[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/29/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/29/96 [00:09] Nic

---
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 - 2/29/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/29/96 [00:09] Nick change: ProfG -> ProfAway [00:20] JJJJJ (Smitty@150.net4.nauticom.net) joined #apologetics. [00:20] Shroud (yabba-dab@max3-so-ca-17.earthlink.net) joined #apologetics. [00:20] Nick change: JJJJJ -> Icarus_ [00:22] I was wondering if any of you cared to enlighten me about your belief system, but I will qualify this by saying it needs to be simple, at least to start. [00:22] Icarus_ (Smitty@150.net4.nauticom.net) left irc: http://www.nauticom.net/www/loathian [00:22] Nick change: ProfAway -> ProfG [00:22] hello Shroud [00:23] Perhaps I can help [00:23] Icarus, I was just asking if anyone in here would care to explain their belief system to me, and then you entered. [00:24] I am a Christian, Shroud; I believe in God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible [00:24] what is your paradigm, Shroud? [00:25] Hi. Are you into this philosophy? [00:25] which philosophy? [00:26] Icarus (Daedalus@154.net4.nauticom.net) joined #apologetics. [00:26] Icarus :-) [00:26] I am an atheist, and what I know of apologetics it's the most sophisticated argument in favor of belief. I wanted an overview of it [00:27] hello [00:27] Did you get my note about your form? [00:27] I will send you my bio and pic this weekend [00:27] shroud: put simply, the argument here is that the proof of god is the impossibility of the opposite [00:28] Icarus: yes, and you can just copy the source for the form; I use a mailto URL [00:28] what about the script? [00:28] the impossiblity of god or proof? [00:29] Noodles (morris@pool73.primeline.net) joined #apologetics. [00:29] the impossibility of proving *anything* without a presuppositional belief in the existence of God [00:29] hellow Noodles [00:29] Hello... [00:30] Why would one need a presuppositional belief in anything other than reason to prove anything? [00:31] I was going to come in and argue the point of an atheist, but as I read the words on the screen, my body tells me its sleep time. Bye for now. Till next time. [00:31] Noodles (morris@pool73.primeline.net) left #apologetics. [00:31] blaire (blairej@143.207.68.54) joined #apologetics. [00:31] Didn't mean to scare Noodles off :) [00:32] ok, Shroud, here it is; you say you are an atheist, and you use reason to prove "things"... can you explain how, in an atheist paradigm, one is able to use reason to prove anything? [00:32] hello blaire [00:33] Reason is the only aspect of our consciousness we can use and support with statistics and facts. It is our only gateway to reality and existence. [00:33] since in an atheist paradigm, all that exists is the material world, and the materialist pardigm recognizes only random chance and not imposed order, then how are we able to reason at all? [00:34] What other choice is there? without reason, we could not even fabricate the idea of anything else. Are you implying faith? [00:36] shroud: "what other choice is there" is not a logical basis for a belief system, if that system is self-contradictory. and yes, I *am* implying faith; YOU have faith in "reason" though you cannot prove its existence within your paradigm [00:36] shroud, how do we reason? [00:38] Action: ProfG wonders if he is lagging [00:38] We reason through our brains' ability to analyze the real world around us, using our senses. without these, there is nothing else - Helen Keller spoke of a void of nothingness that she couldn't find words for when she was locked in her darkness - her memories only came about after Annie Sullivan - this seems to me to be proof that without our sense and a frame of reference, we are lost. Why did not "faith" bring any light to Keller's w [00:38] Icarus (Daedalus@154.net4.nauticom.net) left irc: Read error to Icarus[154.net4.nauticom.net]: Connection reset by peer [00:38] sorry - it was long - i'll try to keep it short [00:39] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics. [00:39] shroud, why do you trust your sensory perceptions? [00:39] hiya zx [00:39] hi profg [00:40] Trusting my senses implies I have a reason not to trust them. I trust them because I have no other choice. [00:40] shroud, in an atheist pardigm, what proof is there that sensory perceptions are accurate when we attempt to "analyze the real world"? [00:41] Shroud: in an atheist paradigm, your *only* true choice is to *not* trust them. They are merely random neuron exchanges across your material brain's synapses. [00:41] If you try to prove your point here, you are presuming the very opposite of your point by expecting me to read what you type. You are starting from this point of "no trust", asking me to trust what [00:41] I read [00:42] Those synapses are patterned through our environment and our ability to learn. If I were 2 months old, you'd be right [00:42] ah, but I expect you to read what I right, to be *able* to read it, because I come from a theistic paradigm. In an atheist paradigm, one should not be able to read, or have the ability to use language itself, at all [00:43] And this because...? [00:43] shroud: how does "environment" (random chance in an atheist paradigm) and our "ability to learn" (not "hard-wired" in an at heist paradigm) pattern our brain's thought processes? [00:44] this because in an atheist paradigm, nature operates according to random chance; language cannot develop therefore [00:45] I guess I take exception to your standard of "random chance". Random chance notwithstanding, who is to say that one of those random chances is not this - language, perception, reality? [00:46] language, a whole pattern of sets of characteristics, cannot be "one" random chance; perception in an atheist paradigm *is* random chance, so cannot be trusted (negating scientific inquiry); ther efore one cannot *know* what "reality" is [00:48] Blackwind (u7e95@ip4149.dialup.wvnet.edu) joined #apologetics. [00:48] hi wind [00:48] Hello. [00:48] Language developed out of an evolution of our brains. The odds may be fantastic, but why question the order of nature? Even in Chaos theories, patterns emerge. [00:49] shroud: how can nature have order in an atheistic paradigm? where does such order originate? [00:50] Yes, it originates from randomness, but in that randomness patterns emerge. [00:50] what causes such patterns to emerge, in an atheist paradigm? [00:51] Order is a state our minds like to place everything..there is no order..just appears that way. [00:51] blackwind: what makes our minds place things in order? [00:51] Well, this I readily admit I do not know, but then what you suggest is that it's God. I can ask you the same question: How did the patterns that are"god" emerge? [00:52] Our minds are so complex, it can't even comprehend itself. It even tricks itself into thinking like it thinks as one entity, when really its many smaller ones communicating. [00:53] Shroud: the point is, in your paradigm, there cannot be the order you presuppose, so that presupposition must be borrowed from elsewhere [00:53] Blackwind, how do you know that? [00:54] How do I know that? Many experiments on the brain has shown it. [00:54] blackwind: how do you know that the experiments were correct? [00:55] I think you avoided my question, which is ok, but this boils down to theism adding a level to the ultimate question. What did everything spring from? An atheist can no more answer that than a theist can define what put the eleme nts of god together. [00:55] Cut the cord connecting the two halves of the cortex, like in some severe epileptic cases, and the results are quite obvious. [00:56] a theist doesn't try to define "who put the elements of god together" - that is not within a theist's presuppositions. Theists presuppose the eternal existence of God [00:56] Blackwind: you have done this? [00:57] Raddix (brianj@ppp2.imagixx.net) joined #apologetics. [00:57] No I haven't. Whats your point. [00:57] you have great faith in your claims, Blackwind; where is your proof? [00:57] hello, raddix [00:57] It's called a library. [00:58] I don't have to actually DO everything to understand it. [00:58] Hello.... [00:58] #names #war40k [00:58] copout - would you accept as proof of my paradigm "It's called the Bible"? why should I accept your "proof" then? [00:59] It's called the scientific method, YOU can repeat the experiment and get the same results...try that with your book. [00:59] What is the reason for a god? [00:59] Blackwind: why do you believe in the scientific method? [01:00] Blackwind: your question is illogical - if God exists, there need be no reason [01:00] I've used the scientific method, and with it I can get evidence to support my theories. [01:00] Now you are avoiding my question. [01:00] circular argument, Blackwind: "the scientific method is true because I can use it to prove the scientific method is true" [01:01] Yes...actually that is correct...but I did not say it was true..I said I can collect evidence to support my theories. [01:02] the scientific method is not truth...it starts with a hypothesis but never claims truth. [01:02] There is no truth..only what is in your mind. [01:02] it never claims truth, Blackwind? then why do you believe in using it, and believe in its results? [01:02] I ask again what could be the reason for a god? [01:02] there is no truth, Blackwind? then that statement is false, is it not? [01:03] you ask again an illogical question; what about that do you not understand? [01:04] I just want to know what the purpose of a god is in your universe. [01:04] It takes a god to make the universe? [01:04] A theist goes outside of the realm of reality (read: supernatural) to support claims of existence. [01:04] you can, if you want, repeat the experiments. [01:04] yes, God created the universe, Blackwind [01:05] shroud: in an atheist paradigm, what good does repeating experiments do? in fact, in such a paradigm, would repeating an experiment and getting the same results be, well, a MIRACLE? :-) [01:05] If god exists, why dosen't he make his message know to all people? He could have a Web page or something, one that none of the experts could explain, but was always there when you powered up your computer. [01:06] There is no such thing as "supernatural" Super=beyond How can anything be beyond nature? [01:06] www.god.com [01:07] Blackwind: A) He *has* made his message known (it's called the Bible); B) prove that there is no such thing as "supernatural" [01:07] There is no evidence supporting a god. [01:08] Blackwind: do you possess all knowledge existing in the universe? [01:08] I think this comes down to a twist on the word "faith". there are material faiths, like faith in your doctor, or the engineers made the airplance so that it will fly. If these things violate o ur "faith" we immeidately lose our faith in them. The supernatural neatly skirts this by claiming that ultimately, we need the same kind of "faith" in reason as we do for the exist ence of god. [01:09] I agree re: "supernatural", Black. [01:09] Oh please, the bible, are you saying the other 2/3's of the population of the planet have it all wrong? Only your bible has the answer, a book written by the hand of man and contents guided by the historic chruch. [01:10] Black: I am saying that all paradigms except the Christian theist paradigm are self-contradictory. You are making my case for me by not answering my questions. [01:10] Shroud: fine, use the word "presuppositions" if you prefer [01:10] No I don't posses the knowledge of the universe. And faith has nothing to do with heart surgery or keeping that plain in the air, no matter what my faith is, if the wing falls off I crash. [01:11] Which question? [01:11] Black: you don't possess all knowledge in the universe, yet you make a claim like "There is no evidence supporting a god" ? WOW [01:11] Oh your a Christian to boot! [01:12] Which SECT of chirstianity? [01:12] black - that's my point - we use reason to discern when the wings fall off we lose our "faith" in that plane (and die, as well) - but this philosophy decides that this reasoning is actually "faith" and they marry it to theistic faith, wich is wholly (holy :)) different. [01:12] Show me ANY evidence and I will belive. [01:12] Blackwind, in an atheist paradigm (nature only, no "supernatural"), why would you believe that the plane could be supported by the air? [01:12] Why did god create man? [01:13] Black, quit avoiding the questions [01:13] We believe the plane will fly because we experimented with the theory and have seen it is possible. If it were not, there'd be no question in the 1st place, becasue there'd be no planes! [01:14] I can build a plane, and make if fly. [01:14] shroud: in an atheist paradigm, how do you know that what happened yesterday will happen again today? [01:14] Your avoiding the qusetion why did god create man? [01:14] random chance, remember; nothing outside of the natural, remember [01:15] We can commmunicate can't we? [01:15] Because it keeps happening over and over. Eventually, the pile of evidence weighs in on the reality of existence. [01:15] I will answer your questions if you stop avoiding mine, Blackwell [01:15] How am I dressed, Blackwell :) [01:15] You never said what your question was. [01:15] shroud: so what? in an atheist paradigm, what does that matter? [01:16] Black: you don't possess all knowledge in the universe, yet you make a claim like "There is no evidence supporting a god" ? [01:16] prove it [01:16] It matters plenty if I am to get on