Isnt it a shame that bahnson embarreses christians by demonstrating that Christians need childish word games cos he can't provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god.
I recognize this video! I taped it the year I was doing videography work for Gary North. It was at something called the Life Preparation Conference. It must have been the summer of 1992.
Thanks for taping these! I was present at this conference in 1991, 1992, and 1993. I could be wrong, but I believe this one was from 1991 at the University of Alabama.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Because there's no deductive arguments worth their salt that conclude with "therefore the christian god uniquely exists" or "therefore non-christian worldviews are impossible on pain of p & ~p". Also, ontological, cosmological, transcendental, etc. arguments at best demonstrate the validity of the Spinozist worldview (which is what I hold), but that's a far shy from "therefore there's a necessary supernatural being with intentional states and Jesus was his son".
The way that you're dismissing the Christian worldview because "there are no deductive arguments that uniquely prove the Christian God exists" only shows that you're completely misunderstanding the nature of Transcendental arguments. They're going to be deductive, by nature. The Transcendental Argument for the Christian God works by comparing two competing systems (worldviews). Theism vs Atheism. By reductio ad absurdum, it proves God must exist by the impossibility of the contrary (since all Atheist worldviews cannot justify knowledge claims). If you want a descriptor showing why all Atheist worldviews cannot justify knowledge claims, just look into Agrippa's Trilemma. Keep in mind, it presupposes philosophical Atheism (God doesn't exist). Now, once you've established God does exist... it is then a SEPARATE debate to establish which religion describes God accurately. The Christian God is the only God with the properties and attributes that could possibly serve as a Transcendental which provides justification for the laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc... The other religions describe a type of "god" that could not possibly fulfill that role, which establishes a contradiction and is therefore false. And keep in mind, there can only be one true worldview. There can only be one ultimate, absolute Transcendental which can possibly produce justification for knowledge... so just by the fact that the Christian God fulfills that role, it then automatically disqualifies all other religions. There cannot be two or more conflicting, true worldviews with differing Transcendentals that provide justification for all knowledge. That just cannot happen... it's kind of a unique situation with Transcendental arguments in that sense. There can only be one worldview that describes objective reality correctly.
@My Bad I guess I missed it. Wasn't into tech then and not much now. I still refuse to buy a spy machine aka a cell phone. I'm sure there were many warning of this type of stuff.
Basic training for the defense of the faith, carried out by one of the great giants of the faith. Unknown here in Brazil, but he was well known for his debates in America. Marcos Lopez - Brazil
Are you kidding. If christianity has been forced to resort to these childish word games because a total lack of CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of god then its time to give up and become an atheist.
Excellent video! Very informative and so much truth spoken by Dr. Bahnsen. Random note: Regarding the opening about smoke alarms on airplanes, People who are addicted to smoking cigarettes may attempt to disable the smoke alarm in the bathroom to smoke a few drags from a cigarette. It's something they likely experience as people who run airplanes.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Naw kiddy i watched this video a long long time ago. Ive been laughing at you pitiful dishonest presuppers for 8 years! Gimme a timestamp of somerhing true in this pathetic video! Or clearly there's nothing!
@@lightbeforethetunnel You're right, this is a very informative resource. I'm getting ready to put together a page (Wordpress) by showing how DD contradicts Bahnsen's statements. It's in the making at this very moment, soon to be cocked & loaded.
@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE Awesome, I'll check that out when it's done. I've started on a video in which I show that Darth Dawkins does all the exact same things that he gets so mad at atheists for in his meta monologues, particularly when his Cosmology is questioned.
You too can always be prepared by simply assuming that whatever you believe is correct and that those who disagree just don't understand that they're purposefully fooling themselves.
He actually argues that you DO understand the truth of his arguments (and the created order pointing to God, etc.) but because of the hardness of your heart you refuse to repent and believe.
