[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/13/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/13/96 [00:48] nit

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/13/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/13/96 [00:48] nitelite (mbasset@nh-ts02-11.iconn.net) joined #Apologetics. [00:53] hi nitelite [00:55] hI! [00:56] No Acolyte [00:58] lance (lance@eagle.escn.com) joined #Apologetics. [01:01] seems so [01:08] FOZZ (FOZZ@www-38-213.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [01:09] grace and peace [01:09] nitelite: anyone here? [01:09] we are here [01:10] FOZZ (FOZZ@www-38-213.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [01:15] No apologies being issued tonight ? [01:17] not yet [01:18] Got any on hand ? [01:21] _MoRT (Discworld@mort.ptbo.igs.net) joined #apologetics. [01:21] _MoRT (Discworld@mort.ptbo.igs.net) left #apologetics. [01:22] nitelite (mbasset@nh-ts02-11.iconn.net) left #Apologetics. [01:23] redraider (jb@199.1.172.155) joined #apologetics. [01:24] achimoth - somewhat suprised to find you here [01:24] why? ;) [01:24] seems as if you didnt want to hear any arguments [01:26] redraider (jb@199.1.172.155) left #apologetics. [01:26] redraider: just upholding the channel purpose on #bible [01:26] nothing personal [01:26] KogaNinja (AB@node11.ccc-bbs.com) joined #Apologetics. [01:26] KogaNinja (AB@node11.ccc-bbs.com) left #Apologetics. [01:27] MacBinary (ircle@dial196164.wbm.ca) joined #apologetics. [01:28] hi [01:28] MacBinary (ircle@dial196164.wbm.ca) left #apologetics. [01:44] Chopper (ehoag@pm1_10.gdi.net) joined #Apologetics. [01:44] ??? [01:44] Chopper (ehoag@pm1_10.gdi.net) left #Apologetics. [02:00] RedTango (silver@ip030.lax.primenet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:01] hi [02:01] RedTango (silver@ip030.lax.primenet.com) left #apologetics. [02:04] Xristian (Micah@ppp70.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics. [02:07] QingWa (frog@bluestem.prairienet.org) joined #apologetics. [02:07] Who is gonna knock me out? [02:08] Xristian (Micah@ppp70.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics. [02:08] Flagg (Wicca@wicca.tiac.net) joined #apologetics. [02:09] LOL [02:09] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [02:09] Anyone here? [02:10] MacBinary (ircle@dial196164.wbm.ca) joined #apologetics. [02:10] Hi Mac, Flagg [02:10] yo all [02:11] fly-by (ask@pm42.ilhawaii.net) joined #Apologetics. [02:11] why is no one talking [02:11] hi fly [02:11] hello? [02:11] just us farm poultry types.. ;) [02:11] Momma said 'knock you out' is the way the song is supposed to go [02:11] is everyone in here a christian? [02:11] I think so [02:11] no [02:12] yes [02:12] maybe [02:12] Any mormons? [02:12] christianity sucks dead dogs [02:12] Liberal1 (Liberal1@www-17-164.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:13] What is the topic? [02:13] I thought they scuked on human flesh [02:13] RedTango (silver@ip030.lax.primenet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:13] flagg: ok... if you think that.. yer welcome to it [02:13] i don't think it I KNOW IT :) [02:13] and I know that those who dent God are fools [02:14] your god is too "human" to be real :) [02:14] deny God even [02:14] "dent" God? [02:14] your bible is a fary tale :) [02:14] fairy tale even :) [02:14] Quag (Jordan@ind-000-236-38.iquest.net) joined #apologetics. [02:14] Azirafel (diogenes@TCHM11A8.RMT.UTK.EDU) joined #apologetics. [02:14] oh yeah real nice flagg [02:14] Quag (Jordan@ind-000-236-38.iquest.net) left #apologetics. [02:14] Azirafel (diogenes@TCHM11A8.RMT.UTK.EDU) left #apologetics. [02:14] Flagg: some fairty tale, one that people have been willing to die for [02:15] God loves CANNIBALISM!!!!! [02:15] people died for hitler too :) [02:15] Arch, people are willing to die for just about anything. Does the name Jim Jones ring a bell? [02:15] QingWa: that's a stretch [02:15] or David Koresh? [02:15] lol [02:15] ugh my typing is on the poor side tonight [02:15] those folks have one thing in common they claim to be the Christ [02:16] Jesus warned us that false Christs would come... [02:16] yeah so did a lot of people [02:16] Well, christ claimed to be the saviour as well. [02:16] Nothing new. [02:16] and they are just as deluted as you are :) [02:16] QingWa: I love God, and I'm going to eat you. [02:16] he was.. :) [02:16] Of course he did, to make you think he was it. [02:16] Achi: Anyone can play the 'name-the christian' game [02:16] achimouth can you give me proof? [02:17] Flagg: we'll see who is deluded in enternity.. if you are right then I'm dead.. if I'm rught.. well... ;) [02:17] right even [02:17] Flagg: can you? [02:17] I bet that if I started preaching the bibble and told people I was "christ" some would believe me and be willing to die for me [02:17] fLagg: i have proof but you wont accept it [02:17] you have proof? [02:17] Einstein: I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures or has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. [02:18] then you have no faith [02:18] if you have proof, faith is impossible :) [02:18] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [02:18] Flagg: look up Rom. 1:20 [02:18] Flagg: maybe so. But if you made up the idea of Christ, would YOU be willing to die for it? [02:18] actually my proof came from ym faith [02:18] your "god" would damn you for having no faith :) [02:18] God loves death by stoning [02:18] hehehe [02:18] mt proof ccan only be believed by faith.... [02:18] fly: How do we know that God tells the truth? [02:19] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #Apologetics. [02:19] faith: believing something that cannot be proven [02:19] Arch, explain Leviticus 19:28. [02:19] Einstein: Neither can I- nor would I want to- conceive of an individula that survives his physical death. Let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. [02:19] Flagg: and you rely on poor sematical arguments to try and get a rise out of people.. [02:19] Action: Flagg A holocaust the christians want you to forget (http://www.primenet.com/~ioseph/burnwitc.htm [02:19] nitelite (mbasset@nh-ts02-11.iconn.net) joined #Apologetics. [02:19] flagg: then much of modern science qualifies under fiath... heh [02:19] faith even [02:19] QingWa: If God didn't tell the truth, what would the difference be. We would be toast anyway. [02:19] no much of science is FACT and has been proven so [02:19] Mode change '+o W ' by okc.ok.us.undernet.org [02:20] otherwise it's called THEORY [02:20] fly-by: Excellent point! [02:20] flagg: ahh, thats the big lie [02:20] Fly: Well he doesnt tell the truth. So we are toast. [02:20] no [02:20] Archimoth....explain Levitius 20:13 [02:20] asha (boadicea@anna.az.com) joined #apologetics. [02:20] Achimoth: How do you know God tells the truth? [02:20] your own fairy tale says that most of the people will be decieved... how do you know you aren't being decieved? [02:20] QingWa: I'm not toast, I am more like butta' [02:20] Flagg: faith.. ;) [02:21] Liberal1 (Liberal1@www-17-164.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [02:21] how do you know that your "god" is the right one? [02:21] red: its self explanitory [02:21] Flagg: faith [02:21] ah there you go with "faith" [02:21] i thought you had proof [02:21] Arch, i said Leviticus 20:13 [02:21] Achimoth: How do you know God even tells the truth? How do you know he doesnt lie? [02:21] yes, I've seen my Savior [02:21] Okay i see it [02:21] if you have faith then you can't have proof [02:22] flagg: wrong [02:22] So we should kill homosexuals, is that what the bible is saying? [02:22] achimouth no I'm right :) [02:22] Red: where does the bible say this? [02:22] Flagg: are you sure? [02:22] @@@exo 23:33 [02:22] Red: Of course that's what its saying, assuming God isnt a liar [02:22] asha, Leviticus 20:13 [02:22] Flagg: show me ANYTHING with absolute proof..... [02:22] if god created liars then he is one [02:22] he made us in "his image" right? [02:23] Arch, are you going to answer me? [02:23] :) [02:23] why is your religion so warlike when it preaches peace? [02:23] Action: Flagg A holocaust the christians want you to forget (http://www.primenet.com/~ioseph/burnwitc.htm [02:24] The Bible has probably been the biggest source of embarrasment for xtians. Maybe that is why they keep rewriting it [02:24] I still am waiting for an explaination. [02:24] me too :) [02:24] Flagg: a beautiful quote from King Arthur. "There is a peace that is only to be found on the other side of war" [02:24] asha: Can you trust God's word as the absolute