[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/16/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/16/96 [00:19] War

---
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 - 3/16/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/16/96 [00:19] Warryr (jim@dialin37.connect.ab.ca) joined #Apologetics. [00:20] I hate those christian pigs! They think they know God! [00:20] Hope you aren't christian [00:21] Warryr (jim@dialin37.connect.ab.ca) left #Apologetics. [00:31] Barb (jfranke@ptpm015.olympus.net) joined #Apologetics. [00:31] Barb (jfranke@ptpm015.olympus.net) left #Apologetics. [01:16] karen-2 (ajanssen@lbx-ca9-04.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [01:17] karen-2 (ajanssen@lbx-ca9-04.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [01:29] jefarama (jdmc@mvo-ca6-20.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [01:31] hi [01:31] hello...how are you this evening/morning? [01:31] not bad [01:32] not much action in this room, huh? Is it too late? [01:33] Too late in the evening I mean. [01:33] maybe too early... this room gets busy at the weirdest times [01:34] I see. You visit here often? [01:35] cam_ (cfthomas@204.251.230.13) joined #apologetics. [01:35] Helooooo? [01:35] hello [01:35] hi cam_ [01:35] What does the ApoloBot do? [01:36] jefarama: actually... [01:36] Mode change '+o Achimoth ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [01:36] Hey achi, how is everything? [01:36] I'm an op.. ;) [01:36] cool! [01:36] It's all greek to me. [01:36] apolobot is like logos on #bible [01:36] oh...just a bible quoter? [01:36] I see.. [01:36] oops i keep doing that [01:37] :) [01:37] should be 2tim not 1tim [01:39] so anything yall would like to discuss?> [01:39] a [01:39] #bible is awefully quiet on this net tonight. [01:39] cxam_: come to #bible1611 [01:39] k [01:39] I don't know enough to discuss much of anything. [01:40] jefarama: any questions then? [01:41] Wouldn't even know what to ask or where to begin. Sort of like asking a 3rd grader about particle physics!!! [01:41] dfrag (blairej@143.207.68.54) joined #apologetics. [01:42] :) [01:43] Ok, what about Particle Physics? hehehe [01:43] well, we can just chat then.. eh? [01:43] sounds great to me... [01:47] So, are you all Christians? [01:47] I am [01:47] Action: cam_ is a Christian. [01:48] nobyte (necessity@slip192.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [01:48] cam_ (cfthomas@204.251.230.13) left #apologetics. [01:48] greetings [01:48] hello [01:49] Nick change: nobyte -> anselm [01:49] hi nobyte [01:49] hey there, what's up? [01:49] not much, how are you? [01:49] not much.. just chatting at the moment [01:50] just looking for some stimulating conversation. [01:50] anselm: got a topic? [01:50] particle physics? [01:51] are you guys regulars on this channel? [01:51] no [01:52] I've been a regular for awhile [01:53] Are you both Christians/ [01:53] ? [01:53] yes, just recently. :) [01:53] just recently became one, that is. [01:54] I am yes [01:54] Catholic, Protestant, what variation? [01:54] Are you? [01:54] No, but I once was. [01:55] Action: Achimoth is of the Anabaptist school of thought, as Acolyte loves to point out to me all the time. [01:55] Is that descended from Erasmus, Achimoth? [01:55] And does it entail pacifism? [01:56] it simply entails that one believes in acceptance then baptism, as opposed to the RC tradition of infant baptism [01:57] Oh. There must be more to it than that, isn't there? [01:57] I'm basically a Fundamentalist, though i am not a "religious" fundie [01:57] Infant baptism strikes me as bizarre. [01:57] what do you mean, not religious fundie? That seems a contradiction in terms. [01:59] the original term of Fundamentalist, meant one wqho believes in and accepts the Fundamentals of Faith. it did not entail as is usually done nowadays, a particular ppolitical or social viewpoint [02:01] I see. [02:01] But doesn't it imply some of those practical positions? [02:02] yes, to a point... but, I live by faith, not by religion... [02:02] when one relies on works to save oneself, he falls into the trap [02:03] What trap is that? [02:04] Do you really like KJV best? [02:04] yes... but I use many versions in Bible study [02:04] SlackJaw (jchow@pm1-4.starlink.com) joined #apologetics. [02:04] hello [02:05] hi slackjaw [02:05] just thought that I would lurk for a bit... [02:05] greetings slackjaw [02:06] Achimoth: do you believe in eventual damnation for those who disagree w/ the Christian faith? [02:06] dfrag (blairej@143.207.68.54) left #apologetics. [02:08] anselm: I believe that one will eventually receive eternal separation from his Creator in accordance with his rejection of the One who died to remove that separation between God and man. [02:08] and that separation will occur in the Lake of Fire [02:08] what is the nature of this separation - lake of fire, some other kind of torture,or what? [02:09] And why would it be eternal? [02:09] anselm: because man was created for enternal life... in the lake of fire is eternal death [02:09] I don't think it could be eternal....Wouldn't that be for all time...past, present, and future? [02:09] who originally imposed this separation between man and God, and when did it occur? [02:10] death being separation... is there fire as we understand fire? maybe maybe not, there is obviously something we interrpret as fire.... but the worse thing is spending eternity in the full knowledge of what you rejected. [02:10] OK, everlasting then, jeferama. [02:10] Makes no difference to my point. [02:11] Why should anyone be punished for a disagreement??? [02:11] Especially punished so severely? [02:12] anselm: we we CREATED to be with God... when we reject him.. he honors our choice and put us where he is ot, that being Hell, which as Scripture says "was made for Satan and his angels." [02:12] where he is not, even [02:13] You are implying (by ref. to Satan) that disbelievers are evil & therefore deserving of a grim fate. [02:13] God wishes that all would choose to follow him and not reject him. [02:13] That is what I object to. [02:13] evil? no.. good and evil are relative terms.. [02:14] this regards obedience and disobedience [02:14] Then why not be *infinitely* longsufferring, then? [02:14] BullFrog` (omnitek@fat-5.cybergate.com) joined #apologetics. [02:14] BullFrog` (omnitek@fat-5.cybergate.com) left #apologetics. [02:14] anselm: because while God is Love, he is also Just [02:14] You have been insufficiently attentive to the parables of grace, IMO. [02:15] He incarnated as Jesus Christ to take his own rightous judgement upon himself, and still man chooses to go his own way. [02:15] The laborers - there is no justice in god. God forbid that there should be justice. There is only grace - only infinite forgiveness. [02:15] without Christs atoning death, we are all lost..... [02:15] Parable of the laborers, that is. [02:15] Anselm: Do you find validity in the parables of grace? [02:16] if one rejects the gift of grace, there remains no excuse [02:16] and must stand on his own merits [02:16] Yes,jeferama, that is the essence of the gospel, in whatever sense there could be said to be a gospel. [02:16] and our own merits are lacking [02:17] Then why not so in the words of Christ regarding hell and salvation? Seems rather like a pick and choose methodology. [02:18] If there is punishment for rejection of grace, then there is no grace! There would be strings attached. Ppl have always corrupted the good news that way. [02:19] anselm: you misunderstand how God works, he operates within his own laws... a gift rejected is not a gift given [02:19] one must accept a gift to receive it [02:20] Jesus was the Passover lamb, and as in Egypt, one must apply the blood for the angel of death to pass over. [02:20] Of course it is pick & choose: I pick out wisdom & love & grace where I am lucky enough to find them, & discard the chaff of fear & ignorance. [02:21] Too much blood for my taste, Achimoth. [02:21] anselm: either you accept the whole or reject the whole, once you make Scripture relative, you have no foundation to base your walk with God on [02:22] Too much talk of distruction. It implies a hateful god. Not the god of the prodigal son parable. [02:22] Is your problem with destruction or the methods used or both? [02:22] The foundation is love itself, which in its perfect form is our creator. [02:22] It is not a book - any book or collection of books, IMO. [02:22] anselm: whether you accept it or not.. God is Love, but he is also a Just god.... and he must satisfy his Laws.... [02:23] the foundation is Jesus Christ... [02:23] My problem is with vengeance, wrath, destruction, and all such wretched thoughts. [02:24] anselm: and thats why you will not hear what i am saying... you want to make God fit YOUR idea of what he should be. [02:24] you do not accept God as He IS [02:24] No loving parent is primarily concerned about satisfying laws! That was the attitude of the older brother inthe prodigal son parable. ANd that attitude was scorned. [02:24] You will not accept infinite grace - it is too scandalous for most people. [02:25] Anselm: because it is denied in Scripture.. [02:25] Would infinite grace be extended to Satan and his angels too? [02:25] God does not force his presence on those who do not wish it [02:25] That's the irreconcilable parting of the ways: I cannot make any book an absolute authority, & you do. [02:26] I agree with the last statement about forcing presence - that's a far cry from hell, tho. [02:26] Yes, infinite grace wd be extended to all creatures (not that I believe in Satan). [02:26] Shroud (yabba-dab@max2-so-ca-20.earthlink.net) joined #apologetics. [02:27] Shroud (yabba-dab@max2-so-ca-20.earthlink.net) left #apologetics. [02:30] Hello?? [02:30] Anselm: Supposing there is a God..What do you think would be the best way for God to reconcile sin in the universe...considering that God's nature is contrary to it? [02:30] sorry was busy on another channel [02:31] no prob - so am I [02:32] To reconcile sin would be by loving example inspired among its creatures. That's the beauty of the incarnation idea in its essence. [02:32] SlackJaw (jchow@pm1-4.starlink.com) left irc: QUESTION AUTHORITY [02:33] God is crucified in the very act of sustaining the creation, but god's love is infinitely longsuffering. [02:33] It seems that God did do that in the Garden of Eden...yet they still choose to sin. [02:33] you make deity a reflection of man, as opposed to man a reflection of his deity [02:35] It is inevitably both ways, Achimoth. It could be no other way. We cannot escape the process of making judgements. [02:35] Suppose this God even came to earth to live among his creation to teach it the way of truth...and they kill him? [02:35] You made a judgement to accept or believe that the bible is absolutely true. [02:35] They - we - kill him/her all the time - and still we are loved. [02:36] That is the scandal of the gospel - there is no justice - no fairness there. [02:37] bitwise (pilgrim@206.153.181.17) joined #apologetics. [02:37] greetings bitwise [02:37] and greetings to you anselm :) [02:38] is there any discussion going on here? [02:38] there is indeed. [02:38] what is the topic? [02:38] the nature of god's love & mercy vis-a-vis justice & damnation. [02:39] I deny that there is any justice or damnation, and Achimoth is defending those concepts based on the bible. [02:39] sounds interesting... [02:39] actually relevatism vs absolutism [02:39] I can't accept that characterization since I emphatically reject relativism. [02:40] what about absolutism? [02:40] I believe love is an absolute value - the supreme value at the heart of existence. [02:40] anselm: by pick and choose you accept relevatism [02:40] actually...does God exist. [02:40] By rejecting *your* particular choice of absolute, I embrace relativism? I think not. [02:40] either the bibles message is true or it is not true....one cannot accept part and reject part [02:40] That is a specious dichotomy indeed. [02:41] Incredible. You're saying it's 100% erroneous or 100% true? [02:41] Nothing in this world is likethat. [02:41] how is it worth using if there is no consistency? [02:42] 2+2=5 is either 100% true or 100% erroneous. [02:42] if one makes it just a book, it has no inherent value aside from being a piece of literature [02:43] How is anything worth using? SOmething has to be perfect for us to derive value from it?? [02:43] Jef: the bible is a vast collection of assertions (& more than assertions i.e. poetry, etc), so there is no analogy to one single math equation. [02:44] therefore: you have no basis for arguing your position, as you have no basis for your belief in a fuzzy idea of a deity that is a loosley defined emotion [02:44] I was merely refuting your assertion that " Nothing in this world is likethat." [02:44] Literature can & does have enormous value to inspire & enrich our lives, & to edify & challenge, & to eventually bring us closer to our creator. [02:44] because you cannot use the Bible as a reference of authoirty as you make it only another writing [02:45] how can you know it teaches us of a creator, its only the writing of man... [02:45] POint taken, jef. I meant things like literature, history, etc. [02:45] papa2two (papa2two@navy.blue.rrnet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:45] how can anything teaches us of a creator if he is there... we cant since you have no basis for beliefs aside from personal opinion [02:46] i mean there is nothing that we can say, "Now, that is truth." [02:46] On the contrary: we have our god-given reason. [02:46] Not mere opinion. [02:46] Logic is not a matter of whimsy. [02:47] how do you know it is god-given? what proof do you have of a creator? [02:47] Case in point: the great ontological argument formulated by my namesake. [02:47] anselm: no...but it doesn't always take us where we need to go... [02:47] papa2two (papa2two@navy.blue.rrnet.com) left #apologetics. [02:48] Well, there is no better alternative, bitwise, IMO. The alternative is blind leaps of faith. [02:48] without a frame of reference, logic becomes an uncoordinated exercise, as their is nothing to base reasoning on [02:49] aside from ones personal bias. [02:49] And that leaves us w/ no way to adjudicate the rival & absolute claims of various religions of faith (islam, xianity, etc). [02:49] Logic is absolute - it requires no basis. There could be no basis. [02:50] logic is not an absolute.. thats your fundamental flaw [02:50] you have FAITH that logic is absolute [02:51] for Logic to be absolute one who is working the logic must be absolute. [02:51] No - it is not comparable to faith. That's a tired old lineof apologetics. There is no *alternative* that is not arbitrary. [02:51] The creator is the root of all logic & is thus sufficiently absolute. [02:52] We can only aspire to, as someone - perhaps Einstein? - said, think god's thoughts after him. [02:52] yes it is, you make a fundamental assumption that logic and reasoningare abolute... if ones POV is relative.. his logic is relative. [02:52] ones POV must be absolute for his logic to be absolute. [02:53] It cannot be an assumption if there is no alternative. [02:53] who can know there is no alternative? [02:53] you asuume there is no alternative. [02:54] POV - that's why we need to engage in mutual dialog, predicated on genuine good will. So that we can correct the inevitable relativities of our respective POV & thus aspire to a closer approximation of truth. [02:54] anselm...I'm sorry...I am still unsure whether you believe in a god or not. [02:55] ahh.. but we as finite beings can never gain that total POV needed for absoluite logic. [02:55] therefore, our logic will always have a flaw due to not having all factors. [02:56] We can only try to engage in that dialog & hope for the best. [02:56] ahh.. another leap of faith... [02:56] Achimoth: true, but God did not leave us without resource, which is why anselms statement statement is valid. [02:56] you trust that it will turn out all right [02:56] As for alternative - I cannot conceive of one; anyone is welcome to show me. [02:57] jeferama: I do not believe in the Xian god; to me it is an idol. I believe in a supreme, eternal, noncontingent & perfectly loving & gracious creator. [02:57] Some would call that god. [02:58] deism? [02:59] Yes, I do llike the term deism *except* for the unfortunate & unjustified notion that it entails an absentee god. [02:59] I have a #deism every time I log onto IRC. [03:00] UNfortunately I'm discussing the health care system on that channel right now, but what can you do? ;-) [03:00] do you believe in miracles? [03:01] anselm: I'm just glad we can discuss this like this without either side resorting to personal atacks.. ;) [03:02] Agreed, Achimoth. [03:02] The thing that annoys me on IRC is the degree of vituperative interaction I see. [03:03] Civility is essential to dialog,else it is merely a game to gratify one's ego. [03:03] i admit i at times fall into that trap on certain topics, but I strive not to do so. [03:03] No miracles, jeferama,not in the sense that they can occur on demand. That is, I don't believe omnipotence is logically possible. [03:04] However, anomalous events do occur with occasionally wonderful consequences. [03:04] ahh the concept of kismet [03:04] Is the creation of the world an anomalous event or a miraculous event caused by god? [03:05] kismet? Not familiar (heard the word, but not sure the meaning). [03:06] The creation is not necessary IMO, so it could plausibly be called a miracle in some legitimate sense. [03:06] kismet: the hindu conept of everything coming together in a single instant creating miracles... [03:06] concept even [03:06] However, the act of creation, I think, is the act of kenosis, whereby god sacriifices control for the sake of love. [03:07] ie a series of anomolous events working together to a fortuitous end [03:08] my dictionary defines kismet as....fate, or destiny [03:08] serendipity? [03:08] goodnight good peoples. [03:08] Synchronicity? [03:08] bitwise (pilgrim@206.153.181.17) left #apologetics. [03:08] yep.. serendipity is another related term [03:08] and synchroniciity [03:09] Fate, I'm not thrilled with, jeferama. [03:09] it is used to cover a multitude of sins. [03:09] Those are Webster's words :) [03:09] well kismet is misdefined as just fate... [03:10] Why do you think omnipotence is logically impossible? [03:10] Because it cannot be reconciled with our freedom, & love between god & creatures entails freedom. [03:11] And yes, I've read Xian attempts to reconcile them. [03:11] Suffice it to say I was not convinced that paradox can be avoided. [03:11] shema (lewis7@aus-tx4-10.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [03:11] shema (lewis7@aus-tx4-10.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [03:12] why does omnipotence deny freedom? [03:12] Also, and chiefly, omnipotence would saddle god with responsibility for every evil event that ever occurred - the problem of evil is insoluble onthe assumption of omnipotence. [03:14] How does having all power to do something entail responsibility for evil? [03:14] If my actions are truly mine, for which I am accountable, then they cannot be within the control of another being, without that entity being truly & ultimately responsible. [03:15] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal28-20.ppp.iadfw.net) left irc: Ping timeout for Achimoth[dal28-20.ppp.iadfw.net] [03:15] Your last query: The massacre of the innocents in SCotland last week - god as omnipotent could have prevented it & chose not to. [03:16] You don't make your point....you make mine....God as omnipotent COULD have prevented and chose not to. [03:17] That makes god responsible for the murders, does it not? [03:20] No...I still don't see the entailment from having the potential to do something to be responsible for it's outcome. [03:20] I have the potential to assassinate the president. If I don't do it and he caused WWIII am I responsible for the destruction of the world? [03:22] Nevertheless my friend, I must be going...it is late. I enjoyed speaking with you. [03:22] That analogy is crucially predicated on ignorance of the future, whereas god supposedly wd be in a position to know whether the pres is about to destroy the world, etc [03:22] OK, another time perhaps. [03:22] You are a civil person, good chatting w/ you. :-) [03:23] same to you...talk with you later :) [03:23] jefarama (jdmc@mvo-ca6-20.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [03:23] anselm (necessity@slip192.UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. --------------------------------------------------------- [03:37] Yves (Yves@199.84.216.49) joined #apologetics. [03:37] Yves (Yves@199.84.216.49) left #apologetics. [03:42] flant (blairej@143.207.68.54) joined #apologetics. [03:42] flant (blairej@143.207.68.54) left #apologetics. [03:45] Paisano (tony@slip25.dtx.net) joined #apologetics. [03:46] Cassidy (cassidy7@irv-ca7-21.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [03:48] Greetings Cassidy. [03:48] Wickett (terri@ppp9.twave.net) joined #Apologetics. [03:49] hi guys [03:49] someone tell neil to get in here [03:49] Greetings. [03:49] that asshule pissed me off [03:50] no need for insults [03:50] :(((((((( [03:50] sorry guys [03:50] :) [03:50] Cassidy (cassidy7@irv-ca7-21.