Greg Bahnsen debunks scientism

[@joshcornell8510]

Greg Bahnsen was such a great gift to God's church.

[@rbrack54]

When an atheist uses evolution as the source of them knowing what Truth is it will be subjective. They must some how pull them self outside of evolution to have objective truth. We know that there is objective truth in just the "laws of logic alone".

[@kylelapoure8603]

That makes no sense at all. How can somebody “use evolution as a source of them knowing what truth is”? How can a scientific theory be an epistemology? That sentence literally is incoherent

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@kylelapoure8603 That's the point.

[@kylelapoure8603]

@@lightbeforethetunnel I don’t understand

[@maximusneal2642]

@@kylelapoure8603 In the atheist worldview they started as chemical soup as stardust as evolutionary processes and evolutionary processes cannot produce truth it becomes subjective which is what be is saying

[@maximusneal2642]

@@kylelapoure8603 and exactly kyle because you don't even have a basis for truth knowledge objectivity or morality but everything is just "What is" but bother to complain on the comments and want to skeptic people for saying things that are correct

[@Laskarides]

Simple, clear, true. Thank you!

[@Laskarides]

@Nick Jones No more stupid as you are!

[@Laskarides]

@Nick Jones If God Himself failed to prove to you Himself, why should I prove anything to you? And why are you asking, from someone who m you consider to be "clear stupid", something like this? Well, this is REALY stupid, Nick. Wake up, please!

[@Laskarides]

@Nick Jones Stop writing nonsense.

[@Laskarides]

@Nick Jones Nick, stop crying like a blind baby asking for "proof" for me. Gods own Son has already provided evidence. Why do you persist with your eyes closed?

[@Laskarides]

@Nick Jones The more you write the more you reveal your dead brain.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

If only atheists could watch & understand this.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

If only they were willing to watch and understand this.

[@BigDrozJoe]

It's too bad that serious philosophers never took Bahnsen serious enough to debate him so he got to run philosophical circles around scientists and lawyers and such.

[@a5dr3]

GOAT

[@tosuchino6465]

His refutation of his opponest's arguments is precisely applicable to his reputation itself, and he is not aware of it. As you can clearly he just keeps making claims without evidence himself. Ridiculously nonsensical argument! This is what happens when you keep lying to youself by warping the reality to fit the religious view you are told to believe.

[@RickPayton-r9d]

Bahnsen used a Black and White fallacy; Christian God or Atheism. Even if I accept that Atheism is fallacious, Christianity is not the only alternative, there are the thousands of other existing and historical religions and an Infinite number of possible religions.

[@youtubeuser8393]

This is not really debunking scientism. The thing is we all have presuppositions. Without presuppositions we would run into an infinite problem of trying to justify all beliefs we have. So we (regardless of our world view) start with presuppositions and the presupposition should be as properly basic as possible. The challenge is telling what presuppositions are properly basic and what presuppositions are not

[@TommyGunzzz]

Correct. I believe you are missing the point however (and I'm a noob myself), the point is that the atheistic / materialist / empiricist view cannot justify their presuppositions. It leads to self contradiction. Are you familiar with the incompleteness theorem by Kurt Godel?

[@youtubeuser8393]

@@TommyGunzzz I am not familiar with it. How does an atheist fail to justify the presupposition that they exist in an observable universe with properties and how does a theist(Christian in particular) succeed?

[@TommyGunzzz]

@@youtubeuser8393 Hi there, Fundamentally, Atheists own axioms make it impossible for induction to take place at all. Outside of some new age weirdos, 99% of atheists operate on empiricism / materialism / the parapathetic principle. These things make lots of assumptions that are glossed over by atheists and the question is for justification, like how can you believe or justify the existence or validity of logic / rationality if you only believe matter to exist and only percieve through your own personal sense data? How can a random purposeless chaotic universe create invariant laws that only exist conceptionally in the human mind? Theres lots more as well such as language and meaning, the self, a 1 to 1 correspondence of the outside world, the law of non contradiction, number theory or numbers in general, Morality, Objectivity, etc. Again, these are assumed and not justified in the atheist paradigm, and again according to the materialist worldview, these things must be proved physically without making assumptions since only material exists. The most famous atheist / skeptic (Hume) admits that this is not possible and that atheists lose this debate and should just make unjustified assumptions about the world, which is arbitrary.

[@youtubeuser8393]

@@TommyGunzzz so how does presupposing Yahweh solve all of this?

[@TommyGunzzz]

@@youtubeuser8393 Hey there. Order and meaning are rooted in the mind of God which includes all the transcendental categories. God establishes the created and uncreated order. Thus we can use order in logic and our words can have meaning because those are reflections of the divine order established.

