[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/19/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/19/96 [18:49] Act
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/19/96
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/19/96
[18:49] Action: Fatjac says Howdy to ApoloBot
[18:50] Apol: By the way it was not the council
of Arles, it was the synod of Arles.
[18:50] You drove me nuts trying to find the
[18:50] ApoloBot is just that, a Bot :-)
[18:51] Alcuin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[18:51] Youmean I'm talking to an android!!!
[18:51] Alcuin :-)
[18:51] Hi, people
[18:52] Hi apolobot
[18:52] man, ApoloBot is lagging tonight...
[18:52] ""Banish fatjac Falstaff, and Banish all
[18:52] Enough of this Hi stuff. What shall
[18:52] Hi Fatjac
[18:53] what is your paradigm, Fatjac?
[18:53] Action: Fatjac says I hate it when you're right!
[18:53] May the fleas of 1,000 camels would
infest your armpits.:$:Alcuin
[18:53] "Start talking...it's your paradigm...."
[18:53] I always hit the wrong slap.
[18:53] Topic changed by ApoloBotemail@example.com:
"Start talking...it's your paradigm...."
[18:53] What is a paradigm?
[18:54] You mean where am I coming from?
[18:54] paradigm: set of interconnected beliefs
[18:54] yo, baby
[18:54] This sounds more philosophical than
[18:54] oh? what is the difference, Fat?
[18:55] Philosophy cannot draw from scripture.
[18:55] Action: Alcuin considers that theology and
philosophy address the same issues with differing vocabulary
[18:55] secularists like to use different words
to describe what we have been talking about for centuries
[18:55] it can't?
[18:55] all this time, we've been doing just
[18:55] boy, I'm glad you fixed us, Fat!
[18:56] Ok, that's a starting place....
[18:56] Alcuin:Would you agree to my refinement?
[18:56] Action: ProfG got a little sarcastic
[18:56] ether_ore (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined
[18:56] I've got the hide of an elephant.
[18:56] Fatjac: I suggest to you that apart
from drawing from scripture [either explicitly or implicitly],
philosophy isn't possible at all.
[18:57] ether :-)
[18:57] Fatjac: You can try the basement, but
he won't have much room to move....
[18:57] aloha, ether
[18:57] hi y'all
[18:57] hola profg, alcuin, et al
[18:57] philosophy - theistic presuppositions
[18:58] Alcuin:I was taught that philosophy
was the study of all things through their ultimate
causes by the antural light of reason.
[18:58] the "natural light of reason"?
[18:58] Fatjac: I was taught that Santa Claus
comes down the chimney every year.... Boy the previous
generation really let the two of us down, huh...;)
[18:58] Yes, without the bible.
[18:58] thanks profg, i was about to ask
for the definition of antural!
[18:59] Alcuin:Come on we're just defining terms
here aren't we?
[18:59] Fatjac: The notion that philosophy can
*only* proceed according to "natural reason" is but one
thread in the history of philosophy, and not a very
promising thread at that, though marvelously in
[18:59] uh oh, you'd better get serious with
this one, Alcuin ;->
[19:00] Alcuin:What would you add?
[19:00] Action: Alcuin turns off,
strikes a serious and credible pose, lights a pipe,
tho he doesn't smoke.
[19:00] a question so i can get the lay of
the land. fatjac, do you believe in god?
[19:01] Who else could be responcible for this
[19:01] Fatjac: I would define philosophy as
rational inquiry into truth and the possibility of
truth. That definition narrows the scope of the question,
without prejudicing participants on key terms (like
[19:02] fatjac: many suppose that no one
[19:02] Alcuin:I could live with that but what's
so bad about the term rational?
[19:02] ether:Are you one of those?
[19:03] BibleMan (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:03] hiya BMan
[19:03] Action: Alcuin holds rationality in high esteem.
It's just that there are competing definitions of "rational"....
[19:03] HOLY LAG, BATMAN.
[19:03] hey...I'm going to go get on to another
[19:03] BibleMan (firstname.lastname@example.org) left irc:
[19:04] Alcuin:OK, What's your definiion?
[19:04] not at all, i was just getting a
lay of the land like i said.
[19:04] Nephi4 (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:04] Greetings, Alcuin. I have returned.
[19:04] rehi...So how is everyone?
[19:04] Hey, Milhous!