@@shanelyons9966 Thank you for writing. You're certainly correct and I should have written that those who disagree just don't understand that they are refusing to face the self-apparent truth. The problem is that Paul's opinion in Romans 1 about people burying the truth, which is his attempt to rationalize the fact that not everyone shares his beliefs, is not a justifiable argument. Dr. Bahnson accepts it because he believes that Paul was inspired by God when he wrote it and so it can be considered to be true. The entire foundation for Paul and Dr. Bahnsen's belief in this idea is nothing beyond the fact that they believe it. The fact is that belief alone is a terrible way to determine the truth, which is no doubt why Hebrews 1:11 insists that faith alone is not evidence of the reality of the thing that's believed in. Nothing about what Dr Bahnsen insists is true is in any way demonstrable or verifiable and he believes he knows more about how others think than they themselves do because he accepts the early church's proclamation that the Bible was inspired by God and therefore inerrant so that believing what it says is itself conclusive evidence that what it says is true. It treats believing and knowing as though they were synonyms, and they definitely are not. This why I wrote what I did. For Dr. Bahnsen, simply believing in what he does allows him to easily dismiss any arguments opposed to what he believes, no matter how sound. It's a brilliantly tragic strategy for maintaining beliefs.
@@blueglassdave Beliefs can be wrong, Bahnsen would grant you that. Paul wasn’t simply writing his beliefs. He was writing what he knew to be true under divine inspiration. Bahnsen then argues that the Bible is divinely inspired because the contrary to that worldview foundation is a worldview with no foundation. Unless you ground your knowledge in the mind of God, you cannot know anything. You said something about Bahnsen being able to dismiss any arguments that oppose him. Aren’t you doing the same thing? Bahnsen’s argument opposed your view, so you dismiss it for such and such reason. Your argument opposes Bahnsen’s view, so he dismisses it for such and such reason. This is what rational debate is. Being overly skeptical results in you having to be skeptical of being overly skeptical, something that you would do well to try.
@@shanelyons9966 Thank you for the advice. What you're saying is that I'm being "overly" skeptical to be skeptical of a doctrine, created by an increasingly powerful and wealthy religious leadership, insisting that the books which they themselves chose for the Canon were, in reality, inspired by God and inerrant. These being the same books which these Church Leaders insist confirms their claim that they have been made infallible by God in matters of faith and morals thus making it impossible for them to be wrong about this or any other doctrines which they declare to be true. If skepticism of that belief falls under your definition of being overly skeptical, we may have reached an impasse. With all due respect, the claim that "Paul wasn’t simply writing his beliefs. He was writing what he knew to be true under divine inspiration." is an example of what I am saying. Neither Dr. Bahnsen nor anyone else "knows" that Paul was inspired or that his belief on what people know about God is actually true. Dr. Bahnsen "believes" that what Paul wrote was inspired and true so when you write that Paul "knew" what he was writing was true, you're treating knowing and believing as synonyms. Again, over several of the early centuries, various leaders of the Church, in a fairly tumultuous selection process, gradually developed the belief that the books which they accepted as scripture were inspired by God. They then made this an official doctrine which all Christians must accept or risk eternal punishment. That's it, that's all. Human beings, with, incidentally, a lot to gain, created the doctrine of inspiration and the Church, both Catholic and most Protestants, has been insisting on it ever since. How many of those early Bishops actually believed it is unknowable, of course. To be clear, I've listened to Dr. Bahnsen's presentation, as well as those of many other pre-suppositionalists, so there's no need to summarize any of it for me. Whether it's Bruggencate or Till or Bahnsen etc..., I don't find the insistence that all knowledge must be grounded in the Christian God or the insistence that I can't know anything but I can know that God has given me faith, to be even slightly credible as they're based solely in the belief that the Bible is inspired. Believing that the NT is inerrant truth as insisted upon by religious leaders convinced of their own infallibility is not a rational argument. I'm not, of course, insisting that people who hold undem0onstrable beliefs are not rational people, but arguments based solely in belief are not convincing arguments in a rational debate. Unlike what I wrote about this particular belief of Dr. Bahnsen, I don't simply dismiss arguments I don't agree with, so I don't believe I am "doing the same thing" When a person gives "such and such" reasons for why they reject an argument, they are not dismissing it simply because they disagree with it. I'm absolutely open to considering an argument opposed to something I believe but the person presenting it needs to provide some evidence beyond their belief that they're right and I'm wrong or that a group of religious leaders are correct when they declare themselves to be infallible and that therefore their declaration that the Bible is inspired cannot be wrong.
