Well, not to be too flippant about it, but I suppose if in a Monty Python-like manner the clouds were to open and a giant hand were to come down from the clouds and grab me by the scruff of the neck and shake me and say, “I’m here, I’m here!”. So, when one billiard ball strikes another billiard ball, the nature of the billiard ball is the nature of the motion, determines what the causal result will be. Existence is simply the causal primary. The Christian Libertarian Institute’s Doug Stuart interviewed me about Christ, Capital & Liberty. If he says that the statement is proven in some other Bahnsen: I understand. In other words, the burden of proof in my mind clearly falls on the theist or the God-believer first to define what he’s talking about when he’s using the term “God,” and secondly, then, to provide arguments or proof of some kind that such a being exists. I confess I was not fully convinced that Bahnsen’s “transcendental argument” was as different from the arguments of Aquinas as he claimed. Get updates on new posts, upcoming discussions, and more! Benny you’re on KKLA. [I] went into my neighborhood gospel supply, bought the Abingdon Bible Commentary, started buying the Interpreter’s Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries, concordances . Tina: Hi John, my question is to George: I was wondering, has he studied the Bible? Now let me first say one thing. Dr. Stein: Can you give me an example of anything other than god that’s immaterial? Greg Bahnsen's vocal advocacy of Christian Reconstructionism and theonomy was highly controversial during his lifetime, and a public disputation pertaining to theonomy led to his dismissal from the Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. Now, I know George believes in the procedures of science; I do too, as a Christian. . . . Hierdie is die vierde artikel in ons Hoe/Hoekom reeks. Max: Wait a minute, wait a minute, Sir. Greg Bahnsen's debates have been remastered with high quality audio. There are atheist existentialists, atheist Marxists, atheist advocates of Ayn Rand’s objectivism. That is, in terms of their outlook on the world, what they profess to be true about knowledge and about reality—you know, the universals and absolutes of mathematics—would not make any sense whatsoever. Moderator: When you say you were religious, did you consider a personal relationship with Jesus Christ part of what you had? Filed Under: Apologetics, Blog, Frame Articles, Presuppositional Apologetics, […] debate with Gordon Stein. . 0000003662 00000 n
Smith: I agree. He didn’t seem to have ever heard of such a thing. Suggestion was made that we believe that, say, murder is wrong because God has said so, and he’ll punish us if we don’t agree. And it seems to me that reason stands quite well on its own. It’s question-begging. I would argue that when people use the causal notion or the inductive principle, they are presupposing a Christian view of the universe; that’s what makes science possible. Ethical Issues. Bahnsen: No, I’m not. Let’s bring this back to our conversation. For example, it seems to me that if someone claims to have seen a man rise from the dead, we’re going to require a fairly strong degree of proof to accept that assertion. You’d be a little bit puzzled . . Now, you know why I don’t believe in being destructive of human life, the question is: why did you put that in your book? The question that I have for you is: if you assume the laws of physics and biology and so forth, I would think that you believe your brain cells are being controlled by those laws and in which case you’re not really thinking and making free decisions when you say the things you do, even arguing against God. Martin refused, because "he did not want SCCCS to profit from his participation", while SCCCS refused to let Bahnsen debate without the debate being taped. It was in a large lecture hall at U. C. Irvine, and the place was packed. Bahnsen: Well, that certainly is natural, but that’s not at all what you mean by reason, I assure you, when you talk about the use of the laws of logic, because your brain cells are not being controlled by anything like the laws of logic. Bahnsen: They do, and we’re going to deal with the one that I hold to because I’m the one arguing today. Why does it bother you to be destructive of human life? While attending Westmont College he began writing for the Chalcedon Foundation of Rousas J. Rushdoony and soon came to admire the latter's strong Calvinistic convictions. If God tomorrow changed his mind and said, “Thou shalt go out and murder,” would that make murder right? See also: Bahnson-Martin debate press release Dr. Greg Bahnsen became known as the "man atheists fear most". But that kind of faith presupposes that you think the authority can’t himself prove what he believes in. . He’s not saying that there’s no case for God, which is the only thing he’s done this afternoon is to say, “Well, you know the burden of proof is on you!” But when you write a book, George, against God, I think you do bear the burden of some proof to show why we should be against and not just neutral on the question.