Freethought & Rationalism Archive

unregistered_user_1 · 09-25-2005, 10:44 AM

Anyone have any more information on rebuttals to this guy?

They also have on that site: "An audio CD of Dr. Bahnsen debating atheist George Smith is also included!"

I've dug up more info on Bahnsen:

Quote:

Here's a link for interested parties: http://www.bellevuechristian.org/fac...pologetics.htm

I read the debate. Bahnsen failed on a number of points:

1. Tabash's point is that, given god, he's an evil bastard. The counterpoint that evil only has meaning if we take god as a given is meaningless, because god already is a given in the original point. So Bahnsen's entire rebuttal is a red herring.

2. It isn't true that all possible rational ethical constructs start with God. Rationalism, for example, starts with the existence of living creatures. So we don't actually need to believe in god in order to have ethics, or at least, it is not a given that we need god in order to have ethics. Bahnsen's rebuttal is therefore based on, as it were, facts that are not in evidence.

3. Since there is no rational or logical reason to believe in god--and he provides none--if god is his only reason to have ethics, his ethics are irrational by default and suffer from the same flaws that he attempts, wrongly, to put on the ethics of rationalism.

That critique is discussed more here.

More is discussed here

EDIT: I've found more on the Secweb about Bahnsen here. :banghead: You'd think I'd think to use the search function more...

Still, does anyone know more about the arguments he presents in that series, and where the refutations are? The reason I'm asking is I'll soon be meeting with some family members who are real "Bahnsen" fans. And they love to argue...

PoodleLovinPessimist · 09-25-2005, 11:53 AM

Bahansen does not really make "arguments" per se. In order to have an argument, you have to have some common ground of statements both parties believe to be true and you have to believe that both parties have good will and a common interest in coming to a conclusion.

The entire thrust of presuppositionalism is that the only possible "common ground" is belief in the existence of the Christian god; the atheist is either speaking nonsense or is lying about his or her lack of belief in a god.

Johnny Skeptic · 09-25-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoodleLovinPessimist

The entire thrust of presuppositionalism is that the only possible "common ground" is belief in the existence of the Christian god; the atheist is either speaking nonsense or is lying about his or her lack of belief in a god.

I don't have any trouble at all embarrassing Christians who use that argument. I just direct them to my thread titled 'Apologists assume too much about the nature of God.' In the General Religious Discussions Forum I use essentially the same arguments in a thread titled 'I can concede the Resurrection and still invalidate Christianity.'

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-25-2005, 11:53 AM	#2
PoodleLovinPessimist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 5,826	Bahansen does not really make "arguments" per se. In order to have an argument, you have to have some common ground of statements both parties believe to be true and you have to believe that both parties have good will and a common interest in coming to a conclusion. The entire thrust of presuppositionalism is that the only possible "common ground" is belief in the existence of the Christian god; the atheist is either speaking nonsense or is lying about his or her lack of belief in a god.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.