Debate Teacher Reacts: Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein

No one can show that there are no arguments for the existence of God So we can only deal with those that I know of okay if someone showed that all the ones that you produced were invalid

What would be your position? Well, you'd have to describe the conditions of this.

What is the move here? I don't understand. You know like okay You got me dude if I sprouted feathers and started bobbing my neck and clucking real loud, then

I'd be a chicken You know what checkmate debate is over Stein one everybody just pack it up, and let's just get it on out of here

Stein one like what is going on right now? Heyo Welcome back to wait a sec is this the first debate teacher reacts.

Yeah, this is This is the first debate teacher reacts of 2022 if this is your first time in this series welcome welcome

My name is Nate Sala. I'm the president of a Christian organization called wise disciple and here at wise disciple

We're all about living effectively as Christians in today's culture now before I jumped into ministry 100 %

I actually used to teach debate At the public high school And so I draw from my background my knowledge in the area of debate to call balls and strikes in Apologetics debates theology debates whatever that is on YouTube.

Okay. We're having fun with it I don't know how many videos there are in the can now somebody knows but today

We're gonna do another one so you sure picked a good time to join me now today We're doing

Greg Bonson versus Gordon Stein now. Don't get mad at me all right calm down But I made an executive decision

Okay This particular debate we're about to do had been up for vote a few times last year and never made it never made the cut

But I mean come on. It's Greg Bonson versus Gordon Stein I haven't even seen this debate all the way through so we got to do this one right all right now the debate took place

UC Irvine back in 1985 there is no video of this debate as far as I can tell only audio and Mostly bad audio.

Can I just go ahead and make that comment like I found the best audio version That's on YouTube, but even then

I suggest that you put on some headphones So that you can hear both

Interlocutors more clearly and I will do the same all right. I can already hear you. That's enough intro

Nate got it Let's just jump right into the debate. Let's do it We will now move to our period of cross -examination the first cross -examiner will be dr.

Bonson We'll have an opportunity to cross -examine dr. Stein Right so as per you

I highly recommend that you actually go back and watch the full debate watch What am

I saying listen to the debate? There is no video, but the point is cross -examination attacks opening statements

So that means that you have to know what was said in both interlocutors Opening statements or else you're probably not going to be able to track very well.

What's going on here? So I have the link for the full debate in the notes below Please go back and watch.

All right, dr. Bonson in his opening statement did a really excellent job Framing the discussion for the audience.

It was pretty great. He laid out essentially the story of the debate and what dr Stein needed to do in order to properly respond to the debate topic in all of that.

Dr. Stein Instead of making a case for materialism and you know, sort of the related arguments surrounding the materialist take on the topic question

Which is does God exist? Dr. Stein ended up attacking like 11 proofs for the existence of God and he didn't do a great job with a number of them.

So That's where we're at. And now here comes the cross -examination from dr.

Bonson. Here we go Dr. Stein you have any sources so that you can give to us very briefly that Define atheism as one who finds the theistic proofs inadequate rather than one who denies the existence of God Yes, sir

It's okay, so hopefully you have your headphones on and you can hear this Because in his opening statement, dr.

Stein defined atheism as well He doesn't come out and say lack of belief, but he might as well have

He tries to define it in a way that is not philosophical but more colloquial Atheists are folks who simply see no evidence for God, you know, something like that This is not the way that atheism has been typically defined up until relatively recently

And so dr. Bonson is asking for sources on this unique definition of atheism

George Smith's book Which you will find for sale in the back of the room upstairs later called atheism the case against God Make which

I think is the finest book ever written on the subject makes this point explicit I have to have a copy right here.

I can quote you the exact words if you don't be necessary Okay, you have any other sources?

Do I have any other sources? sure Charles Bradlow who

I I will give him to you right now 200 100 years ago

Charles Bradlow made the comment in one of his plea for atheism

He said Probably what dr. Bonson is doing is He's looking for something more established.

