[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/8/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/8/96 [19:20] Booze
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/8/96
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/8/96
[19:20] Boozer (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined
[19:32] ProfG (wgreen01@SL9.elink.net) joined #apologetics.
[19:32] hello Boozer
[19:33] Topic changed by ApoloBotemail@example.com:
The Home of Rational Theism
[19:33] hmmmmm am I lagged?
[19:34] Acolyte (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined
[19:34] hey prof
[19:34] Acolyte :-)
[19:34] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics.
[19:34] I've just been sitting here waiting.
[19:34] just because I only have a 1200 baud modem
[19:35] Action: Bawn grins innocently
[19:35] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics.
[19:35] So about this presuppositionalism, if
that's what you call it....
[19:35] so you have some questions, boozer?
[19:35] presup is kewl hehhe...hehe...hehe
[19:35] You have a certain number of presuppositions
upon which everything else follows?
[19:36] yeah yeah... kewl... huh huh
[19:36] I don't want to addresss empiricism
[19:36] NZ (Micah@ppp45.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics.
[19:36] or evidence (or dubious evidence)
[19:36] Action: Acolyte thinks that he and Profg are
the Beavis and Butthead of Apologetics. (Why does that
not sound quite right?)
[19:36] Boozer: yes, we have presuppositions.
Just as you do.
[19:36] is that basically it?
[19:36] well, no...
[19:37] boozer presup deasl with the preconditions
for knowledge, ethics, metaphysics etc
[19:37] NZ (Micah@ppp45.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics.
[19:37] Can you give me an example of one of
[19:37] Booxer the Christian God exists
[19:37] the basic issue, boozer, is which presuppositions
are necessary for rational discource and logic
[19:38] "the xian god exists" is a presupposition?
[19:38] boozer yup
[19:38] what if we are discussing whether or
not there is a god?
[19:38] boozer ok, this is how it works
[19:38] that can't be a presupposition if it's
a possible conclusion.
[19:38] boozer, you take ur presups and my
presups and compare
[19:39] which is consistent and provides for
ethics, knowledge etc
[19:39] boozer: of course it is a presupposition.
Just as yours is. There is no escaping presuppositions
[19:39] boozer your presups determine how one
interprets any data
[19:39] I have not defined my presups explicitly.
[19:39] boozer no but you have them
[19:39] no, but you DO have them
[19:39] everyone does
[19:40] beat ya
[19:40] I suppose I do.
[19:40] I presuppose I do
[19:40] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBotemail@example.com
[19:40] anyway, if we were to discuss the existence
of god, it can't be a presupposition.
[19:40] boozer sure, why not?
[19:40] ProfG (wgreen01@SL9.elink.net) left irc: Changing
[19:41] because it's circular reasoning.
[19:41] boozer why can't it be?
[19:41] oh, how so?
[19:41] I conclude that god exists because god
[19:41] boozer never said that.
[19:41] it is a vacuous statement.
[19:41] boozer here let me explain further
[19:42] ok, lets say knowledge is a necessary
[19:42] make sense?
[19:42] You have to say "God exists because ...."
and fill in some independent argument
[19:42] y or n?
[19:42] just wait
[19:42] ok, lets say knowledge is a necessary
[19:42] knowledge doesn't seem like a belief.
[19:42] it is, but just go with me for a second
[19:43] boozer we will symbolize knowledge
[19:43] how is knowledge a belief?
[19:43] boozer I will explain that later but
just let me give you an example of what I am trying
[19:43] ProfG (wgreen01@SL5.elink.net) joined #apologetics.
[19:43] So, K is N(necessary belief).
[19:43] the illustration will be more effective
if I believe your foundation.
[19:44] Now, what are the preconditions for
[19:44] ShyDavid (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined
[19:44] had a phone call
[19:44] just wait
[19:44] hi david
[19:44] say for example some paradigms don't
allow for K(N) then obvioulsy they would be rejected
[19:44] Knowledge as Necessary belief=K(N)
[19:45] boozer for example, Nihilism does not
allow for K(N)
[19:45] I'm sorry, but you've got to make some
sense out of that before going any further.