truth? [02:24] What happened to Archimoth? [02:25] How is the Bible the greatest embarassment to Christians? [02:25] um, your religion has killed over 5 million people in 2000 years [02:25] why? [02:25] fly-by: so war is okay because you go to heaven afterwards? or find peace in death afterwards? [02:25] QingWa: I don't [02:25] redtango: if one puts oneself under Law, then he must abide by its rules.. [02:25] Flagg: you THINK you are right [02:25] red: i did [02:25] who says its my "religion"? [02:26] Red: I am here [02:26] Flagg: Theosophy killed 6 million jews in WW2.. so? [02:26] ach: I KNOW I AM :) [02:26] and atheism killed millions more during the Bolshevik revolution [02:26] asha: smart move [02:26] Flagg: if I killed people in your name, does that necessarily mean that I represent you? [02:26] and christianity killed 5,000,000 pagans over the centuries... why? [02:26] Matty (kk@s01-pm01.uncc.campus.mci.net) joined #Apologetics. [02:26] Archimoth, so you advocate the murder of gays? [02:26] What's going on? [02:26] Is there anyone in here? [02:26] heh matty [02:26] Flagg: because men serve self instead of God [02:26] fly: if I had told you to kill then yes [02:27] Redtango: actually no... [02:27] Flagg: God did not tell Christians to kill 5 million people. [02:27] See! I told you ! God IS a liar!!!!! [02:27] QingWa: not necessarily, I am affected by life more than the average 'sheep' xian because of it [02:27] arch: why not? [02:27] your bible did [02:27] because I am not under Law but under Grace [02:27] Arch, but you subscribe to the bible...why not this? [02:27] um, redtango, his name is achimoth, not archimoth :) [02:27] your bible is "the word of god" [02:27] so yes he did tell them to kill [02:27] QingWa: you are taking that out of context. [02:27] Flagg: prove it [02:27] brb [02:28] fly: So is there a context that justifies God's lies? [02:28] asha, it doesnt matter as long as he gets the message [02:28] Flagg: brb? [02:28] if you believe the bible - how come you don't kill gays? [02:28] QingWa: it doesn't say that God lies. [02:28] Qingwa: he never lies, he allows those who dont know him to believe a lie [02:28] brb= be right back [02:28] Red: I know, just didn't know if you saw your typo [02:28] be right back - brb [02:29] right of punishment belongs to God not me [02:29] MacBinary: for the same reason that I don't kill politicians [02:29] Achimoth, so God punishes gays? [02:29] why would a GOD punish? [02:29] Fly: All I have to prove is that he is CAPABle of lying if he so chooses. He sent a delusion 'so they would believe the lie' Sounds an awful lot like lying to me. [02:30] Action: Flagg is getting proof :) [02:30] fly: the bible says to kill politicians? [02:30] Achi: Then why did he send a delusion? [02:30] WHY would a GOD PUNISH? [02:30] QingWa: in context the passage is saying that God has allowed those who reject the truth to believe a lie. If he didn't do that, he would not be a God that allowed free thought. [02:30] Qing Wa: to harden the hearts of those who have rejected him.. he gives them over to their sins [02:30] Matty (kk@s01-pm01.uncc.campus.mci.net) left #Apologetics. [02:31] Quoting a bible passage isnt an answer. [02:31] Redtango: yes it is [02:31] no it isnt. [02:31] it doesnt mean anything. [02:31] it says exactly what God does [02:31] for the right-wing - unfortunately yes [02:31] Redtango: then I cannot answer you, as you reject my answer [02:31] that's good to hear ach :) [02:31] oops [02:31] i am questioning the contents, then you just give me the contents again. [02:31] Action: asha is STILL wondering how/why a god would punish [02:32] Fly: he sent the delusion so that they would believe. That is lying. You can deny it all you want but it doesnt change the words that were written in 2thes. Your god is an outright liar. [02:32] Achimoth, are you saying that God punishes gays? [02:32] RedTango: oh well, lifes a ... well, you know.. ;) [02:32] God punishes because he is just. [02:32] Ach, yeah, especially if you are gay, apparently. [02:32] fly: how do you know? [02:32] God is just? Just what, stupid? [02:32] to be honest, before I was Xian, i was a bisexual [02:32] fly-by: why would god punish though? [02:33] just as in fair Red [02:33] Fly: Which immediately brings into question wether ANYTHING he says in the Bible is the truth. How do you know you arent being deluded by what God sent? [02:33] why would a god who is omnipotent and omnipresent create beings that he KNOWS won't believe in him? [02:33] asha, people punish themselves. [02:33] ach: and you changed [02:33] does he get his rocks off that way? [02:33] Flagg: love not freely given is not love [02:33] if he wanted robots he wouldnt have given us choice [02:33] QingWa: because I haven't rejected God. [02:34] Flagg: I think that I can answer that, I'm not even Christian....... yes Achi, that's exactly what I would have said (robot thing) [02:34] Ach, we dont have choice, because you have to pick Jesus or you fry. Thats not choice, its tyranny. [02:34] why would he care if we were robots or not [02:34] mac: actually, I still fight the desires in my flesh, but I know that the Lord leads me through the temptations of the flesh [02:34] Flagg: he created us to be his children, not his personal robots [02:34] Flagg: why would you have children, knowing the possiblility that they might become drug addicts? [02:34] Fly: That doesnt mean you arent being lied to. Alot of people are lied to by those they dont reject. [02:34] MacBin: what fun would it be if we were robots? [02:34] Ach, what is wrong with being bisexual? [02:34] asha: we wouldn't know - what difference would it make [02:34] Redtango:wqrong, you chooose to be apart from God, so he puts you apart from him, that being the Lake of Fire [02:34] he honors your choice [02:35] redtango: it does not serve the purpose of God [02:35] Achi: I thought that only false prophets went to the lake of fire [02:35] so all atheists are gonna burn then [02:35] THERE'S my fucking proof [02:35] See you all this is boring! [02:35] RedTango (silver@ip030.lax.primenet.com) left #apologetics. [02:35] too warlike for me :) [02:36] MacGyver (user@194.18.106.67) joined #Apologetics. [02:36] Hi all !!!! [02:36] why dont you join #CREED [02:36] hi macg [02:36] why does your god tell people to kill? [02:36] Flagg: never told me to kill :) [02:36] flagg: why do you kill? [02:36] This whole argument is out of context [02:36] fly: oh -0 why? [02:37] Hey lets all hate our families!! Jesus said so! [02:37] Action: Flagg doesn't kill it's agenst his religiomn :) [02:37] not to mention is based on their own personal sense of right and wrong [02:37] ach: whose own personal sense? [02:37] so in God's ten big ones, he said thou shalt not kill, and then he said in the bible that you should at the same time? What the......... [02:38] MacBinary: every Bible passage presented is taken out of context. [02:38] macbinary: each man has his own sense of right and wrong, and without God, that sense of right and wrong(or conscience) is numbed over time. [02:38] I_tim 2:11 [02:38] Hey God wants us to smash babies against rocks!!! [02:38] ack [02:38] I need to discuss some serious issues. Can' [02:38] Achimoth: that is not entirely true my xian friend [02:38] t do it here. see ya. [02:38] QuingWa: you are mistaken. God only wants society to allow souls to come to Him. [02:38] ach: have you read Plato's Euthyphro? [02:38] fly-by (ask@pm42.ilhawaii.net) left #Apologetics. [02:39] CTCP SOUND: runaway.wav RUNAWAY!!!!!!! RUNAWAY!!!!! RUNAWAY!!!!!!!... from Flagg (Wicca@wicca.tiac.net) to #apologetics [02:39] nite; Well if we smash babies against rocks then where do the souls of those babies go? [02:39] wy does your "god" hate women? [02:39] QuingWa: if they die without the transformation of the gospel, it is very sad. [02:39] Flagg: God loves women. [02:40] mac: to be honest know.. greek philosophy is not my strong point [02:40] no even [02:40] dammit it's bringing up the wrong thing [02:40] stupid bibble bot [02:40] why dont you join #CREED [02:40] macg: cause we don't want to [02:40] Action: MacGyver says: #CREED is a cool christian channel, we answer youre questions and i need antoher op there .... [02:40] MacGyver (user@194.18.106.67) left #Apologetics. [02:40] QuingWa: sin carries consequences for man and woman. [02:40] night all [02:40] @@ Luke 14:26 [02:41] MacBinary (ircle@dial196164.wbm.ca) left irc: [02:41] nite Mac :) [02:41] Chop the woman's hand off says God !! Weee! That God fellow is kind of a rogue towards women dont you think? Maybe some Goddess rejected him at some time in the past.... [02:41] why? [02:41] Action: asha sends MacBinary a smooch [02:41] why why why? [02:41] i thought your god was so "loving and caring and FORGIVING" [02:41] Flagg and QingWa: if you wish to not accept fine.... but your mocking doesnt bother me [02:42] @@@luke 19:27 [02:42] so its a little useless [02:42] WHY??????? [02:42] why does a man rape his child? [02:42] why does a man kill another man for his shoes? [02:42] flagg: immature aint ya? [02:43] okay Flagg, your point has been made I think [02:43] Action: asha gets dizzy and staggers around the room [02:43] WHY WHY WHY???? [02:43] and here i had respect for you a bit [02:43] why ask why? :P [02:43] No Achi, not necessarily immature, just frustrated [02:43] Action: Flagg doen't want or need your respect [02:43] QuingWa: man and woman both suffer separation from God by taking authory rather than submitting to truth. [02:43] Achi: what bothers me is that you worship a God that is clearly and evidently NOT a loving entity. Yet you refuse to see it even as we use logos to show you. You are clearly in denial. [02:43] Achimoth: because I think, that's why I ask why [02:43] I WANNA KNOW WHY [02:43] asha: frustrated? more like manic [02:43] ^MOM^ (dananova@ppp38.