Greg Bahnsen gracefully ends the debate

In this clip Mr. Tabash and Dr. Bahnsen make their closing statements. Here are highlights:
MR. TABASH CLOSING REMARKS
I don't have to know how the universe was formed [but I do know that it wasn't God who did it]
Why aren't there any miracles today?
Where is the proof that Jesus did any miracles?
We shouldn't believe in a God who sends people to hell; we should believe in one who loves everybody
DR. BAHNSEN CLOSING REMARKS
God has provided visible verification (2 Peter 1:16)
The atheist doesn't like the idea of God so he simply says He doesn't exist
The atheist is unable to offer proof for his theories
The atheist's worldview is self-contradictory
The atheist cannot defend their theory that life can evolve from nonlife
Atheists are emotionally committed to an unintelligible worldview
Atheists are walking, living contradictions
Atheists pronouncements are driven by emotion
Atheists live by a blind and contradictory faith
The atheist's worldview is closer to superstition than science

[@Woadyn]

Listening to Dr Greg Bahnson is like therapy for my restless mind.

[@nickjones5435]

Its comedy gold to me. Reminds me of how dishonest and morally bankrupt Christians are.

[@Woadyn]

@nick jones It's ironic how you speak about morality without being able to provide a rational foundation for its existence. Your blind hatred is so evident and frankly makes you appear like a bafoon. You did not watch nor understand the arguments put forward by Dr Bahnson. This is why you will never learn the truth until you humble yourself.

[@nickjones5435]

@@Woadyn Sorry kiddy but i dont hate ANYBODY! What you see is disgust for dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of presuppers! Your blatant dishonesty in calling that hatred for your own reasons of poisening the well is BLATANTLY obvious. I fully comprehend bahnsons PITIFUL arguments but you're RIGHT i certainly dont stand under such vaccuous cobblars. Sure i can JUSTIFY MY morality which is so good that you christians stole it and bastardised it. Sadly whilst i live up to it you Christians dont. Now please justify YOUR morality. In order to do that youll need to provide credible evidence that your god, the foundation of your morality, EXISTS. I predict you'll run away from the question like a prepubecent school girl.

[@Woadyn]

@nick jones This reply is so pitiful and embarrassing, and the worst part is you don't have the good grace to see to it. Please spare yourself the humiliation and stop replying because if you did this in an open debate, you would get laughed to scorn! Never substitute intellectual rigor with arrogance, or you will put your ignorance on display. You are a very angry and arrogant man, and you are blinded by your own ego..

[@nickjones5435]

@@Woadyn @Woadin I see kiddy. So you had to run like a child from the question because you CAN'T in any way support your primitive bronze age MORALITY. Instead you display nothing but projection, cowardice, arrogance and a refusal to debate honestly because you know that you can't cope in honest debate. All these disgusting traits being typical of a childish, morally bankrupt presupper. So kiddy you TACITLYadmit tgat YOU LOSE and you can't justify your own morality, whilst i certainly CAN justify mine and you can't provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your imaginary friend. Notice how you maje baseless assertions about my intellect whilst i justify mine with reasons! Do you have the integrity to admit it and feel humiliated? You really should. You indicate that you're a pretty PITIFUL human being arn't you?

[@PanhandleFrank]

“Atheism has two tenets: 1. There is no God; and 2. I hate him.” ~ Doug Wilson

[@nickjones5435]

Do you agree with that ridiculous, childish comment?

[@PanhandleFrank]

@@nickjones5435 100%. And it's neither ridiculous nor childish. Atheism is ridiculous.

[@nickjones5435]

@@PanhandleFrank Do you mean actual atheism is ridiculous or your strawman version of atheism? How is it ridiculous to reject/disbelieve childish claims of mythalogical creatures like pixies goblins fairies thor allah odin the flying spaghetti monster, tapdancing elephants on the moon or YOUR god due to a total lack of CREDIBLE EVIDENCE?

[@PanhandleFrank]

​@@nickjones5435 "Do you mean actual atheism is ridiculous or your strawman version of atheism?" If your remark, equating "mythalogical creatures like pixies goblins fairies thor allah odin the flying spaghetti monster, tapdancing elephants on the moon" with the True and Living God, is representative of "actual atheism," then yes, I mean actual atheism.

[@nickjones5435]

@@PanhandleFrank Really? How is your god any more real than the rest of the the mythological creatures with no manifestation in reality?

[@CharlieJulietSierra]

The fact that his type writer was designed by living intelligence goes right by him like a fart in the wind. Unreal

[@BenGLastreezy]

*Having a sharp tongue is not a sure indicator of possessing an equally sharp MIND* *-Greg Bahnsen*

[@MrStaano]

Ben G Yes it is. (And god is not real anyway.)

[@MrStaano]

***** Who says?

[@michaelreichwein3970]

OurManFlint7 your right . ... only sharp minds need to be heard from. so, please explain how induction comports to an Atheistic world view .

[@CloneSquadConversations]

Greg Bahnsen is my grandfather

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Star Nerd soo..... what is your mom and dad full name ?

[@braedenphillips6674]

Not sure who proved God's existence better, Tabash, or Bahnsen.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

Neither. No person in the history of humanity has ever proved the existence of any gods. You cant prove something with assertions and arguments. Arguments are not evidence. Words in a book do not constitute evidence.

[@angieh4534]

Jason Bladzinski that’s your assertion, evidence?

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@angieh4534 I am under no obligation to provide evidence. The burden of proof does not belong to the person who rejects a claim. How would I prove the non existence of something? It's not like things that dont exist leave behind evidence that they indeed do not exist. If you have evidence for your god, give it, otherwise attempting to attack my being unconvinced doesnt make you an intellectually honest person.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

It's never been proven.

[@Rapturo_to_YESHUA]

@@jasonbladzinski5336 Evidence is seen all around and in you. You choose to explain away that evidence with "chance, random processes over millions of years" which is pure silliness, and that is what atheism is: silliness Imagine ants attempting to explain away this computers' existence through chance, random processes over millions of years, solely because they cannot sense the creators (humans)? They demand "proof" of humans (or higher intelligence who created the computer) and then the ants will believe humans exist. Until then, the computer itself is not proof of humans to the ants. Quite ignorant, yes? That's atheism. Atheists should stop asking for that which they refuse to grasp when we hand it to them.

[@trevorbridges6684]

“It is the fool who says in his heart there is no God.” “Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Two perfectly adequate verses to end the debate.

[@AlanLow]

Which god?

[@greglogan7706]

@@AlanLow Nice answer...

[@JesusSavesSouls]

@@AlanLow The one true God.

[@AlanLow]

@@JesusSavesSouls Ok, but which one? Take your pick Agdistis Angdistis Ah Puch Ahura Mazda Alberich Allah Amaterasu An Anahita Anansi Anat Andvari Anshar Anu Aphrodite Apollo Apsu Ares Artemis Asclepius Athena Athirat Athtart Atlas Baal Ba Xian Bacchus Balder Bast Bellona Bergelmir Bes Bixia Yuanjin Bragi Brahma Brigit Camaxtli Ceres Ceridwen Cernunnos Chac Chalchiuhtlicue Chang Hsi See Heng-O. Charun Chemosh Cheng-huang Cybele Dagon Damkina Davlin Dawn Demeter Diana Di Cang Dionysus Ea El Enki Enlil Eos Epona Ereskigal Farbauti Fenrir Forseti Fortuna Freya Freyr Frigg Gaia Ganesha Ganga Garuda Gauri Geb Geong Si Guanyin Hades Hanuman Hathor Hecate Helios Heng-o Hephaestus Hera Hermes Hestia Hod Hoderi Hoori Horus Hotei Huitzilopochtli Hsi-Wang-Mu Hygeia Inanna Iris Ishtar Isis Ixtab Izanaki Izanami Janus Jesus Juno Jupiter Juturna Kagutsuchi Kartikeya Khepri Ki Kingu Kinich Kishar Krishna Kuan-yin Kukulcan Kvasir Lakshmi Leto Liza Loki Lugh Luna Magna Mater Maia Marduk Mars Mazu Medb Mercury Mimir Min Minerva Mithras Morrigan Mot Mummu Muses Nammu Nanna Nanna Nanse Neith Nemesis Nephthys Neptune Nergal Ninazu Ninhurzag Nintu Ninurta S Njord Nugua Nut Odin Ohkuninushi Ohyamatsumi Orgelmir Osiris Ostara Pan Parvati Phaethon Phoebe Phoebus Apollo Pilumnus Poseidon Quetzalcoatl Rama Re Rhea Sabazius Sarapis Sarasvati Selene Shiva Seshat Seti Shamash Shapsu Shen Yi Shiva Shu Si-Wang-Mu Sin Sirona Sol Surya Susanoh Tawaret Tefnut Tezcatlipoca Thanatos Thor Thoth Tiamat Tianhou Tlaloc Tonatiuh Toyo-Uke-Bime Tyche Tyr Utu Ullr Uzume Vediovis Venus Vesta Vishnu Volturnus Vulcan Xipe Xi Wang-mu Xochipilli Xochiquetzal Yam Yarikh Yhwh Ymir Yu-huang Yum Kimil Zeus

