RickyReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
Okay, I mean [i:590823fe0e]besides[/i:590823fe0e] Greg Bahnsen's debates. Written or taped. Post a link if you've got it!
What's your favorite Christian/Atheist debate?
- Thread starter RickyReformed
- Start date
- Status
Paul,
I have that debate and another from Mike Butler. Do you think he is the greatest living Christian apologist? He may be on paper and in book form, but he needs to hone his debate skills. It's kind of like apreacher who prepares a great sermon, but does not practice the delivery. If Mike is going to assume the Bahnsenian mantle at scccs (as he should) I hope he studies debate strategy and tactics a bit more. All that said, he did a very good job.
I have that debate and another from Mike Butler. Do you think he is the greatest living Christian apologist? He may be on paper and in book form, but he needs to hone his debate skills. It's kind of like apreacher who prepares a great sermon, but does not practice the delivery. If Mike is going to assume the Bahnsenian mantle at scccs (as he should) I hope he studies debate strategy and tactics a bit more. All that said, he did a very good job.
2legit2quit
Puritan Board Freshman
classical anyone?
I know that I am among a lot of presupps around here, and as I study it and the transcendental method more I am becoming more and more pressupostional in my approach to apologetics. I would proabably be right around Frame in my views of apologetics, so I am going to have to say my favorite debate,(apart from Bahnsen vs. Stein) is from the classical view. The Craig-Curley debate was a beautiful debate because although Craig is Classical he used a transendental argument to show that since the atheist believes in biological evolution the only way that this would make sense is if God exists. Biological evolution is so improbable that apart from any supernatural intervention itcan't happen.
Do you guys ever use "classical" arguments for the existance of God presup-->
<--classical
I know that I am among a lot of presupps around here, and as I study it and the transcendental method more I am becoming more and more pressupostional in my approach to apologetics. I would proabably be right around Frame in my views of apologetics, so I am going to have to say my favorite debate,(apart from Bahnsen vs. Stein) is from the classical view. The Craig-Curley debate was a beautiful debate because although Craig is Classical he used a transendental argument to show that since the atheist believes in biological evolution the only way that this would make sense is if God exists. Biological evolution is so improbable that apart from any supernatural intervention itcan't happen.
Do you guys ever use "classical" arguments for the existance of God presup-->
<--classical
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
So have any of these atheists ever been won over by the transcendental argument? Just curious.
2legit2quit
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:822b440edd][i:822b440edd]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:822b440edd]
not in their traditional formulation...never. I also wouldn't say that that was a transcendental argument that you have described. And, if I were the atheist I wouldn't have a problem with the highly improbable. I would say, "well, chance and time... anything can happen." I would ask Craig how he knows it can't happen? Is he omniscient?
-Paul [/quote:822b440edd]
Craig is pretty smart though! The argument is actually formed by saying that given the age of the earth (15 billion years old) and the calculations given by scientists on how long it would take for the primordial soup to develop into humans, it is actually *impossible* for biological evolution to be true becasue it would take a lot longer than 15 billion years for the primordial soup to develop into humans.
I had just never heard that argument before and it did kind of rock the atheist. Anyway, it was still an interesting debate.
I appreciate the correction on the use of the transcendental argument. I am very inexperienced when it comes to presupp arguments. The reason why I said I was right around frame in my presupp views is because thats the only person I have read on the subject (his Apologetics and the glory of God). (I however have listened to a couple pressup debates)
The evolution argument looked similar in form to the transcendental so i figured it was a transcendental.
Does the transcendental only deal with the source of *universal abstract entities* as Bahnsen put it?
[Edited on 6-1-2004 by 2legit2quit]
not in their traditional formulation...never. I also wouldn't say that that was a transcendental argument that you have described. And, if I were the atheist I wouldn't have a problem with the highly improbable. I would say, "well, chance and time... anything can happen." I would ask Craig how he knows it can't happen? Is he omniscient?
-Paul [/quote:822b440edd]
Craig is pretty smart though! The argument is actually formed by saying that given the age of the earth (15 billion years old) and the calculations given by scientists on how long it would take for the primordial soup to develop into humans, it is actually *impossible* for biological evolution to be true becasue it would take a lot longer than 15 billion years for the primordial soup to develop into humans.
I had just never heard that argument before and it did kind of rock the atheist. Anyway, it was still an interesting debate.
I appreciate the correction on the use of the transcendental argument. I am very inexperienced when it comes to presupp arguments. The reason why I said I was right around frame in my presupp views is because thats the only person I have read on the subject (his Apologetics and the glory of God). (I however have listened to a couple pressup debates)
The evolution argument looked similar in form to the transcendental so i figured it was a transcendental.