a plane. I chose to live longer, and I use my reason to decide the safety of air travel. Not my "faith", my reason [01:16] I am right. There is no evidence supporting the "theory" of god. Is that better? [01:17] your "reason" is based on your *presuppositional belief* that what occured in the past will occur in the future, a belief which is unsupported in an atheist paradigm [01:17] LuckyDay (Deaddoves@206.14.68.110) joined #apologetics. [01:17] So say "in this realm, in this world, in this local reality, there is no evidence of god. We make a negative proposition, and are not required to prove it. Theism asserts a positive proposition, so it is their responsiblity to prove it [01:18] Farcid (hades@dialup05.nexusprime.org) joined #apologetics. [01:18] no it is not, Blackwind. You have stated a universal negative. To prove it, you would need to be all-knowing. In other words, you would need to be God (not possible in an atheist paradigm) [01:18] hello Lucky, Farcid [01:18] Hey Prof [01:19] I don't want to prove god exists! I just want evidence supporting god exists, any evidence. Just show me your theory has merit. [01:19] I'd like to state that logic can not prove there is a God, I'm definitely not a Thomist [01:19] that's nice, Lucky [01:19] ello [01:19] I believe that it is strictly a matter of faith [01:19] For the sake of argument, lets say god does exist. Why create man? [01:20] Why not? [01:20] Blackwind: there is plenty of evidence (nature, resurrection, prophecy fulfillment, etc.), but you reject it out-of-hand due to your own presuppositions [01:20] if there was NOT a god man in his greater wisdom wood create a god [01:20] Farcid: prove it [01:20] Farcid, I agree and men do it all the time when they create idols [01:21] I reject nothing. I only look for evidence to support the theory of god, the things you mention do not need a god to exist. [01:21] Prof - none of those things you mention are evidence. They can all be explained with a single exception - the ultimate question, which you as a theist add a level to. [01:21] what kinda proof wood u like ??? look at history.... mythology is an attempt by man to create something greater than himself [01:22] The men who wrote the Bible took it as a matter of fact and never felt the need for apologetics [01:22] This would be known as a presupposition [01:22] I think you need god to explain the unknown, especally the unknown of death. [01:22] Blackwind: I do not employ evidential apologetics because, as you just proved, atheists reject evidential proofs presuppositionally. The proof of God is the impossibility of the opposite [01:22] Farcid, man in his "greater" wisdom, when has man shown any wisdom? [01:22] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-13.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [01:22] hello zx [01:22] hey profg... [01:23] GOD (deadhetz@deadhetz.premier1.net) joined #apologetics. [01:23] Why are you claiming we reject it out of hand? Why do you presuppose that we haven't looked at this "evidence" and come up with a differing view? [01:23] I feel all alone.... [01:23] cassidy [01:23] Again you use the word proof. I don't know where you get this out of my argument. I don't want to prove anything. [01:23] God change the nick [01:23] Blackwind, I agree there is a need for in men to live - it is the existentialist argument [01:23] men show wisdom by merely creating the word "wisdom" [01:23] GOD (deadhetz@deadhetz.premier1.net) left #apologetics. [01:24] Come on prof. Your hiding behind symbolic logic, something god can't deal with. [01:24] These are my credentials, I'm a former atheist now an evangelical Christian [01:24] Farcid...II thiink it's necessiity (if we are to communiicate at all....) [01:24] Blackwind, you insisted at the beginning that logic be USED [01:25] the laws of logic are impossible without presupposing the existence of God [01:25] Prof...right. [01:25] Logic can and is used to justify anything - but common sense can go beyond logic [01:25] Farcid, man created the word wisdom, so therefore man is wise? No, I think not [01:25] He also created the words world peace... [01:25] No I didn't. I was the one who said that truth only exists at this moment in each of our minds and It can be changed. [01:25] hehe [01:26] not all men must b wise but somemen must b wise to create the word and give it meaning [01:26] Blackwind: is that statement TRUE? [01:26] black.....does falsity exist under those same conditions?? [01:26] There is no proof for anything Prof. Only evidence supporting theories. [01:27] Farcid...perhaps perceptive...it seems you define "wise" very broadly. [01:27] Is there anyone here that realizes there's a limit to apologetics and that logic can be used to the extreme to justify anything? [01:27] Blackwind: is that statement TRUE? [01:27] pro and con? [01:27] Lucky - that's beginning to dawn on me [01:27] Which one? The one I made? In my mind it is true. [01:27] black...what are these evidences if not intended to prove? [01:27] im sorry people but i don't even know what the word apologetics means [01:28] Farcid, just defense of theology [01:28] Lucky: you don't seem to realize that it is only within the theistic paradigm that logic can even be USED [01:28] lucky...I disagree.. Logic can be used in an *attempt* to justify anything...... [01:28] Farcid: apologia = Greek: defence [01:28] exactly Cassidy [01:28] Farcid ....defence of the Faith [01:28] Blackwind: how do you know that it is true? [01:29] Cassidy: Gravity exists...why? I can take an object and let it go it will drop to the floor. I can't prove gravity, but I can see evidence supporting it. [01:29] Cass, you've clarified what I meant - now Prof, splain? [01:29] ahhhhhhh what faith might that b??? christian... jewish... buddah?? [01:29] Blackwind: in an atheist paradigm, what does that prove? not that gravity will do that next time as well [01:29] In ProfG's view it has to be a "christian" one. [01:30] Black, it had to get halfway, but it had to get halfway b4 that - it never reached the floor - but common sense says otherwise - hence one of the problems of logic [01:30] on this channel, it is Christian, Farcid [01:30] Prof - of course it does. It keeps happening and happening - when it doesn't then maybe it's time to rethink the position. [01:30] Now, Prof again, how do you mean? [01:30] I don't pick on your spelling Prof. Now your getting testy. [01:30] Shroud: but in an atheist paradigm, there is no reason to BELIEVE that it will happen again [01:30] It happens at that instant, that's all that matters. [01:31] my spelling? what are you talking about? [01:31] Blackwind: you say that, yet you ACT on the premise that it will happen again [01:31] so that's NOT all that matters [01:31] there is ONLY reason to bleieve it will. Until we have a REASON to believe otherwise, it stands as a fact as we can perceive fact. [01:31] Common Sense is more vital than logic. Logic must appeal to this sense - it is a feeling, it is what is "reasonable", it is intuitive [01:31] It's not? Expain why. [01:32] shroud: NOT in an atheist paradigm, where only random chance exists [01:32] If you can repeat what I did and it happens in your instant thats all that matters. [01:32] Black: because you ACT like more matters than just that action [01:32] Again, random chance is the beginnig, and patterns have emerged. One of those patterns is gravity. [01:32] y must random exist if there is no god?? [01:33] Drop the object the second time and it will NOT react the same again. [01:33] shroud: in an atheist paradigm, how can one believe that such a pattern will reoccur? [01:33] lucky...I disagree....common sense depends heavily on logic...our ability to do so. Logic, I believe does not depend on common sense or any knowledge from sense experience. [01:33] Babysnake (storm@cisco-ts16-line16.uoregon.edu) joined #apologetics. [01:33] There are several levels one can argue that Christianity is better, one on the moral and two on the psychological [01:33] Again, by the preponderance of evidence that it has... and will... and will again. [01:33] It will fall, but it will not hit the same, land the same, bounce the same etc. But with common experiences we can see evidence for gravity. [01:34] Farcid: the atheist paradigm is naturalistic; in nature, there can be no order, only random chance occurences (why would there be otherwise?) [01:34] lucky, three...the logical. [01:34] Farcid: That is excatly right! [01:34] I completely disagree - if logic didn't appeal to teh sense we would reject it [01:34] Farcid - the belief here is that without this "otherworldly being" who ordered and created the universe and reality, the only other choice is total, endless constant randomness. [01:34] black....but it WILL fall...huh? [01:34] simply the laws of nature needs no god [01:34] blackwind: how do you KNOW it will fall? [01:35] an honest atheist would admit he's an agnostic [01:35] farcid: where do the "laws of nature" come from? [01:35] ahh, the existentialist argument [01:35] I know it will fall because that is the experience I have had. [01:35] I think we make them up profg. [01:35] the endless and ever changing universe of course [01:35] farcid - exactly - but then the next question is "How do we know the laws of nature will repeat" [01:35] shroud: you can offer an explanation for why there would be otherwise in an atheist paradigm? [01:36] The ontological argument runs into the trap of who made the maker? [01:36] We simply presume it as a matter of faith [01:36] Lucky: Well not quite. I my view god is the creation of the mind. Without our minds god would not exist. So therefore god dosent exist. [01:36] the universe made itself and will b it own destroyer the big bang repeats [01:36] who is making an ontological argument here, Lucky? who the heck are you talking to? [01:36] Lucky...there are many instances where sense experience distorts reality and logic must be utilized to find the truth. [01:36] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [01:37] farcid: prove it [01:37] Cassidy, why does logic necessarily reval truth? [01:37] Lancelot (lancelot@dfw.dfw.net) joined #apologetics. [01:37] hello Lancelot [01:37] proof that the universe expands has been proven many times [01:37] black...p1=false...p2=false...c=false plus its invalid. [01:37] farcid: and disproven, check your latest astronomy journals [01:38] Lancelot (lancelot@dfw.dfw.net) left #apologetics. [01:38] Cassidy: Have you ever been in an accident or a tramatic event. After the event there are many different stories from different observers. Yet to all of the observers it was reality that happened. [01:38] ok prof... ill hafta believe i MAY b wrong there [01:38] Why do you say its false Cassidy. [01:38] that's stoopid black - all your senses are in your mind and by that argument nothing exists. Are you some sort of transcendentalist trying to escape thinking? [01:39] Prof - I offer as evidence the reality around you. Patterns emerge from randomness - those patterns we call the laws of nature - [01:39] Lucky: No are you saying the Universe doesn't exist without man> [01:39] babyall sense exp. is dependant on logic to make any sense...plus, there are cases...such as a straight stick in the water appearing bent...where only logic (a mental excersize) will reveal the truth. [01:39] shroud: why do you believe there is "reality around you"? [01:39] I'm saying the universe exists without man and god is a creation of mans mind. [01:39] blackwind: prove it [01:40] I agree that sense experience is ambiguous but nevertheless psychologically logic must ultimately appeal to it [01:40] a good agrument black [01:40] a fallacious argument, Farcid [01:40] Well how would you use logic to explain the sensory experiences of something like an abstract painting or the like? [01:40] black...your 2 premises are beliefs that depend on thjee non-existance of God...which is your conclusion. even if they were true, the conclusiuon doesn't follow from the premisis. [01:40] Cassidy - the straight pencil paradigm is a complete fallacy - stick the pencil in a glass half-filled with tar - are you going to assert that half the pencil is "gone"? [01:40] what you are reading by that logic also does not exist [01:40] but neither can b proven or disproven [01:40] I don't have to prove anything Prof. I dont need proof. If you weren't here christianity would still exist. Right? [01:41] All I need is evidence, which you havent supplied. [01:41] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics. [01:41] Mode change '+o W ' by okc.ok.us.undernet.org [01:41] Blackwind: you keep making assertions, insisting they are true, then claiming there is no truth, and you don't need to prove your assertions. PURE ILLOGIC and irrationality [01:41] thanx farcid. [01:42] self-contradictory [01:43] I never said they were true. there you go again. If I rid the planet of christians then does christ not exist anymore? Same argument. I could get the evidence to support my argument, but I'd have to kill everyone on the plan et. [01:43] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial22.fiu.edu) left #apologetics. [01:43] black...how do you have naturral laws without a law-giver or designer? it goes against all experience. plus, how do you justify certain truths, like the past resembles the future...without asuming the truth of the principle iin the attempt? It lacks a neccessary precondition, namely God. [01:43] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial22.