[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/10/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/10/96 [19:10] pas

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

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/10/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/10/96 [19:10] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip25.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [19:21] RAS2 (Homer@www-25-110.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [19:21] RAS2 (Homer@www-25-110.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [19:24] hello [19:25] pascoe, are you a christian? [19:25] yes. [19:31] RAS2 (Homer@www-25-110.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [19:32] hello ras2 [19:32] yeah REV [19:32] so there is no higher power as far as you are concerned [19:33] RAS2 (Homer@www-25-110.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [19:38] Pascoe, why are you a christian? [19:38] Rev_Ely: because I acknowledge my Creator and my accountability to Him for my sin. I realize that I am hopeless in my sin without the work of Christ. [19:39] pascoe: How'd you realize that? [19:40] Rev_Ely: God revealed it to me thru His Creation, His Son, and His Word and His Spirit. [19:40] How did you learn of his son and his spirit? [19:41] I'm interested because I used to be a christian. [19:41] Rev_Ely: thru creation, the Word and the Spirit at work in my heart to convict me of my sin. [19:41] How did you know it was his spirit at work in your heart? [19:42] Rev_Ely: because the conviction of sin was accurate. [19:42] pascoe: where did you learn about sin? [19:43] Rev_Ely: I was aware of my sin in my heart. as is everyone. [19:43] Rev_Ely: we all possess the knowledge of good and evil. [19:43] pascoe: How did you learn that we all possess knowledge of good and evil? [19:44] Rev_Ely: I have observed it in laws man has made, I observe it in my own life and I observe it in the Word. [19:45] pascoe: How did you conclude that we have a knowledge of good and evil by observing laws? [19:46] pascoe: Some countries allow multiple wives, some multiple husbands, some allow prostution, others forbid it. some allow murder in many instances, other only in a few. [19:47] Rev_Ely: man's laws acknowledge that man has dignity. they acknowledge that stealing is wrong and lying and murder and rape, etc. [19:47] Cleo (salam@pppc11.erols.com) joined #apologetics. [19:47] pascoe: But the laws aren't consist. Lying isn't strictly forbidden, theft and murder are often excused. [19:47] Rev_Ely: I haven't said that man's laws are not corrupted. I am saying that man's laws demonstrate that man has knowledge of good and evil. [19:48] Rev_Ely: I haven't said that man's laws are not corrupted. I am saying that man's laws demonstrate that man has knowledge of good and evil. [19:48] pascoe: Ahh, ok. I think I understand it. If laws represent the fact that men have knowledge of good and evil, do changing laws represent the idea that good and evil are subject to man's authority? [19:49] Rev_Ely: also, I have not stated that man's laws are the only evidence of the knowledge of good and evil in man. [19:49] Rev_Ely: absoultely not. man does not define good and evil. [19:49] RAS1 (Homer@www-34-161.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [19:49] I dont really see how one concludes that the presence of laws shows that all men have knowledge of good and evil. Laws are created and can be manipulated, as history has shown. [19:49] Rev_Ely: God defines right and wrong because He has authority to and it is He that will judge us. [19:49] re ras [19:50] pascoe: why do you believe that god has authority to define right and wrong? [19:50] Rev_Ely: [19:50] Rev_Ely: because God is the one that created us and is also the one that will judge us by His own law and not ours. [19:50] Rev_Ely: that gives Him the authority. [19:50] pascoe: Judges can give birth to children. Does that mean they have the authority to determine what is right and wrong for them? [19:51] I can create and destroy computer programs. Does that mean I can say that it's right for my program to steal money? [19:51] Rev_Ely: God has established lower authorities in the form of parents and civic magistrate. God is the one who delegates authority tho. [19:52] pascoe: Why do you believe that god delegates authority? [19:52] Rev_Ely: that is like asking if it is ok to let a gun kill someone. silly question. [19:53] pascoe: You said that god created us and will judge us; this is why he has authority. Creation and judgement are necessary for authority apparently. If that is all, then a consistent application of that reasoning will allow me to use a computer program t [19:53] Rev_Ely: God delegated authority to parents so they could teach their children properly to do what is lawful. God established civic authority to execute punishment on earth until the final judgement. [19:53] o do whatever I think is right/wrong. Same for judges and their children. [19:53] If creation and judgement do not give me the authority to use my programs as I see fit, then why do creation and judgement give god authority to create right and wrong? [19:54] Rev_Ely: are you saying you can give a creation of yours more authority than you have yourself? that is silly. [19:55] pascoe: I'm not giving programs authority by determining what is right and wrong for them. Unless you are saying that god gives us the authority to determine right and wrong by determining what is right and wrong? [19:55] Rev_Ely: Because God created you and will judge you, He has authority over you. if you create something yourself, you do not get authority over God, that is silly. [19:55] RAS1 (Homer@www-34-161.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [19:56] pascoe: I'm not asking for authority over god. You said that god has authority over me because a) he created me and b) he will judge me. I applied that reasoning to myself. [19:56] Rev_Ely: if you create an organization or company, you have authority over it. but you don't have authority over God because you will always be a creature in relation to Him. [19:56] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca4-07.