[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/14/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/14/96 [02:35] C

---
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 - 5/14/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/14/96 [02:35] Cthuligoo (someone@pm16.cwo.com) joined #apologetics. [02:35] Elysium, :) very much so [02:35] brb [02:35] but, I enjoy mocking god with friends so what the heck. [02:36] Elysium, I don't enjoy intolerance [02:36] elysium ... some people are huggable and others... well..... [02:36] Elysium no racism either [02:36] Acolyte: which ones? [02:36] Acolyte: So you'll kick anyone who is too effective in crushing your weak arguements? [02:36] QED if you email me I will give u a list, I have a number of books on the topic, but since I am at work right now, I can't give it to you off hand [02:36] Actually I had a personal revelation from god that told me that he doesn't exist. [02:37] Cthuligoo your funny [02:37] wasme (pperswain@204.112.108.135) joined #apologetics. [02:37] Cthulioo no I don't care for intolerance is all [02:37] Elysium, be tolerant and u can stay [02:37] Gabriel (skept@h-add.ekx.infi.net) joined #apologetics. [02:37] Praise the Lord [02:37] Gab greetings [02:37] acolyte: I'm thinking about going to Korea for a yr after I finish my undergrad. Take courses there. It would be an awesome experience (in more ways than one I'm sure you can imagine) *big huge grin* [02:37] Briase the Lard. I'm tolerant as hell [02:37] Acolyte: How do you define intolerant? [02:37] I take it all [02:37] QingWa (frog@firefly.prairienet.org) left irc: Leaving [02:37] Hell, I think religion is cute and believer are interesting. like pets and such. [02:37] Elysium be more respectful of positions other than yours [02:38] Elysioum second warning [02:38] **** God is dead. Neitzsche 1900 Nietzsche is dead. GOD 1996 ***** [02:38] Elysium: Acolyte may enjoy your inane bantering, but I do not. [02:38] one for the trouble, two for da bass [02:38] Profg enjoy is much to strong a word, more like deplore [02:38] Mode change '+o ProfG ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [02:38] Elysium, be cool dude [02:38] Acolyte: How do you define intolerant? [02:38] Action: ProfG does not like to op [02:38] Cthuligoo Elysium is a denotative example [02:38] CT... remarks to inflame, insult and incite [02:38] I want your definition. [02:39] QingWa (frog@firefly.prairienet.org) joined #apologetics. [02:39] well, i'm not quite intolerant. Though I dont make any bones about beliitling my opponents position [02:39] re ching [02:39] onevoice: You mean like saying that your god doesn't exist? [02:39] Acolyte doesn't make any bones about it either, just so long as the opponent is atheistic. [02:39] Hi there all [02:39] Cthuligoo making remarks taken as disrespectful and rhetorically charged in order to insult a personal position of others [02:39] Elysium I happily kick theists as well [02:39] brb [02:39] Theists don't exist acolyte. [02:39] Elysium I am a Theist [02:40] Acolyte: Then you dont exist. [02:40] Acolyte: If I said that Jesus, if he existed at all, was just a man and nothing more, wouldn't that incite you? [02:40] CT. YOu do not know "my" god so how do you know if he exists or not? If you mean "God does not exist". great. although the subject is quite worn and no atheist has EVER one the debate. [02:40] QED: Athanasius, Tertullian, Eusebius [02:40] Elysium!clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: No More Intolerance please [02:40] Elysium (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined #apologetics. [02:40] Action: Elysium snickers. [02:40] Chtuligoo no [02:40] rational theism, now that's an oxymoron. [02:40] "incite"? LOL [02:40] Mode change '-o ProfG ' by ProfG!wgreen01@fiudial30.fiu.edu [02:40] sorta like a square circle. [02:41] ProfG: how would you interpret Matt: 24 concerning the dramatic language involved in Christ's return. Has that already occurred, is the passage future, or is it temporally mixed? [02:41] The transcendental argument: If god doesn't exist, then how come he does? [02:41] Elysium, funny a nihilist taling about contradictions, now I have seen everything [02:41] Elysium that is not the TA [02:41] profg: I just sent you my biography. Just let me know if you want me to and anything. I will be developing pictures soon so I will be able to send you a picture of me. Can't gaurantee that it will be only of me. :) [02:41] acolyte: Who's a nihilist? [02:41] Elysium I am almost done with my responmse to you BTW [02:41] elysium: You [02:41] Mode change '+b *!