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics. [01:43] oops, re [01:43] repost what you said, Blackwind please [01:43] Cass: Natural laws...are changable. [01:44] if 2 people of different backgrounds were to see the same thing ... its quite possible for one to have seen "proof" of his faith and the other to have seen nothing proving nothing [01:44] black...then you in fact *cant* get the evidence to support you argument, huh? [01:44] There is no logical proof for God - God is simply a fact! [01:44] because Blackwind's arguments are merely assertions, and he himself says there is no truth, so his assertions are not true [01:45] black...some perhaps...altho none come to mind...but definately not all...... [01:45] I never said they were true. There you go again. If I rid the planet of christians would christ not exist anymore? I could give evidence supporting my theory but I'd have to kill everyone on the planet. [01:45] black...then you in fact *cant* get the evidence to support you argument, huh? [01:45] Lucky: go read some Van Til and some Plantinga and some Bahnsen, you are wrong [01:45] Raddix (brianj@ppp2.imagixx.net) left #apologetics. [01:45] Lucky, I think you mean god is simply a beleif. [01:45] Lucky doesn't know WHAT he means [01:46] a true agnostic [01:46] Now, baby, you missed my comments on faith and presupposition [01:46] lucky...try again. perhaps your apologetics career is lacking some good reading..... :-) [01:46] Maybe, I did. so? [01:46] Not really, like I said I'm not a Thomist [01:46] Lucky: try the "Resources" link on the #apologetics web page [01:46] Cass: all laws of nature are changeable. [01:46] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [01:46] Sorry guys I gotta run...its been fun though. [01:47] bye Blackwind [01:47] come again [01:47] bye black [01:47] why should I bother - my argument is against the total dependence on logic and not faith [01:47] seeya black [01:47] black...really! please, please! argue THAT one for me real quickly....this I've GOT to see!!! [01:47] then why argue at all, Lucky [01:47] I'll be back to finish some day.... :-) [01:47] why are you even here, Lucky [01:47] which one cass? [01:48] black...you cant prove that...but I can name hundreds of laws that we have NO evidence of EVER changing. [01:48] Like whay Cassidy? which ones? [01:48] black...ANY. I dont care. Just prove to me that ALL natural laws are changing. [01:49] Black is good at asserting universals and then insisting he need not prove his assertions [01:49] an object in motion remeins in motion......... [01:49] The law of gravity and the speed of light dont act the same under all conditions. Thats what a law proposes. Such as...a black hole. [01:49] gravity... [01:49] becuase you people that depend on logic won't get yourself into holes and blow the possibilty of salvation to those who a pure creatures of logic - the atheiests. I was one once [01:49] That did not start happening until kepler came around. [01:49] zip (wireless@pm01-11.cdc.net) joined #apologetics. [01:50] What's the dare? [01:50] hi zip [01:50] black...FINE...granted! but under exact conditions....they do! come on!!! lets argue logic here. [01:50] hi [01:50] Cass: thats just one...there are many more I just dont have the time........ [01:50] I gotta go...I catch you later though. [01:50] What exact conditions Cassidy? where do those exist? [01:50] black....no...thats NOT EVEN one! [01:51] Right behind blackwind - later, all! [01:51] gone like the wind... [01:51] Blackwind (u7e95@ip4149.dialup.wvnet.edu) left #apologetics. [01:51] Shroud (yabba-dab@max3-so-ca-17.earthlink.net) left #apologetics. [01:51] heh [01:51] Action: ProfG has to get to bed... almost 2 am [01:51] yep, it is! [01:52] baby...theretically, OK? actually, I think they do exist...like in space. however, if they dont exist, then YOU cant prove YOUR point either, because the change may be attributed to changes in conditions, NOT change in *law*!!!! !!! [01:52] gotta admit one the most educated christian argunments ive seen [01:52] Farcid: keep coming back, there's more regulars better than I :-0 [01:52] :-) [01:52] But the 'Law' exits only in our mind if we cannot observe it in reality. [01:52] and I...... [01:53] LuckyDay (Deaddoves@206.14.68.110) left irc: Ping timeout for LuckyDay[206.14.68.110] [01:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: Rational defence of the Faith [01:54] baby...really? can you observe ~[a=~a]???? can you illustrate it in such a way that it can be observed in the positive? [01:55] whoops the proffesserrs just went over my head [01:55] No, that is my point. That only exists in our mind. [01:55] heheheh [01:55] Mode change '+o Cassidy_ ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [01:55] Action: ProfG is going to bed now [01:55] nite profg [01:55] fine...but does the law of gravity exist ONLY in your mind? [01:55] nite prof!!! [01:55] G'nite all, God Bless [01:56] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial22.fiu.edu) left irc: Leaving [01:56] does they law of time exist only in your mind? [01:56] just to give my humble opinion it takes as much gall to say for certain there is NO god as to say for certain that one exists [01:56] Yes, before someone noticed it, it could not exist. If it did, where did it exist? [01:56] Farcid....good point...altho I think the latter is a more promising postulate.... [01:58] baby....I dont believe that...but if I did, it wouldn't be necessary for man to observe it because God is omniscient and ever-conscous!! :-) [01:58] Excuse me, when I said 'noticed it', I meant made it up. [01:58] Promising? As in hoped for? [01:58] O.k., that is your beleif. I certainly cannot fault you for that. [01:58] well from my point of view there is neither proof to be handled showing the existance or non-existance of a god [01:58] baby.....does a stretch of the beach disappear when noone is there to observe it? surely not! [01:59] LuckyDay (Deaddoves@206.14.68.106) joined #apologetics. [01:59] my apologies earlier - my call waiting broke in [01:59] zip...no, not really. Do you hope He doesn't? [01:59] lucky...no prob. [01:59] Doesn't matter one way or the other actually. [02:00] Farcid...on the contrary, I believe there is. Is it conclusive? can we say we have *knowledge* in the styrictest Platonic sense? THAT is another q. [02:01] Juliet (ego@blpm01-176.MCN.NET) joined #apologetics. [02:01] If no one has observed that strecth of beach, there is no reason to belive that it does exist. [02:01] zip...given certain possibilities I should say it does! [02:01] Juliet (ego@blpm01-176.MCN.NET) left #apologetics. [02:01] no reason there is not - and logically there becomes a dilemma:hence I believe faith goes beyond just logic [02:02] if i see touch and possible taste something then its a fact "for me" until god shakes my hand and says "i'm here" ill wait for further proof [02:02] Baby...except that the natural processees of the tide tables and such would be out of whack.... [02:02] Promises, possibilities, hyperbole? [02:02] how so? [02:02] Farcid maybe you just don't recognize the way God shakes hands [02:03] true but maybe u see things that u want to see [02:03] I try and be objective - by faith my full understanding will come later [02:03] zip...not hyperbole...ACTUAL possibilities. as for my use of "promising", it was appropriate given the context. [02:04] Hmmm, I bold it and it makes it so. Interesting.... [02:04] Lucky....do you believe you have any reason to consider your faith superior to that of a Muslim outside of the logical arguments for Christianity? [02:05] What logicall arguments for christianity? [02:05] zip...no, but emphasis is part of communication, is it not? I bold it, so it is wrong. is THAT YOUR argument? [02:06] CAssidy, I believe that there are several aspects of Christianity that make it superior - only one other form of Buddhism has justification by faith for example, no other religion has it [02:06] Baby...there are many, some of which Im sure you're already aware of. [02:06] Bolding it, emphasizing it, raising your voice to the heavens, nothing makes it more correct if it is flawed to begin with. [02:06] None that are actually logical arguments that hold water. [02:06] Lucky......just be sure you dont use logic when you explain them! :-) [02:07] Christianity is strictly a faith evidenced by works doctrine - almost all others are dependent on works [02:07] Cas LOL [02:08] zip...really? hmmmm.... I'll recant right now...just because you pointed that out to me. Thank you for saving me from my ignorance. [02:08] I not a mystic - I belive in a reasonable faith [02:08] Lucky...agreed. [02:08] you are most welcome to be enlightened.... [02:08] agreed again! [02:09] zip...God bless your veins and your arteries. [02:09] so u will only believe something that has reason??? [02:09] hallelujah [02:09] and my little piggies too? [02:10] Not the pork argument again [02:10] ;) [02:10] Farcid...unless its axiomatic or irrefutable...i.e., it must be assumed to assirt. Still, that wouldn't jhustify it..... [02:10] Action: Cassidy_ considers zip a person of discriminating taste and superior breeding! [02:11] superior bleeding? [02:11] hehe [02:11] heh heh [02:12] so zip, do you believe in a god at all? [02:12] Must be that southern baptist upbringing, huh? [02:12] hehehe [02:12] nope [02:12] really..... [02:12] but! I don't disbelieve either! [02:12] zip...how do you account for things that are non-material...non-physical? [02:13] Multiple choice.... Yes, No, Don't Know [02:13] simple they dont exist [02:13] really? interesting...... [02:13] Action: zip hears the wind blowing [02:13] how do you know? [02:13] I do not think you believe that Farcid [02:13] can someone tell me the chemical composition of an idea???? [02:13] really??? i think i do... except for concepts [02:14] does it have a mass? [02:14] I do *not* account for things that are non-material, non-physical [02:14] And yes, the wind has mass [02:14] How can you be absolutely sure what can not be physical evidenced does not exist [02:14] You can't. [02:14] how can u b sure that it does?? [02:15] You can't. [02:15] I agree - I belive it by faith [02:15] I agree, I have no faith. [02:15] ZIP.....wind, yes....but what about a thought? can someone plz put one in a test tube for me so I may examine this *physical* thought?????? [02:15] Give me a big enough hammer.... [02:15] something that is usually taught at an early age and repeated to the point where u have no choice but to say "because" [02:15] hehehe.... [02:15] its an electrochemical process you dualist [02:16] What is the point cassidy, of course you cannot do it. [02:16] really though....they do exist, do they not? surely you arent gonna deny that ideas, thoughts, conccepts exist.... [02:16] "because" is NOT a good reason for 'faith' [02:17] Exists in our minds, that is all. [02:17] farcid.....you're jumpin waaaayyyy ahead of us here........... [02:17] As a matter of fact, I think it would be possible to actually program a thought onto a chip given all the constraints and limitations of out thoughts... [02:17] What we sense can be argued to only exist in our minds as well [02:17] aggreed lucky. [02:17] agreed lucky [02:18] baby...point is that these things MUST be accounted for, no? Now, in a purely physical universe...you better have some purely physical explanation for ideas...if not, then the universe cannot be purely physical, see? [02:18] And your point is? [02:18] but common sense tells us what we sense does exist [02:19] zip...really? says who? are we wishin a bit here??? :-) [02:19] Lucky, common sense misleads us quite a bit of the time. [02:19] but, baby, leads us down the correct road more often [02:20] Depends on what you mean by that. [02:20] baby...its hard to make ANY points with someone who contributes nothing save a repitious query about points............ [02:20] Tbaggin (jboren@s.loomis.garlic.com) joined #apologetics. [02:20] Baby, I agree and logic must appeal to this - and this is why you can make two logical statements that contradict [02:20] Cass, your perception of reality is different from mine based on our individualistic sensory input [02:20] All I am asking to do is explain yourself, if you have a problem with that I do apologize. [02:21] zip...granted. Now, tell me the chemical composition of an idea and we'll move on. [02:21] I seem to have made a case for our own limits - but again, common sense lets us know that we DO have capabilities [02:21] common sense is simply another phrase for what is reasonable [02:22] Tbaggin (jboren@s.loomis.garlic.com) left #apologetics. [02:22] Cass, uncle! Never did like chemistry anyway. [02:22] And what is reasonable has been programmed into you from birth lucky. [02:22] baby...am I not being clear? If you're a naturalist, then ALL is natural. If one thing (or more) is found not to be part of the natural universe, Naturalism goes out the window. [02:23] by programmed do you mean conditioning - I have a great deal of belief in both conditioning and intuition [02:23] How can anything be found to be not part of the universe? [02:23] nika (nika@200.13.27.42) joined #apologetics. [02:24] That is exactly what I meant lucky. [02:24] do you believe in intuitive knowledge - knowledge from instaincts? [02:24] zip...nor do I. However...You can bet that noone has found the answer yet...nor have they extracted a thought into a test-tube to begin testiing! SO......if thoughts are indeed NOT part of the physical universe......then BAM!!! you're doing metaphysics whether you like it or not! [02:25] does anyone want to proceed with me? It gets better. [02:25] and............. [02:25] No, I do not think that I do Lucky. [02:25] well i sed "except for concepts" when i made my statemnts [02:25] Yes, please! [02:25] nika (nika@200.13.27.42) left #apologetics. [02:26] Then of course how does a baby know how to cry for food, or learn to crawl when not given an example? [02:27] Instinct is not knowledge. (in my opinion) [02:27] Of course conditioning plays a part but there's a certain part of understanding that's built into to sense [02:28] farcid....smart! However, now its incumbant upon you (if indeed you are driven as I am to know truth) to find out how such a non-physical entity can exist in a world that is otherwise physical. What about God now? we're a step c loser, for we've identified something else made up of a "substance" (for lack of a better term) that God is proported to be made of. [02:29] Whoa one damn minute cass! That is totally too much of a jump! [02:29] Cassidy - how about something supra-physical? It doesn't necessarily have to be non-physical [02:29] oop, language [02:29] soory [02:29] Question #2......If all IS physical...then our thoughts, like all else, are matter in motion...no more...... [02:30] yeah, why not - are you a dualist? Platonic? [02:30] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) left irc: Changing servers [02:30] Lucky.....supra=above nature.... super=unordinary or outside of natural law... [02:31] seems like both, can you ellaborate? [02:31] zip....really? I dont think I drew THAT much from it... [02:32] Lucky...if something is supra-natural, then it is outside of the natural...not part of the natural...hence non-natural. [02:32] The nature of the universe is physical and non-physical or matter and energy. Our thoughts would tend to be a manifestation of the energy across the gray matter of our brains. [02:33] yea thanx zip i knew it was somethin like that [02:33] not necessarily - neither is outside - its something that goes beyond simply the natural and therefore doesn't follow the same rules [02:33] super-natural is simply a change in natural law...or the suspension of a law....not necessarily some non-physical substance being added to the equasion.... [02:33] E=mc squared [02:34] in otherwords energy has mass [02:34] and just as computational tasks can be accomplished by modern computers on a scale superior to our minds, so will a future machine capable of sufficient input be able to "think" and conceive ideas! [02:34] and no lucky, energy does Not have mass [02:35] what is energy if not a law acting upon some physical substance? it doesn't explain love or mathamatics or creativity. [02:35] so E does not equal m c squared? [02:36] zip....lets assume for a second that these things do have a physical makeup....... [02:36] yes lucky, it does... [02:36] Cass, why not? These abstractions obviously have some concrete reality. [02:37] assume, I like that... [02:37] okay let put it in long form then zip Energy is equivalent to Mass at the speed of light squared - Energy is mass [02:37] duh, thanks! [02:37] lucky....only if they are carried out in some expression....but does the concept itself??? [02:37] zip...ok.... [02:38] How then do you have free-will? [02:38] on second look lucky, wrong [02:38] cass, who is to say I have free will? [02:39] cass, yes it must appeal the sense. I believe the supernatural can affect teh natural - Hence the Holy Ghost, can affect our natural feelings [02:39] your a machine.....predisposed to think what you think. You have no choice. You're a machine talking to a machine in a giant machine called the universe....with no choice because atoms dont make decisions...they just react. Does water choose to flow toward the ocean? [02:40] lucky, agreed! [02:40] lucky, by E=MCsquared we express the relationship between matter and energy. they are not equivalent. [02:41] cass, no the water flows in response to natural forces exerted upon it. [02:41] Cass, common sense says we have a free will - saying we do not only shows the problem of logic [02:41] zip, I guess Einstein was wrong then [02:41] no lucky, you are misunderstanding the relation of matter to energy... [02:42] then why did Einstein say they were equivalent - I seen him quote it [02:42] zip, are you some sort of dualist? [02:42] zip....there is no right or wrong, good or bad EVER! just one conditioning vs. another conditioning. Rape isn't wrong, murder isn't wrong...all is as it is. two totally contradictory things must both be considered right ....or n ot at all. Now, how dou you respond to that universe? [02:43] It sounds like our universe cass. [02:43] i agree cass] [02:43] hehehe..... [02:43] netnut (jgammage@ias_ppp0439.iamerica.net) joined #apologetics. [02:43] again, common sense says otherwise about what is moral [02:43] nope just how u were raised [02:43] obviously it is wrong, but if logic can't prove it there may be something with the logic or logic itself [02:44] 1. define dualist for the purposes of your question. 2. define right and wrong for the purposes of your question. [02:44] no....this is a universe of total and complete cchaos.....and one that would justify immediate suicide! (actually, it wouldn't justify it at all.....) [02:44] this is my next question Cassidy - are you happy? [02:44] Action: zip remembers a battle cry from his army days...."commit suicide!" [02:45] Why is that cass? (not picking, just want an explanation of that last statement) [02:45] what is happy?? [02:45] :) [02:45] guys....this is the result of so-called Naturalism. THIS is the end result of a denyal of non-physical. This, I suggest, is the result of a universe with no God. [02:45] One of the seven dwarves. [02:46] what cass, happiness is a result of acceptance that there is no god? [02:46] I do not think your argument holds up cass. [02:46] hold on - who's the apologists here - I am, for the sake of argument [02:46] sounds an awfull lot like the world we live in where rape is common and murder moreso [02:46] baby......scroll up. It is the conclusion to an argument laid out oover the course of 5 or 6 posts. [02:47] I realize that cass, and it does not wash with me. [02:47] and to quote a younger generation, Anarchy Rules! [02:47] Farcid....yes....but some kind of order, as degenerated as it may be, keeps our world from going totally and completely into chaos. [02:48] okay, go ahead live without morals and watch what happens to you - you become a thing [02:48] But it is only order we impose on it, we change the universe when we change our perception of it. [02:48] but by looking at crime and statistics around the world ... god must leaving the world slowly over the decades to meet your understanding of the world [02:48] baby.....well, in the interest of intellectual honesty....it is obligatory for you to postulate some reason *why* it doesn't wash.....huh? [02:49] anywayz gonna go now, I pray you come to Christ - the Lord needs more intelligent people for his cause [02:49] :-) [02:49] bye lucky!!! [02:49] Yep! I'll bet he does! [02:49] bye lucky.. [02:49] buy luck [02:49] ciau [02:49] LuckyDay (Deaddoves@206.14.68.106) left #apologetics. [02:50] See above. You like to hit on these laws, yet these laws are only arrived at by a common consensus amoung ourselves. These 'laws' do not tell us how the univese is, they tell us only how we percive it. [02:50] Action: zip looks at Cassidy, then at Farcid, then they all look at baby [02:50] Farcid....Am I correct in assuming you believe in the womans right to have an abortion? (this isn't gonna turn into a discussion on abortion, I promise...) [02:50] agreed [02:50] hehe [02:51] u assume correctly....its either murder or not ... depending on ur belief [02:51] blaire (blairej@143.207.68.54) left irc: Its the ghost in the machine [02:51] ok....farcid...is it possible to completely ban all abortions...and then still retain our "right" to have one? [02:52] our freedom to have one? [02:52] freedom as in law or as in free will?? [02:52] law... [02:52] no [02:52] ok... [02:53] Then if God zapped the world into a better place overnight....how do you expect to retain free-will? [02:53] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:53] hey cass [02:54] from our perspective, you want free-will (which I freely want) then we get the package deal....namely, "evil". [02:54] Aco!!! [02:54] ugh .... [02:54] Wait, who says we have free will? [02:54] cass whats up? [02:55] u must zip or ur the devil.. one or the other [02:55] heh heh heh heh *trying to give an evil laugh* [02:55] not much. All these guys are agnostics I think (or athiests) [02:55] watch the insults please [02:56] What are you guys? [02:56] cassidy Paradigmically challaneged eh? [02:56] Who you calling an atheist? [02:56] heheh [02:56] zip...you. [02:56] Action: zip winks at farcid [02:56] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [02:56] zip is most assuredly NOT an atheist! [02:56] cass talking about the problem of evil eh? [02:56] zip what are you then? [02:56] hey you guys....Acolytes an idiot. Ask him anything. Im tired. [02:56] an agnostic [02:57] yep!!! [02:57] ditto [02:57] cassidy blah [02:57] blah blah [02:57] blah blah blah [02:58] Well, I must say, I will have to mark this channel down for future reference. Baby really makes me think! [02:58] whats on your mind kiddies? [02:58] hey didnt i remember somthing about god clensing the world once w/ water?? [02:58] farcid yeah, its called the flood [02:58] zip....agnosticism is sooooo convenient. you did however argue veheminantly for an atheistic worldview when we were talking about physical/non-physical universe........ [02:58] isnt that a zap of evil .... but leaving free will?? [02:58] farcid, yeah so? [02:59] farcid, he did not eliminate all evil,only some. [02:59] Cass, the beauty of agnosticism is being able to argue either way! [02:59] cass was saying we had to have evil to have free will [02:59] farcid better put he eleminated the agents caussing evil [02:59] farcid that is one view [03:00] zip....yea, beauty. However...it's real risky taking a position on anything, isn't it? :-) [03:00] zip the prob with Agnosticism is that you don't collect the insurance! ;) [03:00] Aco!! :-) [03:00] then y doesnt god just eliminate evil as it occurs... not prevent just stop it [03:00] farcid there is more than one approach to the problem of evil [03:00] farcid oh, andhow would a world like that look? kinda chaotic [03:00] Im not a member of the "God is alive and hiding in Argentina club!". [03:01] farcid, every time a gun fires, speagetthi comes out instead of a bullet. and so on [03:01] Cass, believe it or not, but I do take a position. And I do subscribe to the universal "golden rule" in my dealings with fellow mankind... [03:01] zip why? [03:01] zip....why? what value is that? [03:01] My personal decision... [03:01] zip why not the rule of nature? Killor be killed? [03:01] golden rule?? [03:01] zip obvious it was YOUR decision, but WHY did you make that diecision? [03:02] I would like to leave a lasting legacy of positive influence on those I meet. [03:02] zip, why? [03:02] probably the way he was raised [03:02] zip...I think "survival of the fittest" is more "natural".....hell, all animals live that way! [03:02] farcid, so? Were you raised with math? well chuck math then eh? [03:02] man is an animal too [03:02] to be a nice southern baptist cum episcopalian [03:02] zip "Cum" excuseme? [03:03] watch the language [03:03] zip...fine, but whats the value of it? why is it better than any other "rule"? [03:03] Action: Cassidy_ reports: Error! Error! Unlawful activity by zip ... Self destruct mode commencing in zero five zero seconds... [03:03] hehehe [03:03] no [03:03] slow typer here hang on... [03:03] no prob..... [03:03] zip naw really? [03:03] ;) [03:04] better for me.. [03:04] cassidy you going to the mountains withus or no? [03:04] cassidy 20 bucks [03:04] zip...fine...better suppose its better for me to blow you away.....is their anything wrong with that? [03:05] Aco...I dont know yes.....probably... [03:05] It depends on what you mean by wrong cass. [03:05] yes=yet [03:05] define better [03:05] cassii ok be thinkin' about it [03:05] my decision to make given that I exist within a society of mankind. In this existence, I can be a ruthless negative influence or a positive influence. I chose a positive existence. [03:05] zip ok, you said thatbefore, but why? [03:05] zip how do u know what is positive and negative? [03:06] do you measure its voltage or what? [03:06] its easier to go along w/ the flow than to b a roadblock [03:06] farcid....better=more expediant....a perception of benefit [03:06] farcid, ever been to Germany? [03:06] cassidy utility [03:06] aco...hehe [03:06] positive defined as having an effect that does not interfere or detract from. [03:06] nope never been long from florida [03:06] right. [03:06] Acolyte, on possible explanation is that his choice was programmed into him by evolution. I have problems with the the theory of eveolution, but it is an explanation. [03:07] zip ok, so you are saying that if somethng benefits socieity it is positive and if it detracts from it, itis negative? Corretc? [03:07] farcid...Hitler thought it was better to slaughter jews...who's to say it wasn't? [03:07] not neccesarily Aco. [03:07] baby no that is a DESCRIPTION, not an explanation. Evolution does not explain, it describes HOW things are, not WHY they are [03:07] the majority of the world ... of all religions [03:07] zip thenplease clarrify [03:07] and was hitler's actions of detriment to others? Yes, therefore his actions were a negative. [03:08] zip...then why is your "golden rule" valueable, and why shouldn't I rape children and murder innoscents? [03:08] zip- ok does not nature cause that tho? [03:08] zip...why is a detrament to others bad? [03:08] cassidy perfectly natural [03:09] Action: zip feels a flood, one at a time, please [03:09] yea...seems a natural response...heaven knows it is for some...... [03:09] most r "good" because it pays better than being "bad" [03:09] zip......work with me... [03:09] ok cass, backing up a bit to get the thread [03:09] bsnake (storm@cisco-ts5-line1.uoregon.edu) joined #apologetics. [03:09] Babysnake exolanations have to do with reason. Naturalistic evoltution excludes reason, and only allows for bio-chemical cranial functions [03:09] Aco...let me at him....I mean....let me talk with him. ;) [03:10] explanations even [03:10] cassidy be my quest [03:10] brb [03:10] back [03:10] fast... [03:10] an impact on another that is not of benefit to the other is a negative in my mind [03:10] Babysnake (storm@cisco-ts16-line16.uoregon.