Arguments for God's Existence Part 2 l Greg Bahnsen

Рет қаралды 3,819

Жыл бұрын

Arguments for God's Existence Part 2 l Greg Bahnsen
Greg Bahnsen gives arguments for God's existence.
Buy the Book Expository Apologetics: store.gracefamilybaptist.net/...
Visit the Bahnsen Institute Store: www.wrathandgrace.com/thebahn...
Join this channel to support our work:
/ @gfbc1689
Check out our bookstore
store.gracefamilybaptist.net
Posted on KZfaq with the permission of The Bahnsen Institute.
www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...
#apologeticsstudybible #apologetics
apologetics,apologetics christian,apologetics voddie baucham,apologetics 101,apolegetics 101,apolegetics voddie baucham,apolegetics for teens,
greg bahnsen,critical thinking,greg bahnsen presuppositional apologetics,greg bahnsen lectures,greg bahnsen laws of logic,greg bahnsen apologetics,critical thinking for kids,critical thinking course,greg bahnsen logic,critical thinking lecture,greg bahnsen circular reasoning,greg bahnsen other religions,critical thinking skills,critical thinking questions,critical thinking examples,apologetics christian,apologetics 101,proof of god's existance

Пікірлер: 134

@nicgordic8077 Жыл бұрын

The mental gymnastics required to understand the principles of logic would require a set of scales or times tables so that eventually after a period of time (years) I might catch on to what he’s saying. I believe in God and I present the gospel to the unbeliever.

@gfbc1689 Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

@mutantthegreat7963 Жыл бұрын

Pure gold. Make sure this stuff doesn't get lost.

@gfbc1689 Жыл бұрын

Amen. Thanks for listening

@carmenforsyth1313 Жыл бұрын

👼 Amen!.👼

@gfbc1689 Жыл бұрын

Amen. Thanks for listening

@auntietheistjuror Жыл бұрын

30 minutes of rubbishing the standard Christian arguments for God, then he says he’s a presuppositionalist. I think we’re done here. My time may not be very valuable, but it is not worthless.

@gfbc1689 Жыл бұрын

Yes, he's a presuppositionalist. He's a debate where he beat an atheist using the presuppositional method: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qqp4nsuWp8u4gnk.html The atheist never recovered from the introduction.

@auntietheistjuror Жыл бұрын

@@gfbc1689 I no longer watch presuppositionalists and I certainly don’t watch 38 year old debates with one! It’s around that time I first became aware of Christians making presuppositional claims, today the core of it is much the same, but the angle taken is different. Newsflash, only Christians find this form argumentation compelling, and even then only a minority of Christians. So, my question is, why bother?

@mattstiglic 8 ай бұрын

@auntietheistjuror why wouldn't this form of argumentation be compelling? I find it to be the most compelling.

@auntietheistjuror 8 ай бұрын

@@mattstiglic “why wouldn't this form of argumentation be compelling” It isn’t a form of argumentation, it’s a circumvention. It’s a ‘I don’t have to bother’, it’s a, ‘it doesn’t matter what you say, as I have redefined the substrate that argumentation rests upon’. I’m too old to care.

@mattstiglic 8 ай бұрын

@auntietheistjuror I disagree. I think it's the most compelling argument for the Christian God I've ever encountered. And the only circumvention I see is that of the atheist trying to wiggle their way out of a philosophical checkmate.

@tartarus1478 Жыл бұрын

Wow, a comment section that isn’t turned off on a bahnsen video. I’ve watched something like 7 hours of videos now an the only argument bahnsen has made (and I’m not exaggerating this was actually an argument for god he made): P1) either nothing exists or god exists P2) something exists C) god exists P1 is a false dichotomy and is circular as it’s the contended point. Also by laws of logic he means the Aristotelian laws of thought. They are prescriptions on how we should think if our goal is to have our thoughts match what happens in reality. He’s profoundly confused. Plus the addition of god doesn’t solve Humes problem of induction because we’d just ask the same question. How do we know god will behave like he did in the past in the future? The Christian is forced to say “well because he said so in the Bible” but that’s in the past which begs the question… the very thing Hume is objecting to. Idk who gave this man a doctorate. Moreover, belief in god is more reason giving to doubt the uniformity of nature. If I ask an atheist why they think the Red Sea will continue to not part tomorrow he’s going to believe there isn’t some entity that can perform miracles and violate the laws of physics but the Christian is committed explicitly to an entity that both can and regularly does violate the laws of physics on a whim. What’s to stop such an entity from changing those laws starting tomorrow? Nothing. What keeps them from changing in an atheist view? Because nothing can. He’s also just factually wrong about morals. Moral realism requires as a prerequisite that the god of the Bible not exist. He will entail a form of subjectivism. Moral realism is usually either mind independent moral facts exist or stance independent moral facts exist. God is both a mind and his stance is relevant to any moral truth obtaining in the Christian view. That’s all that’s meant by subjectivism, that moral facts obtain relative to some agents beliefs, attitudes, nature, desires, etc.

@gfbc1689 Жыл бұрын

Thanks for listening

@SDRBass Жыл бұрын

The argument works more like this. I think. P1) either God exists or nothing is rational P2) something is rational C) God exists Or if P2) God doesn’t exist Then C) nothing is rational The argument is more like the atheist can’t have his cake and eat it too.

@tartarus1478 Жыл бұрын

@@SDRBass p1 is gonna need a defense and I don’t think in principle it can have one. It presumes that absent god things like contradictions can happen and I think even without such a being those things can’t happen. So you’ll have to defend contradictions being possible if god didn’t exist.

@SDRBass Жыл бұрын

@@tartarus1478 The idea is more that you can’t actually explain why the law of non-contradiction works unless you presuppose God. There’s no reason to assume that non-contradiction is rational outside of the human brain since (as you seemed to state in your post) that the laws of logic are merely man made constructions.

@tartarus1478 Жыл бұрын

@@SDRBass I’m a quietist about met levels for explaining the law of non-contradiction. It’s not even coherent to have that kind of grounding. Like any explanation will presume the law of non-contradiction… if you can do so without assuming it then sure I’ll accept it but I don’t think anyone can. This is what’s called concept circularity and it’s considered vicious circularity. You use the thing in question in the presumption which means you’ve failed at a grounding relation