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cassidy[irv-ca7-21.ix.netcom.com] [03:50] wickett: Are you speaking of Neil? [03:50] cass: can you clarify your statement about the non matreial for me please [03:51] yes pia i am [03:51] Cassidy will be back; he got pinged out. [03:51] hey [03:51] cool [03:52] pia: do your beliefs include a loving god? [03:52] Absolutely; but God is no fool. [03:52] if so how do you justify hell [03:53] please, do not make statements that assume the existance of god [03:53] Well, I gave you one reason. God might be justified in making people endure his presence for 70 years but it would be ungodly (but less unkind) to make people who hate him have to endure his presence for eternity. [03:54] ???? [03:54] Cassidy (cassidy7@irv-ca7-21.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [03:54] mped... [03:54] wickett: How does that make sense. Hell was created by God as a place of punishment. What sense does it make for me to try and JUSTIFY HELL without assuming God exists. [03:54] you state it would be ungodly for him to do so [03:55] wickett: exactly -- not like God for him to do so. :) [03:55] hoootchie.....sickem!!! [03:55] no no, i meant the statement about god not being a fool that is not an argument, only a statement [03:56] if it is ungodly for him to do so then why would he?? [03:56] wickett: Do you assume that a RIGHTEOUS God must endure fools forever? [03:56] wickett: he wouldn't and he won't. [03:56] Action: Wickett never assumes anything [03:57] Sure you do; we all do. [03:57] lol [03:57] i dont assume the existance of god tho [03:57] wickett: no, you assume there is no God tho. [03:58] no, I believe there is no god [03:58] no assumpiton there [03:58] Wicket...you assume things far less plausable without him than with him. [03:58] lol [03:58] That takes too much faith for me to believe. :) [03:58] like what cass [03:59] pia: the same is true for me concerning god [03:59] Is belief is God a bad thing? [03:59] is=in [03:59] hold on one sec guys i've msgd neil, and want to tell him off for insulting me [03:59] brb [04:00] Wi...like the passing of time, the ability to use reason and have it mean something, the ability to make value judgments...... [04:00] wickett: leave Neil alone; how does he hurt you? [04:00] Anyway; he's gone. [04:00] how dare he insult me like that, the arrogant bastard!! [04:01] i got his e mail [04:01] sorry [04:01] wickett: simmer your wrath. [04:01] lol [04:01] who? [04:01] yes pia in my opinion belief in god can lead to great evil [04:01] Answer my question: Is belief in God a bad thing? [04:01] how so? [04:02] many many people have been killed in the name of god [04:02] this is a bad thing [04:02] Do you not think the REVERSE is even MORE so? [04:02] Wickett...you are a reasonable man...perhaps you ought to withhold moving your lips until such a time as you are able to convince us that language (in your world) is intelligable. [04:03] How about Hitler, do you REALLY think he believed in God? [04:03] no, NO ONE has ever died for atheism [04:03] hootchie (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [04:03] Wic...can you say Stalin??? [04:03] hootchie (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [04:03] yes hitler believed in god, read mein kamph [04:03] wickett: about the good folks in my father's homeland? [04:03] lol [04:03] can you say abortion? [04:03] cass: good point ... a case in point. [04:04] NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FOR ATHIESM!!!!!!!!!!! [04:04] cass: another EXCELLENT point. [04:04] a man cannot die foor non belief [04:04] wickett: but they have died from athiesm and it's menance. [04:04] how so pia? [04:04] wickett...can you repeat that....the boyz over on efnet didn't quite hear you..... [04:04] the menance is the ATHIEST who does ungodly things. [04:05] pls you guys give me a chance to answer questions before you jump to the next i am a poor typer [04:05] Like the yo-yo who killed 16 children in Scotland. [04:05] lol [04:05] was he an athiest?? [04:05] no [04:06] Definitely ... a class A, numero uno Athiest. [04:06] ok did he kill these ppl for a cause [04:06] no [04:06] he had no reason [04:06] correct?? [04:07] Sure he did, his father is a killer and devourer of men's souls. [04:07] lol [04:07] prove that [04:07] where did you hear that? [04:07] and where did you hear he was an athiest??? [04:07] We either have God as our father or we have Satan as our father, there is no third choice. [04:07] lol [04:07] i do not accept that [04:08] i am a non believer remember [04:08] You don't have too but it makes it no less true. [04:08] no [04:08] Wickett...know what? None of this is relevent! IT doesn't matter!!! You know what? There has been TERRIBLE bloodshed in the name of God. So? While I think it is a horrendous thing...it has nothing to do with the existence of God OR the truth of Christianity. [04:09] i will not abide by your beliefs simplt because you say i must [04:09] An abuse of a thing does not negate its proper use OR the truth of it. [04:09] accepted cassidy :) [04:09] good point [04:09] reallY? [04:09] yes really [04:09] Why is it a good point? [04:10] Neither will we endure you're equating Christianity with those who obviously had no understanding of Christianity (which is love) and obviously never knew Jesus as their Lord and Savior. [04:11] jesus, as a man was a great teacher, love peace blah blah blah....we would all do better to live by his teachings [04:11] but i cannot accept a divine being [04:11] do you assume my ignorance of religion pia?? [04:11] Wickett...tell me...what are your objections to belief in God now that you have agreed that those you have postulated for 10 minutes were irrational? [04:12] lol [04:12] wickett: Well, good, he said he was the Way, the Truth, the Life; no man comes to the Father except by me. Was he telling the truth? Was he a liar? Was he crazy? [04:12] dk didnt know the man [04:12] Dont be patronizing. If He wasn't God, the He was a freak or a liar. [04:12] his teachings re peace and love were good he was only a man tho [04:12] cass [04:13] he was thought both [04:13] and killed for it [04:13] Do you ever believe the testimony of men? [04:13] based on empirical evidence yes [04:14] Wickett...really? are you then omniscient to know he was only a man? is that possible in a world where truth is determined by nothing other that a-posteri reasoning? [04:14] You've said you've read the Bible; do you discern you are reading an EYEWITNESS account which was written contemporaniously with the actions to which they testified? [04:14] define a posteri please [04:14] no pia i dont [04:15] king james wrote the version i read [04:15] Wickett...on the contrary...You cant KNOW that for certain, can you? then why do you keep assirting it as if EVERYONE ought to know it? [04:15] Wick....experience.....5 senses. [04:16] im sorry cass, cant know what for certain?? [04:16] Wickett....listen...if your gonna be an empercist...fine. Just be consistant with your epistomology. [04:16] and no my observations and beliefs lead me to believe he was only a man [04:16] wickett: then you need to re-read the NT, it is an eye-witness account from stem to stern. Those who read these writings also witnessed the events recorded. Had they been false, the truth would clearly have overwhelmed the wri ters and their writings. Yet, there is a STRANGE and telling SILENCED from the critics other than those in this day; about 2000 years too late to hold any relevance. [04:17] Wick...that Christ was just a man....because it is outside the realm of experience to make judgments of that sort. [04:17] Wickett...which ones? [04:17] the NT is based on observation??? where is your proof?? [04:18] cass, he lived correct? [04:19] It claims to be an eye-witness account and the writers claimed to have observed the things they reported. They went to their deaths refusing to recant what they believed and taught. [04:19] What about that empty grave; how do you discount that? [04:19] Wickett...observations, correct. Many observations. Where are all the people standing up in the 1st century saying "they are all liars! He was just like you and me! He's still dead over in that there cave..." [04:19] claimed!! I know men that claim lots of things, where is the proof? [04:20] I did not see the grave [04:20] Few men have gone to their graves holding to a lie; there are few athiests on a deathbed. [04:20] It's still there for you to observe; what stops you? [04:20] it is another fairy tale in my opinion [04:20] Wickett...there is great proof in the empty grave and the post ressurection lives of the apostles. [04:21] where is the proof that they didnt make everything up? [04:21] Wickett.....ahhhh, yes...myth. Myth become fact as CS Lewis put it. [04:21] ok ok can i ask you guys some questions now?? [04:21] Wickett....what is a plausable alternative explanation??? [04:21] lol [04:21] shoot. [04:21] lol [04:21] Do you know what a Roman legion was? How many men were in such a unit? Do you know the training they received and the penalty for failing to do their duty? There is NO WAY that grave was emptied by men. Simply no way possible . [04:21] lol [04:21] LOL [04:22] fairy tales by deff, have no basis in fact. [04:22] do you guys think........ [04:22] Wickett...burden of proof is on you to find an alternative explanation. OK... [04:23] OK... [04:23] that the greeks, in their heydey [04:23] believed in one god? [04:23] yeah... [04:23] or the romans? [04:23] No, for the most part. [04:23] Why? [04:23] or the native americans? [04:24] or the egyptians? [04:24] No, they believed in many gods; mostly they worshipped things that were created or nature and its elements. [04:24] how do you feel about their religions today? [04:24] Is this "God's nature defined by popular consences??? [04:24] false? [04:24] misguided? [04:24] hellbound? [04:25] Wickett...of course, but for r.e.a.s.o.n.s. [04:25] There gods were false and are discounted by every sensible person; why? simple, the risen Christ divided time and history. [04:25] yeah. [04:25] ok cool, where were the teachings of your god to save these people from hell? [04:26] W...which one of their Gods died and rose? [04:26] I dont understand the question. [04:26] ra the egyptian sun god died and rose every day according to them cass [04:26] Jesus when he was in the grave preached to these death souls; many that had been captive were led free by Jesus. [04:27] do you think that in life, they would have been firm in their beliefs? [04:27] Wickett... the answer is in ROM. 1-3...all creation has knowledge of God thru his creation...therefore all have the law. [04:28] in the worship of their gods? [04:28] See, it was just Jesus who was raised from the grave; MANY graves were broken open and many who had died walked again throughout the streets of Jerusalem. [04:28] lol [04:28] Im sure in life they WERE firm. [04:28] again where is the proof? [04:28] was just=wasn't just [04:29] The proof is in the scriptures; an eye-witness account you refuse to accept. [04:29] Again, the SILENCE is deafening which DISPUTES the scriptures. [04:30] thn why were they tortured by your god, in life they had no word to follow, in death they were visited by a man who told them how