[19:04] hi Nephi
[19:06] Fatjac: I think that if God knows everything,
then person P is "rational" if P knows some of what God
knows, and if P reasons in the way God prescribes.
[19:06] Alcuin: Question. What 'denomination'
[19:07] alcuin: is one who believes in evolution
[19:07] or 'what' denomination are you?
[19:07] Milhous: In principle, I dislike denominations.
I believe the Christian church should be united, and
for this reason I see denominations as a token of Big
[19:07] or what denomination 'are' you?
[19:07] VitamnTom (VitaminTo@dial-9.r2.gaagst.InfoAve.Net)
[19:07] or what denomination are 'you'?
[19:07] I'm amused by the atheists who look
around the universe and see the beauty and order.
They look at earth and see the seasons follow one after
another. They see the tremndous fecundity of the earth.
They see the complextities of
the human body, the eye the brain etc. Then they say
all of this arose from some priordial slime. But they
make no effort to explain where this magical slime
came from. Christ was right when he said of them "They
[19:07] hi tom
[19:08] yeah, They swal
[19:08] Yo, ProfG
[19:09] Rationalists are among the biggest
movers of this earth.
[19:09] ether: rationality is a quality of the
act of believing, apart from whether some beliefs are
mistaken. A rational person can be wrong about some
things. So, we can't infer the irrationality of person
P on the basis that we disag
ree with some of P's beliefs.
[19:09] Milhous: Will you be here for a while?
I'm told that my supper is ready....
[19:09] Fatjac: Even more impressive that this
universe arose out of a complex balance of natural
[19:10] ether_ore (firstname.lastname@example.org) left
irc: Ping timeout for ether_ore[zoom2023.telepath.com]
[19:10] Alcuin: Probably not long enough for
us to continue...hope to be on later tonight, though.
[19:10] Action: Alcuin wonders what "natural laws" are,
apart from a theistic paradigm....;)
[19:10] Topic changed by ApoloBotemail@example.com:
The Home of Rational Theism
[19:10] Milhous: I'll be back later, too. Hope
our paths cross.
[19:10] ether_ore (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined
[19:11] Be back later, people.
[19:11] Alcuin:How about the laws of nature?
[19:11] Alcuin (email@example.com)
left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical!
[19:11] c u Al
[19:11] boy that chaps me when the server
[19:11] Fat: can you define "laws" please?
[19:11] ther are four forces in the universe.
Electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak
nuclear force, and gravity.
[19:12] Nephi4 (firstname.lastname@example.org) left #apologetics.
[19:12] Nephi4 (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:12] Tom: so a law is a "force"?
[19:13] Nephi4: Looks like they're not gonna
let you back on.
[19:14] --- Loading eggdrop v0.9o (Tue Mar 19 1996)
[19:14] === ApoloBot: channel #Apologetics, 406 users.
[19:14] Attempting connection to Tampa.FL.US.undernet.org:6667
[19:14] Successful connection to Tampa.FL.US.undernet.org
[19:14] ApoloBot joined #Apologetics.
[19:14] Disconnected from Tampa.FL.US.undernet.org
[19:14] Attempting connection to Washington.DC.US.undernet.org:6667
[19:14] Failed connect to Washington.DC.US.undernet.org
[19:14] Attempting connection to Montreal.QU.CA.undernet.org:6667
[19:14] Successful connection to Montreal.QU.CA.undernet.org
[19:15] Attempting connection to Rochester.MI.US.undernet.org:6667
[19:15] Successful connection to Rochester.MI.US.undernet.org
[19:15] Attempting connection to Albany.NY.US.undernet.org:6667
[19:15] Successful connection to Albany.NY.US.undernet.org
[19:15] ApoloBot joined #Apologetics.
[19:15] Disconnected from Albany.NY.US.undernet.org
[19:15] Attempting connection to Boston.MA.US.undernet.org:6667
[19:15] Successful connection to Boston.MA.US.undernet.org
[19:15] Attempting connection to Norman.OK.US.undernet.org:6667
[19:15] Successful connection to Norman.OK.US.undernet.org
[19:15] ApoloBot joined #Apologetics.
[19:15] eter: my point exactly
[19:15] Mode change '+o ApoloBot ' by Wfirstname.lastname@example.org
[19:15] ether:I liked that one!!
