Listening to the Bahnsen - Stein Debate

Benny Hicks · 12-01-2003, 06:09 PM

So I decided that it was about time that I listened to their debate, I've only made it into about 5 minutes of Stein's opening statement, but he seems far less eloquent and his argument seems far less impressive. He stutters a fairly large amount, there are numerous brief and seemingly unintentional pauses...he seems to be somewhat rattled. Had he just not had as much public speaking experience at the time or something? Did this stick out to anyone else?

By the way, does anyone know of a better recording than the one at http://www.straitgate.com/gbgs.ram?

Ben

Benny Hicks · 12-01-2003, 06:26 PM

Wow...

Bahnsen: Are laws of logic material in nature?
Stein: How can a law be material?
Bahnsen: Just the question that I was going to ask you.
Stein: I would say no.
(brief pause)
Stein: Dr. Bahnsen, would you consider God to be material or immaterial?
Bahnsen: Immaterial.
Stein: What is something that is immaterial?
Bahnsen: Something not extended in space.
Stein: Can you give me an example of anything other than God that is immaterial?
Bahnsen: Laws of logic.

Nice try, though

Ben

Dr. Worm · 12-02-2003, 02:28 PM

By the way, is there anywhere I could find a transcript of the debate I could read? Or is it only available on audio?

MisterAgreeable · 12-02-2003, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Worm

By the way, is there anywhere I could find a transcript of the debate I could read? Or is it only available on audio?

http://www.popchapel.com/Resources/Bahnsen/GreatDebate/

**Ted Logan** · 12-02-2003, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gruveguy

Had he just not had as much public speaking experience at the time or something? Did this stick out to anyone else?

You didn't listen to the introductions very well!

Dr. Gordon Stein:
-Ph.D. from Ohio State University
-'He has established himself as one of America's foremost scholars of atheism'
-'He is currently the President of the American Rationalist Federation'
-'President of the Free Thought Association'
-'Member of the Board of Directors of the North American Committee for Humanism'
-'Vice President-Pacific of the Freedom from Religion Foundation'
-'Vice President of Atheists United'
-'Dr. Stein has also five leading books, two pamphlets, one of which is titled "How to Argue With a Theist and Win", as well as several scholarly articles.'
-'Also the editor of The American Rationalist Journal and associate editor of Free Inquiry Magazine.'

He is clearly a skilled and experienced debater. Bahnsen just demolished his every argument, and Gordon had no leg to stand on.

**Athanasius** · 12-02-2003, 03:37 PM

I hate document formats that are not truly portable.

**Ted Logan** · 12-02-2003, 03:44 PM

I wish I could get the stupid thing in .mp3 format so I could listen to it in the car.

MisterAgreeable · 12-02-2003, 03:54 PM

It'll cost you two bucks, but they have it available for download here:
http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod....207&1=234&2=-1

JakeW · 12-02-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron Adams

I wish I could get the stupid thing in .mp3 format so I could listen to it in the car.

Look into a program called Goldwave. It's supurb and will read any audio format I've found and will encode into MP3..... provided you download the LAME encoder that is.

If you have any trouble with it pm me and I'll try and help....

Jake

dungscooperdave · 12-02-2003, 06:36 PM

I don't know how any rational and reasonable person coud listen to that debate and not become a Christian.

Chrysostom · 12-04-2003, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gruveguy

So I decided that it was about time that I listened to their debate, I've only made it into about 5 minutes of Stein's opening statement, but he seems far less eloquent and his argument seems far less impressive. He stutters a fairly large amount, there are numerous brief and seemingly unintentional pauses...he seems to be somewhat rattled. Had he just not had as much public speaking experience at the time or something? Did this stick out to anyone else?

He's clearly more of a thinker than a speaker, but he's no slouch. The problem is that he is just completely unprepared for Bahnsen's attacks. Stein could argue Geisler or Craig or Moreland until the cows come home, but when Bahnsen takes the debate down to its fundamental constructs, the futility of Stein's worldview immediately comes out.

Miscellaneous · 12-04-2003, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

He's clearly more of a thinker than a speaker, but he's no slouch. The problem is that he is just completely unprepared for Bahnsen's attacks.

