An Internal Critique Of Atheism

Now that we've defined our terms and set our boundaries and established our presuppositions, it's time to put it into practice. Taking a look to do an internal critique of atheism starts with granting everything the materalistic atomist says they believe. We see if they can provide for a transcendental precondition of intelligibility - can they account for accounting?

TIMELINE:
00:00 - An Internal Critique Of Atheism
03:33 - A Need For A Transcendental Precondition Of Intelligibility

#GregBahnsen #Atheism #Induction #deduction

[Max_Doubt]

I was sitting at the park. A man sat next to me and began telling me of a strange & wonderful world that he claimed actually exists. A world of magical creatures like elves, trolls, wizards, dark necromancers and even dragons! Middle Earth he called it. He even had a map of the place showing the various kingdoms like "Rohan" and "Gondor" and "Erabor." He told me stories about these realms: their past wars, present kings and historically important royal successions. After he was done, he asked if I believed him. I asked if he had any more to go on then the map and his word. "No, " he said. "Then I don't believe you." I said. He gave me a frown and said, "Oh well, I guess that's _your_ worldview." Wait...I have a new worldview now? Has my old worldview changed at all? NO! Now you see how dicey it is to call atheism - or naturalism - a worldview. You can't just make up an invisible, undetectable, "supernatural" dimension out of vapor and, when people don't accept it, call it their worldview. Some better choices are "opinion, " "judgement, " or just "view."

[velkyn]

This is quite entertaining. It's nothing more than the attempt by a christian to falsely claim we can't know anything without their god. The problem is that they can't show that their god, or any of the many versions of it, exists.

[Tinesthia]

What must be assumed before we can understand anything is that Greg Bahnsen's particular Christian belief is true? It's nice and all that Bahnsen and Van TIl assert this, but how well do they justify it? Not well.

There is no issue for naturalism to account for the universe being intelligible. Sense accuracy, pattern recognition, are selectable from environmental pressures. The antithesis is what makes no sense, a universe that is not possibly intelligible.

Most people are done having children by their 30's, our average living age is far beyond that, and agriculture opened up more time for thinking. It has been extremely selectively impactful for our ability to exchange ideas and learn how the universe works. We can live in areas that were previously impossible, save births and reproductive members of society that would have otherwise perished, access new resources, all because of our ability to understand the natural world.

Human Evolution and Anthropology can account for this. We have no need of your Hypothesis.

[Max_Doubt]

Just challenge any Xian to say what they would accept as definitive proof FOR - or, short of that, rational justification for belief IN - a god _other than theirs._ This should be easy. Unless, of course, they're _biased._

[mr.zafner]

This video is a series of poorly articulated assertions punctuated by straw men

[johnhammond]

It seems to me that atheism is the big thorn in the side of the theists for obvious reasons. So much so in fact that two grown ups do a video like this and pretend their having a serious conversation!