| Welcome to The Sanctified Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and responding to posts. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Bahnsen v. Stein, The Great Debate; Presuppositional Apologetics and Atheism | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 4 2011, 05:43 PM (279 Views) | |
| Ray Nearhood | Dec 4 2011, 05:43 PM Post #1 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
So, this is a fairly well known debate amongst Reformed folk, as well as amongst those with an interest in Christian apologetic methods. The Greg Bahnsen, Gordon Stein debate on the existence of God is probably one of the best apologetic presentations of presuppositional apologetics in a debate. If you've never heard it - or haven't heard it in a while - give it a listen here. Follow along with the transcript. Alrighty... discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Bahnsen's argument. |
![]() |
|
| Ray Nearhood | Dec 24 2011, 02:51 PM Post #2 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
A video (which is the audio plus the transcript) can be found here. |
![]() |
|
| Ray Nearhood | Dec 25 2011, 12:30 AM Post #3 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
And here: |
![]() |
|
| mem | Dec 27 2011, 10:31 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Infections: I gots em
|
Honestly it's hard to comment on Bahnsen's technique because Stein really didn't engage him on the fundamental issue he wished to press (the transcendental argument), and Stein's answers failed to hit most of the basic points in the debate. I'm not really fond of debates in general because the ancillary arguments often score style points without really getting to the heart of the matter. So many of Stein's sound bytes aren't super effective at describing the real argument, even though I think they would appeal greatly to some atheists. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Dec 27 2011, 11:20 AM Post #5 |
|
Deleted User
|
Ditto with Bahnsen and Christians. |
|
|
| Ray Nearhood | Dec 27 2011, 01:35 PM Post #6 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
Yeah, this usually isn't seen as great debate in the sense that both sides were prepared to argue the same thing - which is unfortunate, it's not as if both didn't have published work to engage, that is to say, it seemed that Stein came to argue his points instead of against Bahnsen. So, I'm less concerned about technique (debates are what they are, and Bahnsen says that he wants to give the audience points to ponder, which I think is what one can normally hope for from a debate like this), and more concerned with the primary arguments that Bahnsen presented. More particularly, I suppose: The argument concerning logic - Bahnsen proposes that in order for an atheist to even use logic he is borrowing from the Christian theistic worldview, and he gives reasons. The argument concerning evil and/or bad things - Bahnsen proposes that God has suffiecient moral reason to cause or allow the evil he causes or allows, and that the atheist has no "problem of evil" in their worldview, and yet the "problem of evil" is real. No neutral ground - Bahnsen proposes that their is no neutral ground from which to argue between the atheist and the Christian theist. The atheist presupposes certain things and the Christian presupposes other certain things. It would be absurd to insist on a neutral ground given their presuppositions. Example not given in the debate: In a debate over the truth of the resurrection of Christ the atheist might insist that the only viable evidence is naturalistic observation. That is, if we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, etc... it is not to be accepted as evidence. Therefore (this is what Stein calls the historians' standards) if we, today, cannot see/touch a resurrected person then the probability of it having happened in the past is low. So low, in fact, that the evidence must be dismissed. Thus, the "neutral ground" is that only naturalistic evidences can be accepted and examined. Therefore, the Christian theist is left in the odd position of trying to prove that a supernatural event happened in an imagined world (for the sake of argument) where the supernatural cannot happen. On the flip side of this, the Christian Theist should be able to demand the same standards of evidence from the atheist, but from the Christian theist's evidentiary standards. This leaves the atheist in the odd position of trying to prove that a supernatural event cannot happen in an imagined world (for the sake of argument) where the supernatural does happen. So, then, there is no neutral ground. Also - Dr. Bahnsen argues elsewhere that presuppositionalism is following the Biblical example of argument. Specifically Pauline and Petrine argumentation in Acts and elsewhere. That is, neither ever go into their apologetic assuming the opponent's position. Instead they start with God, Christ, and the revelation of God in Christ and Scripture. But, maybe that is a side discussion. I dunno. So, less Stein's arguments/counter-arguments, more the strengths and weaknesses of Bahnsen's argument. |
![]() |
|
| Ray Nearhood | Dec 27 2011, 02:38 PM Post #7 |
|
THE Bald Assertion
|
Better yet, I'm not too concerned about the success of the debate. I'm more concerned with the arguments that were presented. |
![]() |
|
| mem | Dec 29 2011, 05:18 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Infections: I gots em
|
It seems like Bahnsen's kind of van Tiling to the break of dawn, as it were. I'm not very conversant in any apologetic frameworks (at least not formally), so I can expose my ignorance point-by-point: Logic Bahnsen says that logic is explainable in the Christian world-view and it's not in the atheist world-view. I'm not sure how convincingly he explained this. Stein seems to argue that logic is self-evident and/or axiomatic. While this isn't terribly convincing by itself, I didn't find in the debate itself (outside of some cross examination where Bahnsen admittedly exposed Stein on the point) that any resolution was made. Evil I was honestly a little surprised that Bahnsen, since he was arguing for the Christian God, didn't articulate an apologetic grounded in the cross here. Perhaps he restricted himself in the debate to a presuppositional argument (and he again asserted that atheism doesn't have a coherent sense of what evil really is), but I think one of the more powerful (and easiest?) apologetics against this problem is the cross itself. It also distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. Neutral Ground Here I'm least qualified to comment. I think the two debaters showed amply that they were largely talking past each other. Stein was evidently schooled in some anti-Christian apologies (his references to Scripture contradictions, for example), and it's clear that Bahnsen could discuss his talking points. But I don't know that either debater really engaged the bedrock of the differences between them. Whether this is because it's impossible for them to talk to each other (entirely possible) or no, I don't really know. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Apologetics · Next Topic » |







12:20 AM Jul 11