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [02:44] ^MOM^ (dananova@ppp38.snni.com) left #apologetics. [02:44] Cant (thmcivor@204.191.210.26) joined #apologetics. [02:44] QingWa: denial? I think not, I see a loving God who is also a JUST God [02:45] The true God is sovereign, and need answer to no one, by the way.. Whether you like it or not.. [02:45] it makes no sense that a "loving and FORGIVING god" would want his followers to kill people for a mistake [02:45] Achi: just is "if you don't believe in me, I'll have someone kill ou?" [02:45] he loved us enough to incarnate as Jesus Christ to pay the penalties for his Law,if you reject that sacrifice, you deserve the penalties of your sins... [02:45] FLagg: you want herion dealers to spend 12 hours a day with your children ? [02:45] it's even harder to understand why such a loving and forgiving god would "damn" someone for all eterity for a mistake [02:45] ^WrAiTh (WrAiTh@redshift.superlink.net) joined #apologetics. [02:46] ^MOM^ (dananova@ppp38.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [02:46] nitelite: heroin dealers? Where does this fit into context? [02:46] Flagg: people damn themselves by departing from the only source of life. [02:46] sigh: guess by flooding they prove their arguments, only all they show is their immaturity [02:46] why would a "loving and forgiving god" let that happen? [02:46] asha: you wish God would prosper and benefit those who would destroy the souls of others ? [02:46] <^WrAiTh> 'lo all [02:46] flagg: you seem to be assuming that one need be a literalist or believe everything the bible says. [02:47] <^WrAiTh> what's happening here?? [02:47] I apologize for him Achimoth.... he is trying desparately to make you see his point is all [02:47] flagg: because, man refuses to follow his will, so he allows mankind to reap the rewards of their actions [02:47] Flagg: you really are a poor debater [02:47] oh man, I'll come back later when flooding isn't happening [02:47] hey.... cut that out. [02:47] asha (boadicea@anna.az.com) left irc: Leaving [02:47] Hey Achimoth. Check this one out. [02:47] Lewismind (shunsa@user40.timetrend.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:48] hello [02:48] QuingWa: you must think people are pretty stupid :) [02:48] flood warning [02:48] what's the deal ... [02:48] can you explain why [02:48] Mode change '+o ^MOM^ ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [02:48] Flagg!Wicca@wicca.tiac.net kicked by ^MOM^!dananova@ppp38.snni.com: ^MOM^ [02:48] Mode change '+b *!*@wicca.tiac.net ' by ^MOM^!dananova@ppp38.snni.com [02:48] <^MOM^> Jerk!!!!! [02:48] Action: ^WrAiTh swirls at the edge of a shadow looking at the text scroll by ... [02:48] thank you. [02:49] <^MOM^> There it is!!!! [02:49] <^MOM^> BAM!!! [02:49] Is there something going on here that I should know about? [02:49] <^MOM^> Hows everyone tonight??? [02:49] whats so sad is Flagg sets himself(or herself) as a reasonable type, yet resorts to childish tactics to argue his point [02:49] nite: Why would I think they are stupid? [02:49] lewismind: quite probably not. [02:49] <^MOM^> Anyone seen ProfG tinight???? [02:49] nope [02:49] negative [02:50] <^MOM^> Ok thanks :) [02:50] okay, whats the deal with the bot, is it an automatic scripture quoter? [02:50] QuingWa: you must htink that people dont see the same scriptures you are quoting... and they will come as a big revelation... But you are like the blind man who feels the elephants tail and think its a snake. [02:51] achimoth: how is it that GOd is loving, is he loving like a father? [02:51] nitelite: appropiate anaology.. ;) [02:51] Now, Whose DUMB title is on this channel ? [02:51] nite: That they are scriptures CONTRARY to all that you claim God is. Why cant you see that? [02:51] QuingWa: what I am saying is that you must think people are very stupid NOT to see that. :) [02:52] cant: to a point, but consider, he loved us enough to take his own righteous punishment upon himself to save those of us who rely on him [02:52] nite: Oh. [02:52] QuingWa: perhaps you just dont have the whole picture... A little blessed humilty, and that may dawn upon you. [02:52] what more can he do? [02:52] Achimoth: would you describe yourself as a calvinist? [02:53] Well cya you later. My gf wants me to go to bed ;) [02:53] cant: I am calvintistic in certain ways... but i am not a clasic Calvinist [02:53] Cant: Calvanists do not serve a loving God. Perhaps thats where the problem lies... [02:53] see you Qing.. [02:53] QingWa (frog@bluestem.prairienet.org) left irc: and we are NOT married! :) [02:53] nitelite: how so? [02:54] Action: ^MOM^ smacks ^WrAiTh over the head with the Bible [02:54] <^MOM^> hehe [02:54] whats the topic [02:54] achimoth: do you think God is benevolent? [02:54] Achimoth: that God is unjust... Of course, he is not the true God, so it is proper to steer by way of avoidance of those errors toward the mercy of the real God of salvation. [02:55] one point that i disagree with calvinism is the concept of Limited Atonement [02:55] I've noticed that the rooms like this and the atheist rooms all need someone to fight [02:55] Achimoth: toss the wrtched baby with the scummy bathwater. [02:55] do you agree [02:55] lewismind: 'fight' isn't really what we do is it? [02:55] Cant:is all that he does benevolent as we dtermine benevolence? i cant say, but does he do what he does for the greater good, yes. [02:55] ^MOM^ (dananova@ppp38.snni.com) left #apologetics. [02:55] well..... [02:56] Lewis: a good conversation has opposing views and character is tested [02:56] Ahh I see [02:56] nitelite: im somehow not seeing your point [02:56] ^WrAiTh (WrAiTh@redshift.superlink.net) left #apologetics. [02:57] Limited Atonement is an essential part of "Calvanism" Its the middle letter :) [02:57] Cant = Kant? [02:57] like I said, though i hold some calvinistic doctrine, I am not a Calvinist [02:58] Lewis: an allusion to Kant, also two definitions in the dictionary.. "hypocritical or pious speech" and slightly of center as in cantilever (spelling?) [02:58] that is cool [02:59] Lewismind = C.S. Lewis or C.I Lewis [02:59] C.S. lewis [02:59] I'm not a "religiously" focused Christian.... I am a Jesus-focused Christian [02:59] You refer to yourself as hypocritical and Pious [02:59] Lewis: not really, but it does keep one humble. [03:00] You have a cool bot [03:00] hence though i hold some doctrine that is held by different groups, I am not part of those groups [03:00] ahh humility, cool [03:00] humility is a great companion [03:00] though we all seem to ignore it from time to time [03:00] it is difficult to practice. [03:01] Nomos (Joe@kuts9p07.cc.ukans.edu) joined #apologetics. [03:01] greetings [03:01] Action: Lewismind scans the near empty chat room [03:01] cant: of course, man is naturally inclinated to a focus on self, and from that pride is born [03:02] Is that nature or nurture? [03:02] Hume (lagorer@pm114.spots.ab.ca) joined #apologetics. [03:02] nature [03:02] CANT....hehehehe [03:02] Howdy nomos [03:02] Nomos (Joe@kuts9p07.cc.ukans.edu) left #apologetics. [03:02] hi hume [03:02] Oh no not Hume!!! [03:02] how about some Hume-or [03:02] Now all we need is frued socrates and pascal [03:02] heh [03:03] buppy (jmg@6k069.netusa1.net) joined #Apologetics. [03:03] Yes...it is...Now reason