@@blueglassdave the evidence is that if you deny inspiration and inerrancy (as you do), then you cannot know anything at all. What you do know could contradict what you think you know. So you have no avenue to certainty unless you regiment your thinking according to God’s word as the final standard of what is true.
4:01:50 If I'm not mistaken then there are tribes who do not have this concept of collectives. They do not know knives as they know all knives they made individually and they know how they differ in function and appearance. Same with rivers. They are landmarks to orientate oneself but they are not a collective. I probably overstated my case here, but concepts of abstraction and collective is not a given. We just take it for granted because we use it that much.
I don't considered him as a good philosopher of religion but he is enough to end New Atheists worldview.His debate against Stein should had been the end of "say no to philosophy" atheism.
Thank you for providing this resource, I’ve been working my way through the Bahnsen apologetics and have been greatly blessed its a shame he didn’t stand strongly for the King James Bible and the preserved texts its always such a glaring hole and blind spot of the critical text guys, if you presuppose a God that revealed himself and in that revelation promised that the words would not pass away how could you possibly then go onto support the critical text which is based on the presupposition that Gods word can be treated as any other book and the harder reading is to be preferred?
@@GeorgeLiavas I would have to study a little more to articulate clearly on the canon. There is Greg Bahnsen sermon on the canon which discusses the various historical approach’s to its establishment. I liked a few points - The uniqueness of the concept of the canon cannot be skirted and made like any other problem. We must distinguish between the origin of the canon which is of God vs the recognition of the canon. The Church is a result of the canon not the other way round. What is your view of the canon?
@@exjwukmusicalescape9241 the canon is a result of the tradition of the church. The liturgy and the lectionaries were major decision makers in the canonization of the scripture. Scripture is a liturgical text and cannot be divorced from the church. Namely the Orthodox Church.
@@GeorgeLiavas What is the result of that view of the canon? What Bible do you use? Do you believe it is the final authority on fundamentals like justification/salvation by grace by faith not works?
@@exjwukmusicalescape9241 we accept the deuterocanon. We accept the ecumenical councils as authoritative. The scriptures do not contradict. You cannot have scriptures without a normative authority which Christ established that can be found in history through apostolic succession to bind you to which texts are valid and which are not. Salvation is for us a process and requires synergy. I encourage you to watch a few Jay Dyer videos. He tackles these issues all the time. You can find his channel on TH-cam under his name Jay Dyer.
Aside from being extremely divisive and stoking extremism he was doing alright until part two. That’s when this goes off the rails. No one makes those kind of assumptions. He has to resort to pure solipsism to make Christianity seem sane by comparison. People make judgements about their world based on inductive logic that there is a Bayesian probability that the world will continue to behave in a consistent way. Because it has A countless number of times already in the past. It’s pragmatic, not idealistic.
2:00:00 is a particularly nasty and hateful rant. You’d think a man this educated would be able to hear the tribalism and childish black and white thinking of this repugnant dogma which has no basis in reality.
@@mmarie7532 Trolling, exactly as the religions have been doing! For millennia and we have been forced to listen to the crap from these lying religions everywhere! [we hear the same krap over and over - the same unproven rubbish - for 2000+ years (usually at the point of a sword, or on the stake)] constant repetition of the same old lies!!!
- in our courts - and in government meetings - and in our public schools and you try this hypocrisy of calling others 'trolls'??? - just pure arrogance!!!
@@briendoyle4680 The children of God know who their Father is. Do not worry about that sir. Worry about not knowing Him. Does your father need to prove his love for you to me? No, but you know he does. (If that is the case ofcourse. If not than I ask you to forgive me for using this example.)
If you only listened to 2 mins of a 4 hour long video, and think you have any basis by which to make an intelligent judgment on it, then you only publicly demonstrate your bias and your lack of desire to actually understand the position of those who disagree with you.
