 | Former Atheists who converted to Christianity ... |
 | RC Sproul Debates Greg Bahnsen on Apologetics http://blogtv.com/Shows/44572 http://Godnoliar.com/Sproul_vs_Bahnsen.htm BAHNSEN SHOWS THAT SPROUL IS AN AGNOSTIC. Bahnsen said: If you have only probability -- if you have only probability that the Bible is the Word of God, or that God exists or all the rest -- that must mean at least this -- that while there are many reasons to think that the Bible is the Word of God, there are some to think that it's not. As, if there were no reasons to think that the Bible's not the Word of God, it wouldn't be probability it would be certainty. And so when RC [Sproul] or any old Princeton Apologist says, "That very probably the Bible is the Word of God," he is also saying there's a slight probability that it's not -- slight. You may think the probability that it is, is greater than the other -- although, I dare say, nobody knows how to rate probability, when it comes to those kind of arguments. So saying one is more than the other doesn't get anywhere -- everybody's lost in a sea of skepticism -- if it's only probability. But even if you could say that there's a greater probability that the Bible is the Word of God, than it's not, you're still saying that there's some reason to think that it's not. QUESTION TO SPROUL FROM STUDENT Angus Gillespie -- of the South Carolina Gillespies. You can know nothing for certain -- empirically or inductively, correct? That's what your saying? Then, you [RC Sproul] can't know anything at all, for certain, right? It seems to me, though, that the Scripture -- and here it get back to the same argument I suppose -- that Scripture does say you can know certainly. That, over and over again, the Scripture writers say, "These things are written, so that you can know certainly." And that are...we are... You state that men know certainly that God exists. But you can't know for certain, that men know certainly God exists. You seem to end up in the same Skepticism that Gordon Clark does. I was wondering what your thoughts on that would be? SPROUL ADMITS HE IS AGNOSTIC Sproul response: Again, let me repeat the difference between how the word "certainty" is used. The Bible speaks of having assurance. I have a blessed assurance. But my knowledge of what the Bible is, and what the Bible says, is fallible, 'cause I'm less than omniscient [all knowing]. When I'm talking about certainty, I'm talking about philosophical certainty, in a very technically defined manner. And in that sense I don't have certainty about anything, even that I'm right here. Deduction -- I think, can give us far more certainty than Greg [Bahnsen] allows, in terms of the relationship of propositions, and the laws of immediate inference and that sort of thing. But, I grant, that that's even then, only if rationality is valid. And the only way you can have rationality valid -- I've already yielded, is that ultimately that God exists. But I cannot know for certainty -- you know, that God exists. I can have full assurance of heart -- when the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit comes, you see -- I look at the evidence, and I know the evidence is overwhelming -- the Holy Spirit tells me, "Hey, that evidence is for true, that's for real," -- you know? Cool. How do I know for sure, that the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit isn't indigestion? I'm playing the Devil's Advocate now. I have to deal with pagans every day, and not just Christians. And, I'm not going to go up to them and say, "Because I say so." And that's what you're left with. And that gives you precious little certainty. 'Cause then in the final analysis all I have is the autonomy of your presupposition about the boldest assertion the world has ever heard -- the existence of God. And I want to know -- How you escape subjectivism -- I want to know -- How you escape fideism -- I haven't heard it yet. I keep hearing denials about fideism. Fideism historically means the rejection of natural theology, by definition. You know, historically going all the way back to Cusanus, right up through the history of philosophy, the term fideism has meant, that any knowledge of God must come -- not through natural theology but through faith -- I've heard all night, that we don't come through natural theology, we do come through faith, but where not fideists. I'm absolutely bewildered at that point. |
 | Alistar McGrath -- Atheist turned Christian Richard Dawkins was on The Hour not too long ago. Now here is his opposition, Mr. Alistar McGrath, once an atheist, now a christian. |
 | Greg Bahnsen vs Stein - The Great Debate (part 1 of 14) Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein - The Great Debate: Does God Exist? (part 1 of 14) |