[@JesusSavesSouls]

​@@AlanLow Do you know what differentiates all from the one true God? Grace. All other religions believe you must work your way to heaven like ticking a check list, and must stay away from certain things or you will get a cross. If that were the case, none would make it to heaven. Man had to be saved, for "None is good but God" as "All men have fallen short of the glory of God". That's when the grace of God came in. So God send his one and only son to take the punishment for the whole of mankind, that whosoever should believe in him should not die, but have eternal life. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

[@843292]

Tabash: If you show me miracles, then I'll be impressed. (notice he didn't say he'd convert... just be impressed) This shows that Tabash has placed himself at the pinnacle of authority for reasoning. *_Fact: Tabash can't even make sense of his own senses without first acknowledging GOD._*

[@CHURCHISAWESUM]

Pharaoh was impressed by the plagues, he was not converted and as a result when the plagues stopped, he actually hardened his heart towards God even more

[@classycactus8449]

Exactly. You don't have to know exactly how your typewriter is made or what parts are in it, to know that there was a typewriter manufacturer. You also don't need much more information to know that the typewriter was made with a purpose.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

Typewriters cannot reproduce.

[@classycactus8449]

Jason Bladzinski That wasn’t the point.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@classycactus8449 You are comparing a living creature to a machine invented by humans. It's a false equivocation.

[@classycactus8449]

@@jasonbladzinski5336 It is not, because the comparison consists in the random selection of letters. To be honest, though, in the 8 months since I posted the original comment, I completely forgot its context.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@classycactus8449 What? This has nothing to do with the letters, its about equating mechanical design to nature

[@rjd3434]

Bahnsen answering the age old question raised in the proverbs regarding how to answer the fool. Like a boss!

[@Chirhopher]

You noticed!!) many can't make heads or tails, as if it contradicts! Lol There certainly is a constant balance. And agreed, like a Boss, every time. And if i might add, much Like The BOSS of All Bosses. The KING of Kings, LORD Of Lords swingin HIS Sword!

[@Trevor_Austin]

RJ D - Fool or Arsehole? The arsehole is the blithering idiot who believes in an invisible, murderous sky wizard with a warped sense of humour and shit for morals.

[@EzequielAdames]

Trevor Austin how ironic... did Banhsen hit right in the nail?? Tell me how do you account for morality??

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

So, why would anybody need to search out arguments of an individual to make their case? If it's so true your god exists, wouldn't there be so much evidence that everybody would believe and have an evidential argument? I don't need to refer to Newton to demonstrate the evidence of gravity.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@EzequielAdames Why would anybody need to account for morality. It's simply the product of human social behavior.

[@progressivewholesomeness4937]

quantum physics totally spoils this atheistic perspective that everything is naturalistic

[@Refresh5406]

People who don't understand QM use it as a placeholder for "magic." It's not magic, it's an advancement in science. If it was not a natural phenomenon, why is it possible to harness quantum effects in natural ways, by quantum computers, for example?

[@VaticansHolocaust]

TheRecluse26 There’s nothing magical about quantum mechanics. QM is merely another aspect of this universe created by God.

[@Refresh5406]

Correct

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

What??!? No it doesn't!

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@VaticansHolocaust Demonstrate that assertion.

[@Msfracture]

Tabash's arguments are like that of a 4th grader he contradicts himself the entire time.

[@nickjones6651]

REALLY? In what way? Did you watch a different video? How sad and pitiful has Christianity become when all you have is childish word games because you can't provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god?

[@jameshampton7833]

Tabash has the burden of proof for any claim that he makes. If I say that no one created the car that I am driving, then I must give an explanation as to how the car came to be. I cannot simply tell everyone else "Well, that's on you to explain, not on me." Would you consider a man completely honest who responded to you in such a way?

[@andrewbarnabas6269]

I’ve heard 11 year olds create more convincing arguments than Tabash

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Far better than Bahnsen, he couldn't even give an argument.

[@feliciaf8]

@@LuciferAlmighty how's the 8th grade?

[@LuciferAlmighty]

@@feliciaf8 obvious troll is obvious

[@markfullbrighton5070]

It's interesting that you say that considering he won this debate.

[@ligidaykurin9106]

Greg is a great lawyer for christianity

[@lederereddy]

Edward Tabash opens with a self defeating argument. "I don't need to know everything about a type writer, to know it has limitations. It's never going to make me a cup of coffee, etc." Then he says "this universe explains its own origin and so does life. Without the supernatural!" A completely contradictory statement. What happened to knowing its limitations? What he wants to do, is say, "I don't know everything about the creation of this universe or life, but I do know they didn't create themselves!" Now, even though that argument doesn't work for his position, Edward, desperate for something to say, spins it out there, as if it does! Atheist's lean entirely upon logic fallacies, and what? No one's supposed to notice? How can he say "my belief requires nothing from the supernatural, then use the biggest supernatural events in history as proof? The origin, diversification, organization, specified design and engineering of everything... from nothing... is a great example of supernatural intervention! Period! Exclamation point! Nothing within nature explains how, where, what caused its origin, or why... And the origin, diversification, organization, specified design and engineering of life is an equal example of supernatural intervention. What's really scary is, maybe he's actually unaware of such a universal blunder in reasoning! My question is, what kind of blinders is he wearing, to allow himself to say such a contradicting statements? And, if he's so absolutely wrong about these two issues, what can he be right about on anything else? Not much, imho. Atheist's make very critical errors, right from the beginning. They sear their conscience with hate and distrust, against God. They maintain an attitude of disbelief, making all of their questions about God, creation, faith, even sin and salvation rhetorical, antagonistic, sarcastic. Instead of realizing "Hey, we don't know everything about religious questions, but we do know there are limitations to nature that forbid it to answer the most important questions we have, so, we must keep an open mind..." Regardless of how essential God is to explaining reality... They simply presuppose nature's Creator will not be allowed a proverbial foot in the door... Too bad, because God has perfect answers to all of our questions. But much greater than that, He has perfect solutions to the entire world's worst problems. And He's willing to share His enthusiasm and vitality with everyone. From the least deserving to the most deserving. The walls of communication between us and God are man made... That means they can be man demolished. Get a sledge hammer, baby, and make your peace!

[@michaelreichwein3970]

The blinders you speak of that the atheist wears by choice... Is self-deception!

[@agdnetto]

To use his own analogy, I don't need to know everything about a typewriter to know it was designed and manufactured by an intelligent mind.

[@doctorzeno1914]

@@michaelreichwein3970 So are you saying that IF something SEEMS reasonable to a person, therefore it ACTUALLY IS, in fact, reasonable and true ? LMAO 🤣🤣

[@doctorzeno1914]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Sorry dimwit, but belief in a god, or belief in no god, either way, belief does NOT make it so. Gotta give me something more than BELIEFS.....

[@doctorzeno1914]

@@michaelreichwein3970 Your "evidence" for a god, amounts to: Your SUBJECTIVE INTERPREATION of things.

[@johngeverett]

The first speaker misses the point that it is the uniqueness of Christ's miracles that reveals his stature, his unique status as God in the flesh. That no one today multiplies loaves and fishes or walks on water is part of the point that Jesus in doing these things is revealed as the Son of God, the Messiah. If everyone or anyone could do these things, then there is no point whatsoever that Jesus did them.

[@firestarter_88]

sir, i've been looking through all the web for more of greg bahnsen. thank you so much for your posts! really hoping to see many more!

[@spitfire6378]

Tabash speaks a whole lot of nothing.

[@tellaaalli]

Because atheism is out of nothing, I reject to accept because I lack the will to find out.

[@JesusSavesSouls]

@@tellaaalli You are correct, there is so much proof to God, people love to deny it. Really its because people are in love with their sin, and they know accepting God means they will have to give it up. Solution = keep denying God.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@JesusSavesSouls Give me your best proof of God. Let's see where this goes.