@@jonfaughn9575 That is generally how Atheists reason. They demonstrate ignorance combined with arrogance often and they seem to be proud of it. Atheism = Dunning-Kruger Effect in a nutshell
The Bible 'book' = a compendium of fire side tales and fables, recounted orally , for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age, until writing was invented, and then, many different sources, transliterations, and versions were copied and written down.. ''The Bible was created during a time where stories were verbally passed down over hundreds of years. Stories constantly morphed and changed over time, and the Bible is a collection of these. This is why it has the nearly identical flood story from Gilgamesh, and why Jesus has the same characteristics as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, and Krishna. The contradictions and immorality in the stories are not evidence that God is flawed or evil, but rather that humans invented him, just like the thousands of other gods that we used to, but no longer believe in.'' ..and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe, like 'thunder' and earthquakes, since there was no science yet. That was the old Testament.. The new Testes is also hearsay since these letters, 'gospels' and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus. There is essentially very little evidence of a Jesus in real documented history. A couple of spurious Roman reports, and all the rest anecdotal. ...but more importantly ...a jesus' existence is not an issue! A jesus is irrelevant without a god ! Then, many of these stories, but not all, as many were not chosen, [ There are more than just four Gospels but only these four were agreed on ], were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor in his Nicean Council, for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognised that this was the perfect religion/mythology for the future domination of the populaces. Half of the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops and none have been proven to be based on fact. This 'Bable' book is backed up by absolutely no facts and no evidence. It is not proof for any god(s) ....(or of any jesus as a god...) The fables are intertwined within historical places and people... eg Egypt and the Pharaohs existed, whereas Moses and the Exodus did not happen...! It is a historical novel .... ie A book of fiction... Only! The Bible book is proof of a book ... ONLY (certainly not evidence of any gods...) PROVE a god!
The truth is that your will is to suppress the truth of God, and there is an inability for you to free yourself from doing it. Only the grace of God can set you free. I pray that you are given grace and freed.
@Joshua Opoku Hahaha First of all, don't attempt to reverse the burden of evidence. You make a positive claim and we don't believe it, so it's up to you to support your claim with evidence. It is Not a logical concept to 'dis'-prove that which has not been proven, First! Second, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Furthermore, absence of evidence when your hypothesis claims that there should indeed be evidence is strong evidence of absence.
@ I checked some of the scriptures and ASV 1901 does not seem to match at least Word for Word. I haven’t been able to find the version that he is using
Great resource to work with, thanks for posting.
This is such an important lecture thanks for uploading. If this had 100+ million views this world would be a better place.
Yeah and far fewer Christians when it's clear what pitiful childish word games they need cos you havnt got any credible evidence of your god.
What a GREAT RESOURCE! Thank you very much!
Isnt it a shame that bahnson embarreses christians by demonstrating that Christians need childish word games cos he can't provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god.
Very interesting the comments he is making about AI especially how fast it is advancing now!
Such Good truthful teachings how blessed we are to still have Dr Bansens teaching to learn from
Oh dear. How pitiful you must be to think that was good.
Peace in Christ! ✝️
Bahnsen. Keep it alive on TH-cam. Thank you for doing your part.
I recognize this video! I taped it the year I was doing videography work for Gary North. It was at something called the Life Preparation Conference. It must have been the summer of 1992.
hi, do you have the ful video ?
You the bomb baby. Thank you for your contribution.
Thanks for taping these! I was present at this conference in 1991, 1992, and 1993. I could be wrong, but I believe this one was from 1991 at the University of Alabama.
This is really awesome. The best way to live is to invest the gospel of Jesus in the lives of men.
Thank u LORD for giving the church this man
Why? Isnt he an embarresment to you?
Nice profile pic
I love this, thanks! Greg Bahnsen is like no other, his sermon audio page is such a great blessing to me. HalleluYaH
Agreed
Sorry and what is his sermon audio page?
Hallelujah
What audio page?
@@mattverville9227 Sermon Audio it’s an app
Praise God
Epic, very much needed for street witnessesing
I'm a fairly staunch atheist and even I respect tf out of Bahnsen, the dude was a legend and a force to be reckoned with.
Honest question: How can you be aware of lectures like these and still be a staunch atheist?
@@lightbeforethetunnel Because there's no deductive arguments worth their salt that conclude with "therefore the christian god uniquely exists" or "therefore non-christian worldviews are impossible on pain of p & ~p". Also, ontological, cosmological, transcendental, etc. arguments at best demonstrate the validity of the Spinozist worldview (which is what I hold), but that's a far shy from "therefore there's a necessary supernatural being with intentional states and Jesus was his son".