will reign and the monsters irrationality will leave...LOL [03:03] Hume (lagorer@pm114.spots.ab.ca) left irc: Write error to Hume[pm114.spots.ab.ca], closing link [03:03] that was odd [03:03] Achimoth: the self is kind of all one has, so self-focus is perhaps common, but I don't think everyone is self-focused just in virtue of being human. [03:04] It is hard to say wether it is nature or hurture [03:04] cant: what is the first thing a baby learns? what self wants, and needs [03:04] Hume: give in take the leap!!! [03:04] buppy (jmg@6k069.netusa1.net) left #Apologetics. [03:05] achimoth: I should hope so. [03:05] if it is nature then every one has this inclination and therefore excusing it like our eye color [03:05] Hume (lagorer@pm114.spots.ab.ca) joined #apologetics. [03:05] wheeewww...what happened??? [03:05] but if it is nurtue, a response to enviroment then what [03:06] whatcha know Hume [03:06] lewismind: actually, no... that focus on self, comes from our separation from our creator,, caused my Adams sin [03:06] by even [03:06] I know that I don't know....:) [03:06] so it is nature? [03:07] Achimoth: but of course, if a baby isn't 'focused on self' to a certain extent it will not survive in this difficult and unforgiving environment. [03:07] Hume: you sceptic. [03:07] If it is nature, mans nature that makes himselfish then it also helps him survive and prosper in our world [03:08] We are all skeptical to one degree or another [03:08] cant: ahh, thats because we are out of relationship with out creator and hence so is his entire creation... therefore it is now an unfriendly enviroment [03:08] nitelite (mbasset@nh-ts02-11.iconn.net) left #Apologetics. [03:08] ahh.. but what if this "world" is not what we were created for? but is only a place to learn... [03:09] Achimoth: ok, so lets suppose that the best thing is for a person to be joined with God or something like that. [03:09] Cant: its what man was created for [03:09] Achimoth: let's say that the big ticket is to begin one's journey of salvation. [03:10] lance (lance@eagle.escn.com) left irc: Ping timeout for lance[eagle.escn.com] [03:10] Achimoth: There are some people who don't believe in GOd for no particular reason, they haven't even thought about God, or just haven't heard of him.. agree? [03:10] go on... [03:11] cant: ahh.. that is between them and God, I cannot speak for them as i am not all-knowing.. ;) [03:11] Oh boy there it goes again [03:11] Achimoth: Fine, but there are others who do not believe for reasons like the problem of evil and the problems about the coherence of the concept of God. Agree. [03:11] In theory...is that a possibility Achimoth..? [03:11] all i can say is that Jesus is Lord, and that he says he is the Way, and if you hear the message you have no excuse. [03:11] John Hicks on Religous Pluralism is a good place to start with [03:12] Lewismind... I was just about to go into my Hickean tyrade about the Augustinian and Irenaen conflict...but I restrained myself...:) [03:12] lol [03:13] Hick ain't all that now, he is still a professed Christian [03:13] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [03:13] anyway i must withdraw for now as watching 4 channels on two different nets is wearing me out [03:13] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [03:13] hey achimoth [03:13] wow [03:13] well, i guess ill stay to say hi to aco [03:13] what? I get here and you leave [03:13] you guess? [03:13] hehehe [03:14] you BETTER stay! jk ;) [03:14] whoa.. [03:14] Lewismind> Sure...there's actually very little about Hick that appeals to me...but the Augustinian criticism is interesting.... [03:14] Acolyte: you missed Flagg's verse tirade.. heh [03:14] achimoth which one this time? [03:14] Action: Acolyte spews Hick out of his mouth! [03:14] luke 19:27 [03:15] over and over and over and over and over [03:15] Acolyte: have you read much of Hick? [03:15] ad nauseum [03:15] That's right no room for moderation [03:15] in this channel [03:15] Acolyte: When was Hick born? [03:15] cant some of Hick [03:15] Hick is still alive [03:15] ^MOM^ came on and kicked and banned him.. heh [03:15] Cant Phil of Reli, his bk on death etc [03:15] achimoth kewl [03:16] seems his idea of a coherent argument is screaming the same verse over and over and asking why? [03:16] cant I have read a few of his things on Escahtological verification and Pluralism [03:16] Acolyte will learn one day that one cannot dismiss someone's ideas in their entirety...because he might hold to some of the same views you do....:) [03:16] so much fer rational atheism [03:16] Hume thanks for the condencension [03:16] lol [03:16] at least from Flagg [03:17] I do not believe atheism can really exsist [03:17] Hume actually I don't have a prob with Hick on may points, but on other crucial issues I do [03:17] Agreed [03:17] may=many even [03:17] Lewis: really? YOu don't think that people actually sincerely disbelieve? [03:17] Lewis: they can convice themselves... before man lies to others, he lies to himself most of all [03:17] Hume I have a problem with Philosophers who have more commitment to their intellectual autonomy of the momoent than love and commitment to Christ [03:18] its commonly called rationalizations [03:18] Lewis Athiesm is profession, not necessarily a true state [03:18] Achimoth: that may be true, but it applies to the believer just as much to the non :) [03:18] cant: of course, but believers can usually admit that quicker than most athiests.. ;) [03:18] they may dis-believe but no i don't think they can honestly believe that there is absolutly nothing other than humanity and the physical realm [03:18] Aco> hmmmm...I would agree...but I'm not sure I could entirely distinguish between the two without being able to discern their heart... [03:18] Achimoth: oh, there's an interesting statement.... Have you done surveys? [03:18] lewis sure they can, its called Nihilism [03:19] cant: just general observations regarding blievers regardless of religion and atheists [03:19] Hume, possibly but I know it when I see it. [03:19] Lewis: Do you think that there might be some people out there that have never even entertained the notion of God? [03:19] Hume have you read Plantinga's Advice to Christian Philosophers? [03:19] Cant everyone knows God in some sense [03:20] Aco> Then you have wisdom far beyond your age....:) [03:20] i don't believe that a person can say there is no god and really really believe it without any shred of doubt about 'what if i am wrong' [03:20] Achimoth: I might be willing to admit there is dogmatism in both camps, but that's about as far as I go. [03:20] Aco> No I haven't...I have a copy of it though... [03:20] Hume I will not admit to that. [03:20] cant: and there i agree with you [03:20] cant> no [03:21] Aco> Do you think there is something in that article that would be helpful? [03:21] Lewis: SOme people are unable to sustain a thought period, what about them? [03:21] Hume, I know it when I see it, actually I FEEL it to be more precise. It reeks in my nose like a foul stench one runs into while trying to breathe in the brisk mountain air and is startled because it is so out of place [03:21] hume yes [03:21] Cant such as who? [03:21] Acolyte: great description [03:21] Well...then maybe I'll grab it and skim through [03:22] Acolyte: you don't think there are some people incapable of sustaining any sort of understanding of the world? [03:22] hmmmm....eschatological verification or nasal verification....hmmmmm....I can't decide...:) [03:22] Hume, the attitude philosophers have, particularly xian philosophers, so quick to abandon key tenants of the faith as if they were optional. [03:23] cant did I say as much? No, but I asked how you know what you claimed. How do you kow that some ppl cannot think at all? [03:23] it is my belief that any person with cognition and awarness has certain questions, ask any healthy 2 yr old [03:23] where they came from [03:23] cant Ithink that is a very hard thing indeed to know, don't you? [03:24] Acolyte: without getting into the problem about other minds, we just look at a machine that tells us there ain't many waves passing through... [03:24] that bot is pretty cool [03:24] cant ah so the brain and mind are the same? [03:25] the brain and mind the same????? are you so sure???? [03:25] Acolyte: I thought dualism went out with the last attempt to sustain it eg. epiphenomenalism... [03:25] Cant nope [03:25] Acolyte: oh, so how do the mind and brain interact? [03:26] cant I am a dualist tho I admit it is not my speciality of study. But my commitment to it is not necessarily based on how many clever arguments I can come up with [03:26] cant, is knowing that a thing is there the same as knowing how a thing is there? [03:26] cant I am not so sure it is [03:26] Acolyte: But you demanded a clever argument from me? [03:26] how and that are not the same [03:26] cant do I? [03:26] cant I questioned your assumption [03:26] thats all [03:26] can you justify it or not? [03:26] you made a claim, not I [03:27] Acolyte: you're being silly. [03:27] WordWalkr (joe_webgat@port35.webgate.net) joined #Apologetics. [03:27] hi word [03:27] hehehe [03:27] cant I cannot see how physicalism does not lead to nihilism. but even if I am being silly how does being silly make your assumption justified I wonder? Perhaps youc an explainthat to me? [03:27] orthodox (balo@ix-okc-ok3-22.