Does the transcendental only deal with the source of *universal abstract entities* as Bahnsen put it?
[Edited on 6-1-2004 by 2legit2quit]
Another view
I sometimes think that so-called 'Apologetics"isn't all that as some say.There is a lot of fancy footwork going on but in the end...a bunch of wasted time.The Apostle Paul debated quite a bit declaring the Word of the Lord.But I do not think he would be in favor of most of the high-sounding,
intellectual arguments employed in modern times.What people say are their reasons for being against God and the Bible may not be the real reasons.But instead one goes down a rabbit trail thinking "This will convince em!"
For instance a no-doubt sincere Christian goes after an atheist.The atheist makes certain claims and some major denials of the Christian faith.You think you have just the right
responses to nail him.You have your intellectual arsenal ready at-hand.But meanwhile the said atheist isn't even listening to you.His heart melts because a lowly janitor's life
is winning him over.He sees the humility,the Christ-likeness,
the gracious words of Scripture falling from his lips and cannot resist the Holy Spirit any longer.The janitor was used as an instrument of the Lord.But the janitor didn't know anything about an apologetical method.
Now I am not in favor of ignorance.We should get familiar with most modernism etc.But the word of God needs to be the major area of focus.It will not return void.But other methodology may be running on empty.
I sometimes think that so-called 'Apologetics"isn't all that as some say.There is a lot of fancy footwork going on but in the end...a bunch of wasted time.The Apostle Paul debated quite a bit declaring the Word of the Lord.But I do not think he would be in favor of most of the high-sounding,
intellectual arguments employed in modern times.What people say are their reasons for being against God and the Bible may not be the real reasons.But instead one goes down a rabbit trail thinking "This will convince em!"
For instance a no-doubt sincere Christian goes after an atheist.The atheist makes certain claims and some major denials of the Christian faith.You think you have just the right
responses to nail him.You have your intellectual arsenal ready at-hand.But meanwhile the said atheist isn't even listening to you.His heart melts because a lowly janitor's life
is winning him over.He sees the humility,the Christ-likeness,
the gracious words of Scripture falling from his lips and cannot resist the Holy Spirit any longer.The janitor was used as an instrument of the Lord.But the janitor didn't know anything about an apologetical method.
Now I am not in favor of ignorance.We should get familiar with most modernism etc.But the word of God needs to be the major area of focus.It will not return void.But other methodology may be running on empty.
Paul,I said that gracious words of scripture fell from his lips.I did not simply characterize him as being "nice".Don't put words into my mouth please.I think you are being too "mechanistic"as Fred Greco said in a post addressed to you in the past.So I will be very pleased to make reference to the story of the janitor because it happened.I won't use it on an atheist.That is,with the exception to inform him/her that I am aware that your arguments probably have nothing to do with your denying the claims of the Bible.You probably don't like the idea of the final judgment,that your sins are
separating you from the Almighty.Every situation is different.I would seek the Holy Spirit's leading.I would not seek the leading of a Clark or Van Till.
separating you from the Almighty.Every situation is different.I would seek the Holy Spirit's leading.I would not seek the leading of a Clark or Van Till.
From the Scripture Paul.The Bible.Not any other man- made document.The words from Scripture have convinced him/her .The witness of the Holy Spirit has been in evidence.
By the way,if you read the Gordon Clark quotes I have posted you will note he explains Scripture.My posts of his quotes don't delve into philosophy as such.He was a man of Holy Scripture.The P.M. board is a Christian discussion forum.
When I say Scripture I mean only the Bible.
By the way,if you read the Gordon Clark quotes I have posted you will note he explains Scripture.My posts of his quotes don't delve into philosophy as such.He was a man of Holy Scripture.The P.M. board is a Christian discussion forum.
When I say Scripture I mean only the Bible.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
[b:18aaf46727]1 Peter 3:15[/b:18aaf46727]
"but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you"
Learner, what do you say to someone who asks you for an intellectual basis for belief in the Christian God?
[b:18aaf46727]2 Corinthians 10:5[/b:18aaf46727]
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,"
How do we destroy arguments and lofty opinions without knowing them and understanding refutations of these arguments and opinions?
Learner, your view of apologetics is in stark contrast to Paul's. And I'm not talking about Paul Manata.
"but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you"
Learner, what do you say to someone who asks you for an intellectual basis for belief in the Christian God?
[b:18aaf46727]2 Corinthians 10:5[/b:18aaf46727]
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,"
How do we destroy arguments and lofty opinions without knowing them and understanding refutations of these arguments and opinions?