@@DarrenMcStravick Isn't the Spinozist worldview a Monism-based worldview?
The way that you're dismissing the Christian worldview because "there are no deductive arguments that uniquely prove the Christian God exists" only shows that you're completely misunderstanding the nature of Transcendental arguments.
They're going to be deductive, by nature. The Transcendental Argument for the Christian God works by comparing two competing systems (worldviews). Theism vs Atheism. By reductio ad absurdum, it proves God must exist by the impossibility of the contrary (since all Atheist worldviews cannot justify knowledge claims).
If you want a descriptor showing why all Atheist worldviews cannot justify knowledge claims, just look into Agrippa's Trilemma. Keep in mind, it presupposes philosophical Atheism (God doesn't exist).
Now, once you've established God does exist... it is then a SEPARATE debate to establish which religion describes God accurately. The Christian God is the only God with the properties and attributes that could possibly serve as a Transcendental which provides justification for the laws of logic, uniformity of nature, etc...
The other religions describe a type of "god" that could not possibly fulfill that role, which establishes a contradiction and is therefore false.
And keep in mind, there can only be one true worldview. There can only be one ultimate, absolute Transcendental which can possibly produce justification for knowledge... so just by the fact that the Christian God fulfills that role, it then automatically disqualifies all other religions. There cannot be two or more conflicting, true worldviews with differing Transcendentals that provide justification for all knowledge. That just cannot happen... it's kind of a unique situation with Transcendental arguments in that sense. There can only be one worldview that describes objective reality correctly.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Ha ha ha ha ha. Ive got a serious question for you kiddy. Are you SERIOUSLY convinced by that PITIFUL, childish BOLLOX?
Bahnsen is greatly missed. He called so many things we see today ie. ai etc. back in the 1990s. He was ahead of his time.
@My Bad I guess I missed it. Wasn't into tech then and not much now. I still refuse to buy a spy machine aka a cell phone. I'm sure there were many warning of this type of stuff.
This guy is a postmillenialist and I am very excited and happy to see him on your channel
Basic training for the defense of the faith, carried out by one of the great giants of the faith. Unknown here in Brazil, but he was well known for his debates in America.
Marcos Lopez - Brazil
Amen brother, Bahnsen was a beast! I'll be in Sao Paulo in about 3 weeks. Do you know of any solid Reformed Churches?
This is excellent! Never heard of him. Wow.
Are you kidding. If christianity has been forced to resort to these childish word games because a total lack of CREDIBLE EVIDENCE of god then its time to give up and become an atheist.
Excellent video! Very informative and so much truth spoken by Dr. Bahnsen.
Random note: Regarding the opening about smoke alarms on airplanes, People who are addicted to smoking cigarettes may attempt to disable the smoke alarm in the bathroom to smoke a few drags from a cigarette. It's something they likely experience as people who run airplanes.
Lol where was this truth you ridiculously claim?
@@nickjones5435 In the video you ridiculously reject before watching, as usual (due to your dogmatic zealotry for your pre-existing worldview)
@@lightbeforethetunnel Naw kiddy i watched this video a long long time ago. Ive been laughing at you pitiful dishonest presuppers for 8 years!
Gimme a timestamp of somerhing true in this pathetic video! Or clearly there's nothing!
@@lightbeforethetunnel You're right, this is a very informative resource. I'm getting ready to put together a page (Wordpress) by showing how DD contradicts Bahnsen's statements. It's in the making at this very moment, soon to be cocked & loaded.
@DARTHDAWKINSDEBUNKEDTHEWEBSITE Awesome, I'll check that out when it's done. I've started on a video in which I show that Darth Dawkins does all the exact same things that he gets so mad at atheists for in his meta monologues, particularly when his Cosmology is questioned.
You too can always be prepared by simply assuming that whatever you believe is correct and that those who disagree just don't understand that they're purposefully fooling themselves.
He actually argues that you DO understand the truth of his arguments (and the created order pointing to God, etc.) but because of the hardness of your heart you refuse to repent and believe.