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [19:56] pascoe: I can create and judge my creations; do I therefore have authority to determine what is right and wrong for them? [19:57] pascoe: If creation and judgment are the basis upon which authority is derived, then that which I create and judge are under my authority. [19:57] pascoe: if I have that authority, then I can determine what is right and wrong for them, according to your reasoning. [19:58] pascoe: God a) creates and b) judges which yield c) authority. On the basis of c) he can determine what is right and wrong for his objects. [19:58] pascoe: I a) create and b) judge which yield c) authority. on the basis of C) I can determine what is right and wrong for my objects. [19:58] Rev_Ely: once again, your jurisdiction is always under the authority of God. You cannot give yourself authority which you do not possess, nor can you give authority to a creation of yours that you do not possess. [19:59] pascoe: Where does giving out authority come into the picture? You said possession of authority was determined by a) creation and b) judgment. On that basis I can determine what is right/wrong for my created objects that I judg e. [19:59] Rev_Ely: how can you define right and wrong for your creation when you don't possess that authority from the one you are accountable to? [20:00] Rev_Ely: a parent cannot give his son the authority to speed on the road since the parent has not been given that authority by the one over him. [20:00] pascoe: You said that authority was possessed on the basis of a)creation and b) judgment. God apparently has this authority because he a)created us and b) will judge us. [20:00] You can determine right and wrong for whatever you create.....however, if you determine something to be right and God does not agree with you, then you are wrong (you have made a wrong determination) [20:01] pascoe: I apparently have this authority because i a) create and b) will judge. [20:01] Rev_Ely: yes, God has authority over you for those reasons. it does not follow that you have any such authority over right and wrong. [20:01] pascoe: so either authority to determine right and wrong is unrelated to whether or not a person creates and judges or I have the authority to determine right and wrong for my objects. [20:01] Rev_Ely: your analogy fails because 1) you are not God and 2) you have no such authority granted to you by God. [20:02] Yes pascoe, I agree [20:02] pascoe: So then what you said earlier was wrong. god determines what is right and wrong not only because he creates and judges but because he is god? [20:02] Rev_Ely: you assume that authority is isolated, but authority exists in jurisdictions and you are always under jurisdiction and your creations are as well. [20:03] pascoe: You didn't say that earlier. Why do you believe that god has authority? [20:03] Rev_Ely: God is the highest authority. He has not granted you authority to define right and wrong beneath yourself. [20:03] pascoe: gotcha, why do you believe that god has authority? [20:04] God possess authority over you because He created you and will judge you. In God's authority He has not granted you authority to define right and wrong. [20:04] pascoe: Ok, you said god's authority over me is based on the fact that a) he created me and b) he will judge me. [20:04] pascoe: Therefore, authority over an object is granted to the one who a) created it and b) will judge it. [20:04] Rev_Ely: yes. God has used His authority to limit your authority. [20:05] pascoe: How does this limitation effect my ability to determine right and wrong for the objects I create? [20:06] Rev_Ely: you have authority over some things you create or build, but your authority is limited in jurisdiction. [20:06] pascoe: If my authority is limited even over objects I create and judge, then god's authority is limited over objects he creates and judges. [20:06] Rev_Ely: you want to say that you possess *ALL* authority since you can create or build. but you fail to see that you cannot give yourself authority you do not possess. [20:06] pascoe: Actually, I just want to say whatever I've been saying:) [20:07] Rev_Ely: no, because God has not had His authority limited by someone higher than Himself as you have. [20:07] pascoe: Apparently the ability to determine right and wrong have very little to do with creation/judgment. If the necessary consequence of creation/judgement is authority, and this authority can determine right and wrong, then I have that authority over [20:07] my created/judged objects. [20:08] Rev_Ely: I have given you some reasons why God has authority. There are also reasons why you have limited authority and his is not limited. [20:08] pascoe: if creation and judgment do not necessarily entail authority, then the fact that god created/judges us does not necessarily entail his authority. [20:09] Rev_Ely: no. once again. The reasons for God's accountability over us is because He is our Creator and our Judge. the reason His authority is not limited and yours is is because you are under Him and He is under no one. [20:09] pascoe: so then I must ask you again, why do you believe that god has authority, since creation and judgment apparently dont necessitate authority? [20:10] If accountability is the result of creation and judgment, then accountability is necessarily granted to all who create and judge. [20:11] If accountability is not necessarily related to creation and judgment, then why do you believe god possess accountability over us? [20:11] pascoe2 (pasc8891@xslip10.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:11] Unless the one granting authority is not accountable to anyone above himself [20:11] Rev_Ely: let's take an example since you still seem to be confused. [20:11] Cleo: That's an ad hoc assumption. It's fine to add it, but it means the original statement was wrong. [20:11] No it does not [20:11] pascoe: analogies can get hairy, let's just try applying your reasoning directly. [20:12] creation + judgement = authority. Authority -> determination of right/wrong for created/judged objects. [20:12] If creation + judgment do not = authority, then there is no reason to believe that god has authority *because* he created and will judge us. [20:12] suppose that a Police Chief give his policemen the authority to speed in cases of emergency. does this mean that a Police Chief can give them authority to abuse children? [20:12] Where does the accountablility end? With God....he is final authoruty over all because He was never created [20:13] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip25.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip25.csrv.uidaho.edu] [20:13] Nick change: pascoe2 -> pascoe [20:13] if creation + judgment do = authority, then I have the authority to determine right and wrong for my creations. [20:13] So which one is it pascoe? creation + judgment = authority or creation + judgment != authority? [20:13] Rev_Ely: if you have not been given authority to determine right and wrong then your authority is limited for everything you create or judge. [20:13] Your determinations have to match those already laid down by God [20:14] Rev_Ely: if you want to be unreasonable, how can I stop you? [20:14] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca4-07.