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [03:27] hi all [03:27] pax orthodox [03:28] Acolyte: for us mortals it is difficult to tell when a person is just "questioning an assumption" and "demanding a reply"... [03:28] welcome orthodox [03:28] Action: Lewismind is holding head up off keyboard [03:28] Aco: I've been talling Orthodox about you.. heh [03:28] telling even [03:28] lol [03:28] cant oh, ic, perhaps you can justify yor assumption or no? [03:28] whats the topic [03:28] Action: WordWalkr welcomes orthodox... [03:28] Orthodox what patriarchate are you under? [03:28] Acolyte: So you are demanding a clever argument? [03:28] antiochian [03:28] Bon (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [03:29] cant no, I am wondering if your assumption is a mere assumption or you have some reason for it? [03:29] hey bon [03:29] hiya aco [03:29] hi bon [03:29] achimoth [03:29] Action: Acolyte does the gregorian dance [03:29] :) [03:29] Action: Bon does the cranberry jig [03:29] orthodox r u western or eastern Rite? [03:29] I am tired, but some what impressed by the level in the room, it has stooped but not like the atheisim room, they need someone to pounce with there state school philosophy and big words [03:29] Acolyte: your wondering if I have a reason for my assumption, but your not demaniding an argument? [03:29] wow, #apologetics has more folks than #bible.. heh [03:29] cant no. unless youwant me to [03:30] achimoth good [03:30] achimoth the prayer of a righteous man..... [03:30] Acolyte: you baffle me.... [03:30] ok, for those of us just arriving just what is the assuption over [03:30] cant I do? [03:30] I was not impressed by them at all, no intellect [03:30] opps assumption [03:30] lewis I take it you like Lewis? [03:30] cahrect [03:30] If you can dazzle them with briliance.. baffle them with bull.. ;) [03:30] ortho r u Eastern or Western Rite? [03:30] cant dazzle even [03:31] Bon (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [03:31] eastern [03:31] ^aa^ (tm125@dialup01.geko.net.au) joined #Apologetics. [03:31] orthod where do you live? [03:31] hey aa [03:31] hi aa [03:31] <^aa^> hey, now I'm on five channels.. and I'm a dill [03:32] achmoth: it is quite simple, I take it that materialism/physicalism has become dominant in light of the extreme difficulty in showing dualism to be cogent. [03:32] oklahoma [03:32] <^aa^> what is the subject.... God tempting people ? [03:32] Orthodox kinda a starnage place for an Antiochian :) [03:32] Achimoth: there are less problems with materialism/physicalism than with dualism. [03:32] Cant perhaps you can explain to me how physicalism is not nihilistic? [03:32] Cant depends on whom you ask [03:33] Action: WordWalkr says this is his first time here... [03:33] Acolyte: well for starters I really don't know why you think that nihilism is a necessary consequence of a physicalist position. [03:33] actually we have quite a few churches here geek even [03:33] greetings wordwalkr [03:33] wordwlkr u Christian? [03:34] Action: WordWalkr professes that he has been bought and paid for in full by his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! He healed my body, He touched my mind, He saved me just in time. Look what the Lord has done! Amen! God is Good! [03:34] okay [03:34] cant ok, well perhaps youc an answer a few wuestions that I think will make the problem more obvious? [03:34] Orthodox good [03:34] acolyte good too [03:34] wordwalker what Church do you attend? [03:34] :) [03:34] Acolyte: I will try my best. [03:34] Orthod I am Anglican Catholic [03:34] Peoples Full Gospel Church (Apostolic) [03:34] i see, how did the trial go [03:35] Cant ok, so man is nothing but a physical entity? correct? [03:35] orthodox no I am not part of ECUSA [03:35] <^aa^> Right.... this is the only channel I'm on... but you guys always talk over my head. [03:35] orthodox the ACC left ECUSA in 1976 over liberalism [03:35] Acolyte: a very interesting physical entity, at least from the point of view of a human...:) [03:35] goodnight all, as much as i would like to get into the physical entity stuff I must sleep [03:35] aa well then you can learn then can'tcha? [03:35] and by that statement,which is true, he is already corrupt and subject to nil. [03:36] goodnight lewis, have you read Beversluis? [03:36] nite lewis [03:36] cant ok, so this entity is composed of material particles? [03:36] orthodx have you read Fr Seriphim Rose? [03:36] who? no I guess not [03:36] oh yeahhhhhh [03:36] Acolyte: whatever they are, yes. [03:36] much too good [03:36] <^aa^> Acolyte, sure if I keep taking my Mental medicine. [03:36] orthodx yes he is [03:36] Lewis: ok, he has written an intersting book on Lewis, just checking. [03:36] Cant and what are material particles governed by? [03:37] brb [03:37] back [03:37] :) [03:37] i have to ask, is this a pure physical(science oriented) discourse??? [03:38] orthodox no I am a dualist [03:38] or is that the angle [03:38] Catn BTW have you read Moreland on Substance Dualism? [03:38] of modi operandi [03:38] Cant and what are material particles governed by? [03:39] Acolyte: no to your first question. And to your second question, of course, 'governed' is a bit strong depending on how you think quantum works out. [03:40] cant no to what? [03:40] Lewismind (shunsa@user40.timetrend.com) left #Apologetics. [03:40] I haven't read Moreland on dualism [03:40] cant ok no matter how you think wuantum theory works out with themeasurement problem, governed is still an accurate word. [03:40] ok [03:41] hmmm [03:41] now, do particles move based on arbitrary principles, that is according to nothing at all or on some regularity in any sense? [03:42] Acolyte: well if you mean by 'governed' influenced by something - eg. strict causation then I cannot agree. [03:43] excuse me but cant, whats your affiliated religion? :) [03:43] ok fine, then by what principles do particles move and exist? Does God cause them to move or something part of nature or a combination of both? [03:43] Acolyte: we are treading here where 'angels fear to tread'... if you'll pardon the expression... [03:43] fine [03:43] perhaps, then again perhaps not [03:44] cant have you read Dawkins? [03:44] Acolyte: yes I've read Dawkins and I think his kind of 'evolutionary concepts' bit is kinda hokey. [03:45] ok fine, but please address my primary question [03:45] thudd (yoram@rosecs.com) joined #apologetics. [03:45] Acolyte: Isn't it obvious that I would think that 'something in nature' causes particles to move? [03:46] ok, so some principle of time, matter, motion, and space? [03:46] actually, acolyte god has set the naturistic parinciple in motion, and since all things physical suffer from death, then so too do those principles. of course those principles are nature, and i do acknowlge the fact that the spi ritual side of nature,is present or one wouldn't be able to see a reflection of it's creator [03:46] orthodox ssshhh you'll see [03:47] i know [03:47] ok, so some principle of time, matter, motion, and space? [03:47] thudd (yoram@rosecs.com) left #apologetics. [03:47] Acolyte: where is this going? You do realize that nuerons in the mind are triggered by electrical impluses, which have, strictly speaking, different properties than actual particles or material constituents. [03:49] cant ok, so if they are non-material, what are they governed by? Do they move based on a whim without respect to the rest of nature or is their motion dependent on the laws of mechanics and the antecedent state of rest of the res t of nature? [03:49] Acolyte: we might agree that planets are 'governed' by principles which are specifiable, and that atoms also are governed, but when you get down to the level of the quark things get kinda hairy. [03:49] ok, so they are