Greg Bahnsen VS. Gordon Stein || Remastered w/ Subtitles || Does God Exist?

Показать описание

On February 11, 1985. Gordon Stein (atheist) debated Dr. Greg Bahnsen (Christian) on "Does God Exist?". It was held at University of California, Irvine. Bahnsen uses the Presuppositional apologetic method which incorporates the transcendental argument for God's existence (TAG), for which Stein has no response. In particular, the debate centers around the laws of logic, which they both declare that they believe. While Bahnsen points out what justifies his use of logic based on his Christian worldview - Stein is unable to justify the use of logic his atheist worldview. This debate has been titled "The Great Debate" and thought by some to be the debate that made Greg Bahnsen popular.

To learn more about verses used to support Presuppositional apologetics:

To hear my interview with epistemologist and philosopher, Liz Jackson, where she gives her thoughts on the Presuppositional apologetic method:

▬ Contents of this Video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

0:00 - Intro
06:53 - Bahnsen's 1st Opening Statement
22:25 - Stein's 1st Opening Statement
37:58 - Bahnsen Cross-Examines Stein
40:55 - Stein Cross-Examines Bahnsen
46:36 - Bahnsen's 1st Rebuttal
53:01 - Stein's 1st Rebuttal
1:01:13 - Stein's 2nd Opening Statement
1:09:34 - Bahnsen's 2nd Opening Statement
1:19:55 - Stein Cross-Examines Bahnsen
1:24:10 - Bahnsen Cross-Examines Stein
1:28:19 - Stein's 2nd Rebuttal
1:33:20 - Bahnsen's 2nd Rebuttal
1:39:40 - Stein's Closing Statement
1:45:23 - Bahnsen's Closing Statement
1:56:50 - Question and Answer

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

Stein is like the human incarnation of reddit.

ShleemenLive

This was the debate that did it for me. I’ve listened over a dozen of times learning the transcendental argument and presuppositional apologetics. God bless you Greg bahnsen. Enjoy Christs glory

plato

Stein’s up there arguing for the highly provocative position of “I personally find the evidence for God unconvincing.”

Riveting stuff.

Spookyjordan

Definitely better audio than the original thanks

cosmictreason

Lol the debate was over by the end of the first Bahnsen's opening statement. The rest is Stein trying to survive intellectually.

JeanRausis

The term "Atheist scholar" made me break out laughing for a long time. I mean, seriously... think about how absurd that combination of words is. It's like being a scholar of pure fantasy... a scholar of Disney World.

lightbeforethetunnel

There were times when it almost sounded like Stein were arguing for the existence of God.

DTHRocket

If the atheist believes all photons repel on another, what id his explanation for photons being stably and closely bundled together in atomic nuclei? The Christisn wotldview says that Christ holds all things together..

paulthomson

Conceding before beginning? One of Dr. Stein's opening lines... "This is an important question we're discussing." Uhm, not if atheism/naturalism is true it isn't! 🤯

jessebryant

“I don’t have faith- I have confidence” - stein
Confidence: from the latin, cona /with and fide/faith

Darcyholte

The thalmud was not written as a commentary on the Bible it is how those who call themselves Jews but are not actually Jews(not direct descendants of Judah ) who tried to live without a temple a high priest and sacrificial system.After the new covenant .it's a new religion formed in the 6th century.

christdiedforoursins

So often, whether in this debate or in Dr. Craig's debates, it seems the atheist has so much condescension so as to have never attempted to read what his opponent is going to say and prepare accordingly. It makes for some very one sided debates. Also, Robespierre wasn't a Christian, but a deist, he's the one who instituted the feast to the Supreme Being.

christophekeating

Stein comes across as not very clever.

Never heard him speak before, but he almost sounds at times like he knows his arguments are weak.

georgechristiansen

This single debate is the best representation of presupp and the vaporization of atheism when that lie encounters it.

EleazarDuprees

Granted, I am a believer in GOD, and more precisely, a Trinitarian Christian. I do not have a formal education, however, I am a reader, and I have read many, many books on theology, history, science, , and commentary of those who have opposing views to my beliefs; I do not think I am writing from a place of ignorance. Dr. Stein’s opening statement is one of the worst I’ve ever heard from an atheist, and I’m not just speaking about his delivery, which is very lacking in of itself. If you are an atheist, reading this comment, please keep in mind this; humans, dogs, crackers, etc., etc., are material and all are confined by time and space. GOD is NOT!! HE is eternal, has no beginning, has no end; HE transcends all of time and all of space. HIS ways are far beyond our limited understanding, because we are indeed limited by space and time! Ultimately GOD is inexplicable to our shortcomings as beings, who indeed had a beginning. From your perspective, ultimately there are no absolutes, and from a person who believes in GOD, there is an authority that is ABSOLUTE, and NOT subject of popular opinion. Consequently, we are able to render judgment based on a righteous that does exist within us (humankind), but rather in the AUTHOR of righteousness itself. It is indeed the only real TRUTH, as opposed to cultural norm, and nothing else will ever satisfy. Knowing that, will bring one to a place of rest, or to facing the dilemma making one’s own self righteous! Think long and hard about how one could possibly do that, and for that accomplishment to be universally accepted. And now I will continue to listen the rest of the debate.

tinawantland