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for karen-1[lbx-ca4-07.ix.netcom.com] [20:14] pascoe: But you didn't say authority to determine right and wrong was given, you said it was the result of having been created and being judged. [20:14] Rev_Ely: yes. [20:14] pascoe: If authority must be given, then god must have been given it from supergod. [20:14] pascoe: If authority is the necessary consequence of creation + judgment then I have authority to determine right/wrong for that which I create. [20:14] ??????????? Not so............... [20:14] Rev_Ely: You asked how God has authority. I gave the reasons. you ran off and assumed that those reasons give anyone unlimited authority. that is silly. [20:15] Rev_Ely: I have never granted you the reason to assume that if you follow the reasons I gave that you will have unlimited authority. [20:15] pascoe: No, I applied your reasoning to show you why it doesn't work. Creation + judgment = authority according to your statement. But you are now saying that creation + judgment != authority, creation + judgement + being given authority = authority. [20:15] pascoe: Which one is it? [20:16] Rev_Ely: creation + judgement = authority creation + judgement != unlimited authority. [20:16] pascoe: I'm not asking about unlimited authority. [20:16] Rev_Ely: you are misapplying my information beyond your own question. [20:16] pascoe: let's revise it. creation + judgment = authority to determine right and wrong. Would you agree with this? [20:16] Rev_Ely: yes because you want to assert that your authority is not limited. [20:16] pascoe: actually, I'm not interested in asserting unlimited authority. [20:16] Rev_Ely: if that is your new question the answer is no. [20:17] pascoe: then god does not have authority to determine right and wrong because he can create and judge. [20:17] creation + judgment != authority to define right and wrong. [20:17] if creation + judgment != authority to define right and wrong, how does god get the authority to define it? [20:17] Rev_Ely: wrong again. you misapply the information of your question. [20:17] You said god defines what is right and wrong because he created us and judges us. that is creation + judgement = authority to determine right/wrong. [20:18] Now you are saying that creation + judgment != authority to define right and wrong. which one is it? [20:18] God gets all authority over us since there is no authority higher than Himself. We get authority if we create and judge but not authority to define right and wrong because we are under God's authority. [20:19] Rev_Ely: authority exists in a heirarchy and you misapply your own questions if you ignore that fact. [20:19] pascoe: so god can determine right and wrong because he has all authority? [20:19] Rev_Ely: no. [20:19] pascoe: Then why is god able to define right and wrong? [20:20] Rev_Ely: God can define right and wrong because He has authority *and* there is no authority higher than Him which has limited His authority. [20:20] Rev_Ely: you have authority over what you create and judge but you do not have authority to define right and wrong just as a Police Chief has authority but does not define right and wrong. [20:20] pascoe; ahhh, now you see the error in your earlier statement. You said god's authority to determine right and wrong came from him having created us and judging us. Now it's having created us, will judge us, and no one higher u p. [20:21] Rev_Ely: how is it an error to answer your original question? you have changed your question since. [20:21] pascoe: No, I asked you why do you believe that god has authority to define right and wrong. [20:21] pascoe: You said because he created us and will judge us. In fact you said it a few times. [20:22] pascoe: Now you are sayin git's because he created us, will judge us, and no one else has higher authority. [20:22] Rev_Ely: you did not ask how God had His authority to define right and wrong. You asked how God had His authority over us. [20:22] Rev_Ely: later you narrowed your question to the issue of right and wrong defining. [20:22] pascoe: i never asked you why god has authority over us, I asked about right and wrong. [20:22] Rev_Ely: nope. [20:23] Rev_Ely: you made no such specific question. [20:23] ack, this darn thing's buffer is too small. [20:23] :)) [20:23] Rev_Ely: do you have any more questions about the nature of God's authority? [20:23] You began by making statements about laws. [20:23] Rev_Ely: yes. [20:24] Rev_Ely: you asked about God's authority. [20:24] You said one of the reasons you believe in god was that you saw evidence of him in man's laws. [20:24] Rev_Ely: the evidence of knowledge of right and wrong. [20:24] that lead to me asking why do man's laws lead you to believe what you do about god. [20:24] TACK (ANTjbshee@www-32-3.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [20:24] Then you moved on to knowledge of right and wrong. [20:24] hi, everyone, what r u talking about, here [20:24] You said you observed that man has knowledge of right and wrong. [20:25] Rev_Ely: fine, but you never asked about God's authority to define right and wrong. you only asked about how God has authority. [20:25] Rev . . . are u a "reverend"? [20:25] that is where we moved into the discussion of god's authority to define right and wrong. [20:25] TACK (ANTjbshee@www-32-3.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [20:25] TACK: Rev_Ely is arguing over what question he asked. [20:25] Rev_Ely: yes, I agree you changed your question after you understood what you wanted to know. 8) [20:25] pascoe: No, you need to be more humble and accept the fact that your original answer was incomplete. It isn't a big deal. [20:26] Rev_Ely: my answer was as complete as your question. 8) [20:26] pascoe: no, actually your answer, which you answered quite a few times, was incomplete. Even if I began the discussion asking about god's authority, which I did not, we've been talking about right and wrong for quite a while. a nd your answer, which you [20:26] Rev_Ely: you accused me of making some logical error because I didn't answer the question you thought you asked. [20:26] stated many times, was that god's authority to determine right and wrong come from creation + judgment. [20:27] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal07-05.ppp.iadfw.net) joined #apologetics. [20:27] I believe in fact, that is why you placed an asterisk around and. [20:27] Rev_Ely: I never granted that God's authority to define right and wrong came from creation and judgement alone. that was your mistake, not mine. [20:27] since you had been answering the question of god's authority to make right and wrong with only creation + judgment, you felt a need to specify the new addition; being highest up in the hierarchy. [20:27] Rev_Ely: yes, after you went astray, I reeled you in. 8) [20:28] Rev_Ely: anyway. do you have any more questions? [20:28] pascoe: I asked you several times what god's authority to judge right and wrong came from. Even used equations. Face it bub, you goofed. [20:28] Action: Rev_Ely chuckles. [20:28] It's ok, even the best of christians on here goof when pressed. ASk acolyte. [20:28] Rev_Ely: is this how you normally debate? [20:28] Pascoe: Yep. [20:28] dime (cziemba@moose.uvm.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:28] re dime [20:28] hey achimoth [20:29] the bible channel sent me here [20:29] Rev_Ely: wow, its a strange tactic. win by building straw men out of responses to general questions. 