hairy, so? Is there something non-natureal affecting their movements, something supranatural or somethng natural? [03:50] which? [03:50] Acolyte: why would postulate God at this point? does this help explain anything? [03:50] which one? [03:51] cant can you answert the question, or should we stop now? [03:51] Nomos (Joe@kuts9p07.cc.ukans.edu) joined #apologetics. [03:51] ok, so they are hairy, so? Is there something non-natureal affecting their movements, something supranatural or somethng natural? [03:51] hullo Nomos [03:51] sola fide? [03:51] hi Aco [03:51] Sola Christus [03:51] long time no see [03:51] :) [03:51] I didn't see ya there [03:51] Acolyte: isn't it obvious, by now, that I would say that it is something natural???? [03:51] cant ok, so somethng natural does it [03:52] uh huh [03:52] cant so nature in some sense determines your thoughts, pretty obvious [03:52] cant hence your thoughts are not based on any appeal to logic or reason but to somethng in nature [03:52] hence your thoughts have no truth value [03:52] they are not good enought be even false [03:52] they are meaningless [03:52] hence nihilism [03:52] epistemic and ethical [03:53] capiche? [03:53] Acolyte: but surely there is a bit of explaining to do here... when you say that it is 'nature' that determines my thoughts, do you mean tornadoes, snow, and the 9th planet? [03:53] cant antecendetn sates of affairs in nautre, is this not the case? [03:53] Acolyte: remember, part of nature is my little weasily body. [03:54] or is there somethng outside of anture not subject to the laws and principles of nature?? [03:54] ok [03:54] co one part of nature influences another, so? [03:55] acolyte: we're not getting anywhere, all your saying is that some part of my brain influences another... does this mean rampant determinism... not if you think that things have a dispositional base to accomodate free will. [03:56] what principles govern those motins? natural law, take yor conception of natural law, it works with all of them [03:56] take you pick even [03:56] cant what free will? what will? [03:56] cant all you have are chemicals. there is no will [03:56] you are doing metaphysics [03:57] cant what affects your brain? yor environment. what is your environment governed by? nature. same problem [03:57] DmanIZED (JarredDuQ@165.90.150.115) joined #Apologetics. [03:57] DmanIZED (JarredDuQ@165.90.150.115) left #Apologetics. [03:57] Acolyte: but in saying "all you have is chemicals" your kinda steamrolling over very significant considerations as to just what the damn things are. [03:58] cant ok, do they operate according to some transendental supranatural principle or some principle of nature? [03:58] which? [03:58] Acolyte: haven't I told you that I think they operate according to the latter. [03:59] cant ok, so then they are determined by nature. how ever, they are stilldetermined by nautre [03:59] same problem [03:59] Nihilism [03:59] Acolyte: Even ST. Thomas in the 13th century realised that without a telos, and end postulated of nature, everything can be explained according to principles of nature. [03:59] cant perhaps, perhaps not [04:00] so I think Thomas was wrong and you too, so how does that explain the problem? [04:00] BTW I have read thomas [04:00] Cant BTW thomas did so based on the assumption of a theistic paradigm. You don't presently have that luxuray I fear [04:01] but back to the problem [04:01] Maybe we should consider your claim that nihilism is a necessity if one accepts phyiscalism. [04:01] cant, ok [04:01] cant but how do you explain the previous problem? [04:01] that is still ingering here [04:01] lingering even [04:01] Perhaps you could offer what you take to be the nihilistic position. [04:02] Action: Hume seems to remember that the point was how physicalism necessitated nihilism and wonders if such a belief is rooted more in the common Christian belief that all "meaning" is grounded in the existenc e of a transcendent being...Thus, the topic at hand (though in principle should be fairly easy to decide) has become a discussion based upon certain unsaid premisses... [04:03] cant Naturalism leads necessarily to Nihilism in that not one belief in a naturalistic paradigm can be verified. for starters [04:03] Aco> I've skimmed over that paper...I guess as a functional philosophical methodology I might opt for a more dialectical approach... [04:04] secondly, any belief one holds in Naturalism is determined an not held because it is true or false, but because it is determined. [04:04] Hume what paper? [04:04] Advice to Christian Philosophers [04:04] Hume did I send you that essay? [04:04] No I have it on file [04:04] oh ok [04:04] I thought you spoke of another one [04:05] Cant any answers to the problem at hand? [04:05] Cant I think dualism offers much more promising prospects for volition personally. but perhaps you can canswer these problems I have raised? [04:06] Acolyte: So, you would say that because physicalism is deterministic, anything one can do amounts to nothing?? I'm just not sure what you want to include in your nihilism [04:06] Cant no I would not say that at all [04:07] Cant I would say, as I said before that 1. No beleif in Naturalism can be verified. and 2. No belief in NAturalism is held because of its truth value. Truth is a property of Metaphysics, not necessarily of nature [04:07] Later kids...I've got to download some stuff off the WWW...I'll drop by later....:) [04:07] Acolyte: what are you suggesting with the term 'nihilism'.. that there is no meaning to life.. eg. Albert Camus? [04:07] ok hume [04:07] see you hume [04:07] cant there is no way to know anything in naturalism [04:07] uh-huh [04:07] Hume (lagorer@pm114.spots.ab.ca) left #apologetics. [04:07] cant hence ethical and epsitemological Nihilism [04:07] pretty simple and succinct [04:09] Acolyte: how is it that even if what you say about materialism or physicalism or naturalism is true, that it is deterministic, that my actions are meaningless. [04:09] cant not that there is no meaning to life, but that there is no meaniong at all, no values, no logic, no reason. Just mechanism, just nature. THings just ARE. [04:09] cant very simple, why do you believe 2+2=4? [04:09] why? [04:09] because of nature not because it is true [04:09] or false [04:10] but because of antecedent states in nature [04:10] hence no belief is held for any logical reason [04:10] hence no belief is verificaible [04:10] Acolyte: more to the point, no other belief is possible. [04:10] with out a reference point(ie God), existence becomes a mass of relativism, in which we can really not know anything for sure, as their are no absolutes in finite timespace [04:10] Cant what is logic in nautralism but chemical reaction? [04:11] Cant no beleif is possible [04:11] achimoth not even that, you don't know anything AT ALL [04:11] cant imagine this [04:11] aco: exactly [04:11] cant imagine that nihilism is a black hole [04:11] one you pass the event horizon [04:11] there is no reason [04:11] naturalism gets you to the event horizon and pushes you in [04:12] there is NO REASON in naturalism [04:12] no logic [04:12] no ethics [04:12] nothing [04:12] just states of nature [04:12] thats all [04:12] Acolyte: I'm not too good with black holes. I haven't read my s. Hawkings. [04:12] hence unless you wish to hold to that, Dualism makes knowledge possible [04:13] I think knowldge and ethics are important, don't you? and that any paradigm that rules them out is ruled out [04:13] hence naturalims (not necessarily evolution) is ruled out. [04:13] Acolyte: but the problem with discussion about determinism... is that you get sucked into it too, if it is correct. BTW, how is it that determinism can be 'true', if as you say 'there are no truth values' if it is true. [04:13] pretty simple and succint [04:14] ^aa^ (tm125@dialup01.geko.net.au) left irc: Read error to ^aa^[dialup01.geko.net.au]: Connection reset by peer [04:14] cant everythng I say could be meaingless, but that being the case no logical argument can be made against nihilism since logic does not apply to it. [04:14] you cannot argue against nihilism from a logical base [04:14] it is a NON-logical system [04:14] alogic [04:14] al [04:15] hmm [04:15] there is no value at all [04:15] it is not even good enough to be false [04:15] it has no value [04:15] Acolyte: but the whole point is that I am not convinced that one need to embrace determinism if one rejects dualism. [04:15] nothing has any value [04:15] ok, what else is there? [04:15] Bon (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [04:15] cant