*clayton@*SEAS.UPENN.EDU ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [02:41] wasn't me [02:41] who did dat? [02:42] creation kewl :-) [02:42] I have had enough [02:42] Mode change '-b elysium!*@* ' by Acolyte!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com [02:42] CT and Ely ... your "intent" is "worn on your sleeve" so to speak. YOu seek to teach not learn... ands when you are the student... that is not a good plac e to be. ;) [02:42] onevoice: Did I ask you? [02:42] Elysium!clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: sputtering nonsense and not being rational [02:42] Chtulingo I don't have a problem with arguments or disagreement, just idiots [02:43] profg your call [02:43] Acolyte: Then you must be at odds with the majority of Christianity. [02:43] Ct, did I answer you? [02:43] cthinlingoo why? [02:43] Acolyte: he does not engage in rational discourse, he goes. [02:43] profg ok [02:44] chtulingo, why do you say that I must be at odds with most of Christianity? [02:44] acolyte: I went to the library on friday and checked out 10 books. I think 3 by Swinburne, 3 by Craig, 2 by Morris, 1 by Bahnsen, and 1 volume of a ten volume set on Creationist works in the 20th century. [02:44] SuePeace (suepeace@Venus.mcs.com) joined #apologetics. [02:44] heya [02:44] creatioN GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [02:44] hullo suepeace [02:44] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics. [02:44] Action: Acolyte pats creation on the head [02:44] Acolyte: Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Christians are, for the most part, idiots. [02:44] hi all [02:44] hehehe [02:44] Cthuligoo they are? why? [02:45] cthuligoo: huh? [02:45] Cthuligoo and whatis your paradigm? [02:45] Cthuligoo must be hangin' around the wrong crowd [02:45] hi all [02:45] Acolyte: right now, I'm rereading Morris's book "OUr Idea of God" [02:45] what's the subject tonite err.... this morning? [02:45] cthinligoo what numerically do you think is the majority of Christianity made up of? [02:45] Cthuligoo hasn't read much has he? [02:45] hi kiki [02:45] Creation again? [02:45] Acolyte: My paradigm is that of no belief without proof. [02:46] acolyte: yeah, I read it in September. [02:46] Cthulingo, ah so you hold to Flew's axiom then? [02:46] ProfG: I haven't? [02:46] Acolyte: heard of Ray Comfort? [02:46] profg yes [02:46] classical apologist, but VERY funny [02:46] cthulingo define proof please [02:46] Aco: Flew's axiom? [02:46] cthulingo mistake number 1 [02:46] I put up his web site last week [02:46] what's the subject here? [02:46] cthuling perhaps you can explain some of your ideas to me [02:47] Does it relate to Godel's Theorem? [02:47] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics. [02:47] cya later [02:47] Aco: Direct sensory experience or extrapolation of direct experience. [02:47] SuePeace (suepeace@Venus.mcs.com) left #apologetics. [02:47] QingWa (frog@firefly.prairienet.org) left #apologetics. [02:47] cthulingo, how about rational proofs? [02:47] Aco: check out http://metanet.net/comfort when you get the chance [02:47] cthulingo do all ideas come form the sense expereince then? [02:48] Profg, Revelation was written by John the Apostle. "I John, your brother and companion in suffering ... was on the island of Patmos." This exile was under Domitian who ruled from 81-96ad. 9 4ad is the accepted date by most contemp scholars for the writing of Rev. [02:48] Aco: I got one of his bumper stickers [02:48] Acolyte: Rationality not based on physical evidence is just mental masturbation. [02:48] profg web crawler still down, will be up next week tho [02:48] Action: creation wonders if that position has direct sensory experience or extrapolation of direct experience to back it up, hhmmmmm [02:48] onevoice that is not true, many scholars disagree [02:48] onevoice: no, there is great disagreement over that. [02:48] wasme (pperswain@204.112.108.135) left #apologetics. [02:48] onevoice and much proof to the contrary [02:48] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics. [02:48] cthulingo ok then it is mental masturbation, how does that make it wrong? [02:48] re kiki [02:48] Cthulingo do all ideas come from sense experewince? [02:49] I have copies of ALL of the early church fathers through the year 200ad. It is my profession and hobby :) [02:49] creation nicely put [02:49] Acolyte: It's neither right nor wrong, but you'll go blind eventually. [02:49] Lets-Go (jsdfl;daj@user82.empirenet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:49] Lets-Go!jsdfl;daj@user82.empirenet.com kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: bogus username [02:49] Aco: the bumper sticker reads, "NATIONAL ATHEIST'S DAY: APRIL 1" [02:49] there is disagreement over what? Who banished JOhn????????? [02:49] once, I have rtead 40+ volumes of patristics and I can tell you you are in error [02:49] profg: hehehehehe that is great! [02:49] onevoice which banishment [02:49] anyone speaka english? [02:49] kiki yes [02:50] creation: it has the quote from psalms below it [02:50] HILARIOUS [02:50] cthulingo do all ideas come from sense experience? yes or no? [02:50] Yes. [02:50] kiki: An nyong ha seh yo! [02:50] prof, great bumper sticker. [02:50] cthulingo IC, well then I think you have some serious epistemological problems [02:50] I think it must be said that the date is at least debatable. [02:50] onevoice: available at http://metanet.net/comfort :-) [02:50] WED thats fair [02:50] prof, what is? [02:51] agreed, QED [02:51] profg does North have a web page? [02:51] Aco: Name an idea that does not come from sensory experience that has any relation to our world. [02:51] Action: QED thinks we are back to Hume/Kant. [02:51] onevoice: the bumper sticker [02:51] along with books, tracts, etc. [02:51] Cthulingo Logic [02:51] cthulingo Law of Contradiciton [02:51] acolyte: Oh, I forgot, I got a book by Hume, "dialogue..." [02:51] ACK Attack!! [02:51] QED more like Van Til [02:51] Acolyte.. the banishments of John the Apostle were ONLY done by one Emporer [02:51] creation good [02:51] Aco: State that law, please. [02:51] onevoice: NERO [02:51] onevoice not all the fathers agree on that point [02:52] Cpace, time, [02:52] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics. [02:52] cthulingo are you not familair with that law? [02:52] Aco: Can you state it? [02:52] Well, I'm outta here. I'm going to go read and then go to bed. [02:52] onevoice: you have web access? [02:52] qed very true, not to mention the principle of induction [02:52] Nero did not banish John. What document did you read that in? It was Domitian [02:52] cthulingo yes I can [02:52] Aco: Please do so. [02:52] onevoice, I read it in many documents, Nero was the beast [02:53] cthuling but I asked initially are you or are you not familair with it? [02:53] }{obbes (none@194.182.201.90) left #apologetics. [02:53] cthulingo yes or no? [02:53] acolyte: I read a little of the logs. They are very interesting. [02:53] creation which loggs? here? [02:53] acolyte: yeah [02:53] onevoice: http://jf.org/jflocal.htm - "The Beast of Revelation Identified" [02:53] acolyte: they are fun to read :) [02:53] profg kewl [02:53] Aco: If you are going to quote so-called Laws and not state them, then fuck you. [02:53] Cthuligoo (someone@pm16.cwo.com) left #apologetics. ========================================================= [04:34] Action: Krosis thinks Jesus is a great loral figure.. mostly.. [04:34] Keswick theology? [04:34] loral = moral [04:34] jhamilton, the whole higher life theology, finney etc [04:34] Objectivist: See Ayn Rand's fiction books, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged".... [04:34] krosis that better [04:34] Krosis: is that why they killed Him on a cross? for being such a moral figure? [04:34] Sorry, Acolyte...haven't read much pure theology.... [04:34] jhamilton, may I ask you some personal quesitons? [04:34] can you just give me a nutshell definition? [04:34] go ahead, but I have the right not to answer..... [04:35] jhamilton no problem, Jesus does not require it [04:35] Hang on, kiki.... [04:35] jhamilton why did u leave Objectivism? [04:35] no pascoe.. for being a dissenter.. an upsetter <-- not a word but oh well. he interfered with the way the jewish priests wanted things taught. [04:35] Because Objectivism set a standard that you couldn't measure up to, and you were evil if you didn't measure up to it. [04:35] Jhamilton which standard was that? [04:36] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics. [04:36] krosis so you think that the Gospels are somewhat historically reliable as to the acts of jesus? [04:36] Hang on, Acolyte... [04:36] jh okie [04:36] Krosis: yes, that's mostly what He did along with great miracles. but you prefer to focus on His moral character instead? ok. [04:36] somewhat being the key word... [04:37] jh I am Anglican btw [04:37] pascoe.. why would I focus on his alleged miracles? I am an atheist after all ;) [04:37] krosis what criteria do u use to differentiate fact from fiction in the gospel recoreds? [04:38] pascoe yeah, why focus on history? ;) [04:38] acolyte: common sense mostly.. [04:38] krosis whose common sense? [04:38] mine [04:38] Krosis: why would you focus on Jesus' moral character if His open confrontation of the Jews of His day and His great miracles dominate His history? [04:38] krosis whatis the criteria? could you specifically spell it out for me? [04:38] Jh u there? [04:39] Jhamilton are you still there? [04:39] his miracles dominate his history but so do interventions of the Greek gods in the Illiad.. do accept those? the trogan war *did* happen.. it's historical.. [04:39] Yes, still there. I never like to think about my Objectivist days, still too bitter about them...it was the repression or supression of any feeling that clashed with what an ideal Objectivist was supposed to feel..... [04:40] Jhamilton I understand [04:40] Krosis- that sassuming that all reports of miralces are ficticious [04:40] Acolyte.. if a human being like me can't turn water into wine.. then i don't axpect that any other human being can. [04:40] koris how do you support that assumption? [04:40] That no sexual impulse, longing for spontanaiety, momentary irritation could compare with the belief that reason should guide all our acts and emotions.... [04:40] Krosis: that sounds like a faith claim to me. [04:41] Krosis could you invent the A-Bomb? not likely [04:41] pascoe.. who said I don't use faith? have I ever said that? [04:41] Krosis: good for you. [04:41] jhamilton, man, do I have something for you my freind [04:41] ? [04:41] krosis r miracles possible [04:41] jhamilton your heart needs peace [04:41] reasoned faith vs blind faith.. [04:41] Acolyte not IMO.. no [04:42] krosis Blind irrtaionality VS Faith [04:42] krosis why are miracles not possible? [04:42] Yes, I'm still bitter toward the Objectivists...I've not ever really forgiven them...perhaps it has been a stumbling block in my walk with God..... [04:42] owp owp owp... don't start mudsling now acolyte ;) [04:42] krosis I am not [04:42] define "miracle" [04:42] krosis why are mircales not possible, oh, u don't know what they are? [04:43] krosis I thought since you said they were not possible that u would know what was not possible. [04:43] I want to know what your defintion is.. [04:43] Watch out, krosis...Acolyte is not going to define "miracle"! (laughs) [04:43] Krosis a work of God, lets start with that [04:43] Then everything is a miracle. [04:43] bingo! that's why I don't believe miracles are possible.. i don't believe in god [04:43] Krosis a work of God immediately, [04:44] Krosis, ic, so your assumption of the impossibility of miracles rests on your rejection of theism? correct? [04:44] rejection thru reasoned faith.. yes. [04:44] cochese (the@janus2-10.usask.ca) joined #apologetics. [04:44] Jhamilton I think some xian mystics miught help your soul [04:45] krosis ok, so, that means that if there were to be a God an if there were to be a miracles, you would miss it because of your assumtpions, no matter how much evidence [04:45] I've been getting into xian mysticism more...the Church of God is a charismatic church, which is partly mystic...the Gospel of Thomas is also a "mystic" document, although I can't say if it i s valid or not..... [04:45] no.. if there were evidence that god existed.. i would believe. [04:45] krosis you would always interept the evidence of a miracles as a non-miracles no matter what [05:12] I hold a belief to be rational if I have experienced it or if I *can* experience it. Bungee jumping I've heard is exciting.. I believe this.. but I haven't experienced it. You will I'm sure say I *can* experience god.. I tried when I was younger.. [05:12] damn [05:12] that was for you acolyte ;) [05:12] krosis, that is not what I am asking [05:13] Krosis, do all beleifs require evidence in order to be held as rational? [05:13] notice the qualifiyer ALL [05:13] Is a rational proof of the existence of God possible? [05:13] jhamilton I think so [05:13] jh depends on how u deinfe proof [05:13] define even [05:13] jha u will have to excuse me, I am dyslexic [05:13] yes and ALL tends to be an unfair qualifier. [05:14] Krosis , well is it all or some? [05:14] Krosis it seems it is either all or some, which? [05:14] every belief is different. [05:14] krosis ok, then do all beleifs or some beleifs require eveidence to be held as rational? [05:14] Proof: Something that draws conclusions using mathematical rules of logic based on dependent axioms (JH was a mathematician)...like the proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.... [05:14] jh that is one notion of proof [05:15] either way... you walk away thinking victory is your's... correct? [05:15] krosis maybe, maybe not, but is my victory