[@GeorgeLiavas]

@@jasonbladzinski5336 the orthodox church

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@GeorgeLiavas A church is not proof of any god. Try again.

[@ourbulwarkisjesuschrist9435]

Tabash states that the universe began with the big bang (a beginning to the outward expansion of the universe), and modern science puts forward the idea that the universe began expanding from pre-existing material, so (1) the material still requires an explanation for its existence, even if the explanation is that the material always existed before the big bang, but (2) the material's change from a non-big bang to the big bang still requires an explanation, and the explanation cannot be that there was no reason why this change occurred. Tabash also states that the universe does not depend upon violations of its own laws, and yet the big bang model he believes in actually insinuates that the material of the universe was in violation of those laws during initial singularity.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

So what was the preexisting thing your god came from? I await your special pleading fallacy.

[@ourbulwarkisjesuschrist9435]

​@@jasonbladzinski5336 1. the conclusion that the universe had a beginning is just that: it's a conclusion. Don't mistake this conclusion for a premise, namely, the premise that everything must necessarily have a beginning. 2. We Christians don't insist that everything must necessarily have a beginning, but we respond to the conclusion that all of observable, physical reality has a beginning, and we point out that things that begin to exist must necessarily originate from the ever-existent, and we have additional arguments that point out that the ever-existent beginner of the things that begin can only be reasonably considered to be God. 3. If you spin the conclusion that the universe had a beginning into the premise that everything must necessarily have a beginning, then you're not using our reasoning against us, but you actually invent your own reasoning instead. Moreover, if you spin the conclusion that the universe had a beginning into the premise that the universe must necessarily have a beginning, then you force yourself to deny the existence of the universe and everything in it (including the existence of yourself and your objection). After all, if you insist that everything must necessarily have a beginning, then you face the problem that nothing could have begun in the first place. 4. You yourself also believe that things that begin must necessarily come from the ever-existent! After all, you either accept that the universe had a beginning, or you accept the only alternative, which is that the universe never began to exist. You must choose one or the other option because you can't accept the only remaining alternative that universe doesn't exist. After all, how can you deny the existence of the universe while you yourself exist within it. 5. You should also realize that every conclusion about the beginning of something falls prey to the objection of special pleading. If you believe in the existence of a multiverse, then you're special pleading; if you believe that the universe is eternal, then you're special pleading. If you believe that the universe began in the big bang, then you're special pleading; if you believe that the universe once existed in a state of singularity, then you're special pleading; if you believe in the abiogenesis theory of life, then you're special pleading; if you believe in the alien origins theory of life, then you're special pleading, etc. The objection of special pleading doesn't apply to the subject of beginnings. 6. The objection that you're putting forward is dismissed by an atheistic philosopher in the video below, as a bad objection: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXyueqmjmLRogrM

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@ourbulwarkisjesuschrist9435 1. You see! You are trying to state the validity of your argument by moving the goal posts and making this into a semantic issue. You cannot conclude that the Universe ever began to exist. We have no indication that there was ever a time in which something did not exist. The big bang is not the beginning, its simply the universe in its current expansion phase. 2. Special pleading. You are exempting your god from the argument you are making about the university by putting this god into a different category to fit the argument. Text book special pleading fallacy. You can't attribute anything to your god because you have not demonstrated he exists. 3. You dont know that the Universe had a beginning. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy from you. You dont know that everything has a beginning. Another argument from ignorance. You break your own conclusion because if everything needs a beginning, than so does your god. Im using your thinking and showing you how you violate your own claim and so must employ the fallacy of special pleading in an attempt to fix the problem. I don't deny my own existence, in fact i cant deny it. It's irrelevant to this situation. Something exists, therefore the concept that there ever was a time that nothing existed is completely incoherent. 4. Yes, but the Universe is something that actually exists and we can observe and demonstrate. You are tacking on another digression putting the cause as being a god you have no way to demonstrate actually exists. There may very well be an infinite digress, its impossible to rule out infinite regression. I don't know the ultimate origins of the universe, that isn't a reason to assume it must be a god. That's an argument from ignorance fallacy. Its god of the gaps. Im honest, u admit when i dont know something. I don't make up magical causality as the answer for things I don't know. 5. I don't know the origins of reality. I never made that claim. You did. You are building a ton of straw men against me. You are assumimg my position as if you have access to my mind. Its dishonest. Again, i dont claim to know the origins of existence. You claim its your god, and i find that unconvincing. You dont understand special pleading. Im not making the claim that all things that exist or begin to exist needs a cause, YOU are. I have made no claims about the universe or your god, YOU did. I said nothing about abiogenesis, the singularity, the big bang, or any of these things. Special pleading is when you assert an invariant logical claim like all things that exist must have a finite origin and/or something can come from nothing, but then claiming whatever the origins of this thing that exists is the result of a being that has no cause. You exempted your god because its the only way the argument works, ad hoc, its special pleading. I have not made any statements of ultimacy that i make a special exemption to make the argument work. That's what YOU did. 6. I don't care what some atheist philosopher said. Atheists are not a community of people that have a dogma we all follow. I also haven't made a case for anything. All i have done is expose your fallacious thinking.

[@ourbulwarkisjesuschrist9435]

@@jasonbladzinski5336 ​ 1. Why can't we conclude that the universe ever began to exist? If we assume that the universe is expanding, as modern scientists do, then it logically follows that the universe at some point began to expand from a point of origin, hence the universe (at least its current form) began to exist. We also observe entropy all around us: complex things always decay into simpler things (e.g., houses always break down by themselves, but they never seem to build up by themselves). Right this moment, we can observe the existence of complexity within reality that we humans didn't make (e.g., animals, ourselves, etc.), and we can observe the existence and one-way direction of entropy. This means that the reality that we experience began to exist in its current form somewhere in the finite past. And modern scientists claim that all life in the universe will go extinct at some point in the future, because they supposedly observe that our sun is suffering from entropy. Scientists believe that all of the heat within the universe will at some point be spread out evenly throughout the universe, which will make the universe so cold that no life can exist--scientists call this the heat death of the universe. If we assume that the heat death of the universe is a future event, then we can't assume that the universe has existed infinitely into the past (at least not in its current form) because otherwise the heat death would already have occurred at some point in the infinite past, so we must assume that the universe began to exist in the finite past. 2. It's not special pleading. It's extremely basic logic that traces back to the multiple-millennia-old philosophical works of Plato and Aristotle, who are widely regarded in our culture (Western culture) as two of the three founders of our culture's reasoning. You should read pages 893-896 of Book 10 of Plato's Laws (link: www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0166%3Abook%3D10%3Apage%3D893), and sections 1071b-1073a of book 12 of Aristotle's Metaphysics (Link: www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0052%3Abook%3D12%3Asection%3D1071b). Western philosophers have acknowledged the possible existence of the following two categories for millennia: things/being that begin to exist, and things/beings that have always existed. It's not special pleading when we reason that things that begin must necessarily have originated from the ever-existent---the reason we can't assume otherwise is because then we have to assume that reality is completely random. If you think that things can begin to exist/start to happen for no reason, then you may as well fear that, while reading this comment, a lion will appear in your room and devour you. The only reason you assume that a lion doesn't randomly appear in your room is because you assume that a lion can only appear in your room as a result of a sequence of causes like someone leaving open its cage door and it walking into your house. Things don't begin to happen for no reason; rather, things always begin to happen for a reason, so things that begin necessarily begin for a reason, and you can't assume that an infinite regress of beginning things is causing other things to begin because then nothing would have begun to happen in the first place, so you necessarily and inevitably arrive at the conclusion that things that begin to exist are caused to exist by the ever-existent. There necessarily exists at least one ever-existent thing or being, and we Christians have solid arguments for the subsequent conclusion that only God can be assumed to be ever-existent. We're not putting forward a premise of special pleading, but a conclusion of necessity---this is correct regardless of whether or not you're willing to accept this. If you reject age-old reasoning about causality simply because it leads to an exception by necessity, then there's no point in talking about anything at all. If I remember correctly, Aristotle wrote about the consequences of rejecting causality, so maybe you should read that as well. Anyway, you should also carefully examine the imagined dialogue between a Christian and an Atheist below: Christian: everything seems created, and only God could have created it. Atheist: if God created everything, then who created God? Christian: you misunderstand. God isn't in the category of the created. Atheist: how convenient. You're special pleading. Christian: then what do you believe? Atheist: I'm careful about having beliefs. You should be humble like me and admit that you don't know either. Christian: you claim to know that I don't know what I claim to know, which is not a humble thing to do. And are you creating a way to avoid subjecting your beliefs to my scrutiny by creating a moral high ground for yourself? I know that you have beliefs about the origins of everything, so just tell me about them. Atheist: well, the macrocosm doesn't have to be created. It could be eternal instead. Christian: you can't assume this according to modern scientific hypotheses, but I want to ask you this: what is the macrocosm? Atheist: the macrocosm is the all-encompassing thing that houses everything that exists. You can call it the universe, but some atheists think that it's a multiverse, so I call it a macrocosm to account for both definitions. Christian: if everything is inside the macrocosm, then what houses the macrocosm? Atheist: "you misunderstand." The macrocosm "isn't in the category of the contained/housed." Christian: "how convenient. You're special pleading." Atheist: clever! I seem to special plead for my own beliefs. Christian: indeed! Atheists special plead for beliefs like the multiverse hypothesis, the abiogenesis hypothesis, the big bang hypothesis, the eternal universe hypothesis--all of these are instances of special pleading when you think about it.

