Category: Review of Bahnsen vs Stein
-
Should we concede anything to our opponents?
Series on Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein
Should we argue for “general theism”?
Should our case be “subjective or personal”?
Should we concede anything to our opponents?
Bahnsen’s last introductory remark prior to his main argument for the existence of God involves a concession to Stein’s “area of expertise.” As insignificant as this concession seemingly is it serves as a refutation of the oft-repeated-but-never-cited claim that presuppositional apologists contend that unbelievers cannot know anything. The truth is that if unbelievers were epistemologically consistent they could not know anything, but unbelievers are never epistemologically …
-
Should our case be “subjective or personal”?
Series on Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein
Should we argue for “general theism”?
Should our case be “subjective or personal”?
Having presented his reasons for arguing for Christian theism as a unit or system of thought Bahnsen moves on to discuss what the debate is about. Bahnsen transitions from the aforementioned topic he addresses at the very beginning of his first opening statement through placing a slightly different emphasis upon the systematic nature of Christian theism. Bahnsen is arguing for Christian theism as a unit or system of thought so that the debate …
-
Should we argue for “general theism”?
In my experience the presuppositionalist program of setting out to defend specifically Christian theism generally produces scoffing rather than interaction. At the beginning of his debate with Gordon Stein, Greg Bahnsen states his position on this matter. He says, “I want to specify that I’m arguing particularly in favor of Christian theism, and for it as a unit or system of thought and not for anything like theism in general, and there are reasons for that.”
There are at least two senses in which Bahnsen explains he will not be arguing for or defending theism in general. Bahnsen …