the point, or truth? [05:15] It's the notion I believe many people think of when they hear, "proof".... [05:15] acolyte.. you tell me ;) [05:15] jhamilton mor elike 19th century idea of proof [05:15] krosis truth is mor eimportant, if you find something true, then we bothj win [05:16] krosis which do u think it is? [05:16] fine.. we've cleared that up.. [05:16] krosis all or some? [05:16] Hey, I can't help it if the populace doesn't read the latest books on theological proof.... [05:16] jh more like philosophy of evidence [05:16] I'll have to say all then. [05:16] krosis well lets examine it [05:16] Krosis the axiom or criteria would read something liek this.... [05:16] Or are we dragging Wittgenstein or Derrida into the argument...? [05:16] jhamilton maybe wittgenstein, not derrida tho [05:17] krosis All beleifs require groudns or evidence in order to be held as rational. [05:17] yes. [05:17] Krosis lets call that Proposition P [05:17] ok? [05:17] ok [05:17] sound fair? [05:17] fine [05:18] ok, now, lets put a specific beleif in there to see how it works [05:18] for example [05:18] ______ needs to have evidence or rounds in order to be held as rational." [05:18] well use a variable, X [05:18] ok [05:18] ___X____ needs to have evidence or greounds in order to be held as rational. [05:19] for example [05:19] Belief in ___Clouds__ needs to have evidence or grounds in order to be held as rational [05:19] agreed? [05:19] yes [05:19] its just an example [05:19] thiss seems to work pretty well, as I think you agree [05:20] I do [05:20] is this in essence what you mean about beleif in God? that you have not any groudns or evidence for his existence? [05:20] a lack of beleif? [05:20] Action: Krosis has no grounds or evidence for gods existance. [05:20] ok [05:21] then I think there is a problem here [05:21] let me explain [05:21] we have proposition P [05:21] we have shown how it works [05:21] but [05:21] lets go back to X [05:21] the variable [05:21] we can ptu anything as that variable X [05:21] cats [05:21] dogs [05:21] etc [05:21] right [05:21] any proposition or term can go in for X [05:21] yes... [05:22] here's the rub tho [05:22] Lets look at X again [05:22] in propsotion P [05:22] Beleief in ___X___ requires evidence or grounds in order to be held as rational. [05:22] Now, lets place Proposition P for X [05:22] so the proposition reads like this.... [05:23] Beleif in __Proposition P__ needs evidence or grounds in order toi be held as rational. [05:23] but what evidence is given for prop P? [05:23] what grounds? [05:23] none [05:23] the principle is self defeating [05:23] hence the qualifyer ALL or SOME [05:23] restate proposition P [05:24] do u see my point? [05:24] not yet.. [05:24] restate proposition P [05:24] ok [05:24] Proposition P=Belief in __X___ needs evidence or grounds in order to be held as rational. [05:24] ok.. [05:24] Hold on, Acolyte...you're getting into a problem from the language of the mathematics of the definion of sets...let me bring up Russell's definition, there is always a problem when you use a proposition to test it's own validit y.... [05:24] now put proposition P in for X [05:25] Jhamilton, hold on a minute [05:25] Krosis, the principle cannot satisfy its own criteria, it is self stultifying [05:25] Krosis and hence illogical [05:25] krosis UNLESS [05:25] JHamilton: I think the point is that it is a fallacy to argue against presuppositions using proposition P since it can only be taken presuppositionally itself. [05:26] Pascoe, the point is that any principle thatis self defeating is false [05:26] pascoe proposition P is self defeating, and hence false [05:27] Krosis, do you see the problem as I raise it or no? [05:27] Action: JHamilton is going back to his math books... [05:27] it just creates an infinity of of self defeating principles.. [05:27] -of [05:27] Jhamiltn inconssitent terms are not logical in math, nor in language, nor in any field [05:28] Krosis not really [05:28] Krosis the principle can be salvaged tho [05:28] let me calrify plz [05:29] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [05:29] krosis if you say SOME Beleifs require evidence or grounds in order to be held as rational, then, it is obvious that some do not, which allows for the principle to be consistent and not self defeating [05:29] Krosis then we have 2 catagories [05:29] thus salvaging your belief in god. [05:29] krosis some beleifs that DO require evidence or grounds and those that do not [05:29] Krosis it is A WAY, not the only way [05:29] but [05:29] it does something else [05:29] it shifts the burden of proof [05:29] which is what I was attempting to say earlier.. [05:30] krosis hold on a sec [05:30] I'll tell you this.. the burden of proof will never be thrust on to an atheist to disprove god. [05:30] if what I have said is true, you need to show that God is a beleif that requires evidence or grounds befoe you say that there is no evidence for him and hence your alck of beleif since only SOME beleifs require evidence, not all, lackof evidnece is not a [05:30] mark of irrationality [05:31] Krosis I just did [05:31] the burden of proof lies with the postive claimant of an assertion. [05:31] Krosis: until atheism disproves God, atheism will remain a faith claim. [05:31] Krosis, do all beleifs require evidence? no [05:31] krosis why does beleif in God need evidence to be held as rational? [05:31] assuming what you want to prove.. that's all you've done. [05:31] krosis have I done so? [05:32] yes [05:32] Krosis: but that's what you have done by saying all beliefs need evidence. [05:32] Action: JHamilton is still here, mapping out set theory...be back. [05:32] krosis I have only shown that not all beleifs require evidence to be held as raitonal, now you prove to mne that God is a beleif that requires evidence [05:32] pascoe right [05:32] pascoe that's what I have done by allowing acolyte to force me into stating something he wanted me to say. [05:32] Krosis, do you deny what u agreed to earlier? [05:32] Krosis: you are free to show his error in logic if you want. [05:33] Krosis if I have made an error in reasonaing plz show me where [05:33] krosis is dead wrong. that's what you want to here isn't it? [05:33] I think I've found the problem.... [05:34] Krosis: just inconsistent. 8) [05:34] Krosi we have 2 catagories, A and B, A are beleifs that require evidence and B are ebeleifs that do not require evidence to be held as raitonal, which does God fall into and why? [05:34] no comment to you on that pascoe [05:34] Krosi, no I want u to at least understand it thru my eyes is all, not necessarily agree [05:34] jh do you recall logical positivism? [05:35] Does the existence of two categories called A and B fall into category A or Category B.... [05:35] Krosis: it is inconsistent to say ALL beliefs require evidence if that statement itself has no evidence. [05:35] Jh deinfe A2 and B2 [05:35] pascoe corect [05:35] jh what does set A2 and B2 entail? [05:36] Krosis, allI would like to acomplish is for youto see it how I do, not necessarily agree with me [05:36] Krosis do u see it how I do or was I not clear in some way? [05:36] Does it require evidence or grounds to create categories A and B or does it not? [05:36] I see what you are saying acolyte.. [05:36] Krosis: however you could say that the statement P requires no evidence, but that would make the statement wrong. 8) [05:37] 8) <-- stop being smug pascoe.. please? [05:37] jh no, they are constructs of aepistemology and as such are pre-evidence and pre-experience [05:37] Krosis: its my trademark. [05:37] Krosis thats all I ask [05:37] I know... [05:37] Krosis si that cool? [05:37] Then The existence of Categories A and B do not require proof? That A+B is a member of B? [05:37] it's cool.. but not over yet acolyte [05:38] jh, not physical proof, since these are criteria that are for the jdueging of expereince, how could you use expereince to judge them? [05:38] krosis ok, do you wish to make some counter point? [05:38] not yet.. [05:38] krosis or think on it further? [05:38] ok thats fine [05:38] JHamilton: {a} does not equal a and {b} does not equal b [05:38] Be wary of any argument in set mathematics or anywhere else that have classes as members of themselves...some wild contradictions can result...that's why I think the proposition P argument is dubious, or suspect, cause I've bee n fooled before.... [05:39] Jh, are you familair with logical positivism? [05:39] Not the philosophy. [05:39] Action: Krosis formally acknowledges that you have caught me on something here.. something that I haven't looked at in this way.. [05:39] that doesn't mean I'm beat though ;) [05:39] krosis, I am only asking for ppl to see things like I do, O I may see things as they do, thats fair [05:39] krosis by no means, I would not expect you to be beaten that easily [05:40] O=so [05:40] Krosis I would expecdt u to fight more [05:40] Krosis I would expecyt u to be tought minded about it [05:40] tough even [05:40] I will.. but i need to think it out etc.. [05:40] and I am.. [05:40] Krosis I wish more xians were like u [05:40] Any argument which has a class as a member of itself or uses itself to question its own validity is