[@ourbulwarkisjesuschrist9435]

​ Jason Bladzinski 3. I already pointed out that I don't insist that everything must necessarily have a beginning. We Christians conclude that all physical things/beings have a beginning, and modern scientists widely accept that the universe had a beginning. Why do you completely disregard modern science when it opposes what you want to believe? Is science only valid when it agrees with you, or is it never valid? I wonder why you completely disregard modern science because atheists rarely do that. Anyway, we conclude that things that begin to happen must have the ever-existent as a cause by necessity. I informed you that you shouldn't spin this conclusion into the faulty premise that you try to spin it into. If you insist on using that premise against me, then you should be consistent and deny the existences of the universe and everything in it, including yourself and your argumentation. Moreover, if you keep denying conclusions based on whether or not they're special pleads, then you do have to reject the existence of everything. For example, you were special pleading when you said this: "Something exists, therefore the concept that there ever was a time that nothing existed is completely incoherent." You understand that the alternative that nothing exists is necessarily incoherent, but you simultaneously insist that every instance of special pleading should be rejected, and your argument here suffers from special pleading, so if you want to be consistent, then you should deny the existence of "something" and simply assume that nothing exists instead. The accusation of special pleading shouldn't apply to reasoning that's situated at the level of cosmology because all conclusions at this level of reasoning are special pleads. 4. It's not impossible to rule out an infinite regress. For example, if you want to assume that an infinite regress of causes led up to us two having this discussion, then you have to conclude that we would never be having this discussion. But we do have this discussion, so the sequence of causes that led up to us having this discussion wasn't infinite. Also imagine this analogy: you ask me to loan you five euros, and I agree to do that, but I must first loan five euros from my friend, and my friend agrees to loan me five euros, but he/she must also first loan five euros from his/her friend---if this sequence of promising to loan but first needing to receive a loan goes on forever, then you can't expect to ever receive five euros from me. Likewise, if you assume that the current state of the universe is the result of an infinite sequence events that first needed to be fulfilled by previous events (obviously), then you can't assume that the universe currently exists, or that it exists in its current state. But the universe does currently exist in its current state, so an infinite regress of causes cannot have led up to the universe's current state of existence. 5. I'm assuming your position out of experience. Other naturalists have accused me of assuming their position before, but they never correct me on what their position might be. You haven't done this either. I strongly suspect that you and the others before you accused me of assuming their position because they're uncomfortable with discussing their position, not because I'm actually misrepresenting their position. If I'm misrepresenting you, then you shouldn't baselessly insist that this is the case, but you should open up and share what you actually believe and thereby prove that I'm misrepresenting you. Anyway, did you notice that, at some point, the dialogue posted above portrays the atheist as trying to avoid talking about his position? Most of that dialogue is copied from a rendition of the dialogue that was written two weeks ago, before you and I met---ask yourself why the atheist is portrayed this way, and why you didn't inform me about your position after realizing that I'm assuming your position for you. 6. You should care about the reasoning of people who disagree with you, perhaps even more if you're a layperson whereas they're regarded as formally trained experts in philosophy. What am I supposed to think if you don't even want to listen to people who partially agree with you? Also, atheists are, in fact, a community of people who fairly consistently hold to the same dogmas and arguments. One of their modern dogmas is that they have no position and that they're simply dismantling the positions of others (it's addressed in the following video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jH3OaGWji7JlY9E). Another dogma is that nature is everything (that's why it's quite safe to assume that every militant atheist is simultaneously a naturalist). Another dogma is scientism. Yet another dogma is that the category of religion/non-religion isn't arbitrary. And yet another dogma is that atheism is a lack of belief instead of an affirmative belief. Atheists even have the dogma that atheism is a default position. Finally, you shouldn't assert that you've exposed fallacious thinking, as you've almost undermined everything you yourself believe in the attempt to twist an inevitable conclusion into a faulty premise, and in the attempt to insist that every conclusion at the level of cosmology should be discarded if it's simultaneously an exemption to the reasoning that led to it (special pleading). Listen, you can argue in favor of atheism, but do it with the right motives. I'm assuming your position again, but you're here to win an argument for atheism, as opposed to being here with a better motive.

[@progressivewholesomeness4937]

For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. Romans 1:20 HCSB

[@mrhartley85]

The man, the myth, the legend

[@BrokTheLoneWolf]

How am I just finding this guy now.

[@tooskepticool7675]

@@BrokTheLoneWolf im. Right. There. With. You.

[@MattJackson314]

20:17 “Please, Dr. Bahnsen! He’s already dead!” Lol

[@malachiramel9516]

🤣🤣🤣 not dead enough 🤣🤣🤣

[@a5dr3]

Greatest of all time.

[@joshcornell8510]

I see Mr. Tabash too is a man of faith 🤣

[@bryansphere6359]

Someone needs to put up this entire debate!

[@malachiramel9516]

I think there is an audio of it

[@ozfam2070]

The gentleman who speaks first is as much of a rambling fool as I. All over the place making no cogent point. Wow. This had to be his first and only debate.

[@evidencebasedfaith6658]

I really would have liked to have seen Bahnsen debate the new atheists today.

[@Busytech109]

Doug Wilson debated Christopher Hitchens, they made a documentary together. James White is a very good debater as well. Greg Bahnsen, Doug Wilson and James White use presupositional apologetics.

[@evidencebasedfaith6658]

@@Busytech109 I've recently watched James White debate.

[@TwitchyThelogian]

Watch Jeff Durbin. Durbin is a modern day Bahnsen. James White is a great debater as well.

[@evidencebasedfaith6658]

@@TwitchyThelogian I've seen some of their debates, but I don't think their approach is as good as Bahnsen's was.

[@Contagious93812]

You have Darth Dawkins on the internet, he's parroting Bahnsen and he's a laugh stock. Also you have Sye Ten

[@Jaryism]

Wow… check mate. That was incredible.

[@nickjones5435]

Damn RIGHT check mate. Why would anyone ever be a Christian again after watching that ill educated, childish display from bahnson?

[@stevenward5508]

My right ear fell asleep.

[@ArmorofTruth]

Left ear for me 👍

[@shostycellist]

I think they call that a "Greg slap".

[@nickjones6651]

I think they call it CHILDISH and PITIFUL word games. Maybe confirmation that christianity is dead as you need to try PITIFUL transparent word games cos you cant provide EVEN the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god! Why is that?

[@ozfam2070]

Big Bang=plausible All That Evidence😃

[@bobpolo2964]

seriously!!!

[@yellow6100]

Is there video of the whole debate? Or video of Bahnsen Stein debate?

[@docfate]

What did Bansen say to the Atheist.. SMACK! LOL!

[@aarronwilson5647]

That was brilliant!

[@devilboy272007]

So nothing created everything is plausible? Lol

[@Busytech109]

@Dd S Air is invisible. Do you believe it exists?

[@Busytech109]

@Dd S So you only believe in what you can see? What did you do before the special technology? Did the air exist?

[@Busytech109]

@Dd S Time, Space everything is evidence of the existence of God. It's staring back at you but you can't see it. To put God to a test of a finite being such as yourself is ridicules. In essence your trying to prove that the god you wish would exist doesn't exist and this is idolatry. Are you trying to prove the existence of the God of the Bible? If you are then that is possible, do what the Bible says to do, Deut 4-5, repent turn from sin. Sin causes the separation and causes people to be blinded, making them willing to believe that "nothing created everything" = the big bang theory.