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for Babysnake[cisco-ts16-line16.uoregon.edu] [03:11] I'm sorry, My server cut me off, I missed aloot (I must be talking to much bs). [03:11] Babysnake exolanations have to do with reason. Naturalistic evoltution excludes reason, and only allows for bio-chemical cranial functions [03:11] Nick change: bsnake -> Babysnake [03:11] zip....in your mind, yes. But what about others minds? Surely Jeffry Dahmer had a different Idea about what was best for him. He wanted to kill and eat (gross!)..... [03:11] babaysnake hence any appeal to naturalistic evolution has nothing to do w/explainations, only description [03:12] And you want a reason, why zip's choice was the correct one? [03:12] zip...again, why shouldn't I murder and rape if I want to? [03:12] Is that it? [03:12] Sure cass, and that is what he has to resolve for himself. of course society takes a hand in repugnant behavior censure. [03:12] babysnake sure, unless of course he does not believe in reason. [03:13] Go for it cass if that is your thing [03:13] What is your explanation for it Acolyte? [03:13] babysnake what is my explanation of what? [03:13] zip...why is society justified in doing that? Why do they get to impose their morality on Jeffry and I? [03:13] babysnake you mean how do i account for ethics? [03:14] because (wishes he could do this slower) the "criminal" usurps the rights of others [03:14] zip...what If I kill your family? Will you applaud my right in doing so? will you defend my freedom in those circumstances? [03:14] His choice, by asking why is it the right choice you either (a) Think there is a reason for it being the correct choice, or (b) do not think there is a reason. Which is it? [03:14] cass, no and no [03:14] babysnake Ithink there is a reason, because I do not assume NAturalism [03:14] What is the reason then? [03:15] I would deplore such actions as repugnant and wrong [03:15] according to you? [03:15] zip...where do these "rights" come from? why ought I value them? what are they to me and Jeffry? [03:15] babysnake, you have to ask the question, IN which paradigm would logic be possible? Not naturalism. [03:15] babysnake, well obviously if I am saying it is according tomy view, tho I do not assert it on my authority [03:15] I do not understand Acolyte. [03:15] which rights cass? the right to peaceful existence? [03:15] zip....give me an answer I can sink my teeth into... [03:16] Babysnake, ok, the question is, in what worldviews is logic possible? [03:16] zip.....yes...any "right". why should anyone adhere to any of these "rights"? [03:16] babysnake, or put another way, what are the pre-conditions for knowledge and in what worldviews are they possible? [03:16] In any world view, we have made up logic. Logic is possible simply because we have made it up. [03:17] true baby [03:17] babysnake oh really? [03:17] babysnake, when did we make up logic? [03:17] cass, just as you have your faith in whatever, I have my comfort in knowing that I do not usurp other's rights and leave a positive influence on them. *feels a cavity coming on* [03:17] zip...why not complete anarchy? [03:17] Oh really acolyte. Was it brought to us by aliens? [03:18] I agree that in an ideal society, anarchy is an ultimate government. [03:18] babysnake, I did not propose that did I? No, please tell me, when did we make it up? (BTW just because we have it does not mean we are the source of it. We have dirt but we are not the source of it.) [03:18] zip.....but when my own idea of whats most expediant for me infringes on YOU...what then? What about when I kill YOUR family? WEEhat ought to be done? [03:18] but an ideal society is defined as non-infringing on others [03:18] zip circular argument [03:19] zip....we haven't yet got to the point where we can define a society...... [03:19] if man were perfect he wood have the perfect society [03:19] then I would say cass you have a moral dilemma [03:19] babysnake, when did man invent A=/~A [03:19] babysnake, when did man invent A=/~A? [03:19] plz...what ought we do in the above hypothetical example? [03:20] Acolyte, as soon as he wrote down or thought A=/~A. I'm working on a longer response, please hold. [03:20] zip...really? I should think you would. What ought we to do with Jeffrey Dahmers and the like? [03:20] gather men of like ideas and enforce them on the others of the society [03:20] babysnake, so before then A could equal Non-A? [03:20] then it would not be acceptable to you cass. a choice would not include infringing on others as being expedient, an invalid choice. [03:21] zip why? [03:21] wait, are we talking an ideal society or today? [03:21] zip...why not? it was expediant for Hitler and Stalin, no? [03:21] No reason to assume it could not. That statment only has meaning when man assigns it meaning. [03:21] zip perhaps nature does not dispose us to that belief or pratice? what then? perhaps the goal of nature isnot harmony? [03:22] the goal of nature is survial [03:22] no, zip....we're talking about a universe where all morality and values are reletive..... [03:22] Fine, I do not presume to define the nature of all men, only myself. [03:22] babysnake let me ask you this, is it posible that a rock could be a rock and at the same time be a NON-Rock? [03:22] I need to know acolyte, what your definition of logic is to continue. [03:22] zip, are you part of nature or no? [03:22] What do you mean by 'being' a non-rock? [03:22] Babysnake r u aware of the Law of Contradiction? [03:22] zip is. period. [03:23] brb [03:23] zip...but you STILL havn't answered my question. What should we do with ,someone like jeffrey Dahmer? Especially is he goes after your sister or brother? [03:23] I think I have had this conversation before. The law of contradiction is assumed, that does not make it true... It makes it assumed. [03:23] Discordia (Im@192.239.151.101) joined #apologetics. [03:23] babysnake fine, but I did not ask about it being assumed did I? No [03:24] cass, society has determined procedures and methods for dealing with the likes of dahmer... [03:24] babysnake I simple asked, can a thing be itself and not itself inthe same time space and relationship? [03:24] Well, what is your point in bringing it up then? [03:24] OK..... [03:24] babysnake I simple asked, can a thing be itself and not itself inthe same time space and relationship? [03:24] Finally. [03:25] 1. Nature is determined by non-rational forces [03:25] 2. Man is part of nature [03:25] so zip...then those things that are best for a society are good and those things that harm a society are bad? [03:25] ergo-man is determined by non-rational forces [03:25] hence man's choices are NON-rational [03:25] Cutter (cortem@192.239.151.48) joined #apologetics. [03:25] Man is not a part of nature. [03:25] not neccesarily cass, look at the irs [03:25] discordia that depends onwhatparadigm oneis in [03:25] Man is seperate from nature. [03:26] hehe [03:26] discordia he is? so he is not physcial? [03:26] discordia, so you don't have a physical body? [03:26] I have no problem with that last statement Acolyte. If you believe that, why then ask zip to justify his choice of following the golden rule? [03:26] oh sure..man is physical... [03:26] zip...to maintain order in a society, how else do you suppose we solve our little problem, then? [03:26] babysnake what do you mean youdon't have a problem with it? is it possible or not? [03:26] Acolyte I have a physical body but my physical body is not always affected by nature. [03:26] however...if man were part of nature, he would not have the ability to question it [03:26] discordia, oh really? like when? [03:27] cutter only if nature disposed him to do so. [03:27] I was talking about mans choices being non-rational. I do not know if it is possible or not, and I am not presumptious enough to presume that because it makes no sense to me that it cannot be true. [03:27] Like when you control the climate inside of a building. [03:27] You can cause it to rain or make the sun shine. [03:27] discordai thatis part of nature as well. [03:28] You can make it steaming hot or freezing cold. Bright or dark. [03:28] hmmmm, how 'bout this cass, we make some laws and prescribe punishments and for the really bad people we build a big pit and chuck their unearthly souls into and set it afire? Would that work? [03:28] babysnake, ok so youa re saying that the Law of contradictionis not applicable in a particular situation? [03:28] Man has become master of part of his environment. Name anything else that can do that. [03:28] works for me zip [03:28] hhmmmmmmm..acolyte..my body is unaffected by nature, for instance when i am in a gyroscopic state of zero g in a neutral invironment [03:28] discrodia, that is only so because nature has caused man to do so [03:29] cutter still governed by natural laws [03:29] I am saying man applies it because it makes sense to him, for no other reason than that. It does not make the universe behave that way though. [03:29] Was it Nature or was it divine intervention? [03:29] zip...I like it. However...it's society...i.e., a majority...that decides to serve that penalty. Therefore, "bad"=actions detramental to that society, no? [03:29] Did we evole, were we set here by a divine power or are we some alien's experiment? [03:30] no cass, "bad" does not equal bad [03:30] acolyte..i'll buy the natral law thing when i see a unified force theory that works [03:30] there are two concepts of bad being set forth [03:30] 'bad' is someones opinion [03:30] babysnake, that is BS. first,if the LofC did not aplly youcouldnot even think of the situation. [03:30] discrodai even aleisna re part of nature too [03:30] cutter, oh so there is something other than anture causesing the sun to come up or gravity to hold you down? [03:30] Zip** Define Bad. [03:30] Zip** For that matter, Define Normal. [03:31] Man has cut the universe up into definitions and relationships and called that the universe. To do this, he has used a tool he calls logic, and then wonders why the universe appears to be 'logical' to him. Does not make sense . [03:31] acolyte..i didn't say that.. [03:31] zip = good, zip = abnormal [03:31] Acolyte** How do you know aliens are a part of nature? Have you done a comprehensive study of them? [03:31] babysnake logic is not dependent on man s mind. [03:31] Zip** No! You have been a Bad Monkey! ;) [03:31] discordia, are they spirits? [03:31] What is it dependent on then? [03:31] i said in a gyroscopic state..one created by man..those laws mean notyhing..you move outsidde of them [03:32] Acolytes** Define what you mean by a spirit. [03:32] zip.....listen. You tell me how You suggest we justify calling a thing "wrong"My last hours attempts to beat it out of you have been fruitless..... :-) [03:32] babysnake, think of it this way, mto think of anything you have to have the LofC as basic in your head. [03:32] discordia non-matieral being that is sentient [03:32] Acolyte** Is there proof that a spirit exists? [03:32] cutter how does one move outside laws of anture? [03:33] dicrodia thatis what I am asking you. [03:33] what? I did not understand at least two words in that last remark aco. [03:33] zip...this kind of frivality will get you nowhere in philosophy...exept touting the ststus quo until it gets too difficult................... [03:33] Acolyte** Does there need to be a spirit in order to move outside the laws of Nature? [03:33] babysnake, look the distinction between a thing and another thing requires the Law of COntradiction. X is not = to non-X, it is different from it [03:33] by simply placing ones self into a state (take the afore mentioned) and then you exprience non of those laws, you could move your hand up, and not know it, ect [03:33] well gosh cass, I guess my perception of right and wrong are different from yours. ;) we each decide what is right, wrong or indifferent and choose or course. I have a simple compass that directs my actions that only works for me. [03:34] discordia thatis not what I asjked you is it? [03:34] cutter not knowing it is not the same as the laws of nature not applying BTW, motion is part of nature [03:34] Acolyte** No and I still say that man is not affected by all the forces of nature. [03:34] discordia, what is a human? [03:34] Man has his ways of mastering the forces of Nature. [03:34] discordia, what is a human? [03:35] zip......fine, but YOUR worldview cannot, is not, and will never work in thee REAL world. It leads to chaos and intellectual suicide. [03:35] (g) [03:35] true enough, but not knowing was not the point..explain how a force could act on you without you know it [03:35] discordia does man have a soul? or