to escape hell??? [04:30] lol [04:30] Wickett...hmmm....It is there in abundance...but I wonder what good it is. Why is it that we accept facts, reasons leading to a conclusion compelling?There are sooo many assumptions inherent in just that one principle to keep us going for days.... [04:31] proof pia [04:31] not words [04:31] show me [04:31] The Word of God is the power of God to save. [04:31] the burden of proof is now on you [04:31] there is no word of god [04:32] mere words again [04:32] they mean nothing [04:32] do you see Mt 27:52 and 53? [04:32] proof [04:32] yes [04:32] but that is not proof [04:32] only words [04:33] Wick...if we need proof then so does the person rallying for a God-less universe. So, why ought we to accept induction (arguing from the specific to the general or making inferences based on evidences) as the best or only way of determining reality? [04:33] proof, Wick... [04:33] look------->I AM GOD <-------------- is that fact? [04:33] proof... [04:33] No. [04:33] words [04:33] like i said [04:34] right words...give us proof. [04:34] proof! [04:34] simplybecause someone wrote it [04:34] dosnt make it true [04:34] You should realize that Matthew was written VERY early; maybe 15-20 years after Jesus had died. These facts were known by people as evidence by Acts 2:22-24 [04:34] Tell us how there can be right or wrong in a god-less universe... [04:34] I am aware of that pia, but it is still not fact [04:35] there is no right or wrong except as defined by man [04:35] what is wrong to you is good to me [04:35] What kind of knowledge is it that denies eye-witness testimony. What court in the land would dispute the testimony of honorable men? [04:35] Wickett...really? Oh. are those individual men or societies of men? [04:35] or vice versa [04:36] both cass [04:36] Wickett...If I slaughter a family member of yours under what circumstances COULD it be right? Just one will do. [04:37] pia, did the men who wrote the bible see what they wrote or is that merely an assumption on your part? [04:37] cass: if they has killed one of yours [04:37] wickett: They can't be HONORABLE men; which is an UNDISPUTED fact, if they are liars. [04:37] had i mean [04:38] honarable???? undisputed??? who was there to see this? I dispute it!! [04:38] OK, wickett...what if they didn't? Now what shall we say about it? I feel it was good for me. What right does our government have to punish me? why? [04:39] they said they saw and what they saw they reported. Further, they said they touched Jesus before and after his resurrection; these were NOT fools but honorable men of good report in their community. [04:39] cass you said one will do [04:39] lol [04:39] Wick...on what grounds? there IS such a thing as IRRATIONAL skepticism, you know! [04:39] actually cass im not saying murder is good [04:39] only that man makes laws [04:39] not god [04:40] How are you an authority on the matter? You weren't there. But, many others were; men who did not believe in God or that Jesus was God; they made no such claim; how can you? [04:40] they were fools pia, to follow a man that claimed to be a god [04:40] and how can you pia [04:40] simply from a book? [04:41] that is foolishness [04:41] Wickett....are you saying then that you have no response for the ammended question? if not, I understand. It's not easy suffering from such an in defencable position! I understand. So, You are saying then that It indeed IS wrong for me to do such a thing eh? [04:42] cass, im not an anarchist, i feel law is right, but god makes no laws only man, and our government has the right to punish by our consent remember? [04:43] Wickett...do tell me WHY you think you or anyone else has a right to FORCE their moral judgments on me! If I want to slaughter people and rape women and children, so be it! [04:44] cool, go for it, no one has a right to force anything on you, but man's laws will punish you when you are caught [04:44] But its OTHER peoples truth! I didn't consent to it! Are you saying that a thing is wrong IF it obstructs the positive growth of a society? [04:44] and good if it is beneficial to a society? [04:44] Wickett: They would be fools to go to their deaths because of what they believed if they didn't believe what it was they claimed to have known. That's the irony. We know they were NOT fools but honorable men ... therefore, it is ILLOGICAL to conclude they were telling other than the truth. You have to remember, the gospel was preached throughout the then known world; the world was changed radically by these Jesus believers and mankind has not been ab [04:45] no cass i didnt say that [04:45] you did [04:45] wick...what are you saying then? Why is it wrong? according to whom? Why does society have the right to punish when some disagree? [04:46] pia are you sure they were put to death, once again, mere words, the burden of proof is still on you [04:47] How so; we have churchs built on the VERY spot where they were killed. [04:47] majority rule cass. if you dont like it go to china this is a free country after all, by the way by what right does your god condem me if some disagree, your god is more like stalin than clinton [04:48] how do you know that pia? simply because it is written?? [04:48] Ironicaly, you are willing to accept EVERYONE's testimony UNLESS they are Christians testifying of Jesus or his effect upon their lives. [04:49] I testify to you that Jesus is VERY real. He is more real than anything else I know. I am not lying. I am telling you the truth. [04:49] Wickett ...He made you. Did society make me? NO! You still didn't answer the question. What are your PHILOSOPHICAL reasons for thinking something is wrong and therefore punnishable? [04:49] no pia that is not true, dont make general statements, im trying to make a piont i fight for what i believe in [04:50] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal13-11.ppp.iadfw.net) joined #apologetics. [04:50] pia i believe you think you are telling the truth, but i swear to the opposite, does that make me wromg? [04:51] cass no philosophical reasons, only logical ones im an athiest remember? [04:51] Well, let's analyze where we've come. You have no evidence there is no God. You have no evidence which would allow you to dispute the testimony given by disciples of Jesus who clearly testified about him and told us what he tau ght. You say Jesus was a GOOD man BUT only a man even though he claimed he was MUCH more than a man and so did his followers. [04:51] and i dont think he made me cass [04:52] Wick....whats the final set of rules? do they change from one society to another? If so, Does one society have any right to pass judgment on the Ethic of another society? You said you weren't into chaos...tell me...Im really inte rested. [04:52] Yet, you claim you are the LOGICAL one. How so? [04:53] Wicket...what IS philosophy if not reasoning through the data we are surrounded with? [04:53] and pia you have no evidence there is god. you have no evidence which proves the testimony of the deciples, you say jesus was the son of a fairy tale and so did he and his followers [04:54] Wickett...Is it safe to assume you dont know the answers to these queries? Do you see yourself dodging the tougher questions as I see you doing? Are you willing to put you mind where your "words" are? [04:54] cass no rules, no to the question [04:55] Mode change '+o Achimoth ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [04:55] cass you defined logic not philosophy [04:55] Wicket...on the contrary...there ARE rules!!!! You and I and Pais and aunt liz all follow them every day and get fined or punished if we dont abide by them. [04:56] and im not dodging questions, i just cant type [04:56] Wickett...Philosophy="love of wisdom" Is wisdom logical or illogical???? COME ON!!!! [04:56] cass who's rules? God's? no! man's [04:57] Action: Achimoth had someone on earlier tonight debating from the position as logic as an absolute. [04:57] wisdom is not necesarily logical cass [04:57] Wicket...you seem to type just fine when you're hoppin down YOUR rabbit trail..... [04:57] lol [04:57] Wickett: I have evidence but nothing that can prove to you the EXISTENCE of God; did you ever wonder why God didn't give us this ABSOLUTE proof you require? Maybe it's because it's like he says in his Word: He accepts those wh o believe his testimony as he outlined it in his Word. Take it or leave it, you must either accept God and his testimony about his Son on FAITH or be willing to accept the consequences for failing to accept the FREE GIFT and PRO [04:57] eyes have a film which prevents us from seeing things exactly as they are. [04:57] i'll leave it pia [04:58] there is no god [04:58] only man [04:58] faith is a blind man on a busy street [04:58] Wickett...dude...what planet are you from? What is philosophy then? YOU define it...unless you're willing to call it "illogical" If so, fine...but there arte more appropriate places for people like that.....nice padded rooms.... [05:00] i agree with your deff cass, and stand corrected [05:00] i just looked it up [05:00] sorry [05:00] point being that logic by any other name is still logic and philosophy by abny other name is still philosophy and you choose to juggle semantics rather than give me ONE CLEAR answer as to why I ought to consider ANYTHIN wrong...w hy all things arent permissable in a world without God. [05:01] shut up with the quotes they are just words not THE word [05:01] and cass [05:01] Dostoyevski made the point over a CENTURY ago and noone seems to learn... [05:01] what [05:02] that dosnt prove your argument, I live by mans laws not god's!! [05:02] lol [05:02] stop it [05:02] this is a fairy tale [05:02] why? [05:02] wickett: prove it [05:03] are you saying im wrong [05:03] because [05:03] i dont accept your word as fact [05:03] ????? [05:03] Wickett: They are NOT just words; they are THE WORD and by them you and every other man will be judged. Incidentially, you claimed to have read the Bible. Wonderful. Then, you have surely read that those who refuse to believe when they were taught will surely have no excuse. No man will be able to accuse God on Judgment Day. That includes me and you. [05:03] lol [05:03] so you sy [05:03] i dont abide by this [05:03] so? that doesnt answer your basic challenge that the Bible is a fairy tale. [05:04] its still just a fairy tale [05:04] Wickett...you've missed the entire point. Im tryin to get a radar fix on you. Listen....YOU HAVE NO LOGICAL REASON to accept the ethics of any society or individual as binding, nor can you consistantly do so. [05:04] you made the challenge, now back it up [05:04] ok cass i'll answer that in a sec [05:04] please. [05:04] repeating the statement does not prove your assertion. Why is it a fairy tale? [05:04] the bible is fact you say? [05:05] all of it? [05:05] wickett? what I believe is irrelevant. You made a hypothesis: the