[@Busytech109]

@Dd S Did you read what I wrote?

[@Busytech109]

@Dd S What you fail to see is, your asking me to sink to your sin of Idolatry. You have made a god of your liking, you have made yourself out to be god. You say my assertion is baseless, how do you know that? Why do you think God would reveal himself to you a hard hearted Rebel? The bible says God won't reveal himself to the proud. There is a whole universe of evidence proving the existence of god, but your seared conscience won't allow you to see it. Did you watch the debate? Do you understand what the big bang theory is? If you don't believe in the big bang theory, what do you believe?

[@1974jrod]

He doesn't know how the microphone was made, but does he assume it just spontaneously appeared?

[@jameshampton5792]

Is Tabash in another dimension during this debate?

[@supersmart671]

7:23 Benares South India. Must be joking. Benares is in North India!!

[@dutchchatham1]

Sincere question: What attracted you to presuppositionalism as an approach to discourse?

[@Cobbuilder21]

"I may not know the exact order of how my typewriter was put together, but I know SOMEONE put it together"

[@JohnSmith-gy4qj]

Thanks for a calm debate.

[@curedbytheonomy]

Bruh missed the point about the fish. Christ may have fed 5,000 men with fish, but the Bread of Life has fed countless.

[@meganmozart]

I'm not getting any sound on this video, even though my volume is turned all the way up and other videos I play have sound. Please help. Thanks.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Imagine jesus who is the logos of God. He rebuked the hypocrisy of those who believed in his father. Not atheist

[@candeffect]

We experience creation, therefore, we can believe in God the Creator. Atheists make the mistake of mixing their opinions about physical things with nonphysical things in life. The created cannot prove the Creator does not exist. People can live better by living to honor God. Atheists mock God because God will not act as a butler. Science is nothing more than reasonable methods for dealing with physical things. Everything else about physical things is opinions. Religion is ideas for dealing with nonphysical things in life - love, hate, respect, repentance, faith, salvation, etc. Absolute truth about God is revealed in the Bible as facts and ideas in story form. Atheism makes souls mock God the Creator while they live in creation.

[@marques_asecas5894]

Just imagine how foolish is to do such things. Analogically for a man to mock God the Creator would be as if the character of a story started to doubt and mock the author of the same story. It is the will of the author/Creator that wich allows the existence of this character/man that doubts and mock him.

[@MiyagiNariyoshi]

To be fair, the athiests argument is weak.

[@robertlight5227]

There is no argument from atheism. We just request logic and evidence and never get it.

[@yournightmare9562]

To prove the exsitence of any god you need either one these: A priori argument Evidence But theism never provides any. Preupps even attack reason and logic and asking you to justify your reasoning. While justification itself is a part of reasoning. They basically want people to reason without reasoning at that point.

[@JesusismyGOD]

Who wants to live in a world without GOD?

[@Contagious93812]

It's not about what someone wants but what is real and God isn't real.

[@JesusismyGOD]

Sustained Unbelief is the noose that man in rebellion hangs himself on while spitting out his hatred and refusal to believe in Jesus, And Jesus bled for them to fix their evil selves in loving mercy they refuse. Delusion will never lead you to truth or life.

[@ianandpeejisiderio5060]

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. Dr Banshen couldn't be more accurate. God has already been given the evidence... but unbelieving men will simply continue to suppress the truth.

[@doctorzeno1914]

what "evidence" ? Oh I'm fully aware that some people CLAIM various things are "evidence" for a "god", but what that actually is, is people SPECULATIING about a supposed god. I'm not saying there isn't a god, maybe there is, but human speculations are NOT "evidence".

[@joehinojosa24]

Like 2 guys debating whether God has a mullet( 80s hairstyle) when God is NOT in the room.

[@classycactus8449]

But if matter came from nothing, then all natural law concerning the conservation of matter and energy has been violated, making that a universe-sized miracle.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

Who makes the claim about the origins of matter? Christians do. Basically you guys say, "matter exists because god, because reasons."

[@classycactus8449]

@Nick Jones Sorry for not replying. I never got a notification. I just noticed your comment because someone in this same thread commented. Here was your comment: "Only Christians claim matter came from nothing by MAGIC!" That is a mischaracterization. Christians claim that all matter and energy was spoken into existence by an omnipotent God. That isn't magic. Someone outside of nature caused nature. If you want to assume that nature is a closed system, as you would be asserting by rejecting any supernatural notion, then all matter and energy popping into existence, without natural explanation, but caused by purely natural causes couldn't even by explained by magic. Magic is a more reasonable explanation then it just happened. See, the difference between the two claims is that I claim that a supernatural event was caused by an eternal, supernatural, omnipotent God, while you claim that a supernatural event (that is, an event that violates natural law) was caused by purely natural causes. I find it much more likely that natural law would be suspended by an external cause, than natural law being suspended by an unsenitient nature.

[@classycactus8449]

@@jasonbladzinski5336 NOTE: Some people are very upset when I make long replies. To avoid instant dismissal, I made a one paragraph summary at the end. If you want, you can just read that and respond to it. It is good enough. To start, you ended with a straw man. No Christian has ever made an argument that matter exists, therefore God must exist. That is a deliberate overgeneralization. I noticed that you tried the classic atheist argument that atheists don't make any claims. Essentially, what you are trying to do is to force everyone else to prove their position, but avoiding the responsibility of maintaining your position, because your position is simply that another position is false. That is a cowardly way of engaging in discussions. You are probably a naturalist, so you would have to believe that all matter and energy came by natural causes. Even if you don't make any claims about which specific causes those are (because no one can provide natural causes for it), you are still making the assertion that the cause must be natural and physical. You are making the claim that it is impossible for supernatural causes to have caused nature, essentially. That too is a position that requires evidence. In either case, we need to evaluate the existence of matter and energy in the universe, given your worldview. Scientific evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning. The Bible has already claimed that the universe had a beginning thousands of years before, but scientists, relatively recently, have collected evidence that strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. Moreover, philosophy and logic suggest that it would be impossible for us to be in this point in time, if there has been an infinite amount of time before us. If the past is infinite, this present could never be reached. So, everything, whether science or theology or philosophy or logic -- all suggest the finitude of the past and that the universe had a beginning. The only way that I could possibly see a naturalist explain the universe, is if matter and energy were eternal. Too bad that it is a very weak position to hold. If matter and energy at one point didn't exist, but at one point in time they began to exist, then they came into existence. That is, matter and energy were created. That is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Matter and of Energy. Natural law was broken. But, if nature is a closed system that exists exclusively, then natural law must have been broken within nature, by nature. We have no instances of that ever happening. We have no reason to believe that it can happen. Essentially, it is a miracle. I claim a miracle performed by a supernatural, omnipotent God, while you claim a miracle by what? Nature. You claim that a miracle naturally occurred. This is a major problem that needs to be answered. It isn't as though it is something that you can claim we will eventually find out, because there is no possible natural explanation. It isn't merely a gap in our understanding. We know it cannot have occurred naturally. Now, you can reasonably object and say that I still have to provide an argument for why God is the most reasonable explanation. And I will gladly do it. First, we need to accept that the everything that has a beginning also has a cause. That is, we need to accept causal relationships. I read a book this year about a missionary who went to Burma (Myanmar), and they were surprised that the people there didn't understand cause and effect on any level. They simply thought that fate did everything, and no event had to have any actual causes. Very strange reasoning, but it exists. So, we have to clarify that. The next step is that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, it must have had a cause. Now, we have to characterize the cause. The cause has to be eternal, because if it isn't, then it too would need a cause. Moreover, the cause would have to preexist the time-space continuum, so they wouldb't even be subject to time. Next, the cause would have to be very, very powerful. Making the universe requires a lot of power. Third, the cause would have to be immaterial, because, again, the cause would preexist matter and energy. Moreover, if the cause were matter and energy, the cause would be subject to natural laws, so it would be impossible for the cause to, at will, violate natural law, being subject to it. Finally, if this cause was in eternity, it would have to have agency and free will, to, at a specific point in time within eternity, decide to create something. If the cause doesn't have that agency, then you would have to ask the question: why didn't it cause the universe an eternity ago and why hasn't it created another universe, etc., etc. And, you come to the conclusion that the cause looks a lot like God. To conclude, here is the short summary. As a naturalist, you have to claim that the origin of matter and energy was natural. That is, that nature is a closed system, yet natural law was violated by nature for it to occur, because there are laws of conservation. Because all scientific, theological, philosophical, and logical evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning, then it must have had a cause, because everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The cause of the universe must be eternal, because it preexists time, immaterial because matter and energy cannot violate natural laws of conservation on their own, powerful because making all matter and energy requires it, and the cause must have agency, because it needs to be able to pick a point in eternity to create something. If it doesn't, then you have to ask why it didn't create something an eternity ago, which means that you would need some other cause that determined it to create the universe. To really condense it, a naturalist must believe that a miracle happened through natural causes and means, while I think that only Someone above nature can do miracles.

[@jasonbladzinski5336]

@@classycactus8449 Is your god able to create a rock so heavy he can't lift it? Than he is not omnipotent

[@classycactus8449]

@Nick Jones To start, I don't quite understand how you replied to anything I said. You picked one word and one point out of my entire long reply and made a big deal of it. Then you accused me of a straw man which I didn't even make. Then, you ignored the argument I made for why there would be someone outside nature that created nature. I honestly highly doubt that you read more than the first few sentences of my reply. It is quite clear that you typed "define magic" in either google or bing, and you picked the first definition that came up. I personally think the definition is imprecise. Dictionary dot com has this definition: "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature" Wikipedia also has definition: "Magic is the application of beliefs, rituals or actions employed in the belief that they can subdue or manipulate natural or supernatural beings and forces. It is a category into which have been placed various beliefs and practices sometimes considered separate from both religion and science." Essentially, magic is humans attempting to wield supernatural forces through their own power. Both of us would agree, then, that magic is impossible. I already know that you will no doubt insist on your original definition of magic. If that is the case, then I will concede that point, because it is merely a semantical issue. It is obvious that your argument rests on connotation -- that is, you will intensely insist that my argument is labeled as magic, because it has a negative connotation. I don't particularly care if you label it as magic, because that isn't an argument. On to point #2. "Please copy and paste where I claimed a supernatural event was caused by a supernatural event as you claimed or is it a blatant strawman? " I never said anything like that. I said that if you are a naturalist, you must (by logical necessity) believe that all matter and energy came into existence (which is a violation of the laws of conservation, meaning that it is a supernatural or miraculous event), through NATURAL causes. I never said that you claimed a supernatural event came from a natural event. I said that you, if you are a naturalist, must necessarily believe that a virtually supernatural event happened through natural causes. I don't have to copy paste that, because that is what all naturalists must believe. The only way you can disagree with that is if you wouldn't call the entire universe popping into existence without a cause supernatural. But that, again, is a semantical issue. As for your last point, I already presented an argument for that. Moreover, I repeated the argument in the summary at the end of my comment. I have to assume that you simply didn't read until that point. I just want to point out that you have yet to make any argument beyond labelling something magic, making a straw man accusation, insisting on a semantical issue, and asking for arguments. None of those go beyond mere assertions.

[@Gregorygrantley]

Also, a creator created a typewriter.

[@dasse6637]

End all say all to gods "evil acts". Is the law maker responsable for what happens to the law breaker if they did not obey the law? No. Our sin is willing, and even so we experience gods forgivness every day. Yes his hand has been forced throughout history. And even so it was because of SIN.

[@yhwyorthehwy2476]

According to the atheist opening statement about books so everything pre photographs is considered the same as the Bible then huh LOL

[@lederereddy]

YHWY is the HWY... Try YHWY or the DEAD END... :^)

[@1seanv]

But I don't seem to be able to put two and two together - that my typewriter had a designer; it's unfortunate that it cannot also make coffee. I don't know how this microphone works, and for some reason I don't seem to realize that someone made it. "I would never tell you that you are going to hell, even though I believe it" (implying he knows it to be true). That is completely immoral. Terrible example. A tibetan lhama was not born with a divine nature, meaning, they were born with a fallen nature. Jesus Christ was THE Son of God, meaning, he was born with a sinless nature. In addition, he kept the entire law of God, without once sinning by breaking it. For those of you that do not know, I suggest you look up mosaic law and see just what that would entail. Only a sinless man, with a divine nature, though also fully human, could walk under the weight of such a law and not fold. A tibetan lama could not keep the whole of the mosaic law. There is no tibetan lama that has ever or will ever live that has never sinned. This alone is proof that Jesus Christ is the only person worthy of being the saviour of mankind, because he was God manifest in the flesh, reconciling the world to Himself through the person of His Son, the Word made flesh (the Logos) - our Lord Jesus Christ. Basically, trying to compare any supposed holy man or intellectual like Socrates to Jesus is to demonstrate a profound lack of understanding as to exactly who Jesus Christ is, and what makes him so special. Jesus Christ IS God. Tabash said, "believe in a god that loves everybody." Ok, so a god that loves everybody, but does not distinguish between right and wrong, and has no sense of justice or holiness. Gotcha. Basically, he is saying - believe in an amoral god. Funny, that is completely contradictory to human nature - we know there is right and wrong, and anyone educated stupid that denies this, denies the plain truth that they will inevitably admit through a hypocritical action, word, or thought. His very statement is irrational, which is what Christians have been saying for nearly 2000 years. To not believe in God is irrational. God created man in his own image, originally, and in order to recover that image you have to be born again of Spirit by the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, was buried, and rose again the third day (which was prophesied MANY times in the scriptures long before he was born into the flesh). Jesus Christ died to save all sinners, and being a perfect sacrifice, being blameless and spotless under the law, became sin for all of us sinners, in order to take upon himself the full cup of God's wrath, ONE TIME, in order that we all might be saved for our myriad transgressions through faith in our risen Lord Jesus Christ. That is how a holy God proves His righteousness. It is completely logical. Looking at the creation, and not seeing that it has been designed - that truly is blindness. The embryo of a person develops a blood sac to nourish it with blood BEFORE it has bones and bone marrow to produce blood. Hmm, I wonder how evolution worked that one out. Any of you that believe in evolution - I suggest you look at the chemical contents of a single cell. There are charts on the internet that show the incredible complexity of ONE cell. Every single part of the cell, and every process in that cell, has to work in perfect unison. One failure = death. Now, explain to me how evolution made that cell, and don't give me that BIG TIME + MANY ATTEMPTS herp derp produced that cell response. To even suppose that evolution can essentially work by trial and error, and that's what evolutionists basically believe, is to assume the existence of something at work that is metaphysical in nature. For those of you that haven't figured out where I'm going with this - evolution = pantheism. The theory of evolution is OLD. It goes way, WAY back to Babylon and ancient religions and mystery religions. This is why Christians say that evolution is a RELIGIOUS belief - because it is, and we can prove it by looking at historical documents going back nearly 5,000 years to prove it. You've been duped.

[@JohnSmith-gy4qj]

H a s Tabash become a father as yet? Having children is very educational.

[@cashtealcooley5840]

Bahnsen = Boom!!🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@harktheclark]

"Your worldview can't account for why tornadoes and earthquakes happen, and mine can. They're God telling us he's angry. So therefore I'm right." -Greg Bahnsen in the Stone Age, probably. Just because atheists can't account for uniformity, the laws of logic, etc. today does not mean that it's reasonable to believe that a God did it.

[@chrismathew2295]

The accusation of argument from ignorance is common enough. As an objection it begs the question. The objection assumes the possibility of alternatives to a Christian theory of logic. Of course, that possibility and warrant for believing in it are both squarely dependent on whether autonomy can be proven (what the transcendental critique challenges). That is, one is only in a position to believe there are alternative theories of logic to the Christian theory if one knows he is not an image-bearing creature of God dependent in all his thought on the revelation and providence of said God.

[@sukka4pain]

No, think again. If it's impossible to account for any of these things in your worldview, what does that indicate? What could the impossibility of the contrary mean? It doesn't make (Christian) theism merely possible, it necessitates it.

[@_sarpa]

@@sukka4pain god is a complete non sequitur in epistemology

[@mattverville9227]

That's my teacher right there!!

[@nickjones5435]

I hope youre not learning from a PITIFUL childish charlatan like bahnson! Lol

[@episcopas]

The problem with Presuppositionalism is this … the adherent claims his belief/conviction qualifies as a justification for his assertion. This is circular and fideistic.