is he only material? [03:35] funny cass he has at least one supporter [03:35] acolyte, define soul, and explain what it is [03:35] A human is a bipedal sentient being, usually between 5-7 feet. [03:35] cutter ignorance of a thing does not affect its working [03:36] Farcid....he has many more than that, I'm sure. [03:36] cutter non-material substance of a non-mateirla being. [03:36] Commit Suicide! but cass, I sleep well, and am most at peace with myself. [03:36] ditto [03:36] Babysnake (storm@cisco-ts5-line1.uoregon.edu) left irc: Write error to Babysnake[cisco-ts5-line1.uoregon.edu], closing link [03:36] zip now justify it [03:37] zip is [03:37] apsolutly not, but again, we know of all the forces working on us, and if we are capable of recognizing them, then if we cannot feel them, we can assume that they are no longer working on us [03:37] no justification needed [03:37] zip having somethng abd being able to justify are 2 different things, Cassi is asking for your justification [03:37] zip....ignorance is the opiate of the masses.....and a hell of a lot cheaper than sleeping-pill perscriptions!!! :-) [03:37] Cogito ergo sum. [03:37] hello? [03:37] religion is the opiate of the masses, Karl Marx [03:37] discrodai go read Bertrand Russell, he refuted Descartes Cogito [03:37] I zip....therefore, I am. [03:38] zip obviously so is Agnosticism [03:38] oy! [03:38] :) [03:38] funny i thought religion was the opiate of the masses [03:38] what is religion? [03:38] Multiple choice, yes, no, i don't know [03:38] cutter, Quantum Mechanics and the measurement problem would mitigate against yourview [03:38] Farcid....not tonight, huh? I hope we've all learned something here..... [03:38] Farcid quotes Marxism: a failed economic system [03:38] netnut a failed worldview [03:39] heh heh [03:39] Indeed!! Aco....just ask Castro [03:39] possible but communism is the most perfect form of government known to man [03:39] zip.....come back some time when you're fresh and full of roses.....we'll pick up where we left off. [03:39] farcid not really [03:39] and bottom line, the personal beliefs expressed here are not meant as a worldview but only an individual view. [03:39] Farcid: is man perfect [03:39] farcid yeah millions dead frm it, sure it is [03:40] yes it is but man messes it up [03:40] you got it Cassidy! Headed out for the sleeping pills! ;) [03:40] zip worldviews are held by individuals [03:40] this is not always true acolyte, take for example, the unified force theory (if i may go back to it), it has not been explained, but yet we become sick when our bodies are not exposed to the unified forces that we feel he on earth , yet they can't combine them all...but they must be one [03:40] Acolyte** Man is set apart from nature by his beliefs and his cognizance. [03:40] zip...as am I. Goodnite. [03:40] g'nite y'all! [03:40] Hey Farcid....the hippies of the '60 tried Communal lifestyle...it failed [03:40] discordia, oh really? How so? [03:41] discordia beleifs are brain fucntins of chemcials nothing more [03:41] & it had no gov't intervention [03:41] so it failed does that make it wrong?? [03:41] zip (wireless@pm01-11.cdc.net) left #apologetics. [03:41] Dis...so there is a non-natural part of man that sets him apart? [03:41] Acolyte Where else in nature will you find a creature that uses religion to it's advantage? And what about science? Or art? [03:41] Hey Cassidy, are we having Problems? [03:41] discordia that makes man differnt,not non-natural. [03:42] net...many, but thats not important right now., [03:42] discordia,a re mans ideas anythng more than chemical reactins inthe brain? [03:42] Who said: "If God did not exist, man would soon invent Him. [03:42] Action: Cutter will return...but for now..i must sleep... [03:42] i did earlier tonite [03:42] Acolyte** No, yet they are the process of an avatar. Or soul if you will. [03:42] net....someone who NEVER expected it to be quoted ad nausium as it is, I'm sure.... [03:43] ahh..if man invented a god, there would be no faith in him, for man is imperfect [03:43] Action: Cutter waves to all.. [03:43] "it would take Gods to give men laws"-Rusoue [03:43] Cutter (cortem@192.239.151.48) left #apologetics. [03:43] Dis...is Wiccan? [03:43] discrodia how do you know there is such a thing? [03:43] Acolyte** I don't know that there is not. [03:43] Cass** Not quite. [03:43] Rousseau sounds good to me , Aco [03:43] Dis...do tell...and dont suggest its more asthetically pleasing on print... [03:44] discordia, well Id on't klnow if santa is at the North Pole, so? [03:44] hmmmm... [03:44] discordia shall we establish claims of existence based on ignorance? [03:44] Acolyte You can go to the north pole and check to see if there is. However you cannot open the top of someone's head and see of there is an avatar. [03:45] What is time?....& What is Matter? [03:45] Topic changed by Cassidy_!cassidy7@mvo-ca5-13.ix.netcom.com: Rational (sometimes irrational) defence of the Faith [03:45] discordia, ok, so then,how do you differentiate between made up beleifs and beleifs that correspond to reality? [03:45] Netnut** Does it matter what time it is? [03:45] Not what it is, DEFINE it [03:45] discordia No he said what IS time? not what time it is [03:46] thx., aco [03:46] Aco...gotta go. Have at! [03:46] net how we measure change and consistency [03:46] Time is the fourth domension. [03:46] discordia, ok, so then,how do you differentiate between made up beleifs and beleifs that correspond to reality? [03:46] yes, one good definition [03:47] goodnite all been interesting [03:47] Farcid (hades@dialup05.nexusprime.org) left #apologetics. [03:47] nite, Farcid! [03:47] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-13.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [03:48] Acolyte**Define reality. [03:48] why? [03:48] Yes, aco: one good definition...here is mine: Matter is Energy at rest. Energy is matter in motion...Time is the distance measure between the two states [03:48] I want to know your definition of reality. [03:48] Lenny (barentin@stockyard18.onramp.net) joined #apologetics. [03:49] discordia why? [03:49] hey lenny [03:49] hi acolyte [03:49] discordia Iamstill waiting for your answer [03:49] Topic changed by Acolyte!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com: The Home of Rational Christian Theism [03:49] brb [03:49] Lenny (barentin@stockyard18.onramp.net) left #apologetics. [03:50] Discord: which reality?...this one or a higher one? [03:50] Lazarus (Yeshua@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu) joined #apologetics. [03:50] ;) [03:50] discordia, ok, so then,how do you differentiate between made up beleifs and beleifs that correspond to reality? [03:50] Lazarus (Yeshua@bilbo.bio.purdue.edu) left #apologetics. [03:50] You want me to explain the difference between a made up belief and a belief that coresponds to reality, I want to know what your definition of reality is. [03:51] petitio principi: begs the question [03:51] discordia no that is not what I want to know [03:51] discordia I want toknow how you tell the difference in reality between a ficticious belief and a beleif that corrsponds to reality [03:51] discordia reality is that which obtains in any actuality [03:52] Okay, Discord: The here & the now...that, to me, is THIS reality you & I are trapped in at present....temporary, transitory, lacking permanence [03:52] Has your intuition ever obtained any actuality? [03:52] discordia jsure has [03:53] Then you have a warped sense of reality. [03:53] discordia but if I come up and tell youthat there is a green martianon your head, hwo would you know if it was the case or not? [03:53] discordia anything that exists is real [03:54] If yoou told me there was a green martian on my head I'd slap you because everyone knows martians are blue! [03:54] discordia there are planes of existence. [03:54] discorida very amusing, but please, how would you know? [03:54] Let me try again, Discord: The here & the now ....that, to me, is THIS reality that you & I are currently trapped in ...it is temporary, transitory, lacking permanence. [03:54] And in which plane do we stand as of this moment? [03:54] discordia according to my worldview? [03:55] This channel lacks stability!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 [03:55] I would probably try to grab it and sell it to the Weekly World News. [03:55] NetNut** Has Stability ever truly been achieved? [03:55] discordia look if you are not serious, there's the door [03:56] I am serious. You are simply Too serious. [03:56] discordia, do you see that little @ sign by my nick? [03:56] garbled reception on my end....I'm outta here....good nigt all...another night,perhaps? [03:56] later net nut [03:56] Yeah. So? [03:56] doyou know what that means? [03:56] Later Aco....enjoyed the discourse [03:56] Yeah, so? [03:56] it means, on't tellme I am being TOO serious [03:57] netnut (jgammage@ias_ppp0439.iamerica.net) left #apologetics. [03:57] capiche? [03:57] It means that because you don't like my arguements, you have a license to get rid of me. even though I'm trying to get my point across like you are. [03:57] discordia no, you have not made an argument yet, just jokes [03:58] I asked a serious question, still waiting for a response that is to the point [03:58] forget it [03:58] Ahh... But therein lie my arguements, You're just not reading hard enough. [03:59] You see life is a game. Once we figure it all out, we go to the nect level. And there are those who are content to stay on this level who like to throw wrenches in the works. [03:59] Capiche? [03:59] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [04:00] Discordia (Im@192.239.151.101) left #apologetics. ----------------------------------------- [21:20] zip (wireless@pm02-48.cdc.net) joined #apologetics. [21:20] Hi zip [21:21] hi Ned [21:21] hi zip [21:21] hi Lala! [21:21] hhmmmmmm [21:22] whats up Zip???? [21:22] Zip....you an atheist? [21:22] nope, agnostic [21:22] hhmmmm [21:22] KOOL! [21:22] so...what brings you here? [21:22] wanted to see if any dummies bite on the bait! [21:23] Zip.....well......to a belief system that is self-refuting....I would be more carefull of the words you choose [21:23] :) [21:24] what is self-refuting about agnosticism? [21:24] :) [21:25] answer: I dunno... [21:26] well that tweeks my melon :) [21:26] zip.....agnosticism states that there is not enough information to KNOW that a God exists....they claim that is is impossible to know for sure....but the problem is that they undercut that by the fact that ...if they dont have enogh information to say he doesnt exist.....they dont have enough information at all... [21:26] it states that truth is unknowable while making an absolute truth claim..ie....self defeating [21:27] :) [21:27] Well, gosh, I'm not sure who defined it that way, but I simplify it by saying... I dunno! [21:27] :) [21:27] Zip....thats not agnosticism....thats just undecided.....lol [21:28] Sort of like the guys in the Bruce Lee movie.... that neither know nor care! [21:28] maybe yes maybe no zip? [21:28] to be a true agnostic...thats what they hold to....maybe your not an agnostic [21:28] multi choice question... yes, no, don't know [21:28] Zip......lol.. [21:29] Wow, what am I then? Gee whiz, this is scary! ;) [21:29] well....can we help you? [21:29] lol [21:29] your lost [21:29] lol [21:29] pics (MEIDAMAN@www-20-113.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [21:29] Oh! Well, shucks! [21:29] hi pics [21:29] Hi pics [21:29] CTCP SOUND: amaze.wav :) from ezduzit (ezduzit@dial-22.ncweb.com) to #apologetics [21:29] :) [21:29] Action: zip says hello to pics [21:30] Hi pics [21:30] zip....what stops you from believing in God? [21:30] "not enough information to indicate that there is a god" [21:31] but I don't maintain that it is impossible to know... [21:31] ok.....so...what information would you need? [21:32] it would be nice to have an introduction maybe or some sort of tangible proof of it's existence [21:32] Zip.....can you give me an example? [21:32] ! [21:33] ez??....you dont have to raise your hand [21:33] lol [21:33] by tangible, I mean something that I can sense, perceive, touch... [21:33] LOL [21:33] zip.....what would that be? [21:33] like????? [21:33] something that I could know. [21:34] Zip...I need a specific [21:34] Ned, me too! [21:34] zip....if you dont know what that would be...how would you know when you saw it? [21:35] lol [21:35] can I share a story? [21:35] I guess I wouldn't huh? Sure ez [21:35] sure [21:35] Zip...thats my point......I can offer a possible argument in favor of [21:35] GOD [21:35] ok.... [21:36] pics (MEIDAMAN@www-20-113.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [21:36] well....lets hear the story..then Ill give it [21:36] Action: zip pokes ezduzit in the ribs [21:36] Zip.....lol [21:37] 3 angels wanted to keep god to themselves away from man [21:37] 1st angle said hide him ontop of highest mountain [21:37] WINDSURF6 (WINDSURF6@www-13-91.