, American Rationalist Federation * President, Free Thought Association * Board Member, North American Committee for Humanism * Vice President (Pacific), Freedom from Religion Foundation * Vice President, Atheists United * Author of 5 leading books * Author of 2 pamphlets including "How to Argue with a Theist and Win" * Editor, American Rationalist Journal * Associate Editor, Free Inquiry Magazine
Stein: Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial?Bahnsen: That's the question I'm going to ask you. Stein: I would say no. B. Stein: Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial? Bahnsen: Immaterial. Stein:What is something that's immaterial? Bahnsen: Something not extended in space. Stein: Can you give me any other example, other than God, that's immaterial? Bahnsen: The laws of logic.
From what I remember (this was a discussion from long ago!), this was a great point from Bahnsen. There were other places that Bahnsen seemed so much more on top of the arguement and Stein was "ah'ing and hem'ing. I went back and read the debate and it isn't as apparent as listening to it. I should probably go back and hear the arguements again as it doesn't read as well as hearing it. We felt that Stein, while good at written responses was not nearly as sharp in the one on one debate as we expected him to be (especially with all his credentials). We (Jews) are probably just as "predudicial" as you in our assesment that Bahnsen "won" the debate as Bahnsen counter Steins arguements so very well. I am suprised that atheists feel that Stein won. I would like to know why they feel that way. I am not good at debating and am totally inadequate at analyzing any debate.
I just felt that Bahnsen was the agressor and supported his arguements better than Stein.
I posted a comment on the other thread about this debate and said that in order to "win" such a debate one should understand the opposing philosophical systems. And I think this is where Bahnsen clearly was superior to Stein. If I remember correctly, Stein did his PhD in some biology field. Now I am a physicist and can testify that very little or even no attention is given to philosophical matters in the education of a physicist. For some it is only a matter of hardware experimental equipment and for others only a matter of mathematical manipulations. I don't think it is much different in biology although there some ethical questions may come up. It might not be a too unrealistic statement to say that most natural scientists don't know too much about philosophical systems of thought. And this, I think, is where Stein's weakness was. Just adding a bit of some philosophy to biology doesn't make you a philosopher. My impression of Bahnsen is that he really knew what it was about and that he also understood the philosophical system in which Stein operated but that the same could not be said about Stein. In fact Bahnsen says at the beginning of the debate that the debate is about different philosophical systems (I think that is what he said).
There is perhaps a present day example of the same thing. You must have heard of Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion". Dawkins is an Oxford biologist and a full blown evolutionist. A man named Cornwall, also an Oxford scholar, wrote a response to Dawkins' book called "Darwin's Angle". Cornwall is not a natural scientist but a philosopher of history (I think). When reading Cornwall's book you clearly come under the impression that while Dawkins may be a good biologist, he does not understand the philosophical arguments completely while Cornwall is the better philosopher.
The point here is that when you debate these issues, you cannot use the same reasoning as you will use in physics or some other empirical science. And this is where, it seems to me, some natural scientists make a mistake.
Johan
PS You surely can see from my posts that I too am not a philosopher!!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ugh.gif" alt="" />
http://www.eapologia.tk/ If anyone here is interested in practicing their debating skills, this site has a "Protestant Challenge" thread where the moderator (Anthony) is looking to practice his skills as a Catholic Apologist. I have discussed a few things with him in the past, asking questions of Catholic Doctrine and he is a very bright guy. I know some people enjoy this and thought I would bring you all the offer. I, in no way, agree or endorse this site as anything other than an Apologetic Catholic site (but I would really enjoy reading the debates).
Whether or not you believe he exists, he does exist. Your statement is like if Calvin or Luther said that the Pope does not exists. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> You can watch him here .
It appears that William’s statement went right over your head. But before I (or someone else explains what he meant), I want to make sure it is not me that is missing why you replied to William in this manner.
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.
john said: 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.
John,
Okay, let's take your objection and follow it through (presuppositional apologetics technique ) and see where it leads.
Romans 1:18-21 (ASV) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened."
In the passage above, Paul argues NOT from Scripture, i.e., the inspired Old Testament but from nature itself by bringing forth two major tenets:
1) The existence of God is known individually, personally and internally, i.e., in one's mind and conscience from the very fact that man is created in the image of God; God's self-revelation to the soul (manifest IN them).
2) The existence of God is known empirically, i.e., through physical perception of the creation itself.
Thus ALL men are held guilty of denying God's existence intellectually and/or practically because they inherently know that He exists. To deny the existence of the one true God as He has revealed Himself is to consign oneself to futility, illogical and irrational thinking and a life of sin.
Johan said: What does "I do not believe in a Richard Dawkins or that he exists" mean?
Johan,
IF I remember correctly, Dawkins was quoted as saying, "I do not believe in God nor that he exists!". Thus, William was simply using Dawkins' silly denial of God and turning it upon him. As one can plainly see, it is silly indeed. For just because one does not believe something/someone exists this does not prove that whatever is denied doesn't actually exist.
) and see where it leads.![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/duh2.gif)