And the reason I say that is I mean, when was this debate in 1985? The original definition of atheism has always been a belief that God does not exist

And by the way, as far as I understand, I mean, this is still an accepted definition of atheism in philosophical circles

The whole atheism is a lack of belief thing is a relatively new like I said more colloquial way of speaking about atheism by rhetoricians and Influencers, but if you go back some decades, you'll find atheists defining atheism this particular way

Bertrand Russell one of the smartest, you know more prominent atheists in history Defined atheism this way

So if you're gonna shift to a new definition You need to do more than just point out that a couple of obscure guys said it this way

That's what I think Bonson's after although He probably should not spend too much time in this particular area.

So dr. Stein. Did you hear? Dr. Bonson used the following? Argument the

Bible says that God exists and the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Therefore what it says must be true Therefore God exists

You did not use that and just assume that that was so because she was quoting from the Bible as if it I mean after what

I assumed I asked you if I use that argument No, you did not use the argument, but you use the results of the argument.

Dr. Stein You mentioned 11 basic proofs for the existence of God. Did you mention the transcendental proof for the existence of God?

This is really good the reason why Bonson asked about the transcendental argument is because that is one of his primary arguments to affirm the topic for debate

And so as an atheist Tackling 11 proofs for Christianity can be a good exercise if you interact with all 11 well but if you don't actually deal with One of the main contentions from your

Christian interlocutor, then you haven't done your job as a debater. No, I didn't mention it by name I think it is not a proof.

I would not call it a proof if as I understand Questions answered in the very same way.

No, they are not They're answered by the use of certain methods though that are the same reason logic and presenting evidence

I heard you mentioned logical binds and logical self -contradictions in your speech.

You did say that I Said it I use that phrase. Yes Absolutely, are they universal

They're agreed upon by human beings they aren't laws that exist out in nature They are they simply concessions them their conventions, but their conventions that are self -verifying

Think about that for a split second. So Stein says they are human conventions that are self -verifying

I'm trying to find a charitable way to understand what that means. I either he's saying that the laws of logic are the product of human convention or maybe he's saying that The language we use to describe the laws of logic are conventional to humans

Yeah, but he said that the laws of logic are self -verifying and also that they're there

The laws of logic are not features that can be discovered to exist out in nature So something is throwing me off.

I mean if if what he's saying makes any kind of sense I don't think he's using the right words to express it at this very moment

But let's see what happens. There are laws of thought which are interpreted by men and Promulgated by men material.

Oh, so so, okay Maybe he means that the laws of logic are self -evident which in my opinion that's that's different than saying

Self -verifying so the laws of logic are self -evidently true and then we use conventional language to understand those truths

Okay Got it. But I mean Stein still got a huge problem if that's his position material in nature

How can the world be material? That's the question. I'm gonna ask you I would say no

Dr. Bonson, uh, would you call God material or immaterial? What is something that's immaterial

Can you give me an example of anything other than God that's immaterial He he walks right into that one, okay

Come on now Did you hold that down please are you putting God in the same and as an equivalent

Thing to the laws of logic. 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, I'm not assuming that I'm just assuming that because the laws of logic are a convention among men

Are you saying that God is a convention and I don't accept the fact that claim the laws of logic or convention?

All right, that's a rookie move in my opinion Well, dr.

Bonson, I define things a certain way So when you use words just now that I use with my own unique definition, then you now agree with me, don't you?

That's that's not a great use of your time. That's a rookie move. Is your God omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent?

You don't find this a contradiction at all, okay, well we'll show you a little later that it is

If your arguments in favor of the existence of God is shown to be incorrect, will you relinquish your belief in God?

If my arguments are disproven, yes What the heck does this have to do with the topic at all?

This is like a Bogosian Street epistemologist question and has nothing to do with the topic

You know Bonson laid out some very specific contentions in his opener ask him about that I wouldn't believe in God That's not quite answering the question.

