If you take the time, you'll certainly find the arguments against Gods existence stated as or more articulately by Bahnsen than any atheist or skeptic I know of. Many other Christians as well have exceptional knowledge and understanding in the broad field of philosophy. In other words, the exposition of the inadequacies of an argument or a belief system is not tantamount to the inability of understanding that system.

I wasn't making an argument. I was making a comment, thus it's placement in the "comments" section. Debating in this forum is moot and there are more impressive people than you or I doing that very thing elsewhere. Regardless, most debates are frivolous anyway, neither side seems able to comprehend the other and more importantly, neither side seems willing to listen to the other side's claims, arguments OR assertions.

@ jessivehadit:

Wow. Unimpressive and predictable. Apparently filling your head with atheism causes it to thicken and harden. You seems unable to hear or comprehend the simplest of things, either that, or disbelief in god goes hand in hand with unbelief in reality.
There's a lot of things that I don't know or understand about this universe, but I refuse to label my ignorance "Chance" and bow before it.
-----
My point is, jessivehadit, try to understand the difference between an argument and mere assertions.

Wow. Unimpressive and predictable. Apparently filling your head with god causes it to thicken and harden. He seems unable to hear or comprehend the simplest of things, either that, or belief in god goes hand in hand with unbelief in reality.
There's a lot of things that I don't know or understand about this universe, but I refuse to label my ignorance "God" and bow before it.

Dr. Bahnsen was one of the greatest Apologists I ever heard. He was truly an amazing speaker and is greatly missed.

HI, I was wondering if you have read Van Til's Apologetic? I had a couple questions if you have the time. Thanks

typical cult....why follow the babbling of this preacher....isn't the Bible enough for you

AFAIK, Naturalism/Sociology has never been able to explain why people should have objective morals without an Absolute moral source. I've heard that Good is decided by what brings the most happiness to people, but no one has explained why anyone needs to follow that idea, or why choosing not to live by that is considered Evil or Wrong.

What was the precondition that Good = Happiness and Evil = Unhappiness. So a deed's nature is decided by the level of happiness? And if so, why is that the case? What if someone disagrees with that system? If Society just arrived at this conclusion and placed these ideas on themselves, then morals are nothing more than conventions accepted among men; completely open to interpretation and variance without authority to justify either.

"Stein explained how intrinsic order of the universe and sociology would account for the (not necessarily universal or absolute) laws of logic and science and morals"

Responding by saying, "The Universe is uniform, because that's just it's nature," is not an answer. How does Stein's world view (WV) account for the Universe's natural uniform order? Scientists paint us a picture of a universe that didn't begin by having intrinsic order. The theory of Evolution itself testifies to a lack of intrinsic order for its beginnings.

"Christianity, through it's absurdity and vagueness ultimately arrives at immorality. Man can come to this conclusion using the logic God gave him"

You seem to be holding believers morally culpable for not relinquishing their belief in God..How does one do this, given Naturalism's lack of a transcendent moral source, which is a major issue for that world view? Also, arguing from a WV which deprives one of an objective moral source, how can one arrive at the conclusion that Christianity makes men immoral? Please, explain.