kind of suspect..... [05:41] like me in what way? [05:41] JHamilton: I see your concern but I don't think it helps in this case. [05:41] jhamilton at times, but if a proposition is inconsistent with itself, how couldit be true? [05:41] jahmilton the laws of logic are embeded with the necessity of consistency [05:41] Krosis, one more thing [05:42] You have to define that **mathematically** ... it may not be true or it may not be false, it may be unsolvable..... [05:42] Krosis, this will cause you to see christian evidences in a new light as well [05:42] JHamilton: if {a} is the set of beliefs that don't require evidence and {b} is the set that do, then 'belief in the existence of {a} and {b}' is in {a}. that should be no problem. [05:42] jha excluded middle it is either true or false or meaningless [05:42] jha but it is not both [05:43] Krosis do u see how I shifted the burden of proof? [05:43] Krosis I attacked your assumptions, not your arguments [05:43] krosis I undermined the epistemology, not the data, since the former determines the meaing of the latter [05:44] not yet... I'll think about it and let you know next time we speak.. I'm not afraid to admit that I need some back up. [05:44] Krosi me neither [05:44] Krosis thats kewl [05:44] Krosis see I am not a total asshole ;) [05:44] do you all mind if I post this line of debate on the debate list? not a logfile.. just the argument in general.. I'd like to see what they have to say about this. [05:45] krosis sure [05:45] go for it [05:45] Where is the debate list, BTW? [05:45] ok. [05:45] Uhhh... it's one of the tamu.edu lists i think.. I rarely post.. I just read so I don't pay much attn as to where its been coming from. [05:46] Krosis: would you agree that many Christian arguments are logical given a certain set of Christian presuppositions? [05:46] pascoe yes [05:46] I would be interested in the reponse to it. [05:46] Krosis, it is generally called Reformed Epistemology [05:46] Krosis there are essays by some of its proponants on the Apologetic web page if youcare to read further [05:46] acolyte URL? [05:46] Is that where the proposition P argument comes from ? ;) [05:46] krosis hold on [05:47] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [05:47] krosis check under Alcuin adn Humes links [05:47] dig around, there is alot of stuf o nit [05:47] on it even [05:47] Krosis: I would agree that some atheistic arguments are logical given atheistic assumptions. however, I disagree with atheistic presuppositions. [05:47] hmmmm this url looks familiar ;) ========================================================== [20:57] Neuro (sami@user1.channel1.com) joined #apologetics. [21:35] Dark (goonies1@alb-ny6-48.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [21:35] Dark (goonies1@alb-ny6-48.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [21:41] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp22.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [21:41] @#evolution??????? [21:41] heheheheeeeee [21:42] ^Sioux (chance@ppp24.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [21:42] interesting [21:42] Hi sue [21:43] <^Sioux> hola :) [21:43] Evolution is cool ;) [21:43] Neuro?? [21:43] Evolution is an epistomological red herring [21:43] you defend evolution? [21:43] No, evolution is a scientific theory. [21:43] can you define evolution? [21:44] Evolution talk about accumulating changes in populations. [21:44] so what... [21:44] So, you asked. [21:44] who would want to debate something as genral as that? [21:44] general [21:45] You want to slay your favorite straw man instead? [21:45] BUT... [21:45] I would ask..... [21:45] Straw man argument; A straw man argument is when the person distorts, delutes, exagerates your view of the issue and tears that view down instead of the view you actually hold. [21:45] ... [21:45] what do you mean by accumulating changes [21:45] ? [21:46] Populations of organisms change...and new species can evolve. [21:46] LOL [21:46] really? [21:47] hmmm [21:47] Really. It's not hot news, Darwin made that argument 150 years ago. [21:47] so...I would imagine that you have fossil records that show ALL the veriable stages in that process? [21:48] Darwin admitted his own flaw [21:48] What falw was that? [21:48] "the fatal Flaw of the LACK of evidence in the fossil records" [21:48] see... [21:48] Darwin knew very little about some things. Nobody knew anything about genes in those days. [21:49] blazex (blazex@www-32-136.