[19:45] so Nihilism should be rejected since
it does not allow by the nature of its preconditions...kn
what does not make sense?
[19:46] what does not make sense?
[19:46] Nihilism does not allow for any knowledge
at all, right?
[19:46] boozer yup, correct
[19:46] nor ethics, metaphysics etc
[19:46] the knowledge as necessearry belief.
[19:46] history, science, etc.
[19:47] language, etc.
[19:47] ok, we can dismiss nihilism as being
a rather illogical approach.
[19:47] boozer Nihilism is a paradigm that
denies the possibility of any knowledge of anything.
Everything is meaningless, there is no reason, no logic
[19:47] Boozer no, Nihilism is not ILlogical,
[19:47] it is NON-Logical
[19:47] Logic does not apply to it
[19:47] Action: Boozer splits hairs.
[19:47] it is a NON-Logical system
[19:48] I'll keep that in mind.
[19:48] so what next? what else do I need to
[19:48] but get back to this K(N) business
[19:48] ok what about it?
[19:48] what about knowledge makes it a belief?
[19:49] much less a necessary belief?
[19:49] one primary Q in Philosophy is, is
knowledge possible? Some paradimgs, as shown before
do not allow for knowledge, If one tho answers Yes,
knowledge is possible then it is a belief one holds.
[19:49] ][XQUS (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:49] hey xq
[19:49] ok, I will accept that knowledge is
[19:50] Boozer so the belief that there is
knowledge and it is possible is K
[19:50] <][XQUS> hiya profg
[19:50] ok, so will you accept that K(N) tho?
[19:50] why incorporate necessary?
[19:50] necessary to move on to other things?
[19:51] boozer, so you don't think it is necessary
to be rational to think that knowledge is possible?
what would a worldview be like if it did not matter
if a belief that knowlwedge was possible be like? Not
a very consistent one, woul
[19:51] <][XQUS> whta happened to the bot
[19:51] I think you're asking a compound question
[19:52] the bot is here
[19:52] ][XQUS (firstname.lastname@example.org) left #apologetics.
[19:52] boozer and his compound questions
[19:52] boozer, not really, it is not disjuntive
at all nor a false birfucation, which is usually characterstic
of Fallacy of complex question
[19:52] boozer ok think of it this way
[19:52] hey, you're the guys asking them :)
[19:52] boozer, you ask someone that holds
K but not K(N) but rather K~(N)
[19:53] Knowledge is possible but not necessary
to be rational
[19:53] so one could think anything and hold
it as rational but it would not be knowledge
[19:53] flying pink unicorns etc tec
[19:53] get the picture?
[19:53] Let me summarize where I think you have
arrived thus far: We must necessarily believe that
we can have knowledge in order to move on to other
[19:53] boozer yes
[19:54] K(N) is a necessary precondition for
any further rational discusion or the possibility of
[19:54] ok, so I guess we share that presupposition.
[19:54] how about logic?
[19:54] what about logic?
[19:54] profg imgio dei :)
[19:55] boozer is L(N)?
[19:55] that we can apply logic to these arguments,
[19:55] Er, ah, I've quietly sat here reading
this, and I have yet to see any "rational" discourse.
[19:55] ShyDavid (email@example.com) left #Apologetics.
[19:55] shy yeah sure
[19:55] just like we can have knowledge of the
words that we use?
[19:55] wonder what he was expecting.
[19:56] boozer is L a necessary belief?
[19:56] is Logic the criteria for language
and the evalation of all propositions?
[19:56] we haven't really defined logic yet,
but I'll go with that.
[19:56] how about this
[19:56] 3 laws of logic?
[19:56] you subscribe to those?
[19:56] you'll have to list them for me.
[19:57] Excluded Middle, Contradiction and
[19:57] Contradiction A=! ~A
[19:57] A cannot be Non-A in the same time,
space and realtionship.
[19:57] ok, contradiction is fine.
[19:57] that is, it is not fine, you know what
[19:58] Excluded Middle- Ais either True or
False but not BOTH
[19:58] how about neither?