@@shanelyons9966 Thank you for writing. You're certainly correct and I should have written that those who disagree just don't understand that they are refusing to face the self-apparent truth. The problem is that Paul's opinion in Romans 1 about people burying the truth, which is his attempt to rationalize the fact that not everyone shares his beliefs, is not a justifiable argument.
Dr. Bahnson accepts it because he believes that Paul was inspired by God when he wrote it and so it can be considered to be true. The entire foundation for Paul and Dr. Bahnsen's belief in this idea is nothing beyond the fact that they believe it. The fact is that belief alone is a terrible way to determine the truth, which is no doubt why Hebrews 1:11 insists that faith alone is not evidence of the reality of the thing that's believed in. Nothing about what Dr Bahnsen insists is true is in any way demonstrable or verifiable and he believes he knows more about how others think than they themselves do because he accepts the early church's proclamation that the Bible was inspired by God and therefore inerrant so that believing what it says is itself conclusive evidence that what it says is true. It treats believing and knowing as though they were synonyms, and they definitely are not.
This why I wrote what I did. For Dr. Bahnsen, simply believing in what he does allows him to easily dismiss any arguments opposed to what he believes, no matter how sound. It's a brilliantly tragic strategy for maintaining beliefs.
@@blueglassdave
Beliefs can be wrong, Bahnsen would grant you that. Paul wasn’t simply writing his beliefs. He was writing what he knew to be true under divine inspiration. Bahnsen then argues that the Bible is divinely inspired because the contrary to that worldview foundation is a worldview with no foundation. Unless you ground your knowledge in the mind of God, you cannot know anything.
You said something about Bahnsen being able to dismiss any arguments that oppose him. Aren’t you doing the same thing? Bahnsen’s argument opposed your view, so you dismiss it for such and such reason. Your argument opposes Bahnsen’s view, so he dismisses it for such and such reason. This is what rational debate is. Being overly skeptical results in you having to be skeptical of being overly skeptical, something that you would do well to try.
@@shanelyons9966 Thank you for the advice. What you're saying is that I'm being "overly" skeptical to be skeptical of a doctrine, created by an increasingly powerful and wealthy religious leadership, insisting that the books which they themselves chose for the Canon were, in reality, inspired by God and inerrant. These being the same books which these Church Leaders insist confirms their claim that they have been made infallible by God in matters of faith and morals thus making it impossible for them to be wrong about this or any other doctrines which they declare to be true. If skepticism of that belief falls under your definition of being overly skeptical, we may have reached an impasse.
With all due respect, the claim that "Paul wasn’t simply writing his beliefs. He was writing what he knew to be true under divine inspiration." is an example of what I am saying. Neither Dr. Bahnsen nor anyone else "knows" that Paul was inspired or that his belief on what people know about God is actually true. Dr. Bahnsen "believes" that what Paul wrote was inspired and true so when you write that Paul "knew" what he was writing was true, you're treating knowing and believing as synonyms. Again, over several of the early centuries, various leaders of the Church, in a fairly tumultuous selection process, gradually developed the belief that the books which they accepted as scripture were inspired by God. They then made this an official doctrine which all Christians must accept or risk eternal punishment. That's it, that's all. Human beings, with, incidentally, a lot to gain, created the doctrine of inspiration and the Church, both Catholic and most Protestants, has been insisting on it ever since. How many of those early Bishops actually believed it is unknowable, of course.
To be clear, I've listened to Dr. Bahnsen's presentation, as well as those of many other pre-suppositionalists, so there's no need to summarize any of it for me. Whether it's Bruggencate or Till or Bahnsen etc..., I don't find the insistence that all knowledge must be grounded in the Christian God or the insistence that I can't know anything but I can know that God has given me faith, to be even slightly credible as they're based solely in the belief that the Bible is inspired. Believing that the NT is inerrant truth as insisted upon by religious leaders convinced of their own infallibility is not a rational argument. I'm not, of course, insisting that people who hold undem0onstrable beliefs are not rational people, but arguments based solely in belief are not convincing arguments in a rational debate.