please tell me what the choice is? [04:16] cant if you reject Naturalism then you are some kind of Dualist, you admit there is something other than nature [04:16] Acolyte: well, there is a bunch of literature in the phil of mind on type type physicalism, token physicalism, functionalism, dispostional bases, etc. I take it that one ought to wade through that stuff before sounding the gong. [04:16] Action: WordWalkr needs to goto bed, his brain hurts! [04:17] goodnight wordwalkr. [04:17] or is it wordstalkr? [04:17] nite wordwalkr [04:17] hmmm [04:18] nite ww [04:19] Acolyte: the problem with having this kind of discussion is that I am sure not going to tell you that physicalists have it all figured out.. the understanding of the brain is at a very primitive level. I think, simply stated, that dualism is so problematic as to be rejected. [04:20] WordWalkr (joe_webgat@port35.webgate.net) left irc: What does this button do? [04:20] lol [04:20] Acolyte: furthermore, I don't think postulating GOd helps. What one learns in an introductory phil text is that postulating God does not add meaning to our lives. [04:20] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [04:20] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) got netsplit. [04:20] netsplit [04:20] yep [04:20] rare on undernet [04:21] Achi: what just happened? [04:21] so achi is there where you spend all your time that we have to come and get you when the indians surround the fort [04:22] cant we just had a net split [04:22] Ortho: not sure what that is... :P [04:23] hey achi you home or not [04:24] im here.. just got one of those why why why types on efnet [04:24] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) returned to #apologetics. [04:24] ACO [04:24] back [04:24] :) [04:24] orthodox: pretty much.. heh.. [04:24] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [04:24] i see [04:24] :) [04:24] what happened? [04:24] net split [04:25] you want to explain to cant what a net split is [04:25] i need to call it a night [04:25] got to get up at 10;30 [04:25] orthodox nice to meet you [04:25] ortho: is it that complicated? [04:25] am not pm [04:25] nope just need to go [04:25] ok bye. [04:25] i'll be back trust me [04:25] cant some parts of the net get disconnected, rather servees do or the amount of info get sstuck [04:25] bahahahaha [04:25] nite all [04:26] W (cservice@undernet.org) got lost in the net-split. [04:26] pax [04:26] orthodox (balo@ix-okc-ok3-22.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [04:26] nite [04:26] ahhh, I think that's happened to me. [04:26] cant so again, what other choices are open to you? [04:27] Acolyte: anyway, I was saying that I think there are problems with physicalist theories, but the problems are more acceptable than on a dualist view. [04:27] oh so epistemological Nihilism is acceptable? [04:27] how so? [04:27] Cant ethical Nihilism is acceptable? [04:27] how so? [04:27] on what grounds? [04:27] not logical ones surely [04:28] Acolyte: There is a whole bunch of literature on physicalism, type/type, token, etc, on dipositionality and so on. I think it a bit premature to sound the gong. [04:28] cant I think the same of Dualism [04:28] cant especially with the Revivial of Theism in Philosophy of Religion in this part of the century [04:28] Acolyte: I don't think that we have established ethical nihilism as a necessary corollary to physicalism. [04:29] Cant if I establish Epistemological Nihilism, what are ethics? same problem [04:29] Epistemological Nihilism necessitates Ethical Nihilism [04:29] pretty obvious [04:29] Acolyte: but we're just rehashing 18th and 19th century arguments. We have to come to terms with the intellectual crisis of the 17th century... namely that there are no good reasons to believe in God. [04:29] Cant we are? I think not [04:30] It hink we are on the bring of Deconstructionism and Non-logos theories [04:30] Cant I don't think you have adequately dealt with Hume [04:30] Cant Hume reaised more probs for Naturalism than he ever did for Theism [04:31] Acolyte: who are you going to call upon to deal with Hume, Thomas Reid?? [04:31] Cant no one, I deny his assumptions [04:31] Cant if I do not accept his assumptions, thenI don't have to deal with his Wrecking Ball now do I? [04:31] Acolyte: what do you deny of Hume's assumptions. [04:31] Cant the question is, how do YOU Deal with Hume? [04:31] Empiricism [04:31] Tigerr (Skater@ppp11.redding.snowcrest.net) joined #Apologetics. [04:31] Tigerr (Skater@ppp11.redding.snowcrest.net) left #Apologetics. [04:32] cant but how do you establish the principle of induction based on Empiricism I would like to know since not even Kant nor Hume found a way out of that problem [04:32] Acolyte: we all know of the problems with empiricism, but there are few candidates to replace empiricism. [04:32] Cant btw, the nihilism question still lingers. BTW I like som eof Reids thoughts, but he dos not go far enough [04:32] Cant Theism [04:33] Cant so you are saying you are going to stick with a faulty theory ebcause its the onlyone you have? [04:33] Acolyte: well we have to distinguish between epistemic theses and metaphysical or fideistic. [04:33] Cant how do you establish the principle of induction based on expereince? [04:33] Acolyte: pick a number. [04:33] Cant I am not a Fideist [04:34] but how do you establish induciton based on expereince? [04:34] how? [04:34] you can't [04:34] its that simple [04:34] Acolyte: pick a number. [04:34] and kant and hume both say that [04:34] pick what? [04:34] I am a Theist [04:34] give me a number. [04:34] of what? [04:34] Acolyte: any number, pick one. [04:35] 876,000 [04:35] hows that? [04:35] 876,001 is higher. [04:35] so? [04:35] That's an inductive demonstration of sorts. Its not terribly convincing but you asked. [04:35] ok but you used the principle to prove it [04:35] circular [04:35] as Hume shows [04:36] as does Kant [04:36] Acolyte: I used no such principle. [04:36] sure did [04:36] Acolyte: can you spell it out so that I can at least see what I did? [04:37] cant on what principle do you assert that one number is higher? U assume there is some regularity with a number of things. How do you establish that without using it? [04:37] You can't not on the basis of expereince [04:37] check out Hume on this point [04:38] Acolyte: I did not assume that it is higher. It is higher. [04:38] cant perhaps it was higher yesterday, but not today, how do you know it is higher today? [04:38] Acolyte: you don't need experience to show that it is. [04:38] Acolyte: its just definitional. [04:38] cant ok but again you are using the principle to demontrate it [04:39] cant so it is analytical? [04:39] Acolyte: what principle. [04:39] Cant the principle of Induction [04:39] cant but agan being a nihilist, there is no problem right? [04:39] since nihilism is "acceptable" in your words [04:40] Acolyte: why do you assume that I am a nihilist. I'm not. [04:40] cant have you given me a way out of your deliemna? [04:40] not yet [04:41] Acolyte: you've presented me with a false dilemma, it is not either dualism or nihilism. [04:41] oh ok, how so? [04:41] cant how did I make a false bifurcation? [04:41] please show me how [04:41] Action: Acolyte waits [04:42] Acolyte: I am not going to attempt an explanation of quantum mechanics because I cannot give you one. [04:42] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics. [04:42] hi [04:42] oh so quantum mechanics are outside of nature? [04:42] hey zx [04:42] long time no see [04:42] hita zx [04:43] im eating heheeheee i'll listen [04:43] what 3 dayz [04:43] Acolyte: However, your argument rests on the assumption that anything which is not dualistic is determined. [04:43] cant no it rests that anything in nature is governed by principles of nature [04:43] if you are a naturalist [04:43] if you hold to something transedental,t hen there is no problem [04:43] at least not THAT problem [04:44] Acolyte: that being so, how is it that there is no room for volition.. do you have such a superior knowledge of the mind that you know that things at the neural level and below do not have the dispositional base to afford volition? [04:45] ok, what woud volition be in naturalism? something governed by nature or something non-natural? The naturalist can only answer the former, nto the latter [04:45] cant volition is physical is it not? [04:45] cant it is matter/energy is it not? or something else? [04:45] cant please tell me if you know because I see no way out of this problem [04:45] Acolyte: I have no idea what "volition