Bible is a fairy tale. Now gives us the proff of this hypothesis. [05:05] i repeat, do you think the bible is truth?? [05:06] i will [05:06] Action: Cassidy notices that when wickett begins baiting...he soon fizzles out.... [05:06] where is the evidenge of the flood? [05:06] Wickett...when you make a statement it is incumbant on you to support it with the proper evidence. [05:07] how old does the biblle state the earth is? [05:07] lol [05:07] debatable within orthodoxy [05:07] ahhh.. he doesnt answer, he only asks more questions [05:07] does the bible not say there was a great flood [05:07] there is no [05:07] of course. [05:07] evidence in [05:07] the fossil record [05:08] of this flood [05:08] he has yet to offer a logical reasoning for making the Bible a fairy tale. Aside from his own preconceptions and limited comparisons [05:08] wickett: yes [05:08] there [05:08] is [05:08] i [05:08] can [05:08] talk [05:08] like [05:08] Wickett: I leave you in GOOD hands; God help you! :) Seriously, I have to get to bed but I will be praying that God will have mercy on your soul and allow you another chance to see the truth for it can and will set you free. M ay you someday come to know the height, depth and width of the love of Jesus Christ. The GOOD NEWS is that God himself took bore the penalty for our sins; his promise of eternal life is available to anyone who will believe his t [05:08] this [05:08] too [05:08] achim [05:08] stopthat [05:09] i am disabled [05:09] so try and keep your thoughts more together.. that type of stuff is annoying [05:09] cant type well [05:09] so.. we'll be patient while you put your thoughts to gether [05:09] and you seem to be impatient for answers [05:09] Wickett....that is a weak argument for a no flood theory. First, perhaps scientists dont know the affects a couple months would have on those records after all this time. plus, there is the posibility of a local flood. plus, ther e were legonds of floods in almost every culture from thje period. [05:10] Nite Achimoth and Cassidy! God bless you and yours. [05:10] nite [05:10] pia thanks for the good will, see you soon [05:10] Paisano (tony@slip25.dtx.net) left #apologetics. [05:10] nite, pai!! [05:10] cass [05:10] yeah? [05:11] cassidy: not to mention, a majority of fossils are found in what most palentologists classified as "prehistoric flood plains" [05:11] scientists are well aware of the effects of flooc I.E. [05:11] the flood plaind of the utah basin [05:11] exactly ach [05:11] but those fossils [05:12] are of prehistoric animels [05:12] that did not coexist with man] [05:12] how do you know the timeframe is correct? [05:12] carbon dating bro [05:12] have you ever been to Glen Rose Texas? [05:12] no [05:12] why do you ask? [05:13] radiometric dating is flawed.. it relies on the presumption that uniformity occured during the whole decay process [05:13] and uniformity is rare in nature [05:13] Wickett...I am admittably not a scientist. But I do have eyes and ears. If that was one of the more standard objections, I would have at least heard of it. However, I believe the debate about the flood is going on in different qu arters. Therefore, it is hard to take it seriously until the Scientific community deems it as one of the more outstanding arguments. [05:13] even if its off by a couple of hundred thousand years, man still would not have existed [05:14] we've only been here 300000 yrs [05:14] at Glen Rose Texas in a small creek bed, are the fossilized tracks of a dinosaur being paralleled in the same stratum by the tracks of what appears to be moccasined feet. [05:14] lol [05:14] read mysteries of the unexplainrd explained [05:15] ickett: man as homo sapiens sapiens has been around for hundreds of thousands a years and only in the past 10000 years man finally gets around to building things? [05:15] i knew that name was fimilar [05:15] that was a hoax!!!! [05:15] wickett: I've been there [05:15] kett...I'll tack it on to the back of the list. [05:15] read the book by robert powell [05:16] some hoax.. they dug up the ground a 100 yds into the creek bank and found the tracks continued.. some hoax [05:16] it explaind how the carvings were done [05:16] the perps admited the hoax dude [05:16] lol [05:16] wrong.. dude.. [05:16] lol [05:17] read the book [05:17] visit the place see for yourself [05:17] I'll get to it after I read the works on the subject by Rehwinkle and Patten [05:17] seen it in photos [05:17] a hoax is a hoax is a hoax [05:17] did they mention the tracks continuing on into the river bank strata? [05:18] i was their when they were digging out the bank... ive yet to see how some one can hoax the tracks without disturbing the strata above it [05:18] when someone admits to faking somthing and you persist in caling it fact, that is stupidity, are you stupid? [05:18] lol [05:19] Wickett!terri@ppp9.twave.net kicked by Achimoth!adarcaan@dal13-11.ppp.iadfw.net: ad hominem attacks [05:19] Wickett (terri@ppp9.twave.net) joined #apologetics. [05:19] oooof [05:19] lol [05:19] no personal attacks please. [05:19] get over it, i asked you a question [05:19] i offer my eyewitness testimony and you've yet to answer it [05:19] yes it was faked [05:19] read the book [05:19] bro [05:20] if it is faked, how did the tracks continue on into the buried strata? [05:20] read the book [05:20] bro [05:20] wickett: bbzzztt.. wrong answre.. BRO [05:20] i refuse to enlighten you on the grounds that it annoys you [05:20] lol [05:21] read the book [05:21] bro [05:21] unless you can give a logical explanation in regards to the tracks continuing on under undisturbed strata, your book explanation is specious [05:21] fine then [05:21] Mode change '+b *!*terri@*.twave.net ' by Achimoth!adarcaan@dal13-11.ppp.iadfw.net [05:22] so much for that.... [05:22] Wickett!terri@ppp9.twave.net kicked by Achimoth!adarcaan@dal13-11.ppp.iadfw.net: ad hominem attacks and refusal to reason [05:22] I guess that means bed time! [05:22] sorry, but resorting to personal attacks when presented with anothers statement, is immature to say the least. [05:22] Im off. Say Hi to Acolyte for me if he comes on...... [05:23] ok [05:23] I agree...altho I wasn;t the most cordial tonite.... [05:23] see ya! [05:23] bye [05:24] Cassidy (cassidy7@irv-ca7-21.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [05:26] Xristian (Micah@ppp113.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics. [05:26] hi [05:26] hi [05:27] quiet [05:27] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal13-11.ppp.iadfw.net) left irc: To sleep... perchance to dream.... (KP96) ------------------------------------------------------------- [11:21] Actar (oneeye@oonserv.oon.or.jp) joined #apologetics. [11:21] khi actar [11:21] Do you want Christian epistemology, or general epistemology? [11:21] Christian [11:22] bye [11:22] Action: Actar Hello everybody [11:22] hello [11:22] God Bless [11:22] :) [11:22] slick15 (zel20.fyi@zel19.fyi.net) left #Apologetics. [11:22] well here I am [11:22] NedFlndrs: check out books by Frame, Wolterstorff, Mavrodes, Plantiga for Xian epist... [11:22] yes you are :) [11:22] now who can defend there faith without sounding like a fool [11:22] Kool [11:22] Hi, Actar [11:22] Plantigas???...title [11:23] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [11:23] brb [11:23] Actar....??...what do you believe in? [11:23] okay hit me with it [11:23] brb [11:24] i believe in what i see [11:24] ok [11:24] what i feel [11:24] good [11:24] what i taste [11:24] what do you see? [11:24] ^aa^ (tm125@dialup18.geko.net.au) joined #Apologetics. [11:24] what is there [11:24] feel? [11:24] taste? [11:24] ok.....how do you know? [11:24] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [11:25] Topic changed by Acolyte!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com: The Home of Rational Theism [11:25] i see nature being destroyed by man [11:25] so? [11:25] Do you believe in God Actar? [11:25] I believe in nature [11:25] mother nature [11:26] really [11:26] so....do you believe in God?? [11:26] <^aa^> Rational Theism being the Theism that we believe in. [11:26] is nature all there is? [11:26] i see no reason to believe in a christian god [11:26] <^aa^> Baptist Theism is rational to baptists. [11:27] Actar....."who" is mother nature? [11:27] or what? [11:27] Actar?? [11:27] hhmmmmmmmmmm [11:27] there is no who to mother nature [11:27] mother nature is what you see [11:28] ok.....so you believe in the natural order??.. [11:28] back [11:29] there is no natural order, there is what you see, what you feel all else is just second hand information [11:29] re alcuin [11:29] Grrrrrrr (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [11:29] Actar?? [11:29] whats the proof against the Christian theistic God? [11:30] NedFlndrs: Alvin Plantiga and Nicholas Wolterstorff, eds., _Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (Notre Dame: UNDPress, 1983). [11:30] sorry...keep gettin bumped [11:30] alcuin laready read it [11:30] there is no need of proof against god [11:30] alcuin I did, oh sorry [11:30] Loved it! [11:30] Acolyte: Super. Ned asked for the reference. [11:30] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) left irc: Read error to NedFlndrs[ppp6.snni.com]: Connection reset by peer [11:30] as there is no proof for god [11:30] Grrrr: Have you read it already? [11:31] proof denies faith [11:31] Alcuin he has read Kelly James Clark, Return To Reason [11:31] Alcuin Platinga made easy :) [11:31] Actar...you said you dont believe......I am asking what is this major proof/reason for not believing in the Christian God? [11:31] Loved it [11:31] :) [11:31] proof denies faith...WHAT???????????? [11:31] proof denies faith...WHAT???????????? [11:31] I have seen no reason to believe in the christian god [11:32] define Faith? [11:32] as soon as you ask for proof you have admitted you have no faith [11:32] acter that is not a christian defintion of faith [11:32] Actar....well...if its fact......then you are denying fact [11:32] and the ressurection is a fact :) [11:32] faith = unquestioning belief [11:32] actar, christian deifntion, Faith=Trust in a person based on knowledge [11:33] Grrrrrrr: You should definitely get John Frame, _The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987) [11:33] acter that is fideism, not faith [11:33] Actar..straw man argument [11:33] perhaps you do not know the difference [11:33] aclcuin he will. [11:33] thats not the Christan belief [11:33] alcuin I am his book mentor :) [11:33] lol [11:33] you cannot change the language to suit your need [11:33] Nick change: Grrrrrrr -> NedDude [11:33] acter why apply a belief to us that we reject [11:34] Acolyte: I don't want to displace you as NedDude's book mentor...:) [11:34] to say that the christian definition is insane [11:34] Actar...sorry...that is the New Testament greek....I have changed nothing..its your pressuposition