This formal debate between Dr. Bahnsen and atheist lawyer (former ACLU) Edward Tabash at the University of California (Davis), is a great follow-up to the Bahnsen/Stein debate. Witness again how an atheist fails to wrestle with fundamental philosophical issues.
0:10 DOES GOD EXIST?
0:31 Introduction To The Debaters
0:50 Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen
2:30 Mr. Edward Tabash
4:06 Moderator Remarks & The Debate Format
7:35 ——- —— SEGMENT #1
7:36 AFFIRMATIVE – Greg Bahnsen, (15 min Opening Statement)
22:51 NEGATIVE – Edward Tabash, (15 min Opening Statement)
37:59 Moderator’s Remarks
39:00 CROSS EXAMINATION – Greg Bahnsen, (1 Question)
40:42 CROSS EXAMINATION – Edward Tabash, (1 Question)
43:39 CROSS EXAMINATION – Greg Bahnsen, (1 Question)
47:03 CROSS EXAMINATION – Edward Tabash, (1 Question)
50:19 Moderator’s Remarks
50:33 REBUTTAL – Greg Bahnsen, (7 min)
57:24 REBUTTAL – Edward Tabash, (7 min)
1:04:20 ))) INTERMISSION (3 min) Moderator’s Remarks
1:05:23 ——- —— SEGMENT #2
1:05:45 NEGATIVE – Edward Tabash, (10 min)
1:15:57 AFFIRMATIVE – Greg Bahnsen, (10 min)
1:26:07 Moderator’s Remarks
1:26:32 CROSS EXAMINATION – Edward Tabash, (1 Question)
1:29:16 CROSS EXAMINATION – Greg Bahnsen, (1 Question)
1:32:30 CROSS EXAMINATION – Edward Tabash, (1 Question)
1:35:36 CROSS EXAMINATION – Greg Bahnsen, (1 Question)
1:38:34 Moderator’s Remarks
1:38:46 REBUTTAL – Edward Tabash, (5 min)
1:43:53 REBUTTAL – Greg Bahnsen, (5 min)
1:49:10 ))) INTERMISSION (5 min) Moderator’s Remarks
1:49:44 ——- —— SEGMENT #3
1:49:45 Q&A – Greg Bahnsen
1:51:51 Edward Tabash (Response)
1:53:29 Q&A – Edward Tabash
1:55:08 Greg Bahsnen (Response)
1:56:18 Q&A – Greg Bahnsen
1:58:06 Edward Tabash (Response)
1:59:44 Q&A – Edward Tabash
2:01:31 Greg Bahsnen (Response)
2:03:06 Q&A – Greg Bahnsen
2:04:39 Edward Tabash (Response)
2:06:17 Q&A – Edward Tabash
2:07:56 Greg Bahsnen (Response)
2:09:33 Q&A – Greg Bahnsen
2:11:43 Edward Tabash (Response)
2:13:18 Q&A – Edward Tabash
2:14:57 Greg Bahsnen (Response)
2:16:31 Moderator’s Remarks
2:16:37 ——- —— SEGMENT #4
2:16:56 Edward Tabash (10 min Closing Statements)
2:26:57 Greg Bahnsen (10 min Closing Statements)
2:37:21 ))) CLOSING REMARKS by HOST
ADDITIONAL NOTES & RECOMMENDATIONS (REC)
8:58 GLB Introduces the notion of differing WORLDVIEWS, and that a Worldview consists of one’s philosophy of Metaphysics, Epistemology, & Ethics. RECOMMENDATION: Watch GLB’s series, TAKING IT TO THE STREETS.
https://thebahnsenbibleacademy.com/taking-it-to-the-streets-1-of-8-worldviews-in-collision-part-1/
10:27 Using the historicity of Christ’s Resurrection as an example, GLB demonstrates how differing Worldviews interpret evidence.
10:51 REC: Watch GLB’s series, THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
https://thebahnsenbibleacademy.com/the-problem-of-evil-is-the-problem-of-evil-problematic-1-of-3/
11:49 REC: Watch GLB’s series, TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS (1 of 10) – Four Types of Proof
https://thebahnsenbibleacademy.com/transcendental-arguments-1-of-10-four-types-of-proof/
12:58 REC: Watch GLB’s series, WHAT? ME DEFEND THE FAITH? 3 – The Toothpaste Proof of God’s Existence
https://thebahnsenbibleacademy.com/the-toothpaste-proof-of-gods-existence-3-of-4/
13:41 REC: Watch GLB’s series, PRACTICAL APOLOGETICS, 3 – Evolution
https://thebahnsenbibleacademy.com/practical-apologetics-3-of-5-evolution/
13:41 REC: Watch GLB’s series, TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENTS (1 of 10) – Four Types of Proof
@ Nineteen min Ten secs (Introductory Consideration) THE RELATIONSHIP OF FAITH & REASON
https://thebahnsenbibleacademy.com/transcendental-arguments-1-of-10-four-types-of-proof/
14:47 REC: Watch GLB’s series, PRACTICAL APOLOGETICS, 3 – Evolution
https://thebahnsenbibleacademy.com/practical-apologetics-3-of-5-evolution/
THE CAUSAL/INDUCTIVE PRINCIPLE – Placing Atheism & Christianity Side-By-Side To Ask, Which Worldview Provides The Preconditions For Rationality, Intelligibility, & Science? (The Space Program)
@ Thirty-one min Fifty-nine secs Causation Is Not Mere Succession Of Events (Why Do Eggs Fry?)…David Hume (Causation Is Necessary Succession Of Events)
@ Thirty-three min Forty-three secs Bertrand Russell On Induction…You Can’t Prove Induction By Appealing To Experience…ARBITRARINESS