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [21:38] WINDSURF6 (WINDSURF6@www-13-91.gnn.com) left irc: gone [21:38] 2nd angle said no let's put him at the bottom of the ocean [21:38] 3rd angle most wise he said let's put a piece of him in each person [21:38] then the only way for man to find god is to find himself :) [21:39] Cool! I'm there! [21:39] Amazing Grace [21:40] Zip [21:40] yep! [21:40] Zip....if there is no God.....then there is just nature.....matter in motion correct? [21:41] ok, sure [21:41] zip.....I need you to be serious...this is a tough argument....please dont waste my time ok... :) [21:41] You got it Ned, I'm with you on this! [21:42] ok [21:42] then......... [21:42] if there is just nature...matter in motion...... [21:43] what is the foundation for the inductive method of reasoning.....that is what you have used to state that [21:43] Logic..reason...and morality are transcendental....how do you justify those? [21:44] I would say it is a result of the firing of the synapses within my brain. [21:44] Zip....that is HOw....I am asking why??..... [21:44] big diff [21:45] why do we reason??....why do we have morals...if we are just matter in motion [21:45] I don't know Ned, Once more I seem to be lost, huh? Lots of things are unexplainable to me, but I do not cite the "unexplainable" as explaining the existence of a god. [21:46] Zip.....wait [21:46] thats not what I am saying [21:46] I am saying that a view that there is just matter in mottion....nature.....can not justify reality and how we work as human beings [21:47] especially logic......do you believe in the formal laws of logic? [21:47] ezduzit (ezduzit@dial-22.ncweb.com) left irc: Ping timeout for ezduzit[dial-22.ncweb.com] [21:47] attending fallacies? [21:47] Out reasoning, adoption of morals is a result of our breeding and environment. [21:48] Never studied logic that deeply Ned, I'm sorry [21:48] Zip....but..WHY..??......nature is just that...Nature. Why do we care??....isnt that survival of the fittest? [21:49] Maybe Darwin and his survival of the fittest is an incomplete theory... [21:49] thats what matter in motion says.....A kills B kills C....there is no breeding.....you have slipped in morality as a proprly basic belief....I am asking you to justify it...giving the worldview you have stated [21:50] Zip...darwin addmitted in his own book about the "fatal flaw" in his own theory. [21:50] what worldview have i stated? that nature is matter in motion? [21:50] no big news there [21:50] yes [21:50] that there is just nature if there is no God [21:51] ok, rubbing my chin, bear with me..... [21:51] we are excluding possibiltys [21:51] ok [21:51] :) [21:52] Aurus (osiris@dial41.probe.net) joined #apologetics. [21:52] hello Aurus [21:52] Double dog dare me to what? ;-) [21:53] duuno...I didnt set the topic [21:53] lol [21:53] Not much of a dare, then.. [21:53] I think that is fairly safe to say that we today enjoy a lifestyle that yields a longer life-span than out ancestors, which is an argument for "survival of the fittest" and has been done while an o verall decrease in open hostility amongst the peoples has occurred. [21:53] False...we have a shoter span of life [21:53] What????? [21:54] next? [21:54] we live much shorter now then we ever have....any Biologist will tell you that [21:54] Where do you get that we enjoy a *shorter* life span than say our ancestors of only 200 years ago? [21:54] I don't think so Ned.... [21:55] Never heard that before, honestly! [21:55] see....you still dont get it......what does enjoy have to do witha world that is matter in motion and just nature? [21:55] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line31.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [21:55] bow wow [21:55] Now your in trouble....Alcuin is here [21:56] LOL [21:56] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( Alcuin )))))))))) [21:56] sub experience for enjoy... we live longer lives now than man did 100, 500, 5,000 years ago! [21:56] Action: zip says hello to Alcuin [21:56] Action: Alcuin sends cordial greetings to zip [21:56] alcuin.....I have asked Zip to justify his use of the inductive method.....I dont think he understands [21:57] Maybe I dont..LOL [21:57] Ned, zip: might I be of some help? [21:57] :) [21:57] please Al [21:57] Action: zip gets a break for a minute and is tickled [21:58] zip...lol [21:58] zip: if you don't mind, tell me what claim you have to make on behalf of induction. [21:58] Action: NedFlndrs likes zip [21:58] You got me Alcuin, not sure I understand what induction we are discussing... [21:59] of reason ...logic [21:59] that we can reason as matter in motion? [21:59] zip: Ok...well, induction is the process of generalizing on the basis of particular instances. [22:00] thats what I didnt do!!!!!!!....i didnt explain it [22:00] It involves [a] empirical observation [b] probability and [c] certain metaphysical and epistemological assumptions [22:00] sorry Zip [22:00] hang on, taking notes! :) [22:01] with respect to logic, induction is usually set in contrast to deduction; the former deals with probabilities while the latter deals with certain inference. [22:02] wait... is there a way i can record this on mIRC 3.92? I do want notes, I am learning! [22:02] yes [22:02] go...../log on [22:03] Now, we all recognize on an intuitive level that *science works*, insofar as observations do in fact lead to generalizations that seem to have predictive value. For example, having watched the sun rise repeatedly, we draw certain conclusions about the pattern underlying planetary rotation. Then, sure enough, the sun rises just as our conclusions predicted. [22:03] Action: Alcuin sips some hot tea while the client-logs are being adjusted.... [22:04] Action: NedFlndrs tells Alcuin he loves His brother in truth [22:04] Hi, Aurus, Lala [22:04] hi alcuin [22:05] :) [22:06] Action: zip sweating from writing notes! [22:06] :) [22:06] :) [22:06] Lala (lala@dal30.fastlane.net) left #apologetics. [22:06] lol [22:06] Lemme know when you're ready, zip [22:06] Ready! *grin* [22:06] Alcuin......you speak well.....I wish I could speak that fluently [22:06] CLaK (CLaK@www-14-213.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [22:07] Action: Alcuin notes for the record that where our culture says "heart", some subsets of Hellenistic culture said "bowels"--with similar meaning. [22:07] Ned: We all have our own fluencies :) [22:07] Hi Clak [22:07] engarde (engarde@www-34-102.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [22:07] whats Mine?? [22:07] hi ned [22:07] lol [22:07] :) [22:07] Hi, CLaK [22:07] lol...engarde???? [22:07] Aurus (osiris@dial41.probe.net) left #apologetics. [22:07] hi [22:07] hi al [22:07] thats cute [22:07] heh heh heh [22:07] what's lol? [22:08] laughing out loud [22:08] oh [22:08] :) [22:08] so what are we discussing tonight? [22:08] (: [22:08] Francisco (SVorhauer@www-16-220.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [22:08] the indutive method of reasoning [22:08] inductive... [22:08] Do you follow greg Kokul? [22:08] the verification quandaries of scientific method and inductive logic [22:09] yip [22:09] Ned - where from? [22:09] california [22:09] Southern? [22:09] dude [22:09] lol [22:09] yip [22:09] You did'nt go to UCLA, did you? [22:10] Francisco (SVorhauer@www-16-220.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [22:10] Not...Simon Greenleaf Univ [22:10] what are the quandaries of verification? [22:10] Nope...Simon Greenleaf Univ [22:10] Ah, John Warwick Montgomery ... [22:10] Ned - you ever meet a guy name Jay Chung there ? [22:10] hmmmmmm [22:10] sounds familiar [22:11] dunno [22:11] why??.you are he? [22:11] tigger (MSTRDV@www-10-116.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [22:11] tigger (MSTRDV@www-10-116.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [22:11] Greg spoke at a conference we had at UCLA a few years back [22:12] ahhhhhhhh [22:12] No [22:12] CLaK: quandaries of verification: scientific method seems to depend on the notion that a generalization can be derived from limited empirical observation; however, there's no independent confirmation that the future will be like t he past or that all places are ontologically equivalent; so, there's no way to verify whether an instance of new information confirms the hypothesis. [22:12] What's the toughest question you've dealt with? [22:13] I havent had one yet....If I dont know...I find out ..... :) [22:13] Wow, that's intense [22:13] lol [22:13] Action: Alcuin passes around moist towelettes [22:13] I think the manuscript eveidence [22:13] Do you think that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? [22:14] yip [22:14] Action: zip already moistened his towelette beforehand [22:14] lol [22:14] you guys are christians, then? [22:14] zip: Depends on what you mean by "christian" [22:14] yes we are....errrr I am. [22:14] engarde (engarde@www-34-102.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [22:15] true Alcuin [22:15] alcuin. hmm, this is exceedingly interesting [22:15] and yes clak is a born again Jesus freak! [22:15] CLaK: I think so, too. [22:15] believer in the christ as the son of god and manifestation of the holy spirit? [22:16] Zip....thats a good possibilty [22:16] Alcuin, do you mind if i shorten your nick to Al? [22:16] Action: zip reserves the term good for other possibilities [22:16] CLaK: As you wish, until an actual "al" comes along. [22:17] brb [22:17] we are all aware that the scientific method grew out of the minds of christian men? [22:17] ? [22:17] CLaK: So did the murderous rampages that took place during the crusades. [22:18] :) [22:18] CLaK: So did the Inquisition. [22:18] that they believed God's creation to be orderly and predictable [22:19] CLaK: You have a point, though. Scientists do assume that the empirical world is orderly and subject to laws that render prediction possible in some respects. [22:19] God is not the author of chaos or confusion [22:19] in most respects [22:20] Likewise, God by common grace allows both believer and non-believer to generate some good ideas. [22:21] CLaK: Although you are correct that God is not the author of confusion, a mere lack of confusion doesn't prove anything about God. [22:21] so what i believe is that He lead men down the corridor of time to a place of rational thought and evidence against the nonsense of the Catholic church [22:21] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp10.snni.com) left #apologetics. [22:22] superstition, wives tales etc [22:22] Action: zip hears rumblings of interdenominational strife [22:22] CLaK: Well, that's one way to think of the Reformation. However, the Reformers themselves depended upon and supported the work of many of the "Catholic" forebears. For example, Calvin depended on Augustine and Bernard, among others. [22:23] whoops! i mean no offense to other brothers in Christ! [22:23] Lala (lala@dal30.fastlane.net) joined #apologetics. [22:23] Lala (lala@dal30.fastlane.net) left #apologetics. [22:23] zip: So, the big problem with induction is this: If Sally Scientist only tests a finite number of instances of a phenomenon, then all Sally can say is that certain things seem to be the case with respect to the instances tested. [22:24] ok. [22:24] ok, so inductive logic is shakey. [22:24] CLaK: Don't worry. Offense isn't the point. Honoring Christ with careful use of the intellect and of history is the point. [22:24] zip: You're halfway there. [22:24] but then isn't the problem with sally, not the method? [22:25] The actual, and somewhat radical, suggestion is that induction is not possible at all in principle. [22:26] CLaK: That's one way of construing the matter: for example, the problem is that Sally Scientist is finite in space and finite in time--and therefore she cannot have empirical experience of all times and spaces. [22:26] I will cede the point Al... as it was pointed out by you earlier in your definition as dealing with "probabilities" [22:26] Yet without universal empirical experience, what justifies the formulation of universal laws? [22:27] Al, I wholly agree re: intellect and history [22:27] can we take gravity for instance? [22:27] content (geddes@modem62.wwonline.com) joined #apologetics. [22:27] zip: The linchpin here is that even probability theory depends on certainties [not probabilities] for its possibility. So if we lean on probability, we beg the question: why assume that laws of probability apply universally/depen dably? [22:28] CLaK: intellect, history, service, humility, and compassion---they develop in tandem, don't they? [22:28] ciao, content [22:28] afr (arogers@p23.pm2.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [22:28] ciao aft [22:28] :) [22:28] afR [22:28] Hi all [22:29] sorry Al, I don't follow.... [22:29] Al, we shouldn't assume. [22:29] Gravity: As David Hume argued, the empirical observation of past instances of things falling doesn't prove a thing about whether the next thing will also fall. [22:29] content (geddes@modem62.wwonline.com) left #apologetics. [22:30] doesn't that fall outside the boundaries of horse-sense? [22:30] zip: Exactly. And yet, we assume all the time. Those of us who are theists assert that induction is possible only in a theistic world. Outside of a theistic world, there doesn't appear to be a solution to the problems with indu ction. [22:31] Action: zip starts to feel a familiarity to where this may be headed.... [22:31] please go on... [22:31] CLaK: I would say that it *certainly* falls outside the limits of common sense. Just drop something and ask yourself what result you expect! [22:32] zip: What is interesting is that even philosophers who have no particular interest in dealing with issues of theism/atheism find themselves immensely puzzled/troubled by the apparent impossibility in theory of something everyone d oes daily in practice. [22:33] even they can't explain faith. [22:33] Which is to assume inductive logic? [22:33] JohnM (.epix.net@lsptppp74.epix.net) joined #apologetics. [22:33] JohnM (.epix.net@lsptppp74.epix.net) left #apologetics. [22:33] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp10.