If someone can show you that there are no arguments, would you relinquish your belief? I'm trying to see what what's the basis

It's impossible to show a universal negative No one can show that there are no arguments for the existence of God so we can only deal with those that I know of Okay, if someone showed that all the ones that you produced were invalid

What would be your position? Well, you'd have to describe What is the move here,

I don't understand, you know, like, okay, you got me, dude If I sprouted feathers and started bobbing my neck and clucking real loud, then

I'd be a chicken You know what checkmate debate is over Stein one everybody just pack it up and let's just get it on out of here

Stein one Like what is going on right now? He created me he made the world and he made it good

He sent his son into the world to die for my sins Many of these evidences are quite convincing to me

But I don't use them outside of the world view in which they make sense in which they would be taken as true

If you mean it's got good in such a way or can I give you evidence that you would accept? That would depend on what your presuppositions are.

No, I'm asking if God says something Anything Is it right because what

God anything God does is good because God is good Or does it become good just because God says the euthyphro dilemma?

All right now Every second we spend in these kinds of areas just do me a favor and stare at the topic

Is that my finger stare at the topic question and ask yourself a Stein in the right debate here

Or did he wander into the wrong debate? Is good because God is good.

And it's the standard of goodness. That's one of the presuppositions of the Christian worldview Doesn't it indeed isn't it indeed a presupposition which is presupposed before it there is

Evan any Actual data from God. This is a question about my first opening statement

Bingo in a sense it is because Although it isn't directly mentioned in your opening statement, it has to do with the whole idea of whether there are absolutes outside of God, which is a

Important issue in this whole debate. Is it I? Just I don't understand what these questions have to do with the price of tea in China, I mean to be charitable to dr

Stein, I mean, maybe he's trying to set Bonson up for some kind of Humdinger question,

I just it's it's not materializing right now So in other words the fact that God is good is something that God told you and that's why you accepted rather than Knowing it ahead and assuming it as a presupposition, which you said a minute ago

You also said it was a presupposition Isn't that a contradiction not at all.

There are many things which are presupposed as well as Evidenced in this world for instance the laws of logic.

I Would disagree with that, but I Saw some time.

All right When we talk about immaterial things

Are you also saying that there's a such a thing as let's say ghosts or the soul?

Which are another example of immaterial things. Would you call them immaterial? I Would say that man is a living just so you all understand what should be happening right now

Stein should be asking Bonson about the contentions that he laid out in his opening statement. Dr Bonson talked quite a bit about the transcendental argument

You know the transcendental argument puts the focus on the justification for the laws of logic and rationality that we all use every single day and a related issue is the problem of induction or you know, the the the principle of uniformity or of nature or however

You want to characterize it? You know the uniform way that the world continues to be structured What is the justification or explanation for these things?

Dr. Bonson utilized the transcendental argument as a way to Affirm the topic question.

All right, dr. Stein should be attacking what Bonson said and he's now asking Bonson about ghosts

And how would you approve this This have to do with the existence of God now, well, it has to do with the existence of immaterial things

Well, if there's an immaterial Being God and if the Bible is his word

Then I would say that is revealing the nature of man in the Bible is sufficient proof and that takes us back

Logically as you'll be bound to say to whether God himself does exist and that's what we're supposed to be debating

Okay, so you're giving me a circular argument which is telling you what the debate is about I know what the debate is about You know,

I'm asking for an answer to a question. Does he know what the debate is about? I didn't get one. Oh, I'm not debating the nature of the soul tonight, but the existence of God Yes, I believe in the man has a soul

Okay The only reason I asked about the soul is because this is a simpler immaterial object that most people would hold is also

I would say that it's similar. I mean, that's your point simpler. I said that's similar Bonson won first cross -exam for one simple fact.

All right, although there's there's more to it than this But Bonson stayed within the realm of the opening statements.

All right Stein. I don't know what he was doing He's like, you know your old

Grandfather who tries to relay an important story but then gets hung up for like 45 minutes trying to remember which day of the week

The story took place. You know what I mean? I love grandpas. Come on now Stein you have an opportunity to cross -examine.