is physical" means. [04:46] cant ok what does volition name? [04:46] cant show me volition [04:46] where is it? [04:46] what is it? [04:46] does it have mass? [04:46] is it measurable? [04:46] Acolyte: you seem to be working with a pretty simplistic notion of causation. [04:46] quantifiable? [04:46] perhaps I am, but any limititation of measurement in quantum theory does not negate causation, itonly limits our ability to measure it [04:47] Acolyte: we know that the medieval belief that the perfection in the cause is carried through to the effect is not correct. [04:47] cant do you disagree? [04:47] ok, so? [04:48] am I arguing that? [04:48] wulfman (an548208@quincy05.psln.com) joined #Apologetics. [04:48] if so, please show me how [04:48] cant I would really like to know [04:48] wulfman (an548208@quincy05.psln.com) left #Apologetics. [04:48] Acolyte: we also no that a things dispositional base added to another, both inhibits the dispositions of the other, and gains new dispositions. [04:49] cant do you mean that Quantum theory limits our ability to measure things or that there is something transedental in our expereince to nature? [04:49] cant ok, so? still determined by nature, its a question of how. [04:49] so? [04:49] Acolyte: there is reason to suppose that some things are uncaused. eg. gamma rays. [04:49] cant how does that address the probnlems that I ahev raised? [04:50] ok, some uncaused events,ok, are they governed by nature or something transedental to nature? [04:50] which? [04:50] Acolyte: well, in a deterministic framework we see A causing B, B causing C, and so on.. [04:50] also what is reason? [04:50] cant but that is not what I asked? [04:51] ok, some uncaused events,ok, are they governed by nature or something transedental to nature? [04:51] Acolyte: well, my point is that when we talk about things being 'governed', again we're going to have to have a long discussion about what that amounts to. [04:51] ok [04:51] is it part of nature or somethng transendental to nature? [04:51] Acolyte: simple theories of causation.. A causing B, B causing C, are not going to do. [04:52] ok [04:52] fine [04:52] did I suggest that? [04:52] no [04:52] Id id not [04:52] I simply asked if it was soemting in nature or somethng transedental to nature? whichis it? [04:52] don't you see, it does nto matter HOW it works, it still works a certain way which is natural. Still determinism. [04:53] simple or complex still determinism [04:53] Acolyte: it is, of course, part of nature.. We have already established that on my view there is no need to postulate this extra category of the transcendental. [04:53] cant whatis reason in nature? [04:53] what is logic? what does it result from? [04:53] Acolyte: but there is a world of difference between 'how a thing works' and the deterministic thesis. [04:54] cant please explain [04:54] id love to stay and continue observing but sleep calls [04:54] achimith big baby [04:54] night Acolyte [04:54] achimoth I thought Texans were tougher [04:54] guess not ;) [04:54] Action: Achimoth squirts Acolyte with his baby bottle [04:55] Acolyte: if one has too simple a notion of causation, of course things are going to look pretty deterministic. BUt we have yet to figure out how the brain works... we are at a very primitive level. [04:55] Action: Acolyte spanks Achimoths behind, "Get your hiney to bed little boy!" ;) [04:55] goodnight Achi. [04:55] nite [04:55] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal24-23.ppp.iadfw.net) left irc: To sleep... perchance to dream.... (KP96) [04:55] cant ok, so they are natural principles of how the brain works, still determined by nature [04:55] And they're dropping like flies.. [04:56] cant no matter how complex it is, it is still determined by nature. [04:56] still Nihilism [04:56] cant BTW that ssumes that on a naturalistic basis you can know how the brain works. argument from ignorance and circular reasonsing [04:57] Acolyte: but I'm not going to let you use the term "nature" in such a brute way.... especially since quantum theory specifies 'principles' which work only for the most part.. probablistic. [04:57] cant why do they work probabilitially? [04:57] probabalistically? [04:57] Acolyte: I have no idea. [04:58] cant ok, but even if they work only sometimes, something else in nature does work whenthey do not, correct? [04:58] Acolyte: not necessarily, it may be irreducibly random. [04:59] cant random in measurement or in reality? [04:59] cant and would that randomnes be a principle of nature or of something else? [04:59] Acolyte: actually random.. not measurable. [04:59] cant so the problem is in measurement,not necessarily in reality of the object in quesiton? [05:00] Acolyte: its fairly clear that it would not be a principle. [05:00] cant why would it not be a principle? [05:00] Acolyte: it would not be governed... eg. explainable in words. [05:00] cant does science explain or describe? [05:01] Acolyte: I would pick the former. [05:01] Acolyte: rather I would choose.. [05:01] how could anything ever be irreducibly random - seems like if anything was ever really random then every thing would be random and the universe would dissolve into chaos - including orbits etc [05:01] cant even if random, still natural [05:01] cant does science give the reason for somethng or how a thing is and works? [05:01] Acolyte: no argument there... [05:02] cant still natural, still nihilism [05:02] nature (love@Modem12.Prairie.Lakes.com) joined #Apologetics. [05:02] cant I wam still waiting for grand naturalistic way out of nihilism [05:02] nature (love@Modem12.Prairie.Lakes.com) left #Apologetics. [05:02] Acolyte: but you're simply insisting that it is so. [05:02] like your engine - 1 insy bitsy thing goes random in there and after a while it quits working [05:02] cant am I? [05:02] Cant I have walked you through this whole mess and yet you have no viable alternative. [05:03] Acolyte/Zx: of course quantum occurances don't affect us much at the 'mid size' object in the universe level. [05:03] cant, how do chemcials give meaning? [05:03] cant I know that uncaused particles do not affect major events or minir ones for that matter [05:03] BTW a Big goof on Michael martin's part in his bk [05:04] Acolyte: I would no more argue that 'chemicals give meaning' than a bag of chemicals which are proportionally similar to a human is a human. [05:04] cant ok, fine, how are yuour thoughts not chemical reactions governed by natural law? where am I mistaken? [05:05] Acolyte: again, events in the brain are, arguably, quantum events, or at any rate, not events like a pool ball hitting another. [05:05] nothing is ever random it seems - just looks like it sometimes - if it were nothing would hold together - something may seem random but its not cause it must obey larger laws - thats why the universe holds together - becuase nothing i s out of order [05:06] cant what do you mean by quantum events? [05:06] cant are they not subject to natural laws? [05:06] Acolyte: events which take place at the level of the quark, but are significant to thoughts actions etc... [05:07] cant thats what I thought you meant [05:07] hadrons etc [05:07] BTW what time is it where you are? [05:07] cant and laws of nature do not govern quarks and hardons, and B particles and Z particles? [05:07] it is 2:05 am [05:07] U? [05:08] Acolyte: I don't know that is why I was asking. [05:08] cant where are you? [05:08] shooting a marble into outerspace may look random but the marble will obey eventually - bounce off a planet or something - you just cant see where the marble comes from or where it goes thats all - [05:09] Acolyte: well, I don't think that 'laws' or 'governing principles' is the appropriate term to use when considering mental activity. It's just too blunt.. its ok for planets and heavy objects though :) [05:09] I am in Canada, Calgary to be specific. [05:09] cant why not for thoughts? [05:10] it is just a mere differentiation of level is all, not of substance [05:10] Acolyte: because we know that at a certain level we cannot successfully predict as we can with planets, only approximate. [05:11] Wow, I really must go to bed.. [05:11] ok fine but that is a prob inmeasurement again, not in the reality of the things and the principles which govern it [05:11] ok bye [05:11] It has been fun chatting. [05:11] Talk with you later. [05:11] goodbye [05:11] sure [05:11] think about it [05:11] Cant (thmcivor@204.191.210.26) left #apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_3_13_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank