George Smith who wrote the book Atheism, The Case Against God sure sounds like most of the atheists that I currently know. Big surprise George is a huge fan of Richard Dawkins who as Carl Packman said "Dawkins, in choosing a form of firebrand fundamentalist atheism over the discipline science, is no longer the champion of reason but rather a kind of evangelical against religion"
This a brilliant discussion and I am sure many would agree. I agree with Sye TenBruggencate that Dr. Greg Bahnsen is the most brilliant man I have ever heard speak. That will be a glorious day, it will make me very happy, to meet Dr. Bahnsen someday soon.
Incidentally, I Googled the address that Dr. Bahnsen gave and found some articles that I thought many would find interesting.
Also, there is a plethora of lectures that Dr. Behnsen made available to us as mp3's at that address. Two available free:
War, Is It Ever Justified: Radio Talk Show with Greg L. Bahnsen
The Road to Rome, Was the Reformation Right?, by Greg L. Bahnsen
Hmm... I just saw those videos. I never thought about it that way before. I guess God has to exist in order to account for logic and reason. I never thought about that before.
ReplyDeleteThat can't be right though... I need to think about this.
Kaitlyn, according to your worldview, how can you think? You can lead an atheist to evidence...but you can't make him think!
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to account for my thinking according to my worldview.
ReplyDeleteI think Dan has good point here. I never thought of atheism in those terms before.
Maybe God has to exist. That doesn't sound right though...
The claims in "Foreordination and Moral Accountability" just do not work. (Each tries to address the obvious reason why the previous one fails.) This will only convince someone who is already convinced or someone who is just willing to take the conclusion at face value.
ReplyDeleteIn the first claim, he states that accountability is fair because the actual actions are supposedly chosen freely. (Foreordination denies even this; but let that pass.) The "requirement" is unmeetable and so accountability is a sham. If you present me a board consisting of 100 squares, each with a red dot and inform me that it is my obligation to place my piece on a square of the board without a red dot and that I will be severely tortured if I fail to do so, then you are responsible for the failure, not I.
Next he endeavors to address the concept of culpability while incapacitated by speaking of voluntary incapacity. But, again, there is nothing voluntary about the incapacity. To use my analogy, I did not fill the board with red dots.
Finally, he talks about it being acceptable to impute responsibilty to people for the actions of their acknowledged representatives. This is somewhat unfair; but, as limited beings, we cannot remove the unfairness completely. People won't think much of the NCAA example because post season games are not that important (and there is always next year.) A more common illustration is a leader of a country that draws it into a devastating war. This is decidedly unfair the people that did not desire those actions on the part of the representative. But it gets worse. Who instituted the representative? Why, the very being who is punishing mankind for his actions. For my example, it is as though you appointed a representative "for me," whom I never acknowledged, who promptly filled that board with red dots. Indeed, it could be argued that you chose the representative with malicious intent.
What makes Bahnsen brilliant?
ReplyDeleteIncidentlly, the link to the Youtube video for this post is broken.
Sure get my hopes up Poe, Er I mean Kaitlyn.
ReplyDeletePvblivs,
You are ahead of me. I posted the articles now I need to read them. Of course I took it on faith that Dr. Bahnsen knew what he is talking about. He sure did in that "War, Is It Ever Justified" audio. Spot on! I will try to catch up.
Hm, I started reading from one of the "Foreordination" articles, and found myself underwhelmed by it.
ReplyDeleteThe issue he was discussing was free will against the biblical truth of foreordination. Apparently we do have true free will, but our choices have already been made up by God. Still, we "make" the choices, thus we have "free will", although we cannot make the choice that would conflict with what has been foreordained.
[unconvincedface]. To accept his argument, I already need to acknowledge that God is omnipotent and is able to twist the laws of logic to his favor. Not there yet :/
Right now, "You can't be absolutely sure that free will isn't free just because you have no free will by our human definition and are foreordained to do the things you do because God is so awesome" doesn't quite cut it.
I'm thinking of attending an Alpha course dinner tonight to meet some new local people. Anyone been to one before?
Kaitlyn's not a poe, Dan, and you'd know that if you took the time to look the term up.
ReplyDeleteShe may be being sincere, or she may be being sarcastic; I don't know which.
Incidentally, for someone so concerned about saving atheist souls from eternal hellfire, your cynicism seems to be revealing a different side of your motivation...
Logic is the way the system thinks.
ReplyDeleteWe are living in some kind of Warshowski's Matrix. A gigantic digital universe simulation using very advanced technology above and completely beyond our capacity to understand (because of course, we are just AI units part of the system).
All 'revelations' and 'religions' are injected by our creators into the system because our creators do not want to have the attention of their own AI's. That's why there are so many belief systems: they want those systems to compete with each other.
See, the constant nagging of our 'prayers' would be intolerable for any intelligence to bear. So they want us to pray to /dev/null instead.
Now, it is imperative that you do not believe me, because otherwise I might get deleted when you would start praying to them. Our creators do obviously not want their privacy invaded by their own creations. Sorry, can't tell you more, have already told you too much. Please don't believe me.
Nobody can debunk this theory. And you know, the inverse is impossible.
Because a gigantic digital universe is the only way logic can be at the same time abstract and "universal" / "invariant" and not just a human-made mental model for thinking.
But please ignore previous proof.
There you have it. A more consistent theory of the universe than Sye's if you accept logic to be "universal", "invariant" and abstract. A computer system.
I'll take "Twist scripture to support my position" for $200 please Alex ... meh
ReplyDeleteBahnsen is no more impressive than Sye.
Anyone know of a way I can claim back the 53+ minutes I wasted listening to Bahnsen fail to make a case for a just cause for war.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe second of the '10 best evidences for Creation' is;
"2. Irreducible Complexity
Prepackaged, highly engineered systems exist in our bodies that are so complex they defy evolutionary explanations.
These systems involve integrated multiple parts and reactions that work together only as a whole. If you eliminate any one piece, none of the system works at all.
Evolution supposedly operates by natural selection perfecting less developed systems. However, natural selection requires something working and in place to perfect!
Examples in the human body are the immune system, blood clotting, and any one of hundreds of biochemical pathways."
Would you agree that this is one of the 10 best evidences of Creation?
Regards,
Matt
Wem
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, for someone so concerned about saving atheist souls from eternal hellfire, your cynicism seems to be revealing a different side of your motivation...
Whatever dude. Are you saying that testing the spirit is not biblical? You believe we should take all things at face value? No wonder you question God. Did some passing person say there isn't a God and you right away believed it? Are you saying I should ignore the Bible (1 John 4:1 ) and listen to you? Give us all a break dude.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteWould you like me to do a post about the top 10? It seems to be pressing on your mind and it appears you want to get something off your chest.
I wrote "Incidentally, for someone so concerned about saving atheist souls from eternal hellfire, your cynicism seems to be revealing a different side of your motivation."
ReplyDeleteDan responded Whatever dude. Are you saying that testing the spirit is not biblical?
Well Dan, when Kaitlyn said she was considering whether God is the cause of logic and reason, you responded:
"Sure get my hopes up Poe, Er I mean Kaitlyn."
How, exactly, are you testing the spirit here? Are you really concerned with saving an atheists soul, or (as it appears) are you simply being snarky because you're in a bad mood?
---
Dan wrote Gives us all a break dude
You're the one feeling pressured or harassed or annoyed, Dan. Not "all of us". The minute you actually start showing you're interested in science, and in saving our souls, and in teaching the truth, and even in debunking atheists - as opposed to blathering nonsense and portraying it as wisdom - is the minute you'll find my tone changes.
Until then, you're being treated exactly the same way you treat us: with contempt.
I've been questioning my own atheism ever since I heard that hardcore science has just shown that God exists.
ReplyDeletesource
I can't believe that wasn't an Onion news flash *gob agape*.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in evidence and what it leads to.
If you'd like to do a post on the 10 evidences, that's up to you, it's your blog. I would certainly enjoy discussing it.
Matt
I've been questioning my own atheism ever since I heard that hardcore science has just shown that God exists.
ReplyDeleteGod as a singularity. Interesting. And to what point has the professor proven that this singularity has any intelligence?
Because, showing mathematically that a singularity actually varies and acts upon its own will is... peculiar. Capturing God in a mere formula on a chalkboard.
He says also God is now testable. Can we talk to that singularity now and hear what it says back to us?
Maybe hear it reciting the Qu'ran?
I would be immensely intrigued.
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDelete" Kaitlyn said...
I've been questioning my own atheism ever since I heard that hardcore science has just shown that God exists."
I ordered a "Tipler Cylinder" last week. It should be arriving via UPS in the next couple days.
It would be so awesome to build a rod so long that it stretches across the entire universe and back to the starting point, but the expansion of the universe might make it difficult to keep connected.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I see your point. Just because physics says there has to be a God doesn't mean that the physics itself is correct.
Thank you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"....but the expansion of the universe might make it difficult to keep connected."
ReplyDeleteYes, that problem can easily be solved with the use of BFEJs*.
*Big F****ng Expansion joints.
I've been questioning my own atheism ever since I heard that hardcore science has just shown that God exists.
ReplyDeletesource
There's a book with some stuff about Frank Tippler in it. I think it's called "Why Smart People Believe in Weird Things". I can't find it on my shelf 'cos I lent it out...
We are part of the universe. We cannot look outside of the universe. It is therefore also in our nature, that we never can fully comprehend nature. We would have to bigger than the universe we live in.
ReplyDeleteThose who claim absolute certain knowledge are merely arrogant. Even claiming 100% certainty about even one natural law is impossible. Claiming 100% certainty about logic is impossible. Get a good dose of humility.
There is always a possibility we are a mere simulation in a computer system (the only way our logic is at the same time can be abstract and universal and invariant), which makes us believe what we believe. You can never disprove this theory just as you can never disprove elves in your garden and God.
However, claiming near-absolute certainty, the 99% (I think, therefor I am), is not so arrogant. It's just a matter of not growing insane. Science has that honesty. It never claims absolute truths and allows self-correcting mechanisms, but it does speak with self-confidence. Both a sense of reality and imagination is necessary in science.
Mono-religions, of course, don't deal with honest doubt. They claim the impossibility of the inverse and demand from their followers a manifest lack of imagination (on pain of hell).
That's why, if tomorrow science shows me God, I'll believe. But religion never can coerce me into using the blackmail of hell.
Geert Arys wrote Those who claim absolute certain knowledge are merely arrogant
ReplyDeleteAnd they usually make this claim while accusing non-theists of being self-centered, proud and full of themselves.
Odd you chose Smith as the example here; Bahnsen made a critical error that lost him the entire ball game when he switched from George's beginning of an account for the laws of logic to whether Aristotle was a Crypto-Christian after the radio commercial break.
ReplyDeleteBahnsen thrashed Tabash and routed Stein IMO, those ones are much better.
Darrin,
ReplyDeleteBahnsen thrashed Tabash and routed Stein IMO
I agree, I cannot find the Edward Tabash debate with Bahnsen, but I do not consider him a formidable opponent.
One thing that's true, atheists need better debaters; thing is, we don't really have anyone whose full-time job it is to debate, like WLC et al.
ReplyDeleteThe Atheist Experience people have a few blog posts about it.
The second link is probably the most useful.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete