Forum Replies Created
Thanks JohnD. I noticed in the debate between Bahnsen and Stein that the issue of immaterialism came up. Bahnsen, of course, affirmed the immateriality of God, which Stein denied. Stein asked Bahnsen if he could think of anything else that was immaterial to which Bahnsen replied, “Yes, the laws of logic!” The audience howled because I think the point was very well made.
Thanks for the link. I will definitely read it and try to absorb some more of this!
Thank you Dr. Casey. I listened to a debate that Dr. Bahnsen had with Dr. Gordon Stein entitled, “Does God Exist?” (link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AvjUZ289L4) Bahnsen argues that the atheist’s presuppositions are not logically coherent and are lacking empirical evidence. Bahnsen admits that the theist can also beg the question in this regard, but states the atheist omits the transcendental and supernatural. In an article, The Crucial Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics, Bahnse writes, ‘We at times hear people declare “I cannot believe that” (e.g., a close relative has been convicted of a heinous crime), but we all realize that the “cannot” here should be interpreted as “will not”—because one does not want it to be true, cannot emotionally afford to admit it, thinks it is his duty to resist it, or lacks the intellectual energy to rise to the occasion.’
I’d like to hear again from JohnD who says he has studied van Til and Bahnsen.
Thank you JohnD. I am reading Bahnsen’s work, “Presuppositional Apologetics”, where he takes the position that to argue/debate with an unbeliever from any other viewpoint than the presupposition of the authority of Scripture is an exercise in futility. Dr. Casey made this point above:
In particular, when our arguments are addressed to particular audiences, we are justified in taking their positions as starting points that do not need to be argued for.
How can we accept the presuppositions of the unbeliever as a starting point, but not accept the presupposotions of the unbeliever as a starting point…that is, only accepting the presupposition of the authority of Scripture as the starting point? I’m interested in yours and Dr. Casey’s response. Thanks.
Thank you Dr. Casey for your response. Much appreciated.