 | Logical Fallacies in Christian Arguments: Circular Arguments Logical Fallacies in Christian Arguments series. Part 1: circular arguments William Lane Craig's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xNsR_tTF8I note: I accidently misquoted Craig. When I said "moral values" in premise 1 I should have said "objective moral values". This has been corrected in the overlay title in the video. Premise 1: When Paul is speaking he is speaking the truth Premise 2: Paul is speaking - Therefore Paul is not lying. Premise 1: If God does not exist objective moral values do not exist. Premise 2: Objective values do exist - Therefore God exists Premise 1: The world has specific properties that make life possible Premise 2: These properties are fine tuned. Premise 3: Only God has the ability to do the fine tuning - Therefore God does exist. Premise 1: Some occurences can only be explained with an act of God Premise 2: I saw such occurences. - Therefore God does exist. Premise 1: Jesus' acts have been witnessed Premise 2: Jesus is God's son - Therefore God exists. Begging the question logical fallacies christian arguments circular begging the question god faith atheism capnoawesome religion belief jesus christ |
 | Theism is irrelevant to epistemology and rationality Craig, aka "antipelagian," states some arguments in support of his belief that belief in God is *necessary* for rationality. I explain why his arguments are factually wrong and logically bogus, in terms of an "evidentalist epistemology." |
 | Refuting Theist Arguments - Begging the Question Refuting Theist Arguments -- Begging the Question One common argument used by many fundamentalist theists to try to prove the existence of their deity, or to try to prove that their holy book is the word of their deity, is a fallacy known as begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. For example, a Christian might say: "It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God's word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist." The problem with this argument is obvious to those of us who are familiar with basic principles of logic. The conclusion is that god exists, but to arrive at that conclusion the Christian already assumed that the bible is the word of god (i.e. assumed that god exists). Clearly this is a circular line of reasoning. Some reasons why many theists do not see the flaws in their reasoning are: -They have been indoctrinated into only believing their religion (i.e. they are blinded by their absolute conviction in their religion) -They are arguing from emotion and desire rather than an objective, logical position -They have been taught to believe in the word of their holy texts over logic, science, and reason (i.e. they have been brainwashed into thinking that logic cannot be trusted) To theists who try to prove the existence of their deity using their holy texts, or who try to prove that their holy texts are the word of their deity because the texts say so, now you know why your logic is fallacious and circular. |
 | To Atheists: An Important Question To Ponder Important, Pure Evidence God Exists I don't assert this to be proof of God's existence but it comes very close. The argument portion of this video is authored by Matt Slick of CARM which was adapted from the Transcendental Argument championed by Greg Bahnsen |
 | An Annoying Christian Argument Refuted This is a discussion of some of the issues I have with "presuppositional" arguments for Christianity (or theism). It is a rather rare and specialized argument, but it's especially annoying (to me anyway) and as I hadn't seen any videos discussing the subject I made one myself. |
 | Greg Bahnsen's Attack on the Holy Spirit Greg Bahnsen -- "Presuppositional Apologist" and disciple of Cornelius Van Til at Westminster Theological Seminary -- wrote, "we come into this world cognitively "conditioned" or PREPARED to RECOGNIZE the indications of our Creator in nature and SCRIPTURE." (p222-3. Note: All quotes in this video are taken from "Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis" compiled by Bahnsen.) So Bahnsen says unbelievers can understand the Bible. Such a statement is not a slip-up. In fact, it is very consistent with his system. Bahnsen says that the unbeliever already knows God "deep down". If that's right, then it logically follows that unbelievers have the ability to judge the Bible. For example, imagine a member of your family -- whom you have known all your life -- writes an autobiography. You would be competent to judge the reliability of the book, right? Now, the Bible is God's autobiography. So if unbelievers have known God all their lives, "deep down" then they're going to think they are competent to judge the Bible, right? "Why do we need the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible, when we already understand the Being who wrote it?", they can say. The Apostles constantly battled people who thought they knew God apart from the Bible. They tried to convince men they did not know God "deep down" by nature. A man convinced he is ignorant of God by nature will know he is unable to judge the Bible. Paul declares, "the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God ... [believers] have received ... the Spirit who is from God, so that [they] may know the things given to [them] by God.." (1 Cor 2:11-12) |
| Oceanfrontier Hideaway | |
| Sheraton Suites Philadelphia Airport | |
| The Boulders Resort and Golden Door Spa | |
| Coral Beach Club |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