[19:58] ok it could be neither
[19:58] but it is NOT Both
[19:58] neither what?
[19:58] neither true nor false? you mean it
has no truth value?
[19:58] yes, not both, but possibly neither
true nor false.
[19:59] well, there the possibility that it
could not be shown true or false.
[19:59] ok, let's accept that for now
[19:59] you know, like trying to prove a negative.
[19:59] boozer no I do not mean that, that
is not a logical problem but a methodological problem
[19:59] ok but that is a problem of HOW we
know something but not weather it is T or F
[20:00] know what I mean?
[20:00] ok, what is identity/
[20:00] even if we can't verify a Proposition,
it is either T or F.
[20:00] Identity- A=A
[20:01] that's sort of what I figured.
[20:01] A is itself.
[20:01] 1=1, 2=2 etc etc etc
[20:01] ok, is that basic enough?
[20:01] ok then, the 3 laws of logic are fine
with me for presuppositions.
[20:01] so K(N) and L(N)
[20:02] here's the kicker
[20:02] what is man?
[20:02] Topic changed by ApoloBotfirstname.lastname@example.org:
RATIONAL THEISM - shhhh, class is in session...
[20:02] you mean as a species of animal?
[20:03] Action: Acolyte hears the anouncer say "Welcome
to the Metaphysical Express-Please keep your heands
and arms in the roller coaster at all times and do
not attempt to leave until such time as the ride has
come to a complete and
[20:03] boozer ok, what is man?
[20:03] you mean as a species of animal?
[20:03] boozer is man one thing? 2 things?
[20:04] whatis mans nature? what is his stuff?
[20:04] a = a ?
[20:04] whats he made of?
[20:04] I have no idea what sort of answer you
are looking for.
[20:04] ok, does man have a soul?
[20:04] No soul that I have observed or felt
[20:05] boozer so, no soul, ok, so what is
[20:05] a body?
[20:05] a body only?
[20:05] yes, a body.
[20:05] is that all?
[20:05] and what is the body composed of?
[20:05] it's a carbon based life form.
[20:06] that is to ask, is the body material
[20:06] it is matter.
[20:06] only matter?
[20:06] what else? there's energy in the chemical
[20:07] and energy is released and absorbed
in the various chemical reactions.
[20:07] ok, but energey is matter tho, just
configured differently E=mc2
[20:07] great, we are making great progress
[20:07] so he is part of nature? correct?
[20:07] nature is everything? the whole universe?
[20:08] pascoe (email@example.com) joined
[20:08] every material thing
[20:08] most definitely part of nature.
[20:08] hey pascoe
[20:08] Action: Boozer wonders where this is going.
[20:08] hello Acolyte. 8)
[20:08] and whatis nature governed by?
[20:08] pascoe :-)
[20:08] hello ProfG. 8)
[20:09] there appear to be a certain number
of Laws governing nature, although they are all observed
rather than derived.
[20:09] Alcuin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[20:09] hullo alcuin
[20:09] hello Alcuin. 8)
[20:09] hi guys who just arrived.
[20:09] hiya folks
[20:09] Action: Acolyte genuflects before Alcuin. Pax
[20:09] alcuin :-)
[20:10] Acolyte: arise, thou obsequious knave
[20:10] alcuin yeah sure
[20:10] boozer so nature is governed by natural
[20:10] boozer, man is then governed by natural
laws as well? Correct?
[20:11] yes, of course.
[20:11] pascoe :-)
[20:11] ProfG: 8)
[20:11] Acolyte: nice verse. 8)
[20:11] dang it
[20:11] hold on
[20:12] Action: Boozer waits for Acolyte's next step.
[20:12] acolyte's favorite verse?
[20:12] sorry, regulars come on and a party begins,
[20:13] we can continue, of course
[20:13] I can play that game.
[20:13] logos5 (email@example.com) joined
[20:13] logos5 :-)
[20:13] ]]job32 11
[20:13] JOB 32:11 "Behold, I waited for your
words, I listened to your reasonings, While you pondered
what to say. --NASB