[@everlastingphronema9700]

David Wilcox Well sooner or later claims are boiled down to ultimate authorities. So in that way of thinking everything is circular. For the atheist his own “reasoning” is his authority upon which he bases his claims. A presuppositionalist simply shows that the God of the Bible is consistent with reality that we can see and measure (induction, moral principles, logical laws, ethics, creation, etc.). Atheists say we can’t really know reality and then in the same breath make propositional statements, which of course is a logical fallacy and I must say looks quite foolish.

[@episcopas]

@@everlastingphronema9700 "Philosophically, it is quite true that all arguments start from unprovable assumptions. But, though all presuppositions are equal, some are more equal than others! That is to say, it is far better to start with presuppositions of method (deductive logic and inductive method that can lead to the discovery of truth) than to begin with presuppositions of content-that prejudge the nature of the cosmos and cannot in principle be confirmed or disconfirmed. The Christian presuppositionalist [who adheres to the latter] turns out to be no different from, for example, the Muslim presuppositionalist" Montgomery, John Warwick. Always Be Ready: A Primer on Defending the Christian Faith (pp. 9-10). NRP Books. Kindle Edition.

[@episcopas]

@@everlastingphronema9700 Scripturally, the fall of man did not blow away Adam’s brains or make it impossible for him to recognize the voice of God; he was able to respond to God’s word even after his fall into sin (Genesis 3). Moreover, throughout the Bible, prophets and apostles-and our Lord Himself-clearly expect their audiences to respond to evidence. Take Elijah’s encounter with the prophets of Baal, Paul’s discourse on Mars Hill, and our Lord’s healing of the paralytic-to say nothing of the force of His resurrection in convincing those who previously doubted (Thomas, for example). It is also worth pointing out that if the non-Christian always rejects positive evidence for Christianity owing to his or her false presuppositions, why would he or she accept any of the Christian’s criticisms of his or her non-Christian worldview? And finally, as previously noted, since there are an infinite number of non-Christian positions, merely showing the fallacies in one or more of them never demonstrates the truth of Christianity. Montgomery, John Warwick. Always Be Ready: A Primer on Defending the Christian Faith (pp. 10-11). NRP Books. Kindle Edition.

[@everlastingphronema9700]

David Wilcox I’m glad that you retracted your circular argument, it’s just that it does not line up with scripture and our ultimate authority, which is God and His word as evidenced in Genesis with Adam. There is no problem to adhering to logic or examples in creation the problem is ultimate authority. The preconditions of intelligibility that is. For the unbeliever and sadly many Christians all information and beliefs is first filtered through their “reasoning” (ultimate authority). Well we know human reasoning is flawed and that for us choosing good and evil outside of the parameters of God led to the fall and sin today. Presupposition rightly asserts that God is the beginning of all knowledge, and not human reasoning and vain assumptions.

[@episcopas]

@@everlastingphronema9700 I retracted nothing. You misunderstand my response.

[@bryansphere6359]

btw ... Tabash's closing here is totally weak! All he does is stack thoughts, hoping that enough will overwhelm his opponent. He leans heavily upon childish rhetoric and nasty insult tactics. Philosophically he brings no substance!

[@Chirhopher]

Have you noticed how so many appeal to Emotion, even though the worldview they claim to stand on (being sand) does Not support Any room for "Emotions". Since it is all random and chance, purposeless indifference, so much contradiction. And then at the end encourages people to believe in a god of their own imagination, who is not consistent. Imagine that, 'a god' that looks just like him! Taking the most historically documented and worldwide confirmed event ever in history, from more cultures in history at once, ever, and turning that into a flying saucer! Not sure whether to laugh or cry, i think there may be a little room for both, as long as we pray for them, cause it's not just him - just look at these comment boxes. i do not think that he, and especially these people commenting against my Brother, at all realize that in doing these things, they are fulfilling The Word of Holy Scripture, such as Romans 1 & 2, and so on! The TRUE and LIVING GOD, WHO IS MIGHTY TO SAVE, BLESSED BE HIS NAME.

[@feliciaf8]

greg bahnsen = chad

[@gunnyd8135]

Tabash: "......a superior being who periodically but hasn't violated those laws (of the universe) in 2,000 years"........dude, you just conceded God resurrected Jesus from the dead. End of debate.

[@nickjones6651]

I think that's the most PATHETIC ridiculous laughable example of quote mining ive ever seen! What did he say in the rest of the debate? Was it the total opposite of what youve just accused him of?

[@PanhandleFrank]

@@nickjones6651 You wouldn’t live in Spokane, would you Nick?

[@nickjones6651]

@@PanhandleFrank Nope. Where the hell is spokane?

[@PanhandleFrank]

@@nickjones6651 You can use KZbin, but not Google Maps? And I should care what you have to say about transcendent matters??

[@nickjones6651]

@@PanhandleFrank @Panhandle Frank Sure i can use google maps kiddy but as it doesnt appear to be in any civilised country i thought the sensible thing to do was to ask the person who'd cited it! Clearly you dont have the integrity to just simply state what country its in! As for why you should care. Im guessing you're an indoctrinated ill educated american Christian. Please correct me if you're not a Christian or ill take it as TACIT ADMISSION that you are. And you should care, if thats the case, because people in that catagory typically arrogantly claim they're from the greatest nation on earth. However, if you're NOT as i suspect, you will know that the RIGHT wing American christards are LAUGHED at by the educated world! In FACT your a laughing stock! You're seen as our primitive backward superstitious cousins over the sea to be tollerated, Condecendingly patted on the head but then LAUGHED at for your primitive backward ways behind your backs!

[@johng2116]

Greg Bahnsen is condescending. The bible is not proof of anything. It is a fictional story book, just like the Torah, Koran, the Veda, and many other books of the thousands of DIFFERENT religions... BTW, of the thousands of different religions, which one is right? How do you know? Peace

[@henryy-tq8tn]

You guy’s are so dishonest it’s pathetic, your feelings on the bible has nothing to do with the arguments

[@MPjustaman]

🤦🏼‍♂️doesn't need proof for certain things , but then he needs PROOF! Thats cheating!

[@Contagious93812]

Well you can't really prove certain things. For instance you can't prove that solipsism is false. You can't prove that you're not in the matrix etc. yet you live your life like they're false. We just take it it's not true based on our presuppositions. With God, gods, unicorns, Harry Potter it's different, some people believe in those things and some don't.

[@andricusthegreat2068]

Perfection theology is self refuting. The Christian God is logically impossible. No apologist has an answer for this.... because there isn't one.

[@matthaschanged]

What do you even mean?

[@andricusthegreat2068]

@@matthaschanged A perfect being that isn’t capable of instantiating a reality without violating its perfect nature. As in, the being intends to happen what he has moral prescription *against* happening. Possible for an imperfect agent, not a perfect one.

[@matthaschanged]

@@andricusthegreat2068 ellaborate on that I don’t really understand what you are trying to say…

[@andricusthegreat2068]

@@matthaschanged How is it possible for a morally perfect being to prescribe against what it desires to happen?

[@Msfracture]

@@andricusthegreat2068 You don't understand what is occurring, it has nothing to do with God not being perfect and everything to do with the fact he is. This war and it rules are not about him, but for his creations ..it's a test. You're trying to put God in a box to suit your opinion but really your inability to understand God and the spiritual realm does not prove God doesn't exist.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

This is an interesting title for a debate considering that Bahnsen actually lost this debate. At no point did he ever actually provide a decent argument or any evidence for his position.

[@elstevobevo]

Duly spanked.

[@greglogan7706]

As a Christian theist, I found the opening statement of Bahnsen's closing statement as so pathetic - "reasoning" that would prove any false religious blather one could make up...🤡 That was really disappointing...😖

[@Msfracture]

You spelled atheist wrong.

[@joehinojosa24]

He woulda cleaned Richard Dawkins clock and Christopher Hitchens

[@sanfordson2551]

TA put the BASH on his opponent.

[@parada6719]

he is the righteous governor of the world, and will surely reckon with the enemies of his kingdom: Verily, however it be, though wicked people prosper, and bid defiance to divine justice, yet it shall be made to appear, to their confusion, that the world is not governed by chance, but by a Being of infinite wisdom and justice; there is a God that judges in the earth, though he has prepared his throne in the heavens. He presides in all the affairs of the children of men, and directs and disposes them according to the counsel of his will, to his own glory; and he will punish the wicked, not only in the world to come, but in the earth, where they have laid up their treasure and promised themselves a happiness-in the earth, that the Lord may be known by the judgments which he executes, and that they may be taken as earnests of a judgment to come. He is a God (so we read it), not a weak man, not an angel, not a mere name, not (as the atheists suggest) a creature of men’s fear and fancy, not a deified hero, not the sun and moon, as idolaters imagined, but a God, a self-existent perfect Being; he it is that judges the earth; his favour therefore let us seek, from whom every man’s judgment proceeds, and to him let all judgment be referred.

