[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/29/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/29/96 [00:09] Nic
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
[00:20] Shroud (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[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
[00:22] Icarus_ (Smitty@150.net4.nauticom.net) left
[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
[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] Did you get my note about your form?
[00:27] I will send you my bio and pic this
[00:27] shroud: put simply, the argument here
is that the proof of god is the impossibility of the
[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 (email@example.com) joined
[00:29] the impossibility of proving *anything*
without a presuppositional belief in the existence
[00:29] hellow Noodles
[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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) left
[00:31] blaire (email@example.com) 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
[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
[00:39] zx (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined #apologetics.
[00:39] shroud, why do you trust your sensory
[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
[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
[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,
[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 (email@example.com) joined
[00:48] hi wind
[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,
[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
[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
[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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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] #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
[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
[01:02] it never claims truth, Blackwind? then
why do you believe in using it, and believe in its
[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
[01:06] There is no such thing as "supernatural"
Super=beyond How can anything be beyond nature?
[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
[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
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
[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 :))
[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
[01:14] shroud: in an atheist paradigm, how do
you know that what happened yesterday will happen again
[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
[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",
[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
[01:17] LuckyDay (Deaddoves@18.104.22.168) 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 (email@example.com) joined
[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] I believe that it is strictly a matter
[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_ (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[01:22] hello zx
[01:22] hey profg...
[01:23] GOD (email@example.com) joined
[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] 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
[01:23] GOD (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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] 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.
[01:26] 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
[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
[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
[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"
[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
[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 (email@example.com)
[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
[01:35] farcid: where do the "laws of nature" come
[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
[01:35] farcid - exactly - but then the next
question is "How do we know the laws of nature will
[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
[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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) got netsplit.
[01:37] farcid: prove it
[01:37] Cassidy, why does logic necessarily
[01:37] Lancelot (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[01:37] hello Lancelot
[01:37] proof that the universe expands has
been proven many times
plus its invalid.