8) [20:29] who is christian here? [20:29] pascoe: No, it isn't a contest that I'm trying to win. I just like to let you know when you've goofed. [20:29] mXPx (band@dialin7.mwtech.com) joined #apologetics. [20:29] mXPx (band@dialin7.mwtech.com) left #apologetics. [20:30] pascoe: Next time when someone asks you about right and wrong, you'll remember to tack on the later-added hierarchy bit. [20:30] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca8-05.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [20:30] Youch! That was BAD! [20:30] hey karen#1 [20:30] #bible was going nuts [20:30] Hi dime [20:30] Rev_Ely: next time you have a question about who has authority to define right and wrong, please ask it. 8) [20:30] I agree, bible sent me here [20:31] what are the rules here? [20:31] Dime - after you left someone started a multi screen flood of coming and going. [20:31] Cleo (salam@pppc11.erols.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cleo[pppc11.erols.com] [20:31] pascoe: That's exactly what I asked. Are you actually insisting that a discussion that started with your statement about man's knowledge of right and wrong, wasn't about right and wrong? [20:31] Cleo_1 (salam@206.161.73.11) joined #apologetics. [20:31] pascoe: That's a pretty big stretch, even for a theist. [20:31] crazy [20:32] dime: waht's crazy [20:32] Action: Rev_Ely chuckles again. All this wiggling and we haven't even gotten to existence of god questions. [20:32] Dime - mostly the rules are to be courteous. [20:32] Rev_Ely: you asked how God had authority. I gave you two reasons which you quickly built into a straw man. Then you proceeded to ask how God had authority to define right and wrong. [20:32] karen: and dont say anything against the bible. [20:32] oh just the bible channel tonight [20:32] God is the Creator, hence he does as he wills, its well within his rights [20:32] I disagree with some things in the bible [20:32] Rev - You mean we can't challenge the Bible here? [20:32] pascoe: And you responded by saying, "God has that authority because he created us and will judge us." [20:32] karen: WEll, ackie pooh isn't around so it wont matter. [20:32] I thought that was the reason this channel was created. [20:33] pascoe: haven't you had enough yet? You've been pounded once, coming back for more already? [20:33] yeah they told me at bible i could say what i wanted here????? [20:33] Who? Acolyte ? I've seen him deal with that subject quite competently. [20:33] not on #bible, it's fairly lame there anyone. [20:33] dime: you can as far as I am concerned [20:33] Rev_Ely: yes, God has authority for those reasons. We have authority for those reasons also, but you tried to assert that we then have authority to define right and wrong which is a straw man. [20:33] anyway rather. [20:34] cleo are you Christian? [20:34] dime: yes [20:34] Rev_Ely: you need to understand that authority works in a heirarchy. [20:34] dime: you? [20:34] I'm going shopping I think. Probably better than net hopping. [20:34] bye all. [20:34] Oh well I'm not [20:34] dime: yes, if you wish to ask questionsa regarding the Bible asak them [20:34] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca8-05.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [20:34] Rev_Ely: we cannot give or take authority we aren't given from the one over us. [20:34] Bye karen [20:34] pascoe: This is pretty silly. The basis upon which you claim that god can determine right and wrong is because he has authority. That is the part of equation you agreed to. Creation + judgement = authority. Authority -> de fine what is right and wrong. [20:35] Actually I'm a really confused person, I'm not sure what I believe in [20:35] pascoe: You then added a factor to the equation, creation + judgment + no one higher up in the hierarchy = Authority. authority -> define what is right and wrong. [20:35] i wouldn't say I was Athiest [20:35] Rev_Ely: wrong again. you are back to your original question. [20:35] pascoe: In any case, Authority being the general term, your reasoning still doesn't apply. [20:35] Rev_Ely: you are asking two different questions and mixing the answers to build a straw man. [20:35] dime: an agnostic? [20:35] pascoe: Let's assume that my original question was about authority, even though it came from you stating that man has aknowledge of right and wrong. [20:36] Rev_Ely: I added a factor you the equation when you added a factor to your question. [20:36] please define that. sorry i'm igonorant [20:36] agnostic: isnt sure either way whether god exist or not [20:36] dime: atheist does not believe in God, an agnostic has not made up his mind as to whether God exists or not [20:36] pascoe: I kept asking the same question over pascoe, how many times is it necessary to transmit the same equation before you finally added the hierarchy bit? [20:36] theist: knows god exits [20:37] Rev_Ely: being a judge over man is not the same as defining right and wrong. [20:37] dime: an agnostic has not ruled it out [20:37] atheist: knows god doesnt exist [20:37] yep thats me [20:37] pascoe: That's all well and good, but you're still squirming. I presented the same question, the same equation, at least twice. And your reply was the same. [20:37] Achimoth: Cannot KNOW that God does not exist, or KNOW that He does [20:37] Rev_Ely: I added the heirarchy bit when you started adding to your question to build straw men. [20:37] pascoe: by the end, you added on, emphasizing the addition with the conjunction, hierarchy. [20:38] Rev_Ely: yes, I can only answer what you ask. 8) [20:38] rev: its really quite simple, God created us, hence his will is paramount. Regardless of the relative values men put on right and wrong, only the Will of the Creaotr has precedence. [20:38] pascoe: blah. How exactly does creation + judgment = authority. Authority -> define right and wrong. equation not ask about the authority to define right and wrong? [20:38] I was raised catholic and I saw so much hypocrisy, it just got to me. [20:38] dime: I was raised catholic also [20:39] Rev_Ely: you are once again confusing authority with unlimited authority. please be reasonable. [20:39] Cleo 1 are you still a catholic? [20:39] Rev_Ely: you did not ask how God has unlimited authority. [20:39] pascoe: You brought that up before, and how did I qualify the statement about authority/ [20:39] dime: no [20:39] pascoe: I said, "I am not interested in unlimited authority, just the authority to define right and wrong." [20:39] Rev_Ely: you qualified it by adding (the authority to define right and wrong). [20:39] Nick change: Cleo_1 -> Cleo [20:39] to which you replied the same thing you'd been saying all along. god's authority came from him creating us and judging us. [20:40] dime: no, I am non-denominational now [20:40] unlimited authorty gives one the authority to dtermine right and wrong [20:40] Cleo, what made you change [20:40] Which is why you *still* failed to answer the question. You then, after seeing the equation in for the 4th time realized that you needed to add the hierarchy bit to save it from a complete application. [20:40] Rev: pascoe said no such thing, he said that God's authority is because no one created God [20:41] Therefore His authority is unlimited [20:41] I then asked you if you remember grade school where you were taught not to define words using the word. [20:41] Achimoth: right. Rev_Ely asked a general question about God's authority. then He immediately took the answer to build a straw man to say that man can have unlimited authority. [20:41] Whereas yours and mine are not [20:41] A question you did not answer. [20:41] not only did he create, he maintains [20:41] dime (cziemba@moose.uvm.edu) left #apologetics. [20:41] Rev_Ely: are you confused by my answers or by your questions? [20:41] pascoe: Where's this unlimited bit cmoing from? I told you much earlier I wasn't asking about unlimited authority. [20:41] Rev_Ely: what part of my answers do you need for input on? [20:42] pascoe: Neither. I am confused as to why you wont admit that you changed your answer about 3 equations down from the question? [20:42] when it is by ones will that the universe is in existence AND stays in existence, his will is that which has final authority in his creations frame of reference [20:42] Rev_Ely: I admit I changed my answer when you changed your question. [20:42] My objection to your answer was simple. If creation + judgement = authority. and Authority -> define right/wrong, then mankind can define right and wrong for it's created objects. [20:42] unlimited authority includes authority over determination of right and wrong [20:43] You said, no, that's wrong and said that man's authority is not unlimited. [20:43] Rev_Ely: I can't grant you any points for changing your questions and then accusing me of answering them wrong. but I don't see where you disagree with my answers now. [20:43] rev: man does not create, only modify [20:43] So I re-iterated that I wasn't after unlimited authority. [20:43] Mankind cannot judge right from wrong outside of the authority given to man by God, who created man [20:43] To which you replied that mankind can not determine right and wrong because god has not given him that authority. [20:43] creation is something from nothing [20:43] Since God was not created, only He can determine what is right/wrong absolutely [20:44] Rev_Ely: you will have to win your points fairly. if you want to say that I have a logical error then please point it out. [20:44] Which necessitated yet another transmission of the same equation I began with. [20:44] pascoe: if Creation + judgment = authority, and authority -> define right/wrong (the same equation i've been printing the whole time), then mankind has authority to determine right and wrong over his objects. [20:44] wrong [20:44] man does not create [20:45] Wrong [20:45] he modifies that which was already created [20:45] pascoe: You disagree with the conclusion, which was an application of your former reasoning. Which is why you added creation + judgement + no one else up in the hierarchy = authority and authority -> define right/wrong. [20:45] Rev_Ely: I have never agreed to that straw man argument. how can you accuse me of logical error if I never accepted your mishandling of my responses? [20:45] Man's 'creations' cannot be given parameters that God has not already defined [20:45] pascoe: My question has remained the same throughout. Only your answer has changed. [20:45] pascoe: You answered questions about unlimited authority that I did not ask. [20:46] rev: wrong, you continue to build a straw man with the mans creation arguement [20:46] Man does not create [20:46] Rev_Ely: no, you asked how God had authority. you did not ask how one has the authority to define right and wrong. those are two different questions. [20:46] Creation is something from nothing [20:47] pascoe: I find it difficult to believe that you insist that I asked how god had authority (and did not ask how he has authority to define right and wrong) when this discussion came from your position about man's knowledge of righ t and wrong. [20:47] Rev_Ely: if you think you have won something I guess I can't help that. But you fail to show any logical error on my part so far. [20:47] Action: Cleo agree pascoe [20:47] pascoe: i agree [20:47] even your analogy about the police chief not being able to define right and wrong indicates that you understood the question, but gav the wrong answer. [20:48] Rev_Ely: are you admitting that you did not ask the question you meant to ask? [20:48] why would you present an analogy about a police chief not being able to define right and wrong unless my question was about right and wrong? [20:48] Action: Cleo thinks the Rev cannot admit defeat [20:48] pascoe: You know good and well that I asked about authority to define right and wrong. [20:49] rev: what you are saying is: "If you cannot give me the answer I am looking for, you are not answering me correctly" [20:49] Both your analogies, and your subsequent addition indicate that you understood that my question was about authority to define right and wrong. [20:49] Rev_Ely: no, you still misunderstand. if I ask how a Police Chief has authority, that is a different question than how does He have authority to drive faster than the speed limit. the two answers are different. [20:49] pascoe: Your analogy was that a police chief can break the speed limit in an emergency but can not let his kids do it whenever they want to. [20:49] what this is is a discussion and comparision of relatives and absolutes [20:50] pascoe: Letting his kids do it being defining right and wrong. Why was that there if I didn't ask about right and wrong? [20:50] the Police Chief has authority because he was hired by elected officials to do a job. He has authority to speed because he may need to chase a criminal. two different answers. [20:50] pascoe: what exactly were you trying to establish with that analogy if not in response to a question about right and wrong? [20:50] Peavey (pveretto@ftc-co1-10.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [20:50] pascoe: That wasn't your analogy; you specifically stated that because the police chief could speed when he needed to but could not let his children speed whenever they wanted to [20:51] pascoe: indicates quite clearly that you understood that my inquiry was about authority to define right and wrong. [20:51] Rev_Ely: again, you have not shown any logical error in my responses. therefore why should I grant you any victory? [20:51] Want and need are 2 different things, are they not??? [20:51] pascoe: Could you please repeat your police chief analogy exactly? [20:52] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca12-22.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [20:52] Rev_Ely: I have used two Police Chief analogies now, which one do you want? (see you have to be more specific sometimes) [20:52] hey pasc. [20:52] pascoe: The one you used originally. [20:52] hello Cassidy_. 8) [20:52] pascoe: I trust that as a christian you will not alter it. [20:52] Rev_Ely: that analogy was after you asked about God's authority to define right and wrong. [20:52] Peavey (pveretto@ftc-co1-10.