NOT mine :) [11:34] Acter go read Thomas Quinas in the 12th century an justin martyr in 180 AD, they use it to, non-christians changed the deifntion of it, not us. we have always had the defintions [11:34] alcuin I am closer, its kind hard to from your distance :) [11:35] Quinas=Aquinas [11:35] the word is Pisteuo/pistas.........means more than blind belief [11:35] I know the definition I was told to by a man and you know a definition that you were told by another man, who is right [11:35] Actar: I recommend _The Random House Collegiate Dictionary_ (NY: Random, 1982), p. 475... [11:35] faith: [1] confidence or trust in a person or thing; [11:35] Actar...sorry..then they are all wrong [11:35] acter well why not see if our definition makes sense? [11:36] Alcuin please post [11:36] Actar.....If 10000000 men told you something would that make it truth??.....NO..fact makes it true [11:36] please ignore the lag [11:36] Acolyte: eh? [11:36] the word is Pisteuo/pistas.........means more than blind belief..ie....belief, trust, faith [11:36] actar, how do you know that therea re 9 planets in our solar system? because a scientist told you. you believe him, but it is not BLIND belief tho [11:37] So...... [11:38] actar??.......can we move on??...you can check that out later [11:38] Or is that the major issue for you? [11:38] Action: Alcuin observes that for language X and Universe Y filled with referents Z1, Z2, ..., Zn , any signifier A (such as the word "faith") can signify any number of Z's. Determining which Z is the referent of A is accomplished by determining the usage of Z in a given context. So *WHO CARES* which words get used, as long as they're used consistently?! [11:39] nothing that any man tells me is automatically believed [11:39] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) left irc: Read error to NedDude[ppp6.snni.com]: Connection reset by peer [11:39] Grrrrrrr (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [11:39] this is gettin old [11:40] Nick change: Grrrrrrr -> NedDude [11:40] actar I know but you believe the scientist when he tells you somethng tho. [11:40] ned stop changin the nicks [11:40] you speak of facts, what facts do you have to support god [11:40] Aco..I got bumped [11:40] Ned Resurrection please [11:41] Actar.....well.we have the manuscript evidence.....archeology, epistimology, and the historical evidence [11:41] :) [11:41] Ned evidence for what tho? THE RESURRECTION [11:41] The whole issue boils down to the Resurrection Of Jesus [11:42] you mean you have things written down by other [11:42] The Christ [11:42] err others [11:42] Actar: In any given instance where someone tells you Q, how do you determine whether or not to believe Q ? [11:42] Ned thank ye [11:43] i do not believe Q, I wait until I see Q or Feel Q myself all else is circumstantial [11:43] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) left irc: Read error to NedDude[ppp6.snni.com]: Connection reset by peer [11:43] Actar: Do you believe in George Washington? [11:44] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [11:44] <^aa^> c ya [11:44] I have never met George washington [11:44] I believe in kevin [11:44] ^aa^ (tm125@dialup18.geko.net.au) left #Apologetics. [11:44] Acter do you believe in Ceasar? [11:44] him I have met [11:44] Actar, do you believe in the existence of anyone that you haven't personally met? [11:44] acter so you don't beliueve there was a Roman Emperor? [11:45] I don't know any emporors [11:45] err emperors [11:45] Actar....that wasnt the question [11:45] Actar, do you believe in the existence of anyone that you haven't personally met? acter so you don't beliueve there was a Roman Emperor? [11:45] Actar, what is your basis for believing that your senses can be trusted? [11:46] if I cannot believe my sense then there is nothing to believe and no reason to live [11:47] Actar: Modus Ponens: You in fact *can't* trust your senses apart from God; Therefore, there is nothing to believe and no reason to live apart from God. We're closer on this than I thought. [11:47] actar how do you know your senses are realiable? [11:48] I don't know that my senses are reliable but I have to start somewhere [11:48] Actar: But that's just it. Your senses are the least likely candidate for a place to start. [11:48] Actar......you cant feel reason...logic...why do you trust those? [11:48] I can feel logic [11:49] you can?? [11:49] how so [11:49] For example, when you see a car from one angle, it looks like a vaguely rectangular blob, but seen from one corner, it appears like a horizontal lozenge. How do you know it isn't changing shape as you walk around it? [11:49] actar ever hear of optical illusions? [11:49] I can see a picture puzzle and know that logically there is a way to put the pieces together [11:49] (NOTE THE PUN) [11:49] "" I can feel logic "" -- Is it soft and squishy, or cold and abrasive? [11:49] alcuin ahahahhahaah [11:50] Actar...how does the law of NON contradiction feel like??.....warm? [11:50] How so Actar? [11:50] Action: NedDude (((((((((( Alcuin )))))))))) [11:50] Actar: Kidding aside. Maybe you meant that your mind tells you intuitively that logic is reliable... Is that it? [11:50] when I say feel I don't exactly mean touch lets not get ignorant [11:50] Ok..define feel? [11:51] Ok..define feel? [11:51] ether_ore (emerkel@205.228.193.94) joined #apologetics. [11:51] Actar: Kidding aside. Maybe you meant that your mind tells you intuitively that logic is reliable... Is that it? [11:51] please do not quote what you read from a book that some other man wrote [11:51] Oh, good. I've been looking for some vaporized iron.... [11:51] Actar: May I quote you on that? [11:52] sure [11:52] actar so only bks you personally write are correct? did you write your own historybook? Algebra book? [11:52] actar It hink not [11:52] WHAT!!!? [11:52] actar did you write your own mathmatics book? [11:52] I did not [11:52] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:53] some truths are undeniable just by looking at what you see [11:53] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) left irc: Read error to NedDude[ppp6.snni.com]: Connection reset by peer [11:53] actar that is nto jwhat I asked [11:53] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:53] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:53] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:53] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:53] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:53] YES OR NO please [11:54] I also read The Hobbit by JRR tolkien, that does not mean that Hobbits exist [11:54] AGAIN-that is not what I asked [11:54] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:54] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:54] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:54] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:54] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:54] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:54] actar was your mathmatics book reliable? [11:54] YES OR NO please [11:54] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [11:54] yes or no [11:54] yes or no [11:54] yes or no [11:54] my mathematics book was reliable as far as I tested it myself [11:54] This is pathetic! [11:55] actar so how do you know that your testing it is reliable? [11:55] you will have to find something that I cannot test with my own eyes [11:55] actar ok, what did you think abut yesterday afternoon? [11:56] actar how do youtest for that? [11:56] I have to believe what I see or I deny my own existence [11:56] actar ever read Descartes? [11:56] Hume? [11:56] Locke? [11:56] Actar...so I say the same for the Bible ....stalemate [11:56] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) left irc: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah !!!!!! [11:56] Berekely [11:56] ? [11:56] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [11:56] it is easy to deny your existence but to deny my own is another matter [11:57] Actar has been reading Descartes [11:57] alcuin not even [11:57] However, Descartes is mistaken.... [11:57] once again acolyte you are falling back on books written by other men which express there opinions [11:58] actar , so? [11:58] whats wrong with that? [11:58] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) left irc: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah !!!!!! [11:58] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [11:59] Sorry all...Bad server day [11:59] Actar: You can doubt everything you see and still affirm your own existence. For example, imagine that you're wearing Virtual Reality goggles. Imagine that you're in a funhouse. Picture yourself in the gallery of the House of Representatives. In none of those contexts will you believe what you see. Will you stop existing as a consequence? [11:59] If you believe what one book tells you without proof then you must believe all books that have no proof [11:59] actar non sequitor [11:59] Actar.... [11:59] actar how do you know what proof is? [11:59] never mind.thanks acolyte [11:59] Actar: Therefore, you must believe only books with proof, or you must believe no books at all. [11:59] soory for the laf [11:59] actar how do you know anything at all? [11:59] err lag [12:00] I know what I see and feel myself [12:00] all else is hear say [12:00] Alcuin is he there to experience this "proof"? No [12:00] You *think* that you know what you see and feel. [12:00] actar: how has man advanced other than writing what he has observed to pass on to the next generation. by your example we would have gotten nowhere because each generation would have to repeat the same experiences to learn wha t the previous generation already found out. [12:00] actar how do you know that your sensus are reliable? [12:01] ether_ore thanks for those gems of wisdom [12:01] Actar..so laws are hearsay till you are arrested??..thats not even a view that is consistant with reality [12:01] neddue what reality? [12:01] you cannot deny that having an arrow shot at you is worse than having a spear thrown at you [12:01] lol [12:01] neddude reality is what he says it is [12:01] acolyte: sorry, if it's too elementary or not valid please say so. [12:02] ether_ore: Yep. We depend in some measure on "experts" in society.... [12:02] laws are far from reality [12:02] actar sure I can, watch me. I deny that having an arrow shot at me is worse than having a speak thrown at me. there, just did it [12:02] Action: Alcuin denies that having an arrow shot at you is worse than having a spear thrown at you... [12:02] actar: how far from reality is the law of gravity? [12:02] and yes I ignore most laws until I am arrested for them [12:03] This is a waste of time [12:03] the law of gravity is to easy to prove [12:03] The spear is less likely to hit, but more likely to cause severe damage. [12:03] acter how do you know you are