Learner, your view of apologetics is in stark contrast to Paul's. And I'm not talking about Paul Manata.
2legit2quit
Puritan Board Freshman
[/quote]
No it couldn't look transcendental. TA's are broad in scope covering *every* aspect of uman experience. Also the *pre-condition* is *always* an a priori.
-Paul [/quote]
I was talikng about logical form
Craig's argument: if E, then G and not A
TA: if L, then G and not A
E=evolution, G=God, A=athiesm, L=Logic
sorry that I didn't explain myself fully. Thanks again for the correction on the TA that helped a lot
I want to read a more in-depth book on the TA what book(s) would you recommend
No it couldn't look transcendental. TA's are broad in scope covering *every* aspect of uman experience. Also the *pre-condition* is *always* an a priori.
-Paul [/quote]
I was talikng about logical form
Craig's argument: if E, then G and not A
TA: if L, then G and not A
E=evolution, G=God, A=athiesm, L=Logic
sorry that I didn't explain myself fully. Thanks again for the correction on the TA that helped a lot
I want to read a more in-depth book on the TA what book(s) would you recommend
2legit2quit
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:8854c4b809]Have you listened to the Bahnsen Stein debate? [/quote:8854c4b809]
I have listen to it twice: I thought there were a couple of things that Bahnsen had a hard time with (like the existence of the soul), but he was right in saying that it had nothing to do with the debate. he didn't prepare to debate the existence of the soul, but the existence of God.
Overall, I thought the atheist lost. (to put it nicely.)
also I heard that he has some written debates and more audio ones. Where can I find these?
[Edited on 6-1-2004 by 2legit2quit]
I have listen to it twice: I thought there were a couple of things that Bahnsen had a hard time with (like the existence of the soul), but he was right in saying that it had nothing to do with the debate. he didn't prepare to debate the existence of the soul, but the existence of God.
Overall, I thought the atheist lost. (to put it nicely.)
also I heard that he has some written debates and more audio ones. Where can I find these?
[Edited on 6-1-2004 by 2legit2quit]
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
Actually Paul, wouldn't the form for the TA be:
~Y => ~X (and therefore a contradiction)
:. X => Y
Proof by contradiction, in other words, which is an indirect proof.
For example:
A = Logic
B = Morality
C = Science
D = Christianity
We seek to prove (A and B and C) => D. However, this cannot be done directly, so we do a proof by contradiction. We assume ~D, and then find that we have contradicted A, B, and C, therefore proving that (A and B and C) => D.
[Edited on 6-2-2004 by KenKienow]
~Y => ~X (and therefore a contradiction)
:. X => Y
Proof by contradiction, in other words, which is an indirect proof.
For example:
A = Logic
B = Morality
C = Science
D = Christianity
We seek to prove (A and B and C) => D. However, this cannot be done directly, so we do a proof by contradiction. We assume ~D, and then find that we have contradicted A, B, and C, therefore proving that (A and B and C) => D.
[Edited on 6-2-2004 by KenKienow]
FrozenChosen
Puritan Board Freshman
I have always seen apologetics not as some kind of "twist-your-arm-into-making-you-convert" practice, but as a suitable defense of the faith, and a method by which other "faiths" are undermined.
Apologists can be hot-heads, that's for sure, but so can pastors, elders, deacons, evangelists, and any Christian in general.
A person trying to follow an idea and making mistakes in that path does not discredit the idea in and of itself.
If that was the case, we'd be fools for being Christians.
Apologists can be hot-heads, that's for sure, but so can pastors, elders, deacons, evangelists, and any Christian in general.
A person trying to follow an idea and making mistakes in that path does not discredit the idea in and of itself.
If that was the case, we'd be fools for being Christians.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Hello Friends,
I am new to this board (although I have been coming to the other site for years). I am broadly presupp and so I can empathize with the person advocating Bill Craig. I have listened to the Stein debate several dozen times. I recently listened to Bahnsen debate former ACLU lawyer Eddie Tabash. In my opinion Bahnsen won, but by a much narrower margin. For those who have listened to it more than I have, what were Bahnsen's strong and weak points of the debate? From what I gather, Tabash's main argument was that God was evil for sending people to hell, ad nauseum. Bahnsen replied Tabash's worldview could not account for morality. Is there anything else that I missed?