[@thundergrace]

faith is a gift of God!!!. The bible is self attestating! false assumptions. defend the authorship of the bible....assumes arbitrarily is wrong.....Noone questions Plato....Creator over creation...assumes no creator and creature distinction....reduced to skepticism.

[@TheMahayanist]

Too bad,that doesn't refute Scientism.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Here's why scientism is self-refuting in one sentence: The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF.

[@yournightmare9562]

@@lightbeforethetunnel it can

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@yournightmare9562 No, it objectively cannot be scientifically verified.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@yournightmare9562 This isn't even a controversial point in mainstream academia

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@yournightmare9562 There are many ways to knowledge (not just one) There's logical knowledge, systemic knowledge (Mathematics, Geometry, etc), semantical knowledge, empirical knowledge, etc. Science is not the ONLY way to knowledge. In fact, I'd argue that science actually doesn't lead to real knowledge on its own because science is always provisional. So it isn't certain. In order for science to be meaningful, it must be interpreted through the correct philosophical worldview. So you have to get the philosophy right first before you can even possibly have useful science. And even then it's still not 100% certain, meaning its not actual knowledge.

[@kylelapoure8603]

It’s quite sad that he uses the roadrunner fallacy as the basis for his belief when it is literally shown to be a fallacy

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

How so care to explain.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@pleaseenteraname1103 atheists tend to not bother with that part. They like to just throw out the names of fallacies, without justification, as if that works as a valid rebuttal.

[@kylelapoure8603]

@@lightbeforethetunnel well of course if the person doesn’t understand why it’s a fallacy the person giving the fallacy should explain why it commits it

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@kylelapoure8603 Then why aren't you explaining why you think it's a roadrunner fallacy? Anyhow, it isn't. The reason why you likely think that is because it's somewhat similar to what a roadrunner fallacy is. But arguing that Scientism is self-refuting because it doesn't meet it's own requirements of acceptability is not a roadrunner fallacy. The claim "Truth can ONLY be known if it's scientifically verified" cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF. I could see why you'd think that's a road runner fallacy of you're thinking that he's attacking science (instead of scientism) by saying that. But criticism of Scientism is not criticism of science. They're different things. People who adhere to the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism tend to conflate science and Scientism a lot, so this is a common error.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@kylelapoure8603 It's possible to be very pro-science while being very anti-Scientism. In fact, I'd say anyone who properly understands the limitations of the scientific method would necessarily have to be. Scientism is not only anti-philosophy but it's also anti-science too. This is because Scientism is dogmatic, which is completely antithetical to the purpose of using the scientific method (which was designed to avoid dogmatism when applied correctly) Criticism of Scientism is an attempt to PROTECT science, keep it objective, and keep it within its known limits.

[@ptango101]

When we restrict our knowledge to what we measure through our senses and what can be empirically inferred we protect ourselves from charlatans like Greg Bahnsen.

[@bobpolo2964]

how did you gain your empirical skills of observation?

[@QuotidianPerfection]

Hi ptango101, You also commit the existential fallacy by doing so. Take care, QP

[@gregb6469]

By so restricting your knowledge you cut yourself off from a major portion of reality. You may try to live in a fantasy world if you wish, but don't expect any sane person to follow you there!

[@stinnetbennet]

ptango how did you empirically discover logic, which is based off a objective abstract metaphysical worldview, to base empiricism off of?

[@anujagarwal6885]

logic is based on its reliability unlike bible which is full of shit.

[@leonherperger4055]

what theists fail to realize is the contradiction of a creator without a creator, but logic without logic

[@beautifulfeetpreachingsc]

The authority the Christian theist appeals to is the revelation from ELOHIM who has described HIMSELF to be uncreated and having always existed. No contradiction there.

[@leonherperger4055]

@@beautifulfeetpreachingsc except that matter forms in a vacuum. hence divinity is no special case

[@beautifulfeetpreachingsc]

Isn't your divinity having no special case simply a matter of your own opinion? I will take a stab at responding to your matter forms in a vacuum comment but so were on the same page it explain what you mean when you say that. Vacuum to what I looked up simply means space and that matter forms within that space. My question is if you are referring to origins where did matter come from. As Dawkins eloquently put it something can come from nothing, but we know that is absurd, right.

[@1974jrod]

And what atheists fail to realize is that something from nothing is not observed or logical, and infinite regresses are mathematically absurdities.

[@servenet299]

This objection has been answered so many times your comment provokes a thought of two possibilities if not more - your listening is non-existent or your bias causes deafness.