not a brain in a vat? [12:03] how do any of us know that [12:03] ether_ore: I think that Acolyte *really* meant to thank you. He just *sounds* sarcastic....:) [12:04] NedDude (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) left irc: Read error to NedDude[ppp6.snni.com]: Connection reset by peer [12:04] Grrrrrrr (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [12:04] we either accept what we see as truth and go with it or we jump off a bridge [12:04] alcuin yupper [12:04] Nick change: Grrrrrrr -> Ned [12:04] Dana its your provider, not your server [12:04] ""yes I ignore most laws until I am arrested for them""---so it's ok to rape and steal, as long as you don't get caught? [12:04] Alcuin Hitler would have loved that one [12:04] actar: after you! [12:04] Alcuin does wonders for the Catagorical imperative [12:04] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: We *feel* your logic...! [12:05] ahaahhahaha [12:05] what I consider common descency and law often coincide [12:05] Acolyte: I kant imagine how such an ethic is practicable! [12:05] when they differ I usually end up in trouble [12:05] alcuin I wouldnot prehume to even be skeptical of that proposition, let alone myself. [12:05] as long as I hurt no one else where is the problem [12:05] preshume even [12:06] Actar: Why *not* hurt someone else, in your opinion... [12:06] what would be the gain [12:06] Acolyte: So you're all berkeley and no bite? [12:07] Actar: Pleasure might be the gain. [12:07] i feel no pleasure in hurting others [12:07] Actar: In your worldview, can't your pleasure outweigh the right of another person to remain intact? [12:07] alcuin no I like to peirce the issues. [12:07] Actar: How do you know that you feel no pleasure in hurting others? You claim to only know what you can sense with the 5 senses. [12:08] Ether_ore what church do you attend? [12:08] Ned (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Ned[ppp6.snni.com] [12:08] Have you *tried* every hurting of others, to find out whether or not it gives you pleasure? [12:08] Alcuin do you know the Philooppher's song? [12:08] Philosopher even [12:08] Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant; he was very rarely stable. [12:08] acolyte: a christian one, i don't like "denominations". [12:09] Action: Alcuin high-fives ether-ore for not being a denominational idolator [12:09] Ether, which one is a "Christian" one? [12:09] i claim to only know what I see and feel [12:09] Ned (dananova@ppp6.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [12:09] feel is pretty losely defined [12:09] Actar!oneeye@oonserv.oon.or.jp kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: feel this [12:09] Actar (oneeye@oonserv.oon.or.jp) joined #Apologetics. [12:10] feel that? [12:10] LOL [12:10] Actar: Then you don't *know* whether killing old men will give you pleasure or not unless you've done it, right? [12:10] OOHHHHHHHHHHHHHH [12:10] lol [12:10] Can I kill one [12:10] Ether r u Trinitarian? [12:10] Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee [12:10] i know myself enough to know what I enjoy [12:10] acolyte: one that believes the bible is the inspired word of god, the apostles creed or whatever...not much on labels. Jesus died for our sins and without his sacrifice on the cross we would be lost...one like that. [12:10] I wont be here long.....so I wont say anything to technical [12:10] GGGRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr [12:11] if you don't know yourself that well then everything esle is crap [12:11] acolyte: what is that? [12:11] Ether r u Trinitarian? [12:11] Actar: So then, you know what you will enjoy in advance of any particular sense experience? Then you *can* have knowledge apart from what you "see and feel" after all! [12:11] Ether_ore do you believe in the Trinity? [12:11] no [12:11] Mode change '+o Ned ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [12:11] acolyte: i believe that god is the father, son and holy spirit, one god three persons. [12:11] i see a fire and know that I will not enjoy being in it [12:12] ether_ore: confess jesus with mouth and believe in heart that God raised him, right? [12:12] acolyte: yes [12:12] Nick change: Ned -> IdiotPoli [12:12] ether-ore good'nuff [12:12] Actar: HOW do you know that you will not enjoy being in the fire just by seeing it? [12:12] Nick change: IdiotPoli -> DumPolice [12:12] Alcuin "Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." [12:12] OK..YOU [12:12] alcuin: yes...i believe the bible, from in the beginning god to the last word of revelation. [12:12] i also feel the fire [12:12] Acolyte: amen [12:12] and the fire is hot [12:13] hence I would not enjoy [12:13] Ethere-ore just checking :) [12:13] safety that way...many wolfs in sheeps clothing. :) [12:13] Actar.....you have YET to show the in validity of the Bible...Nor prove a sond reason for your worldview...C MON [12:13] ether_ore: If you haven't read it, I recommend John Frame, _Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the Body of Christ_, (Baker, 1991) [12:13] Actar!oneeye@oonserv.oon.or.jp kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: I enjoy Kicking Actar for lame comments. [12:13] Alcuin blah [12:13] Actar (oneeye@oonserv.oon.or.jp) joined #Apologetics. [12:14] anyway at which point should I believe the bible since it is written by another man [12:14] Actar.....you have YET to show the in validity of the Bible...Nor prove a sond reason for your worldview...C MON [12:14] Actar: So you feel the fire? Then your knowledge that you will not get pleasure from the fire is based on your experience of the fire? [12:14] Actar..thats a straw man...for thw third time [12:14] Alcuin, Felix Cirlot, Apostolic Succesion:Is It True?" [12:14] alcuin: have you read "the body" by colson? [12:14] Actar!oneeye@oonserv.oon.or.jp kicked by W!cservice@undernet.org: From DumPolice [12:14] Actar (oneeye@oonserv.oon.or.jp) joined #apologetics. [12:15] C mon [12:15] I have enough of these stupid bots I am out of here [12:15] Actar (oneeye@oonserv.oon.or.jp) left #apologetics. [12:15] see ya [12:15] BRB. [12:15] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line20.cis.yale.edu) left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical! [12:15] hahahahahahha [12:15] I love that signoff -------------------------------------------------------------- [16:05] KristiC (cuffy@newrichmond-14.dialup.frontiercomm.net) joined #Apologetics. [16:06] elysium have you spoke to Alcuin? [16:06] besides, it gets tired trouncing acolyte all the time. [16:06] hi KristiC [16:06] no, I haven't spoken to alcuin [16:06] hi Bawn, what gives? [16:06] Elysium u wish [16:06] what gives? generous people I suppose [16:07] Though, I did read a rather interesting refutation of the ontological argument as presented by somebody or other. [16:07] It's slang, it means "What is the story". [16:07] Attacked the notion of 'greatest conceivable being' with set theory. [16:07] Elysium.. if I am allowed to answer, I believe in theism because I am capable of looking around and seeing creation. I dont see any other way for it to come into existence. THat is only one of many reasons for my belief. [16:07] ah thanks. [16:08] bawn: ahh, ok. [16:08] by whom? [16:09] OK, the question is "WHY" not "HOW". [16:09] what question KristiC? [16:09] bawn: How does creation lead you to believe in the existence of god? [16:09] Elysium by defnition [16:09] some philosophy type, ph.d's are a dime a dozen these days. [16:09] Creation must have a creator [16:09] Elysium saw plantinga a few weeks ago btw [16:09] bawn: What leads you to believe that creation must have a creator? [16:09] acolyte: how'd it go? [16:09] hehe the word creation [16:10] elysium great [16:10] new argument against naturalism [16:10] One looks around, one sees creation, one says "How?" that question is answered by science. [16:10] KristiC is it? [16:10] bawn: so it's a tautological sort of thing? [16:10] ya [16:10] I am a science major. And I disagree. [16:10] what do you mean you're a science major, which science? [16:11] but the question "WHY" is not answered by science. [16:11] did you knwo that it takes an action potential everytime your heart beats? Science cannot figure out WHAT SETS the action potential into motion [16:11] I have asked every anatomy and biology professor and PhD on campus.. no one knows. [16:11] I agree that there are many things that are not yet explained by science. But that isn't really an argument for a theistic hypothesis. [16:11] hehe. [16:12] a heart is a mechanism, it operates within the laws of physics. [16:12] Kristi does it ? [16:12] We had no idea why some moons appeared later after an eclipse until we realized that moons revolve around other planetary bodies as well. [16:12] ya [16:12] how does it operate Kristi? [16:12] so, what's this new argument against naturalism? Or should I say, what's this re-hashed argument against naturalism? [16:13] Elysium Prob of R(n/e) [16:13] Elysium by definition if there is creation there is a creator [16:13] It can be demonstated quite throughly, not by me. [16:13] if you dont believe in a creator you must rename creation [16:13] bawn: I dont call it creation, I just call it existence. But that's a pretty shabby argument in support of theism if I do say so. [16:14] Acolyte: and what's his tack? [16:14] KrisitC I can demonstrate it quite thoroughly and have done so on cadavers, however there are many unknowns about the operation of not only the heart but many other organs within the human body alone. [16:14] Elysium Prob of R(n/e) [16:14] acolyte: I have no idea what R(n/e) is referring to. [16:14] R=reason [16:14] E=Evolution [16:14] what the matter Elysium you cant read acolyte's mind either? [16:15] N=naturalism [16:15] Faith is the great motavator for theists. [16:15] Acolyte: How is this an argument against naturalism? [16:15] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial50.