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [20:53] pascoe: Which is what I asked all along. Yet you *still* did not come up with the additional hierarchy bit until some time later. [20:53] what are you guys talking about? [20:53] Rev_Ely: so if you intend to show that it was related to the question of authority to define right and wrong then I admit it, because you had changed your question by that point. [20:53] pascoe: I believe you have proven my point by your squirming in analogies and your reluctance to repeat your original analogy. [20:54] pascoe: Your analogy came early on in our discussion pas, my question had been the same. [20:54] Rev_Ely: really? are you going to win victory now because I haven't repeated my analogy yet? [20:54] Rev_Ely: no, your question had already changed. [20:54] pascoe: I believe you even used a child parent analogy before that trying to get the same point. [20:54] In fact, do you remember my computer program analogy? [20:54] I'll stop back later. see ya. [20:55] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [20:55] Rev_Ely: yes, my point with the child parent analogy was to show you that there is a heirarchy of authority. [20:55] hello Acolyte. 8) [20:55] bye Cassidy_. 8) [20:55] You replied, "that's like saying it's ok to use guns to do whatever you want." [20:55] Hullo [20:55] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [20:55] Aco...long time... [20:55] pascoe: No, you didn't say that at the time. Goodness, all the evidence is stacking up against you. [20:55] cassidy for what? [20:55] Action: Rev_Ely offers the right fist of fellowship to ackie pooh. [20:55] Rev_Ely: If you want to win some points, show me how I have responded in error. [20:55] He had to explian the heireraarchy because you automatically assumed that man's authority was unlimited over his 'creations' (over right and wrong) [20:55] Rev_Ely!clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: be nice [20:55] Nick change: Cassidy_ -> Cassidy [20:55] Acolyte.... heya [20:55] Rev_Ely (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined #apologetics. [20:55] Action: Rev_Ely grins. [20:56] hey Achimoth [20:56] But that was not true because man is subject to God's authoruty [20:56] Rev_Ely: do you have a bad record on this channel already? [20:56] From the beginning, I used the analogy about computer programs and using them to do whatever I wanted to. [20:56] pascoe from day one [20:56] pascoe: determining right from wrong. [20:56] Aco...oh aco... [20:56] Rev you have no ethical system, what are you talking about? [20:56] Of course I do. Acolyte is unable to make his point via reason so, in traditional christian fashion, he relies on force. [20:56] Acolyte: you have no ethical system, what are you questioning? [20:56] Acolyte: oh. 8) Rev_Ely is trying to claim victory by saying that I didn't answer his question correctly altho he changed his question midstream. [20:56] Ely You're a nihilist, what reason? [20:57] Acolyte, in addition to other sins, appears unable to control his temper. [20:57] I see no force, just obstinance on your part [20:57] acolyte: You're a theist, what reason? [20:57] Ely arrogance is a sin too ;) [20:57] Acolyte: But I'm no christian. [20:57] Rev...you ARE a nasty one, eh? [20:57] Not exactly something to brag about, eh rev??? [20:57] Rev_Ely: If you want to win some points, show me how I have responded in error. [20:57] Ely Transendental. of course you're a naturalist so there is no metaphysical transendetal that makes logic possible [20:58] Rev_Ely: you have to work for your points in this channel. 8) [20:58] Don't have to be a 'christian' to treat others with respect [20:58] Ely you're a Nihilist, what are you complaingin about [20:58] Cleo consistently you do [20:58] acolyte: There is no god to make an absolutely transcendental concept *actually* existent. [20:58] Acolyte: You're a theist, what are you complaining about? [20:58] Acolyte: apply all of your questions to your smoke screen deity. [20:58] Acolyte: yes, I can agree witht he consistent part [20:58] Ely how do you know there is no God since there is no way to verify determined chemical reactions? [20:58] Ely I do and he answers them all [20:59] acolyte: How do you verify that god's nature is rational? [20:59] Ely logic [20:59] Rational by who's standards????????? [20:59] Cleo...thats not the point I dont think.....is you belief that your good treatment to others is valueable? [20:59] Acolyte: now now, logic stems from god's nature according to you. Wont do to use it to verify something else from god's nature. [20:59] Cleo Law of contradiction, do you disagree with it? [20:59] hahahah cassidy [20:59] Ely it will if he is the source of all by definition [21:00] Acolyte: How do you verify his being the source of all definition? [21:00] Cleo...hehehoho [21:00] Rev_Ely: what are you using to say that Acolyte is not logical? [21:00] Ely I did not say that I said BY definition [21:00] Ely Nihilists can make no rational claim [21:00] asdfjkl (jdmc@irv-ca5-14.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [21:01] Action: Acolyte thinks Ely shold chat with Alcuin [21:01] Acolyte: Sure I can. I just set up an axiom like you do. You are saying by definition; chemical reactions are verified by definition. that's what a chemical reaction is. [21:01] Action: Cleo thinks acolyte means Alcourt [21:01] Cleo NO I mean Alcuin, NOT Alcourt [21:01] In fact, my axioms are much neater than yours; you dont actually disprove my axioms, you just put them a step back. [21:01] Oh.....Alcourt is another though [21:01] Ely what are exioms in you system? determinec chemicals, still nihilism [21:01] You place them in god's nature; i say god's nature is a myth and place them on their own. [21:02] Acolyte: the law of identity is an axiom. [21:02] Ely al your ideas are myths [21:02] Acolyte: The law of contradiction is an axiom. [21:02] Ely how do you know? [21:02] Ely they are chemicals [21:02] Acolyte: Your ideas entail mine silly. How do you know that god's nature is logical? [21:02] Ely they are results of chemicals [21:02] asdfjkl (jdmc@irv-ca5-14.