Dr. Bonson is the last four minutes. Let's do it is mathematics either atheistic or theistic

Foundations of mathematics Yes, which theistic theistic

Christian theistic. How do you figure that? From the impossibility of the contrary no other world.

You can justify the laws of mathematics or of logic Because no other world you can account for universal invariant

Abstract entities such as them. So I'm sure there's some atheists and skeptics hearing Bonson and thinking to themselves

Of course we can you know, you just probably don't like our answers Fair enough, you know,

I I think that's actually a good pushback to what Bonson said I mean, it's it's not that atheists have never given an account for these kinds of things.

It's just that according to Christians according to Bonson Those accounts are not sufficient.

They are they're flawed There's something wrong with them and Bonson is just not speaking as carefully as he could be here

Do you think it's fair since you've pointed out? That logicians themselves are in great disagreement about this the nature of the laws of logic

To ask me to explain them in a way that you would find satisfactory Yes, it's fair So In the second opener

Bonson critique Stein for not answering the transcendental argument and he points out that logicians themselves struggle to give an account for these things, but What Stein essentially does is he goes well

Don't you think it's unfair for you to ask me to give an account for the laws of logic? Even though you appeal to the laws of logic as evidence for the affirmative position on the debate topic

I mean like other guys struggle with this. Aren't you being unfair you big meanie? And Bonson's like no, by the way,

I don't know if you're paying attention but Stein's He's not doing a great job in cross -exam.

I mean, there are way worse Cross exams. Let me think about that for a split second. Hmm Can I answer now?

Can you do that? Will you allow an answer sir? Will you sit down and allow an answer? My question is this can you do yes or no?

No, he cannot do that I'm gonna try I'm gonna try to give an answer here.

Oh number two doesn't happen. Okay. Okay miracle number three This is absurd.

Of course, it's up sir Lighting stuff on how many of you would like to hear an answer to the question sit down sit down Right.

I mean Stein isn't to the level of Greg Clark talking about horny rats and drinking antifreeze, but he's not doing a great job

Because this is a rational debate about worldviews you have a naturalistic world you have a super naturalistic one

I want something even beginning to be an answer how a naturalist can justify a universal abstract entity

I haven't heard one yet. Okay is logic based upon mathematics No never

Not symbolic logic, for example. No, I would disagree with you Well, we want to get into Russell and Whitehead and debate those issues

But if you ask a simple question, I can only give you a simple answer You said that assume the opposite as far as I'm concerned as a

Christian I'm not committed one way or another to that. If you want to say mathematical laws Permutation laws of math and the same as those using logic.

That's fine. How do you justify even one of them is my question Well, I would ask you right. I mean, that's that's it

That's the transcendental argument and Stein still has not given an answer to the argument other than his answer has been well

You know these features of reality just exist Question that as you explained that the laws of logic reflect the thinking of God number one.

How do you know this and number two? What does it mean? What question what difficulty are having?

Understanding what does it mean? I don't know how you were privy to the thinking of God He revealed himself to the scriptures of the

Old Testament and that explains the logic that explains logic You know explains why there are universal standards of reasoning.

Yes It doesn't explain them to me. Could you explain them again? Yeah, we have Bible studies from time to time where those things

You mean you spend some time rationalizing the irreconcilable or reconciling the irreconcilable

That's I mean like the two accounts in Genesis the two Examination if you have some of the other rhetorical question,

I'll try to answer spicy spicy It's not intended as a rhetorical question is intended.

I guess one was rhetorical only No, it was intended to show that your last statement was disingenuous and please limit your comments to question.

Yes, okay Saying that logic reflects the thinking of God is to make a non -statement.

How is that an answer to? Anything that's relevant in this discussion It answers the general metaphysical issue of how there can be universal invariant invariant abstract entities in a in a particular world a particular person's world

If you want to know the precise relationship, for instance, if somebody wants to know how did God make a cow?