I am new to this board (although I have been coming to the other site for years). I am broadly presupp and so I can empathize with the person advocating Bill Craig. I have listened to the Stein debate several dozen times. I recently listened to Bahnsen debate former ACLU lawyer Eddie Tabash. In my opinion Bahnsen won, but by a much narrower margin. For those who have listened to it more than I have, what were Bahnsen's strong and weak points of the debate? From what I gather, Tabash's main argument was that God was evil for sending people to hell, ad nauseum. Bahnsen replied Tabash's worldview could not account for morality. Is there anything else that I missed?
2legit2quit
Puritan Board Freshman
the old toothpaste proof for the existence of God. that goes well with the "crackers in the pantry fallacy" from the Stein debate. Also what is with him refering to himself in the third person?
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
I actually have the Bahnsen/Tabash stomping...I mean debate on video. I liked the part where Bahnsen said that he knows people that can be real a$$es.
In all seriousness I thought Tabash made a horrible showing. He kept fumbling around with arguments and restating the same ones (seemed like he ran out of material before his time was up). I actually played this for my atheist/naturalist boss on a road trip once. He wanted me to stop it after 45 minutes because he admitted that Tabash was getting his lunch ate.
My thoughts of Tabash were a little kid stomping his feet with his nose wrinkled up and arms crossed refusing to eat his peas. "But it's good for you...". "But I don't like it!"
I don't like God ergo God doesn't exist.
In all seriousness I thought Tabash made a horrible showing. He kept fumbling around with arguments and restating the same ones (seemed like he ran out of material before his time was up). I actually played this for my atheist/naturalist boss on a road trip once. He wanted me to stop it after 45 minutes because he admitted that Tabash was getting his lunch ate.
My thoughts of Tabash were a little kid stomping his feet with his nose wrinkled up and arms crossed refusing to eat his peas. "But it's good for you...". "But I don't like it!"
I don't like God ergo God doesn't exist.
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
I'm still waiting on a reply from him, he said that he had a "juicy" email ready for me, probably the most "thought provoking one yet", but his computer crashed, so he's going to recover it this weekend and send it to me. I haven't sent more stuff to him yet, I didn't want to bring up more stuff without giving him the chance to respond first. By the way, thanks again for commenting on our correspondence Paul, it was very helpful.
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
I listened to the Bahnsen-Tabash debate last night, and I was very disappointed in it. Of course, Bahnsen was superb. Tabash was the problem. The guy was not qualified at all to engage in a debate at Bahnsen's level. Tabash's statement that he actually believes his principle of interpreting the world, which is the empiricist "we know truth by sense-perception" approach, is empirically verifiable just blew me away. Bahnsen's response was hilarious: "Now I'm convinced that Tabash's theory of knowledge reduces to complete absurdity." 
Overall, I didn't get anything really meaningful out of the debate. I felt that Bahnsen's debate with Gordon Stein was much better, even though Stein wasn't able to deal with the transcendental argument either.
I would have loved to hear Bahnsen debate Michael Martin. But of course, Martin chickened out. Too bad we'll never know what would have happened.
Overall, I didn't get anything really meaningful out of the debate. I felt that Bahnsen's debate with Gordon Stein was much better, even though Stein wasn't able to deal with the transcendental argument either.
I would have loved to hear Bahnsen debate Michael Martin. But of course, Martin chickened out. Too bad we'll never know what would have happened.
2legit2quit
Puritan Board Freshman
Recently I have been looking at getting Martin's books on Atheism, which, if anyone has read them, would you guys recommend?
Also, are there any books out there that contain a critique of the Transcendental argument, because from what I have seen--especially from peering into the Martin books--no one ever deals with the transcendental argument.
Also, are there any books out there that contain a critique of the Transcendental argument, because from what I have seen--especially from peering into the Martin books--no one ever deals with the transcendental argument.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I am about to get either this one or the smaller one where Bahnsen deals with Martin. Paul, is it really that good? I have listened to a few Bahnsen lectures where he annihilates his opponentes written responses to his beliefs. I am in the mood for a stomping. Secondly, I also want to improve my ability to analyze written responses more criticallyl.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I just picked up the first lecture of Bahnsen's dissection of Martin. It is well-worth it. I can't wait to get to the other lectures. I find the small-tidbits of presuppositonalism in this one to be really helpful, besides his overall point of the seminar.
Thanks for introducing it to me.
Thanks for introducing it to me.
Apologist4Him
Puritan Board Freshman
I watched the Bahnsen/Tabash debate for the first time a couple of days ago on DVD, and your post captured my thoughts exactly. In the question and answer session, Bahnsen's responses to Tabash's pointed and emotive arguments exposing them as pure nonesene, at one point almost caused me to feel sorry for Tabash. Well, almost...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