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [21:02] Acolyte: They are the result of ad hoc assertion on your part. [21:02] Ely how do you know there is logic to begin with to even ask the question? [21:02] Ely logic is ad hoc on your part [21:02] BRB [21:03] Acolyte: You claim "God's nature is rational" then when I ask how you know that, you reply that it's by definition. [21:03] Acolyte: I claim that rationality *is* (a claim you are not disputing btw), and reply that it is by definition. [21:03] Acolyte: Ever hear of occam's razor? Just trim the fat. [21:03] Rev_Ely: no. he said 'logic'. please be fair and quote him correctly. [21:03] Ely I am disupting the very thing [21:03] Acolyte: And I dispute the myth you wrap the thing up in. [21:03] Ely that is not Occams razor BTW, and Occam thought Atheism was BS [21:04] ely ever actually READ Occam? I have [21:04] Ely what is logic in yor system? [21:04] Acolyte: I'm not making reference to occam's theistic beliefs. [21:04] Acolyte: What is god's nature in your system? [21:04] Ely does the law of contradiciton always apply in the physical world? yes or no? [21:04] Ely I am tho [21:04] Acolyte: Does the law of contradiction always apply? [21:04] Ely thatis what I am asking you [21:05] Acolyte: 2 theories offering the same information; one has an added little ditty called god. Razor blades engaged. [21:05] Ely what is logic in your system but chemical reactions? [21:05] Ah but they do not offer the same information [21:05] Acolyte: what is god's nature in your system but ad hoc assertions? [21:05] have you never read Van Til? it is NOT the same information [21:05] Gyro (gyro@sac4-69.calweb.com) joined #Apologetics. [21:05] Ely how can the sources of all be ad hoc? [21:05] Acolyte: They do. You say logic is because it is in god's nature. i say logic *is*, and dispense with mythical natures. [21:05] Acolyte: Because you have no way of verifying it. [21:05] Ely what is logic then??? [21:06] Acolyte: What is god's nature? [21:06] ah but I do [21:06] Ely clarify [21:06] Acolyte: The minute you answer what god's nature is, i'll answer what logic is. [21:06] what is logic? [21:06] Acolyte: What is god's nature/ [21:06] whatd o you mean? [21:06] what is it? [21:06] Is that something one can order over the phone? [21:06] Can you bump into god's nature? [21:06] it is a non-material essence or substance [21:06] no [21:06] it is non-spatial [21:06] god's nature is *non-material essense*. what does that mean? [21:07] How do we verify this? [21:07] ely oh I am sorry you don't know the classical definitions? [21:07] gee what a shame [21:07] Logic is the conceptual representation of fundamental structures in the universe. [21:07] take a philo class [21:07] Acolyte: ARguments from authority wont do. [21:07] how do you know that? [21:07] Acolyte: how do you know that god's nature is non-material essence? [21:07] oh so you won't employ science? [21:07] Gyro (gyro@sac4-69.calweb.com) left #Apologetics. [21:07] or have you performed the experimetns yourself? [21:07] gues not [21:07] Acolyte: take a philo class. [21:07] argumentum ad vericundium [21:07] I have [21:08] many [21:08] I know by many ways [21:08] Acolyte: In response to your question about how do you know that: Oh I am sorry you dont know the classical definitions. [21:08] 1. if God were material, you'd have pantheism which is illogical [21:08] Action: Rev_Ely chuckles. [21:08] I didn't ask you about god, I asked you about god's nature. [21:08] Ely how do you know that logic applies? [21:08] Ely define concepts? [21:08] You said it was non-material essence. [21:08] Ely define concepts? [21:08] Acolyte: Define non-material essence. [21:09] A non-spatial non-coperal thing [21:09] hows that? [21:09] define a concept? [21:09] Acolyte: Your question is absurd because it is asking for the definition of something outside of the context of definition. [21:09] what are concepts? [21:09] circular argument [21:09] There can be no verification of logic; events *are*. [21:09] circular argument [21:09] what are concepts? [21:10] Acolyte: Is it any more circular than non-material essence? [21:10] Acolyte: what is non-material essence? [21:10] sure [21:10] alreadya nswered that one [21:10] what are concepts? [21:10] what are concepts? [21:10] what are concepts? [21:10] what are concepts? [21:10] what are concepts? [21:10] what are concepts? [21:10] what are concepts? [21:10] answer the question [21:10] Acolyte: No, you answered what god's nature is. Unless you are saying that god's nature is non-material essence and non-material essence is god's nature. which is an exercise in circularity. [21:10] what are concepts? [21:10] bio-chemical reactions? [21:10] What is non-material essence? [21:10] What is non-material essence? [21:10] What is non-material essence? [21:10] What is non-material essence? [21:10] What is non-material essence? [21:10] answer the question. [21:10] a non-spatial non-coperal thing [21:10] did that already [21:11] what are concepts? [21:11] Acolyte: that's gibberish acolyte. [21:11] answer the querstion [21:11] what are concepts? [21:11] If it's non-material its obviously non-spatial, I didn't ask you for a synonym for non-material essence. [21:11] what are concepts? [21:11] Answer the question: what is non-material essence? [21:11] The_Jew (lorinhoc@Port44.Hurugudu.McRCIM.McGill.EDU) joined #apologetics. [21:12] Rev_Ely: this is probably how you generally debate, but its obvious that you can't win any points this way. [21:12] What's going on, guys? [21:12] bye ely, concepts are nothing but chemical reactions, they work sure,but there is no logic in them, they are functions of a machine that may or may not be logical. You have no way of verification. Logic does not comport with phys icalism. Read some [21:12] You claim that it is circular to accept logic as axiomatic. How is it any less circular to accept god's nature as logical (an axiom). [21:12] physiclaists such as churchland [21:12] I did not say that [21:12] God is the antithesis of logic and uniformity. [21:12] I said your argument for it was cricular [21:13] Ely how so? [21:13] Only in a universe in which a diety can suspend the laws of nature at will is knowledge impossible. [21:13] Acolyte: How is logic defined? [21:13] You my friend are the one without an epistemology. [21:13] Ely when did we say that? [21:13] Ely God does not suspend laws of nature ever [21:13] Your belief undermines the ability of man to *know* anything. Rand said it well when she did. [21:13] Ely God does not suspend laws of nature ever [21:13] I bid you fair well, we will meet on mor neutral ground. [21:13] Ely God does not suspend laws of nature ever [21:13] DUH [21:13] Rev_Ely (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) left #apologetics. [21:13] there is no neutral ground-Van Til [21:14] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [21:14] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [21:14] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [21:14] Acolyte: If God never suspends laws of nature, then how did life begin? Creationists argue it is against the laws of thermodyanimcs for living matter to come from non-living matter. [21:14] The Jew-natural law=divine habits [21:15] Acolyte: Are you assuming that natural law = laws of nature? [21:15] the jew the "laws" of nature are not absolute, they perhaps do not always apply [21:15] No natural law=divine habits [21:16] God has a usua; way he governs the cosmos [21:16] usual even [21:16] divine habits=natural laws [21:16] Acolyte: But you said God does not suspend the laws of nature. And yet, you say they do not have to follow specific patterns? I am confused... [21:16] BTW I am not a creationists in the strict sense [21:16] did I say that? where? [21:16] cut and patse where I said that? [21:17] _Rich (bell310@dialup0.manhattan.thirdwave.net) joined #Apologetics. [21:17] Acolyte: I do not have cut & paste in mIRC. You said: "Ely God does not suspend laws of nature ever" [21:17] God does govern the cosmos in a usual way, but not always. Hence his direct unmediated workings are called "miracles" at times [21:17] sure he does not [21:17] the laws of nature do not always apply tho [21:17] they are high probabilities is all [21:18] Acolyte: Woah...you're being very inconsistent here. [21:18] you can NEVER verify a law of nature [21:18] how so? [21:18] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip10.