Okay, the statement that God made the cow doesn't have meaning apart from my being able to explain the mechanics of God making a cow

Likewise the statement that the laws of logic are intelligible within a Christian theistic universe has meaning because there are things which are in fact spiritual immaterial

And have a universal quality such as God's thinking and those standards that he imposes on people and so again

We can at least metaphysically make sense of invariant abstract entities in one universe

But we can't make sense of them at all in the other we're not asking for the mechanics here or anything precise such as Resolving the relationship of logic to math and that sort of thing.

I'm simply asking more general questions if you're an atheist, how is it? How the atheist universe is it possible to have an abstract universal law right in other words the meaningfulness of a statement like the laws of logic are commensurate with the mind of God or Or however, it was said it rests in Or it connects to the debate because one of the main contentions in Bonson's opening was the transcendental argument and if the laws of logic are immaterial and They need an objective grounding for all human beings.

Then God is that ground? Dr. Bonson, you now have a four -minute opportunity examine

Dr. Stein you made reference to David Hume and his rejection of miracles

Have you also read David Hume and his discussion of Induction or more popularly the uniformity of nature.

Here we go Long time ago. I can't recall exactly what he said. I have read

David Hume. All right Were you convinced a long time ago that you had an answer to human skepticism about?

induction So now Bonson is asking Stein about the problem of induction

Why is he doing that if Stein never brought that up? There's two things. Okay. Number one

Stein mentioned Hume all right, and number two because Stein's main strategy has been to try and shift the burden of proof in his opener to fully rest on the

Christian shoulders And so therefore Stein doesn't seek to make any positive claims

And to support those claims in order to negate the topic he just tries to poke holes in Christian claims

Bonson has been focusing on Stein's methodology You know that the methodology that Stein uses to poke holes as well as the materialist

Presuppositions that he's relying on in order to argue against the Christian position These are the grounding issues for the features of reality that the atheist takes for granted

Bonson is trying to get Stein to give an explanation for them Which which by the way, it's it's totally legitimate to do that.

I can't answer that question. Honestly. I don't remember what this is The validity of scientific laws were undermined by Hume when he contended that we have no rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past or if you will to be

For there to be and to be types of events so that one event happening can be

Understood as a type of event. So where it seemed happening somewhere else the same consequence can be expected from similar causation

Jim said we had no rational basis for that. Can we have a question, please? Yeah, I'm trying to set up the question

Hume Suggested that there was no rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past in which case science is based simply on Convention or if you will habits of thought you agree with him not on this issue.

I don't Do you now have an answer for him I Think he was wrong about that one thing, but he was also right about a lot of other things.

Nobody's perfect What is the basis for the uniformity of nature? That I went through this but I'll be glad to reiterate it

The uniformity of nature comes from the fact that matter has certain properties which it regularly exhibits

It's part of the nature of matter electrons Oppositely charged things attract the same charges will tell

There are certain valences that can fill up the shell of an atom and that's as far as it can combine

So in other words my explanation for the uniformity we find in nature is that we just find it

It's just there When I when I look at it, I see it see it. There it is. I'm looking right at it.

It's right there It's just there. That's not an answer to the question Stein is not prepared to have this conversation the more

I hear this the more I wonder if Stein did good enough research on his opponent, right?

Because when you get into a debate, especially if it's somebody who is more well established in their thought processes

In other words, they have written Articles and books, you know on whatever it is that you're gonna have this discussion about then you got to do your homework and it seems to me that Stein is not prepared at all to talk about the

Transcendental Argument and If you think about the Transcendental Argument, you have to realize that a very close conversation that kind of connects together with the

Transcendental Argument is The problem of induction at least one flows out of the other and you can see how they dovetail together

So, I mean like it just when pressed Stein's like, yeah, I don't I think

I interacted with that 15 years ago But I don't remember Wow Like those were the biggest things that he probably should have known about and he didn't know anything about it

So Stein wasn't prepared to have this conversation and Bonson really has got his boot like right on Stein's neck