Unlike what I wrote about this particular belief of Dr. Bahnsen, I don't simply dismiss arguments I don't agree with, so I don't believe I am "doing the same thing" When a person gives "such and such" reasons for why they reject an argument, they are not dismissing it simply because they disagree with it. I'm absolutely open to considering an argument opposed to something I believe but the person presenting it needs to provide some evidence beyond their belief that they're right and I'm wrong or that a group of religious leaders are correct when they declare themselves to be infallible and that therefore their declaration that the Bible is inspired cannot be wrong.
@@blueglassdave the evidence is that if you deny inspiration and inerrancy (as you do), then you cannot know anything at all. What you do know could contradict what you think you know. So you have no avenue to certainty unless you regiment your thinking according to God’s word as the final standard of what is true.
Remember this about neutrality: 1. They aren’t and 2. you shouldn’t be
4:01:50 If I'm not mistaken then there are tribes who do not have this concept of collectives. They do not know knives as they know all knives they made individually and they know how they differ in function and appearance. Same with rivers. They are landmarks to orientate oneself but they are not a collective. I probably overstated my case here, but concepts of abstraction and collective is not a given. We just take it for granted because we use it that much.
Nice vibe it's like being part of a classroom in the 80s lol
Does anyone know what location and date this was?
I don't considered him as a good philosopher of religion but he is enough to end New Atheists worldview.His debate against Stein should had been the end of "say no to philosophy" atheism.
4:05:58 literally happens Spirited Away
We see Christ returning in judgement. AMEN!
_Hey Tom Rabbit! I hope you got this for your recording. Hey TH-cam out there! Tom Rabbit likes to record these! Heeey!_
Lol Darth Dawkins
Thank you for providing this resource, I’ve been working my way through the Bahnsen apologetics and have been greatly blessed its a shame he didn’t stand strongly for the King James Bible and the preserved texts its always such a glaring hole and blind spot of the critical text guys, if you presuppose a God that revealed himself and in that revelation promised that the words would not pass away how could you possibly then go onto support the critical text which is based on the presupposition that Gods word can be treated as any other book and the harder reading is to be preferred?
Do you know anything about the formation of the canon of scripture?
@@GeorgeLiavas I would have to study a little more to articulate clearly on the canon. There is Greg Bahnsen sermon on the canon which discusses the various historical approach’s to its establishment. I liked a few points - The uniqueness of the concept of the canon cannot be skirted and made like any other problem. We must distinguish between the origin of the canon which is of God vs the recognition of the canon. The Church is a result of the canon not the other way round. What is your view of the canon?
@@exjwukmusicalescape9241 the canon is a result of the tradition of the church. The liturgy and the lectionaries were major decision makers in the canonization of the scripture. Scripture is a liturgical text and cannot be divorced from the church. Namely the Orthodox Church.
@@GeorgeLiavas What is the result of that view of the canon? What Bible do you use? Do you believe it is the final authority on fundamentals like justification/salvation by grace by faith not works?
@@exjwukmusicalescape9241 we accept the deuterocanon. We accept the ecumenical councils as authoritative. The scriptures do not contradict. You cannot have scriptures without a normative authority which Christ established that can be found in history through apostolic succession to bind you to which texts are valid and which are not. Salvation is for us a process and requires synergy. I encourage you to watch a few Jay Dyer videos. He tackles these issues all the time. You can find his channel on TH-cam under his name Jay Dyer.
He was wrong about AI but the rest is still solid. AI can "Imitate" just about anything unfortunately, just without a proper connection to God.
What a demon, to want interesting and thrilling things...
Is that a hair piece?
If it is I want one.
Aside from being extremely divisive and stoking extremism he was doing alright until part two. That’s when this goes off the rails.
No one makes those kind of assumptions. He has to resort to pure solipsism to make Christianity seem sane by comparison.
People make judgements about their world based on inductive logic that there is a Bayesian probability that the world will continue to behave in a consistent way. Because it has A countless number of times already in the past.
It’s pragmatic, not idealistic.
2:00:00 is a particularly nasty and hateful rant.
You’d think a man this educated would be able to hear the tribalism and childish black and white thinking of this repugnant dogma which has no basis in reality.
2:16:35
xX
'faith' = A lack of evidence!
@Chris Cassidy It does not get more dumdum than this!
[does that krap actually work with your deluded parishioners??]
@@mmarie7532 Trolling, exactly as the religions have been doing!