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip10.csrv.uidaho.edu] [21:18] Acolyte: Are you speaking of the "laws of nature" as being the probabilities? [21:18] Acolyte: Sort of quantum mechanically speaking? [21:18] _Rich (bell310@dialup0.manhattan.thirdwave.net) left #Apologetics. [21:18] the Jew why are you worried about consistency? [21:18] brb [21:20] ok [21:20] back [21:20] the jew why is a nihilist like youworrying about consistency? [21:21] "You can't verify a law of nature?" There go my lab courses. (You can't PROVE a law of nature. Verification is possible, else all of physics is down the toilet( [21:21] I mean verification in a universal sense [21:21] you cannot verify them as being universals, hence they are probabilities [21:22] Acolyte: I'm not STRICTLY a nihilist... [21:22] if they are not always the case then things can occur outside their perview [21:22] thejew sure you are [21:22] you are not just consistent with it yet [21:22] that is my job presently [21:22] to make you aware of your nihilism [21:22] Acolyte: Nope...I think the brain (or any system) can efficiently code and store data... [21:23] ok sure, something can be efficient, how does that make it true? [21:23] how does utility =truth? [21:23] Acolyte: If it's voltage or chemical stuff, data is data. [21:23] fine, but it is determined data [21:23] how do you know the data accurately represents a thing? [21:23] Acolyte: Data is information... [21:23] Acolyte: I don't know what "determined" means. [21:23] you don;'t [21:24] ok, what governs nature? [21:24] we have been over this before btw [21:24] Acolyte: Woah. Are we going to get into a discussion over whether a horse is a horse because it has a property of "horseness", or because it's just a name we give the attributes... [21:24] nope [21:24] what we talked about b4 [21:24] naturalism=nihilism, which you conceeded previously to me [21:25] I "conceded" because I really didn't have the ammunition to fight you before. Still don't have it completely, but I want very clear definition of terms this time... [21:25] ok [21:25] what would you like me to define? [21:25] Acolyte: Truth, for starters. [21:26] ok truth is that which obtains, is consisten, coherrent and comports and corresponds to reality [21:26] hows that? [21:26] not nec in that ordert tho [21:26] Acolyte: Not too crazy about it. In logic, there are things that are true which may not have anything to do with reality. They are defined as true. [21:26] I think that those are properties of true propositions [21:26] sure tautologies [21:27] Nihilist (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined #apologetics. [21:27] Acolyte: Remember, logic does not necessary conform to reality. [21:27] Action: Nihilist grins [21:27] but is mental concepts part of reality or no? [21:27] Nihilist (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) left #apologetics. [21:27] oh it does not? [21:27] so a tree can be a non-tree at the same time? [21:27] hardly [21:27] Acolyte: Wasn't it proven (don't remember by whom) that an abstract system may not necessarily correspond with reality? [21:27] if reality is non-logical how did you get the idea of logic? [21:27] Acolyte: I can define wonderful systems of geometry that don't correspond to anything.... [21:28] sure they do [21:28] are they mental or no? [21:28] do they exist as mental or no? [21:28] then they exist [21:28] Acolyte: I can't envision a vector in 4-space. Does that make them non-mental? [21:28] now, the question is, what is mental [21:28] Acolyte: If nobody can envision a 4-dimensional vector, does it not exist? [21:29] Nihilist (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined #apologetics. [21:29] Action: Nihilist pats acolyte on the fanny. [21:29] Nihilist emergent evolution will not get you out of the problem [21:29] Action: Nihilist wonders when ackie pooh will tell him what non-material essence is. [21:29] Nihilist!clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: bye [21:30] Acolyte: I believe that "thoughts" do exist, they are part of reality. As are concepts.. [21:30] in your paradigm you don't know [21:30] what are concepts? [21:30] define them [21:30] where are they? [21:30] where is their location? [21:30] what is their mass? [21:30] what space to they take up? [21:31] Acolyte: I "conceded" last time that the universe was only made up of energy and mass... [21:31] Acolyte: That was too hasty of me... [21:31] ok do you hold that now? [21:31] you're right it was [21:31] :) [21:31] are you a dualist yet? [21:31] ;) [21:31] Acolyte: NO! Not a dualist!!! [21:31] not yet eh, ok [21:31] now what is the cosmos made up of now? [21:31] Acolyte: I believe that subject/object material/spiritual split is purely a Western thing... [21:32] perhaps [21:32] [erhaps npt [21:32] Acolyte: There's no reason to necessarily split up reality in that way. [21:32] but [21:32] maybe [21:32] but [21:32] now what is the cosmos made up of now? [21:32] now what is the cosmos made up of now? [21:32] Acolyte: That is a weakness in your argument...You're arguing only against the "material" only part in a material/spiritual duality. [21:32] still m and E? [21:32] Cleo (salam@206.161.73.11) left #apologetics. [21:32] are you a materialist? [21:32] or no? [21:32] Acolyte: m and E are human inventions... [21:32] oh IC [21:33] Acolyte: Not a materialist in the sense that you mean it... [21:33] sp matter and energy would not exist before us? [21:33] and how do I mean it? [21:33] BRB [21:33] Acolyte: Matter and energy are human definitions used to explain reality in terms we can envision. [21:35] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [21:36] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics. [21:36] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org [21:37] WordWalkr (joe_webgat@port35.webgate.net) joined #Apologetics. [21:38] WordWalkr (joe_webgat@port35.webgate.net) left #Apologetics. [21:38] the jew I have dinner to eat so I will not be back on for a while [21:39] I guess I'll speak to you another time. I think we're on to something on this dualism thing. And I want to pursue what I mean by matter and energy not existing... [21:39] sure thing [21:39] I enjoy our convos [21:39] :) [21:39] The_Jew (lorinhoc@Port44.Hurugudu.McRCIM.McGill.EDU) left #apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_3_10_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