Does God Exist?- Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein

The following audio of the debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein "Does God Exist?" is a classic representation of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God, (TAG) The transcendental argument was developed by Greg Bahnsen's seminary professor and mentor Cornelius Van Til an influential Reformed theologian whose work has gained momentum over the years. Van Til recognized that when it came to apologetics the reformed understanding of the faith was not represented by a truly reformed apologetic. Taking his cue from the philosophy of Kant who developed a transcendental approach to human autonomy which assumed that this autonomy was properly basic, Van Til developed an apologetic that proposed that the existence of God is ground zero- or properly basic- and unless this is explicitly or implicitly
assumed (either unconsciously or consciously) one cannot know anything. This extraordinarily bold claim is behind Greg Bahnsen's amazing defense of the faith. Gordon Stein is so non-plussed and quite unprepared for this approach- he struggles to get to grips with this form of argumentation.

"If Kant taught the world of secular belief the essentials of its own (until then, subconscious) theory of knowledge (“epistemology”), Van Til did the same for the Christian. As Kant said that we must avoid any trace of the attitude of bowing before an external authority, so Van Til taught that the only way to find truth at all is to bow before God’s authoritative Scripture. As Kant presented his view transcen­dentally, as the inescapable ultimate presupposition of human thought, so Van Til made and defended transcendentally the same claim for the revelation of God: that God’s Word is the only presupposition that does not destroy the intelligibility of human thought.Because of Van Til, we can at last define the essential philo­sophical differences between the Christian and the non-Christian worldviews. If Kant’s achievement makes him the most important secular philosopher of modern times, should we not say that Van Til’s achievement makes him the most important Christian thinker of modern times?"

In the quote above- John Frame the J. D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida juxtaposes the philosophical starting point for all thinking (from Kant's "transcendental method") with Cornelius Van Til's own account and transcendental starting point.

Raised in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he (Bahnsen) actively participated in religious activities. He first began reading the apologetics of Cornelius Van Til when in high school, and his absorption of these works influenced his later career. While attending Westmont College he began writing for the Chalcedon Foundation of Rousas J. Rushdoony and soon came to admire the latter's strong Calvinistic convictions.

In 1970 Bahnsen graduated magna cum laude from Westmont College, receiving his B.A. in philosophy as well as the John Bunyan Smith Award for his overall grade point average. From there he went on to Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, where he studied under Cornelius Van Til. The two became close friends. When he graduated in May 1973, he simultaneously received two degrees, Master of Divinity and Master of Theology, as well as the William Benton Greene Prize in apologetics and a Richard Weaver Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. His next academic stop was the University of Southern California (USC), where he studied philosophy, specializing in the theory of knowledge. In 1975, after receiving ordination in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, he became an associate professor of Apologetics and Ethics at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. While there, he completed his studies at USC, receiving his Ph.D. in 1978. (Wikipedia)

Kris Lounsbury July 13, 2012 at 9:16 pm  comments on the difference between the efficacy of the transcendental argument and the evidentialist system of defending the existence of God:

This is why it’s futile to argue with a non theist by presenting ‘evidence’ for the existence of God. The transcendental argument for God’s existence is both certain and irrefutable. It is certain because it is based on laws of logic which when denied actually prove the validity of the argument for God. In other words when the atheist tries to argue against God’s existence he is assuming a number of things which can only be assumed when one starts with the existence of the biblical God. As Dr. Bahnsen so eloquently said, “By coming to the debate the atheist has already lost the debate.” There is nothing ‘wrong’ with the cosmological, teleological, etc. arguments for God’s existence but they suffer from the same fate as induction when they are used to try to produce a certainty. When the transcendental argument is properly used it is both certain and irrefutable. The best proof for the existence of God is that it is impossible for the biblical God NOT to exist. When this argument is formulated correctly I have never found an atheist who can come against it. They usually end up name calling or with other ad hominem attacks. Very good video. Very good ammo for the next guy that says, “I just believe in science”. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”

While I would not entirely agree with Lounsbury's idea of the futility of presenting an "evidential" case for the existence of God I do agree with the rest of his statement. Actually he contradicts himself when he says: "There is nothing ‘wrong’ with the cosmological, teleological, etc. arguments for God’s existence..." Because he has just finished saying there is something wrong with an evidentialist approach, in his own words: "It's futile..."! On the contrary, the scriptures are full of people who did listen to the evidence and decided for it. But for all that, TAG is a formidable argument on behalf of Theism.

Apologies for the sound quality of this audio- this is now a relatively old reproduction.

I have just found out there were copyright issues with the audio debate and it has been removed from Youtube's public domain- which means I no longer can share it, however a ten minute summary of that debate is still available which I present below. For those who know me personally I have bought my own copy of it and am more than willing to present it locally.