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Bahnsen doesn't even know his Bible, that scripture wasn't calling non believers fools.

[@joeneary351]

q u a l i t y

[@giannic.7621]

One simple, very simple question - did an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immanent and eternal god intended men to do mental acrobatics and backflips to convince other men of his existence? Fact is, apologists actually insult the omnisicent mind of this god, by intervening on his behalf.

[@michaelmannucci]

It's because men like you are fools, you lie to yourself about what is self evident to justify your wickedness.

[@michaelmannucci]

Truth is, the true apologist isn't trying to convince you God exists. You know God exists. The apologist is there to expose the ignorant and foolishness of your worldview; which they accomplish quite often.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Somebody needs a nap.... I am a Presuppositional Apologist; and you are right in one sense . We already know that the sinner, all sinners hide their knowledge of God in unrighteousness. That the purpose of TAG is to show that their world view is an invalid world view. But our prayer is that the Holy Spirit will use us to reach that person with the truth about their world view. I sign all of my posts with "TAG-you're it!", not for the purpose of inflaming anyone; quite the contrary! I try to answer the atheist's post and then place the "ball" back in their court. People are free to believe anything that they like, even to denounce God in their life. But.... we are ALL accountably for our actions! I am here to show to the unbelieving world that there exists preconditions that point to abstract universal ethical standards. That there exists in the world "induction" or more popularly called the Uniformity of Nature. Both of these of which, if the atheistic world view was true would be impossible. The Atheist of course acts like there is a universal ethical standard by which to call something either good or bad; but in a purely subjective world view (atheistic), there is no logical chain of reasoning to show why one person should follow after another system of thought. TAG-you're it!

[@extremesoul666]

How does the theistic world view account for black holes? Since black holes are not uniform, material, and yet immaterial.

[@michaelreichwein3970]

The theistic approach is not about mental head games, rather it's about a reasoned defense of the faith . Dr. Greg Bahnsen argues from impossibility of the contrary. Instead of playing word games , why don't you just show how abstracts are possible in the atheistic world view? TAG-you're it!

[@sagebias2251]

This guy simply declares he is correct by definition.

[@dutchchatham1]

that's all presuppostionalism is; "Since I'm right, you cant be."

[@Boxspot]

A pity events didn't allow for a Greg Bahnsen vs Christopher Hitchens debate; probably an easy win for Hitch, but it would have been a lot more entertaining.

[@1seanv]

Oh I don't know about an easy win. I used to watch Hitchens' debates. Most of the guys he went up against weren't as sharp as Bahnsen from what I'm seeing.

[@elstevobevo]

Yeah, Hitch knew rhetoric, but he didn’t have the depth that Bahnsen did. I personally like Hitchens, though, even still.

[@1974jrod]

Bill Craig laid Hitch to waste, and Hitch admitted it. And yes, I liked hitch as well.

[@ronaldlindeman6136]

I have watched a bunch of this guy, Bahnsen's videos in debates and speeches. I will answer at least some of his points he is trying to make.We hold these truths to be self-evident (which means it did not necessarily come from revealed religion) that all men are created equal (which means you can't have a god who has a chosen people) that we are endowed by our creator with the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, (Which means you can't have a god that would drown a whole world in a world wide flood.) The Thomas Jefferson writes that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights. (which is to say that ancient god-governments are fiction) This Bahnsen is just an insult thrower.

[@ronaldlindeman6136]

The first government after the start of Christianity is the Roman Empire Military torturing and killing people in Judea. The first government after the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment was We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It is human Philosophies and Philosophers that gave us the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

[@Chirhopher]

+Ronald Lindeman, really! Sir, have you ever heard of the Puritans? So, we should read actual history about what happened. This person above who quoted the constitution, goes on to interpret a couple of the statements. The majority were Completely CHRIST Centered, Puritans (who the depraved falsely label as a bunch of witch burners), of which i myself am, as well as black-foot and ..well let's just say true Native, just to balance out. Philosophy is Not the center or foundation. The TRUE And LIVING GOD IS.

[@thomasclark5413]

+Ronald Lindeman hey but torturing and killing people is fine in your worldview though. Humans are just matter in motion fizzing brain fizz so what if other bunches of matter in motion fizzing brain fizz decide to torture and kill other bunches of matter in motion fizzing brain fizz? Your ultimate authority is matter in motion fizzing brain fizz so in your world view you can't even justify whats right and whats wrong because your just matter in motion fizzing brain fizz.

[@ronaldlindeman6136]

Read the book, Roger Williams, the soul of American Liberty. It is a very good book which explains the trials of the first people from Britain in America. It gives good reasons that we have religious freedom here in the United States. Because of how bad Christianity is in Government.

[@ronaldlindeman6136]

Tom Clark. matter in motion is some of Turek's stuff. Turek is saying that it doesn't matter whether he gets his ideas of God from ancient world view of god. How does Turek know whether what he believes is a communication from god or from ancient humans and their view of god? What about all the commands of god which many modern humans would not follow. Such as 'do not suffer a witch to live.' Or children that disobey should be stoned. Or you shouldn't use two different types material to make clothes. Or any of the other commands for an ancient world god that is clearly the writings of ancient humans and not from a caring and understanding god. That is the significance of the D of I of the United States and the Constitution of the United States. Modern humans have to show fault and loss. It has to be debated and demonstrable. Superstition is not good enough. There has to be shown cause and evidence to have something to be a crime.

[@JesusismyGOD]

Unrepentant Sinners who are EVIL and REFUSE to Repent and let Jesus heal and change their rebellion is why people go to hell, not because they did not believe the correct thing. You go to hell because you are EVIL and EVIL has to be quarantined somewhere in the flame.

[@yournightmare9562]

18:55 projection lol, greg bahnsen = the father of darth dawkins

[@nickjones6651]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear Has Christianity really sunk this low? Lol 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@michaelreichwein3970]

Low is when all you have is debate games against the truth! Prove his arguments are wrong! Hummmm!

[@feliciaf8]

ur that stupid huh?

[@supersmart671]

Foolishness of Atheism!!

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones it's a self-refuting fails philosophy that doesn't comport to reality!

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones You do understand what the problem of relying on the golden rule for determining right and wrong is? It leaves it up to the individual! So how is that a problem? Well.... whatever standard you're following is not necessarily the same standard that your neighbor follows. So when you and your neighbor Clash over a moral issue. Neither one of you have a means to determine whose correct if it is wrong! And you both could argue that your position is correct because you have not violated your own personal standard. Show the Golden Rule as you call it breaks down because it's ineffectual as a moral standard. But the golden rule is plagued by more than just that one problem. Where do you go to get the golden rule? How often is it updated? Is adherence to it mandatory? Since it is subjective, who holds the correct version? Is there a culpability in violating such a standard? Nick.... I know you don't like God, and I know you like to play your little childish debate games. But what you see above is called reasoning! It is not simply that I disagree with you for appealing to what you call, _the Golden Rule_ as the foundation to Morality. I have several reasonings as to why it fails as a foundation for Morality. It's not ultimate! Adherence is non-mandatory! And there's no a accountability! You cannot even appeal to the populist as a consensus for judging moral issues. Why? Because the moment you say that might makes right...... then Nero, Hitler, Stalin, and every terrorist organization backed by a government would be morally correct! You see.... you can say you follow the Golden Rule as flawed as it is..... but the moment you talk about innocent babies and pedophilia you are placing us both under the same standard, then offering condemnation for violations of that standard. So say what you want..... but you treat morality as if it's universally applied and adherence is mandatory! That is not the Golden Rule! The way you act speaks about a Universal and objective standard. And the only source that fits that is a moral law Giver! You don't need to sit down and have a cup of coffee while you wait for God to show up...... he's been with you your entire life! because... without an ultimate reference point! Without an ultimate ethical standard! Without an objective moral law giver, *you NICK, cannot justify morality* ! Reasoning in above post! You wrote that you can use.... do you have to use that collect experience in morality? Can you branch out with your own opinion? *So much for your version of morality* !

[@michaelreichwein3970]

@Nick Jones don't you understand that every time you call anytime right or wrong, you testify to the existence of God.

[@gaydildo8690]

.