Arguments for God's Existence Part 2 l Greg Bahnsen 

The mental gymnastics required to understand the principles of logic would require a set of scales or times tables so that eventually after a period of time (years) I might catch on to what he’s saying. I believe in God and I present the gospel to the unbeliever.

Pure gold. Make sure this stuff doesn't get lost.

👼 Amen!.👼

30 minutes of rubbishing the standard Christian arguments for God, then he says he’s a presuppositionalist. I think we’re done here. My time may not be very valuable, but it is not worthless.

Wow, a comment section that isn’t turned off on a bahnsen video. I’ve watched something like 7 hours of videos now an the only argument bahnsen has made (and I’m not exaggerating this was actually an argument for god he made): P1) either nothing exists or god exists P2) something exists C) god exists P1 is a false dichotomy and is circular as it’s the contended point. Also by laws of logic he means the Aristotelian laws of thought. They are prescriptions on how we should think if our goal is to have our thoughts match what happens in reality. He’s profoundly confused. Plus the addition of god doesn’t solve Humes problem of induction because we’d just ask the same question. How do we know god will behave like he did in the past in the future? The Christian is forced to say “well because he said so in the Bible” but that’s in the past which begs the question… the very thing Hume is objecting to. Idk who gave this man a doctorate. Moreover, belief in god is more reason giving to doubt the uniformity of nature. If I ask an atheist why they think the Red Sea will continue to not part tomorrow he’s going to believe there isn’t some entity that can perform miracles and violate the laws of physics but the Christian is committed explicitly to an entity that both can and regularly does violate the laws of physics on a whim. What’s to stop such an entity from changing those laws starting tomorrow? Nothing. What keeps them from changing in an atheist view? Because nothing can. He’s also just factually wrong about morals. Moral realism requires as a prerequisite that the god of the Bible not exist. He will entail a form of subjectivism. Moral realism is usually either mind independent moral facts exist or stance independent moral facts exist. God is both a mind and his stance is relevant to any moral truth obtaining in the Christian view. That’s all that’s meant by subjectivism, that moral facts obtain relative to some agents beliefs, attitudes, nature, desires, etc.