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics. [16:15] elysium look on apolobots web site, its there I believe [16:15] hey profg [16:15] hiya :-) [16:15] what's the url? [16:15] hi profgoth [16:16] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [16:16] elsyium look on apolobot [16:16] ok. [16:16] 'sup? [16:16] brb [16:16] Action: ProfG is about to go do his taxes [16:17] KristiC (cuffy@newrichmond-14.dialup.frontiercomm.net) left #Apologetics. [16:17] Action: ProfG don't mind rendering unto Ceasar his due, but he thinks that Ceasar ain't DUE all this! [16:17] :( [16:17] acolyte, where is the document you are referring to. [16:17] what doc, Ely? [16:18] acolyte claims that platinga has a 'new' argument against naturalism. [16:18] oh wait, I still have to give that to prof [16:18] elysium check in a few days [16:18] profg that will be to you on Sunday [16:18] willigers, Acolyte :-) [16:18] brb [16:19] sure, Acolyte... have you even sent in your bio yet? [16:19] next time I bump into you, i'll ask if it's on there yet. [16:19] Sozo (Shack@dialin74.connect.ab.ca) joined #apologetics. [16:20] YermeYah (Kingdom@yermeyah.microserve.com) joined #Apologetics. [16:20] hey Acolyte, do you have access to a text version of either the Bahnsen-Stein debate or the Bahnsen-Whatshisname debate? [16:21] no [16:21] you mean Tabash [16:21] I have themonly on tape [16:21] Psal 9:10 And they that know thy name will confide in thee; for thou, Yahweh, hast not forsaken them that seek thee. [16:21] yeah, whatshisname [16:21] :-) [16:21] Action: ProfG has audio and video, but wants text for the site [16:21] ask SCCCS [16:21] hmmmmmm [16:21] you'd think it would be on their site if it was available [16:22] Action: ProfG thinks he's going to have to get an MCU student to transcribe those for credit ;-> [16:22] :) [16:22] sozo? [16:22] I dinna see you come in [16:23] Action: ProfG has to go take a shower... his taxes may stink, but he really shouldn't... [16:23] and evidently your not here [16:23] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [16:23] I'm really suprised by how many people are taken in by the cosmological argument. [16:23] well, to be fair, the argument from design seems more popular [16:23] Elysium did I not say that was one of MANY reasons? [16:23] which is why I don't employ either [16:23] YermeYah (Kingdom@yermeyah.microserve.com) left #Apologetics. [16:24] Acolyte, I've got a document that might interest you. It's an alternative explanation to the purported resurrection. [16:24] Action: Acolyte is away [16:24] Action: ProfG much prefers the transcendental argument... heheheh [16:24] Action: ProfG has to go, bbl [16:24] elysium seen weekend at bernies? [16:24] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial50.fiu.edu) left irc: Leaving [16:24] bawn: No. [16:24] ooh [16:24] :) [16:24] bawn: So, if you know the argument from design is fallacious, why do you employ it? [16:25] well they have this dead dude they are toting around the whole time and pretending he is alive and stuff. [16:25] Fallcious? [16:25] Action: Bawn kinda thought that maybe was what they did with Jesus :) hehehe [16:26] paton nrn [16:26] Elysium how do you think that the teleological argument is fallacious? [16:26] bawn: Yes. There isnt any universal test for design, but even if there were, design does not imply a designer. Even if it did, it would only indicate that god required a supergod. [16:26] The same objections made to martin's ATA's apply to the theistic version. [16:27] ATA's? [16:27] Atheistic Teleological Arguments. [16:27] atheological [16:27] oh [16:27] see Scott shalowalski's essay in "Contemporary Perspectivesin Religious Epsitemology" [16:28] Since the teleological argument as traditionally espoused does not support it's conclusion, martin sees it as possibly supporting the opposite contention. That the lack of order implies no designer. [16:28] enetittled "Atheological Apologetics" [16:28] :) by definition God could not have a supergod. He isnt created nor designed. Unlike Creation which is designed... [16:28] lack of order doesnt = no designer :) [16:28] Action: Bawn looks at her room its pretty messy.. but I put all the stuff there. [16:29] bawn, what is it about the universe that strikes you as necessarily implying the existence of a deity? [16:29] Elysium hey? your the one that went there. [16:29] bawn: Ok, is there something about the universe that strikes you as necessarily implying the existence of a deity? [16:30] Elysium however the universe, to the tiniest ant fit together in such intricate and complicated ways that I can not accept it is by chance... not even a million years of chances. [16:30] what do you mean "to the tiniest (sp?) and fit together in such intricate and complicated ways"? [16:30] You knwo about the web of life eh? [16:31] you kill off a species of ants - you end up killing off a whole jungle. [16:31] they fit together [16:31] you kill off a jungle... you arent getting as much O2 in the air [16:31] bawn: how does this imply the existence of a deity? [16:31] it implies the existence of design [16:32] bawn: What do you mean when you say design? [16:32] which in turn implies the existence of designer [16:32] when I say design I mean purpose intent. This ant is living off this tree because someone designed (created) it to do jsut that [16:32] bawn: So wait a minute, how do you establish the intent? [16:33] I am saying that God put the ants there. [16:33] as you know That is what I am saying. [16:33] brb patron [16:34] bawn: heh, that's a pretty funny argument. If design = purpose and intent, then we're really at a loss; how exactly does one verify the "intent" of a given event? [16:35] what's to stop someone from saying that the birth of anencephalic babies for instance, clearly indicates that Satan created the universe? [16:37] you can say whatever you wish, that however does not make it the truth. [16:37] I agree, how is it you propose that someone determines the "intent" of a given situation? [16:37] and how do you propose to verify it? [16:37] the intent? [16:37] You said that design = intent/purpose. I'm asking how you know that there is intent/purpose in nature? [16:37] mayhaps God didnt want the ants to live on that tree? [16:38] how do I know it? I dont know it. [16:38] I believe it. [16:38] bawn: How do you establish the intent/purpose of a given event in nature? [16:39] And how does the presence of this intent/purpose imply the existence of god, without invoking what it's trying to imply? [16:40] Elysium if nature is designless and purposeless why trust your mind to come to any conslusion? [16:40] acolyte: Who's arguing that nature is designless and purposeless? [16:40] Elysium - can you think of where in nature things DONT fit together? ( prior to disruption by man) [16:40] Elysium why trust a monkey's brain? [16:40] Elysium are you? [16:40] It seems we've got a good bit of question begging going on. [16:41] yes you seem rather good at doing tht Elysium [16:41] bawn: Can you propose a test for "fitting together"? [16:41] if things are working for Several millenia as you claim.. then it seems to fit eh? [16:41] bawn: I dont' understand what you mean by "things are working for several millenia"? [16:42] Elysium how so? [16:42] Elysium are you? [16:42] bawn: And why would design imply a designer? (even if we assume that the idea 'design' is well defined). [16:43] hehe. the web of life.. the action potential that makes your heart beat, these things are working. These things are proliferating life. They fit together in such an intricate way ( as I described but you obviously did not understa nd) that it is [16:43] Acolyte: I'm addressing the argument from design. [16:43] Elysium I know [16:43] unimaginable if not impossible for to not have been done so on purpose.. [16:43] elysium are you tho saying itis designless and pruposeless? thatis has no intent? [16:43] Walter (zindel@ppp51.swcp.com) joined #Apologetics. [16:43] Acolyte: i thought that's what we were trying to figure out. [16:43] anyways [16:43] I am at work [16:43] Elysium what do you think? [16:43] soo I will catcha laterooski :P [16:43] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [16:44] Action: Elysium chuckles. [16:44] well...hello [16:44] Acolyte: I dont know. [16:44] but design isn't even well-defined enough to imply a designer. [16:45] Walter (zindel@ppp51.swcp.com) left irc: Leaving [16:46] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca10-10.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [16:46] Elysium what do you think? [16:46] Elysium what is reasonable? [16:46] hullo karen [16:46] hi [16:46] Acolyte: I don't see any reason to believe that the universe is well-ordered or designed. [16:47] Yikes! Elysium you must be kidding. [16:47] Elysium so the universe has no intent behnd it? [16:47] Acolyte: When did I say that? [16:47] yes or no? [16:47] I quit believing in chance when I took my first college physiology class. [16:48] Acolyte: I already responded to your position. I dont know if the universe is intentless. [16:48] Hello karen, where are you from? [16:49] Southern California Sozo [16:49] ...sounds nice 'n warm [16:49] It is. Lovely weather today [16:49] :-) [16:49] Elysium if the universe is not designed, could there be an intent behind it? [16:49] Elysium is intention linked with personality? [16:49] Acolyte: nope. [16:49] nope to what? [16:49] Acolyte: Though traditionally intention is linked to personality. [16:50] Karen, I know what you mean about physology....patterns....the whole universe is patterns eh? [16:50] Acolyte: there are many computer scientists however that argue that intentionality might be possible via AI. [16:50] elyium please explain to me how intention can be non-personal? [16:50] AI, yeah right [16:50] Acolyte: It's a good deal more complicated than I could explain in this forum, and I dont have a handle on all of it anyway. Read some of turing's work. [16:50] Sozo - the very earliest thing we learned was the Krebbs Cycle. Let one little element fall out of place and bingo! No energy. [16:51] Acolyte: in any case, I didn't say that universe didn't exhibit design, just that I see no reason to believe that it does. [16:51] ...never heard of it :-\ Sounds interesting though... [16:51] Elysium is the universe intelligable? [16:52] Krebbs Cycle is the conversion of glucose to body energy. Very complicated. And very dependent on multiple other processes. [16:52] is that like....the laws of thermodynamics? [16:52] Acolyte: I'm not sure what you mean by intelligible. [16:52] could you clarify what you mean by intelligible? [16:52] understandable [16:53] I don't know if all of the universe is intelligible, I haven't examined all of the universe. [16:53] are you intelligable? [16:53] I don't know much about physics so I couldn't say. But the Krebbs cycle shows how energy derives from glucose - it takes about 15 steps involving other substances which must be present - and THEY are the result of other processe s. [16:53] Acolyte: what does this have to do with the existence of god? [16:53] answer [16:54] the [16:54] question [16:54] Acolyte: I'm not sure how to answer. What aspect of me are you inquiring about? [16:54] are you intelligable? [16:54] are you intelligable? [16:54] Acolyte: First things first, calm down. Theists such as yourself are notorious for definition switching. So I'll need your help in defining your terms. [16:55] Acolyte: When you refer to me, what aspect of me are you referring to? Are my habits intelligble? Are the chemicals that make up my body intelligible? [16:55] Elysium!clayton@RED.SEAS.UPENN.EDU kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: calm down somewhere else [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_16_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