I agree. One can see by his opening statement that he was completely befuddled by Bahnsen. While reading it his own opening statement, it sounded as though he was pondering Bahnsen's claims at times.

He also doesn't seem to understand his argument at all, as his continuous arguments with atoms and regularity of matter show.

Anyway, I listened to the argument again yesterday, this time reading it while I listened to it, and Stein is not nearly as underprepared as his tone sounds. Bahnsen just shows that his arguments really hold no weight. Bahnsen is a pretty quick thinker too. An excellent debater.

Benny Hicks · 12-05-2003, 09:13 AM

I was immensely impressed with Bahnsen...he articulates his ideas so clearly and quickly. Had Stein not done any research on who he was debating before their debate? I mean, he had only to pick up one of Bahnsen's critiques of Van Til's apologetic method to discover that the debate would be drastically different than one he would've had with an evidential apologist. Anyways, I thought the debate was intriguing, and thanks a lot for pointing me towards a transcript

Ben

JerryLove · 12-05-2003, 10:16 AM

Suppose I should read the *@&! thing...

Interesting how many of these I've seen argued by Christians here. I understand why some people accuse me of having read such things before, some of my counters are almost identical... there are some important differences though.

Firstly, Bahnsen is pretty condecending; and tends toward rhetoric occasionally over substantitive reseponse. For example:

Quote:

Dr. Stein: Are you putting god as an equivalent thing to the laws of logic?

Dr. Bahnsen: No. Only if you think all factual questions are answered in the very same way would you even assume that by thinking there are two immaterial things, they must be identical. No they are not identical.

Stein does not really have a good syntatical base from which to describe logic. It is a problem with which I was confronted here. I found the simpleist solution was to accept the assertation by my opponent that I presupposed logic and move on. Since we all agree that presuppositions exist in any worldview, it is hardly traumatic to doso.

I do actually believe that logic is unique among all things in its nature. While I readly agree with my other presuppositions; I don't agree, truely, that logic is a presupposition... but it's not that relevent so I simply accept that for the sake of argument.

Bahnsen's later argument that logic is created by God suffers a logical problem. It is logically imposable for logic being a creation to have any meaning. That would mean there was something outside of logic, which would mean that we would not need to apply logic to anything precursing loigc.

The net result? There is no reason to believe that logic being created means logic was created. Even in the event that logic was not the starting state; we cannot discuss anything pre-logic because it is (neccessairily) illogical... logic is neccessairily presupposed before the conversation about presuppositions can even begin.

Stein appears to be all over the place. He seems to be out fishing to get a position to address (lots of pauses). I think this is at least partially because he attempting to discount an argument without having a specific argument in front of him (he is attempting a general disproof) where Bahnsen has a positive case to make (harder to prove but easier to argue)

I do thing Stein makes a correct argument that is never really delt with:

Quote:

Dr. Stein: No. I’m asking if god say’s something, anything, is it right because anything God does is good, because god is good? Or does it become good just because god said it? I don’t know if I said that right. I guess I did.

Dr. Bahnsen: No: I understand the problem, though it’s roughly stated. What God says to be good is good because it reflects His own character. God is good, and is the standard of goodness. That’s one of the presuppositions of the Christian world-view.

Dr. Stein: Doesn’t it indeed [correcting himself]; isn’t it indeed a presupposition which is presupposed before there is any actual data from God?

Dr. Bahnsen: I still think we’re straining at the limits of debate rules here, but I will answer your question. There are no absolutes outside of God.

Dr. Stein: So in other words, the fact that God is good, is something that God told you and that’s why you accept it, rather than knowing it ahead and assuming it as a presupposition, which you said a minute ago.

Dr. Bahnsen: That’s extremely simplistic. God told it to me and He provided evidence of it.

Dr. Stein: But you also said it was a presupposition.

Dr. Bahnsen: That’s right. That’s right.

Dr. Stein: Isn’t that a contradiction?

Dr. Bahnsen: Oh, not at all. There are many things which are presupposed as well as, uh, evidenced in this world; for instance the laws of logic.

I cannot agree with Bahnsen. Any proof for a presupposition must neccessairily be circular or there is no reason to presuppose it.

In short, I would call the entire debate a general waste of time from both sides.

Chrysostom · 12-05-2003, 12:36 PM