Repel each other Me personally or can

I go on the witness of experts? Have you read all of the witnesses? All it takes is one witness to say no and it would be on the front pages of every physics journal and there are

None, so therefore I would say yes in effect, right by default Well physicists have their presuppositions by which they exclude contrary evidence to but in other words you haven't experienced all electrons

But you would generalize that all electrons under certain conditions propel each other statistically In the business of past observation, we don't know that's going to be that way ten minutes after this debate

No, we see no evidence that things have switched around either Do you accept the

Zen Buddhist logic that allows for cones? The different kind of logic that you refer to used by Zen Buddhist I use the word extra logical and I think that's the right word

It is outside of the normal kinds of logic and it's not necessarily a different kind of logic But it's just non -logical

But accepted in place of logic is it also are extra logical things absurd?

They may seem that way to us But no, I would say they're not absurd in the grand scheme of things and extra logical things be true

Can claims about ecological matters be true? but that's a that's an impossible question to answer because if we're using logic to answer whether something is true or not then extra logical

Things are not subject to the analysis given by logic Yeah, but that this is a really weird way of talking about the some of the fundamental tenets of Buddhism, let me see if there's more

Our claims about extra logical entities allowed or disallowed in your worldview in my worldview

Depends on what we're talking about. We're talking about things like Zen Buddhists and they confine themselves to these philosophical speculations there

Then yes, they're talking about science. No, it sounds very arbitrary Thank you Wow, so yeah that that last part again

Was in connection to Stein Who I think he said something like the laws of logic

Don't apply everywhere equally that actually in some circumstances Buddhist logic which isn't really designed to be logical or make logical sense but in effect they're meant to I Mean Buddhist cones are

Meant to sort of break through the illusory nature of the logic of this reality that we experience

So we can in a sense see past it or Or see through it or see the reality of what is

I don't think you're gonna find a Buddhist who would say that the truth Derived from Coen's are meant to be understood to be logical

As a matter of fact if logic is like the groove on a record where the needle in the record player

Travels and it spins around in the groove Cones are like a scratch on the record that is meant to get the needle to jump out of the groove altogether

It's just weird how? Stein brings this up. Although I understand what he's trying to do

He's trying to argue consistently that the laws of logic are human conventions. And so therefore different people have different conventions

I don't know. I Wouldn't have done what he did here Look, this was a fascinating discussion.

That was always led by dr. Bonson I don't think there was ever a moment where dr

Stein got the upper hand in this exchange Bonson led every cross -exam because he responded powerfully when questioned

Never made any huge mistakes and he did what he was supposed to do when it was his turn He tracked the things

Stein actually said and pressed him on his own methodology and his own Presuppositions because guess what?

That's what you have to do when you're dealing with someone like Stein who refuses to shoulder his own burden of proof and just tries

To sit back and take potshots at Christian truth claims. We've seen this from other people before on YouTube I don't have to name them, right but the bottom line is

Everyone who comes to the table to have a metaphysical conversation They need to bring their own arguments and explanations from their position

If you don't you're just a heckler and you're wasting a great opportunity to actually seek truth period

Another thing I noticed is dr Bonson does a very excellent job of telling the story of the debate while it's happening and this actually really comes out more in like his openers and his rebuttals

And I've personally described this before as laying a framework. This is what I'm talking about laying a framework for the debate

Bonson did this masterfully and so the audience is able to like not only keep up like with what's going on at any given moment in the debate, but Adopt Bonson's framework

When they hear Stein make his comments because Bonson prepares the audience for what

Stein is going to say It was really great Bonson knows how to debate. He's very skilled at it. So kudos to Bonson He is the clear winner of this debate in my opinion.

Well, what did you think? You should definitely watch the whole thing again. The link for the full debate is below and then you tell me who do you think?

One dr. Bonson or dr. Stein. It's Friday. So I am off to maybe go see the

Batman who knows right and maybe I could talk about that in a future video, but for now

If you want me to react to another particular kind of debate if you want me to do any kind of video