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [22:33] what about this angle Al. if i dropped something and it didn't fall, i could deduce that my life would shortly be over as God's grace of leaving gravity intact had just been removed. [22:33] Ho Ned> [22:34] zip: It's to *act* in practice as if inductive logic were not problematic, while either holding to or nor holding to a view of reality that can make sense of that practice. [22:34] singa (dmuise@k-pm-dyn29.pcix.com) joined #apologetics. [22:34] re all [22:34] re, Ned !! [22:34] hi [22:34] Hi [22:34] how does the bot work? [22:34] singa, greetings [22:35] Boy, you guys really do push the old zipster's cranial cavity to the limit! [22:35] @@@luke 24 45 [22:35] Mode change '+o NedFlndrs ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [22:35] shuks [22:35] CLaK: That would be a fallacious inference. For example, if you were in an airplane that was descending at 9.8m/sec^2, then an object that you released would not fall. [22:35] then the whatever [22:36] That object's failure to fall would imply nothing about the impending doom that you suggest. [22:36] well done! [22:36] true alcuin [22:37] singa....are you an apologist? [22:37] Action: Alcuin notes, as an aside, that this illustration points to the reason that natural theology [proving that "god" exists on the basis of empirical evidence and empirically-rooted arguments] is impossibl e. [22:37] anybody got an NIV bot? [22:37] I went to a Christian university and took an apologetics course... it was my mostest favorite [22:37] singa....put niv [22:37] c'mon with the scripts already, k? ;) [22:37] this is refreshing! [22:38] hmmmm [22:38] guess not [22:38] Even the bot is listening [22:38] :) fixed it, huh? [22:38] zip....does you interest fall because we are "christian" [22:38] ? [22:39] no, i don't think so, just the scriptures confuse the threads more... [22:39] drfeelgd (vircuser@bluejay.creighton.edu) joined #apologetics. [22:39] Do you get any aetheists in here ever? [22:39] ok zip [22:39] That will talk to you? [22:40] alot singa..this is the channel where atheist meets theist head on [22:40] I can play devil's advocate if you like. [22:40] Don't you just get flamed? [22:40] That's why I'm here. When they meet you really start learning [22:40] true [22:41] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial87.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics. [22:41] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( ProfG )))))))))) [22:41] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( ProfG )))))))))) [22:41] brb [22:41] hiya :-) [22:41] Hey PROF!!! [22:41] Action: zip says hello to ProfG [22:41] HEY The Prof! [22:41] Action: ProfG enters, Alcuin leaves... [22:41] heh [22:41] no connection, ProfG...:) [22:41] Are there any Atheists here now? [22:41] alcuin...is that true? [22:41] heheh [22:41] lol [22:41] Singa, how do you know God exists? [22:42] not i said little red zip [22:42] drfeelgd: Does the role come naturally to you? ;) [22:42] dr.....ask profg [22:42] or myself [22:42] clak's no atheist... He has not searched out the universe to conclude that there is no God! [22:42] The Heavens declare the Glory of God....why do you ask? [22:42] drfeelgd: the impossibility of the opposite [22:42] Zip HAH HAH [22:42] Ned, prof does God exists? [22:42] How so ProfG [22:42] Drfeelgood.....does God NOT exist? [22:43] dr: rationality and logic are impossible apart from the theistic paradigm [22:43] ned: lol ("are you sure") [22:43] Ned, I believe so [22:43] whoops [22:43] Action: zip stands in the middle to see if either side can prove conclusively it or not [22:43] stepped right in it [22:43] Dr...great...now the burden of proof is on you to prove that assertion :) [22:43] ProfG, please explain the paradigm [22:43] I guess we all agree then.... [22:43] How can prove empirically prove God's existence? [22:43] Some one go find some atheists [22:44] Action: Alcuin steps aside to let the others have the floor...but lurks attentively [22:44] Ned, I can't prove inexistence. [22:44] watch the fur fly.... [22:44] Exactly Dr [22:44] Ned, more importantly, I am glad I can't prove inexistence [22:44] lol [22:44] ProfG, are you a professor [22:44] dr: the atheist paradigm is invariably naturalistic; in a naturalistic universe (only the material exists), random chance is the rule [22:45] don't let us stop you, Alcuin :-) [22:45] dr: yes [22:45] please al.......jump on in... [22:45] what kind prof [22:45] dr: therefore, transcendentals such as laws of logic cannot exist in an atheists paradigm [22:45] Woooooooooo hooooooooooo FREE for all in #apologetics!!!!!!!! [22:46] dr: therefore, in an atheist paradigm, one cannot prove ANYTHING [22:46] ProfG, preach on. WHat kind of prof are you? [22:46] true [22:46] dr: I am Dean of Students at Miami Christian University [22:46] and I teach Pol. Sci. and Int'l Relations at Florida Int'l Univ. [22:46] prof....can you help me with my grades....lol [22:46] Prof, what do you teach? [22:46] Ned :) [22:46] np, Ned [22:47] man, Prof, that one was a body slam from the third rope! [22:47] lol...sowwwy [22:47] lol [22:47] LOL Clak [22:47] can we argue about homosexuality [22:47] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( CLaK )))))))))) [22:47] oh brother [22:47] Action: zip pokes drfeelgd in the ribs [22:47] Homosexuality?? [22:47] Action: NedFlndrs moves next to al [22:47] drfeelgd: I'll be glad to discuss the topic of homosexuality with you. [22:48] Ned, can we change the subject [22:48] please alcuin. [22:48] Action: Alcuin sips quietly on his Earl Grey [22:48] Action: zip moves next to ned [22:48] LOL [22:48] clak knows that two thingees can't make a baby [22:48] drfeelgd: Do you have a specific question or issue? [22:48] dr: that argument will inevitably return to presuppositions and theistic vs atheistic paradigms [22:48] My question is this: how do you respond to those who say you are judging them by not beliving in homsexuality [22:49] Action: ProfG would say "So what?" [22:49] How about this... [22:49] Are there degrees of sin? [22:49] what, pray tell is there to believe in? [22:49] "believing in homosexuality", my but that's loaded... [22:49] no pun intended [22:49] :) [22:50] yuch! [22:50] I hope not singa [22:50] and if so where does homosexuality fit it? [22:50] Some say that homosexuality chooses you [22:50] I go to medical school and we have to be sensitive to homosexual issues. [22:50] Action: ProfG is still waiting for dr's proof of the non-existence of God... [22:50] drfeelgd: I respond by saying that "believing in homosexuality" is an ambiguous phrase; does it mean [a] believe that homosexuality exists or [b] "believing that homosexuality is ethically good or neutral rather than bad ? [22:50] "thenthitive" [22:50] I contend that we treat them because they are human beings, not because of sexual orientation [22:50] do they have any empirical evidence deduced from the scientific method? Hmmm do they dr? [22:51] Clak, empirical evidence? [22:51] dr.....if homsexual men are "born" that way...and is natural...what about child molesters.....thats what they are attracted to and have a natural desire of...???? [22:51] of course medical students must treat them regardless of their sins [22:51] drfeelgd: It may well be that homosexuals are predisposed toward their behaviors on account of biological determinants of a genetic or neurological sort; or it may simply be a matter of preference. [22:51] it's in the rules [22:51] Ned, I agree. However I am constantly told that either the Bible is wrong or .... [22:52] Alcuin: true, but that does not address whether the actions are immoral or not [22:52] Action: Alcuin notes the value of keeping On-Topic in such a discussion... [22:52] I am juding them, even though my Bible says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heavan [22:52] thanks al [22:52] ProfG: That's exactly my point. Hence, discussion of the biological vs choice issue leads us nowhere. [22:52] true [22:52] drfeelgd: I think it would be fair to paraphrase your question this way: [22:53] I love that verse [22:53] hehe prof [22:53] THe people I deal with don't accept the Bible as true [22:54] the people I deal with do....stalemate [22:54] heh [22:54] Action: ProfG will brb [22:55] hey doc, what do they accept as TRUE? [22:55] exactly ned, I feel I can't ignore them. [22:55] You heal a convicted, atheistic murderer just to get him well enough to execute. Is there a difference in the bible between the two? [22:55] Clak, personal opinion, no one has the right. ie no absolute truth [22:55] a world without absolute truth is a step from chaos [22:55] [1] "judge" is an ambiguous term. It may mean [a] predicate; [b] ethically evaluate; [c] apply legal statues to particular situations. [22:56] [2] drfeelgd's question has, I believe, sense [1,b] in view. [22:56] Johan (Hello.the@www-34-1.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [22:56] but thats a logical shambles, dr [22:56] so Dr...if thats the case....why do hold a relativistic belief [22:56] Action: zip waves bye, with aching head, much to digest from logic 101 by Alcuin... [22:56] [3] We are always predicating, and arguably always ethically evaluating [22:57] zip (wireless@pm02-48.cdc.net) left #apologetics. [22:57] *bye, zip!* [22:57] Is there a Lady in here that uses James for a nick(her husbands account) [22:57] clak exactly, and I go to school with some of the" brightest" people in the country [22:57] dr....whats the point? [22:58] ned, the point is I am part of the future so are my friends. I think it is scary when the future doesn't have [22:58] a firm belief in GOd, absolute truth, the Bible [22:58] you should see my past [22:58] Johan (Hello.the@www-34-1.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [22:58] The Christian who holds that the bible classifies homosexual behavior as ethically bad need not compromise that view, and need not hide that view. However, the Christian need not bring it up in every possible context. Likewise, holding the view does not imply that the Christian is to show no love to the homosexual. [22:58] Maybe I am not arguing as much as I am relating frustration [22:59] well said Alcuin!!!!!!!!!! [22:59] Alcuin, I agree, love is a great thing [22:59] go on doc [22:59] Lala (lala@dal30.fastlane.net) joined #apologetics. [22:59] Action: NedFlndrs is listening to doc [22:59] observation: in ethics we argue chance cases and ignore some more obvious things, abortion [22:59] Right Doc and this is the place to talk it out [23:00] what's wrong with abortion? [23:00] drfeelgd: You say: "Clak, personal opinion, no one has the right. ie no absolute truth". Is that opinion absolutely true itself? If so, how do you know it when there is no absolute truth? If not, then the opinion itself allows for absolute truth after all. [23:00] stand back! [23:00] It amazes me that we can argue some issues to death and then ignore the more obvious things (we meaning my class) [23:01] Alcuin, that is what I tell them, aren't they in effect juding by stating an opinion, it should go both ways. [23:01] Clak, are you for abortion? or just joking? [23:01] just joking. i absolulety loathe the practice [23:01] thanks clak [23:02] my favorite argument: if homosexuality is a viable choice it is incompatible with evolution [23:02] both can't exist. This stumps most people [23:02] drfeelgd: You have a point. It is amazing, for example, that we harp on abortion, homosexuality, adultery---whatever gives voice to our late 20th c. obsession with reproductive and sexual issues. Yet we deemphasize greed, injust ice, deceit, and irresponsibility. [23:02] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp10.snni.com) left #apologetics. [23:02] G Gordon Liddy read the medical definition of abortion on his show today. it annhialates the abortion issue! [23:03] Action: ProfG is going to bed; he was up until 2:30 am this morning on this channel, debating some really lame atheists... y'all have fun now, ya hear? [23:03] Ladies and gentlemen, I must leave. THanks for the food for thought. [23:03] AND PLEASE PPL... [23:03] see ya Grof [23:03] go to http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [23:03] it's improving... [23:03] You get what you pray for --- Tourniquet Good night [23:03] g'night... [23:03] God bless [23:03] good nite prof, sleep tight dont let the bed bugs bite [23:04] drfeelgd: That argument holds if and only if evolution admits of no deviations or mutations that fail to profit the species; the undesirable corollary of that fact, in the eyes of some homosexuals, is that homosexuality must be de fined as deviant in order to be made consistent with evolution. [23:04] and if they do take your shoe [23:04] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial87.fiu.edu) left irc: Leaving [23:04] correct alcuin. See ya [23:04] well, drfeelgd, have a pleasant night. [23:04] drfeelgd (vircuser@bluejay.creighton.edu) left #apologetics. [23:04] Lala (lala@dal30.fastlane.net) left #apologetics. [23:05] nicely done! [23:05] despair (x@206.65.72.77) joined #apologetics. [23:05] despair (x@206.65.72.77) left #apologetics. [23:06] singa (dmuise@k-pm-dyn29.pcix.com) left #apologetics. [23:07] Well, CLaK, afr...I believe I'll fold up for now. [23:07] Action: Alcuin bends in half [23:07] me too. good nite [23:07] lol al! [23:08] CLaK (CLaK@www-14-213.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [23:08] bye all [23:08] *wave* bye! [23:08] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line31.cis.yale.edu) left #apologetics. [23:08] me too [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_2_29_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