For millennia
and we have been forced to listen to the crap from these lying religions everywhere!
[we hear the same krap over and over - the same unproven rubbish -
for 2000+ years
(usually at the point of a sword, or on the stake)]
constant repetition of the same old lies!!!
- in our courts
- and in government meetings
- and in our public schools
and you try this hypocrisy of calling others 'trolls'??? - just pure arrogance!!!
@Chris Cassidy We have what are called 'facts'!
Prove a god
OR
shut up!
@@briendoyle4680 The children of God know who their Father is. Do not worry about that sir. Worry about not knowing Him. Does your father need to prove his love for you to me? No, but you know he does. (If that is the case ofcourse. If not than I ask you to forgive me for using this example.)
@@thomasvanderplas1652 Hahaha - in other words - useless words - you admit that you cannot prove your silly claims...
How senseless... If the other 4 hours were like the first 2 minutes smfh
If you only listened to 2 mins of a 4 hour long video, and think you have any basis by which to make an intelligent judgment on it, then you only publicly demonstrate your bias and your lack of desire to actually understand the position of those who disagree with you.
@@jonfaughn9575 That is generally how Atheists reason. They demonstrate ignorance combined with arrogance often and they seem to be proud of it. Atheism = Dunning-Kruger Effect in a nutshell
No it gets far worse as it goes
@@jonfaughn9575 Oh, really? You know so much after reading one sentence :)
The Bible 'book' = a compendium of fire side tales and fables,
recounted orally ,
for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age,
until writing was invented,
and then, many different sources, transliterations, and versions were copied and written down..
''The Bible was created during a time where stories were verbally passed down over hundreds of years.
Stories constantly morphed and changed over time, and the Bible is a collection of these.
This is why it has the nearly identical flood story from Gilgamesh, and why Jesus has the same characteristics as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, and Krishna.
The contradictions and immorality in the stories are not evidence that God is flawed or evil,
but rather that humans invented him, just like the thousands of other gods that we used to, but no longer believe in.''
..and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe, like 'thunder' and earthquakes, since there was no science yet.
That was the old Testament..
The new Testes is also hearsay since these letters, 'gospels' and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers,
not by objective historians at that particular time,
or by any contemporary writers,
and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus.
There is essentially very little evidence of a Jesus in real documented history.
A couple of spurious Roman reports, and all the rest anecdotal.
...but more importantly ...a jesus' existence is not an issue!
A jesus is irrelevant without a god !
Then, many of these stories, but not all, as many were not chosen,
[ There are more than just four Gospels but only these four were agreed on ],
were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor in his Nicean Council,
for his expressed purpose of conquest
and
control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire.
He recognised that this was the perfect religion/mythology for the future domination of the populaces.
Half of the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops and none have been proven to be based on fact.
This 'Bable' book is backed up by absolutely no facts and no evidence.
It is not proof for any god(s) ....(or of any jesus as a god...)
The fables are intertwined within historical places and people...
eg Egypt and the Pharaohs existed,
whereas Moses and the Exodus did not happen...!
It is a historical novel
.... ie A book of fiction...
Only!
The Bible book is proof of a book ... ONLY (certainly not evidence of any gods...)
PROVE a god!
The truth is that your will is to suppress the truth of God, and there is an inability for you to free yourself from doing it. Only the grace of God can set you free. I pray that you are given grace and freed.
@Joshua Opoku The standard? You have no evidence to prove a god...
@@MrNanonen and still no proof of your gods...
@Joshua Opoku Hahaha
First of all, don't attempt to reverse the burden of evidence.
You make a positive claim and we don't believe it, so it's up to you to support your claim with evidence.
It is Not a logical concept to 'dis'-prove that which has not been proven, First!
Second, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
Furthermore, absence of evidence when your hypothesis claims that there should indeed be evidence is strong evidence of absence.
@Joshua Opoku
Yep, y'all jest kip etin' them thar smart pills....
''ah done sayd that thar is muh gawd - so that thars ma pruf...''.
What version of Bible is he reading when he reads scripture. I can't find it. It is not KJV
ASV 1901
@ thx
@ I checked some of the scriptures and ASV 1901 does not seem to match at least Word for Word. I haven’t been able to find the version that he is using