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [21:49] the question is not do some species evolve.... [21:49] hello, al [21:49] Oh. Fossil records is just one piece in the puzzle. [21:49] And since speciation has been wittnessed by scientists that's not an issue, either. [21:49] ah, evolution. the imperfect theory [21:49] the question is....do species change to new species. Do fish turn into dogs...dogs into Humans?...etc [21:50] no [21:50] Yes they do, as has been demonstrated and observed. [21:50] question. is everyone here basically darwinist? [21:50] and....is there evidence to support this claim [21:50] Rea;;y?.. [21:50] <^Sioux> fish into dogs? [21:50] Are you saying you don't know that speciation has been observed in this century? Now it's my turn to laugh. [21:51] so you have documentation to support the metamorphasis? [21:51] that a man....was once a fish? [21:51] okay, if natural selection dictates that a change in the environment leads to a change in species... [21:51] then why, in the case of primates, did only some become hominids [21:52] :) [21:52] there are NO fossil records to show metamorphasis. [21:52] maybe there was a lottery. first twenty apes become austrolopithicines [21:52] LOL [21:52] Not everything eveolves always the way YOU would want it. [21:52] <^Sioux> haha! [21:53] well...thats not a scientific attitude [21:53] okay [21:53] i just dont understand how such a sweeping theory as darwinism can be so chaotically arbitrary [21:54] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [21:54] see...the theory is true if you start with the presuposition that its true......you beg the question. [21:54] Petititio Principii; The fallacy of begging the question. [21:54] This fallacy Starts with a pressuposition that has reasserted the conclusion of an argument in the premise. [21:54] So, the argument itself is circular in the sense that it is set up so there is no other conclusion. [21:54] What's not a scientific attitude? [21:54] True Blazex [21:54] thank you. [21:55] ....the problem is that you see stasis in the fossil records...not change. [21:55] basically...NO evidence. [21:55] You see change, that's what transitionla fossils represent. But obviously not every organims that ever lived was fossilized. [21:55] But even then, you can't dispute observed speciation. [21:55] there may ne Macro evolution..in the sense that we have mass jumps in fossils... [21:56] but if the gene pool was sufficient for species survival, ther must be SOME fossil evidence [21:56] But you dont have any to show the actually changes. [21:56] Nope,.....NONE [21:56] Petititio Principii; The fallacy of begging the question. [21:56] This fallacy Starts with a pressuposition that has reasserted the conclusion of an argument in the premise. [21:56] So, the argument itself is circular in the sense that it is set up so there is no other conclusion. [21:56] for instance, the mising link... there had to be a large population of the so called link, for it to have continued the species. why can no one find it [21:56] None? That's absurd. Some lines of fossils are well-known...slow change, species transforming. This is all elementary. [21:57] You make dandy comments but it seems your biology background may be lacking. [21:57] N....well....It may be elementary fiction...it is not fact. [21:58] Unless you are purposefully avoiding things like observed speciation in front of our eyes. [21:58] who me? if so, its true, my background is lacking. im not challenging, im honestly curious [21:58] neuro...please give me an example [21:59] observed speciation [21:59] Nah..you'll start weaseling out of the argument unless we state some base rules first. [21:59] neuro...please give me an example [21:59] What is a new species? [22:00] heheheee [22:00] thats the trick....you play with catagories [22:00] neuro...please give me an example [22:00] Now...a pretty common definition is that two organisms are of the same species when they can produce fertile offspring. Do we agree? [22:00] observed speciation [22:00] Action: NedFlndrs will grant him for sake of argument [22:00] If they cannot produce fertile offspring they are different species. [22:00] so? [22:01] HUH? [22:01] sorry... [22:01] So if I can show how one species has split into two I have showed that speciation occurs..and you can't dispute that. [22:01] I gotta go eat.....Sue hammer him for me/......... [22:01] LOL [22:01] I will be back in a bit [22:01] Hammer me? You're funny. [22:01] :) [22:01] thanks [22:01] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp22.snni.com) left irc: I cant, He can, I think I'll let him. :) [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_5_14_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