[19:16] vitamin: so what do you call the
[19:16] Vitamin:How owuld you term what I would
call the 'laww of gravity'?
[19:16] The Laws of Moses.
[19:17] Man attempts to define the universe
in his own terms. First come the supernatual definitions
(devine providence). Then came the scientific view.
It followed measurable and predictable "laws."
[19:17] Tom: I have a question for you
[19:17] Go, Prof
[19:18] first, are you an atheist? (the next
question follows this one)
[19:18] in your paradigm, what is "real"?
[19:18] Watch it Nixon...er Milhous who gave
the law to Moses/
[19:18] VT:I don't like in his own terms. I
would prefer attempts to find the truth.
[19:18] God falls before Ockham's razor.
[19:19] Mil:Who the hell is Ockham?
[19:19] Things that can be touched tasted,
smelled, seen, and/or heard. (Preferably by me).
[19:19] ok. So only material things are real?
[19:20] Fat: Man did not create scientific
"laws." They wre always ther, waiting to be discovered.
[19:20] In the case of no material evidence,
the simplest solution is correct.
[19:20] Prof: Basically, yes.
[19:20] We can either have:(a) an existence
with uniform laws and phenomena
[19:21] VT: are the laws of logic real?
[19:21] or (b) an existence with elastic laws
and phenomena, with no order
[19:21] VT:Get real.Who put them there?
[19:21] or (c) an existence with elastic laws
and phenomena, with a guiding Power (tm) behind it.
[19:22] I wouldn't say logic has laws. Logic
flows from your preconceptions.
[19:22] Since we have no evidence to support
any of these (in fact, none is possible), we must choose
the simplest path. Ockham's razor.
[19:22] Mil:Isn't a phenomena a law we haven't
[19:22] milhous: are you an athiest?
[19:22] Tom: are preconceptions real?
[19:23] The the individual, yes. To others,
[19:23] Fatjac: A phenomenon is an observable
occurence. Go back to junior high.
[19:23] ether_ore: Pretty close.
[19:23] The the = To the
[19:23] Tom: can preconceptions "be touched tasted,
smelled, seen, and/or heard"?
[19:24] Heard, yes.
[19:24] if something is heard, it is real?
[19:24] You get your preconceptions from
what you expreience.
[19:24] what about people who have aural hallucinations?
[19:24] Mil:You contrated law and phenomena.
[19:24] cantrasted= contrasted, This damn machine
[19:24] Tom: how do you know that you can trust
your perceptive abilities?
[19:25] milhous: do you buy the "natural law"
[19:25] Action: ProfG apologizes, but his wife must
use the phone for a couple of minutes. He will be right
[19:26] VT: hold those thoughts... :-)
[19:26] ProfG (email@example.com) left irc:
[19:26] Maestro7 (PhilSC@atl-ga21-03.ix.netcom.com)
[19:26] milhous: do you buy the "natural law"
[19:26] Maestro7 (PhilSC@atl-ga21-03.ix.netcom.com)
[19:26] I didn't say I did. My reality may
be quite different from your, Prof, but I can say that
my beiefs can be perceived with the five normally functioning
senses. And it can be proven with mathmatics and other
[19:27] ether:Do you see 'natural law' as the
rules of the universe?
[19:27] Milhous (firstname.lastname@example.org) left irc:
Write error to Milhous[22.214.171.124], closing link
[19:27] Milhous_ (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:28] The universe follows measurable and
[19:28] fatjac: i was asking milhous a question.
[19:29] vitmin: in your reality, is there
love, hate, fear, anger etc.?
[19:29] Yes. Human emotions are quite real.
[19:29] VT:I think what the prof was trying
to do is point out to you that there are many things
that are real but not perceived by the senses. Beauty,
[19:29] ether:Just trying to narrow the definition.
[19:30] I got bumped. Did I miss something?
[19:30] Emotions can be meassured in several
ways, brain wave patterns, adreniline levels, heartbeat
and blood pressure changes, etc
[19:31] Maestro7 (PhilSC@atl-ga21-03.ix.netcom.com)
[19:32] Maestro7 (PhilSC@atl-ga21-03.ix.netcom.com)
[19:33] VT:It's your fault, not mine.
[19:33] Waht? the lag?
[19:34] vitamin: you can measure brainwaves,
but i doubt if you can tell me which emotion is happening
right then. and you cannot say that emotions follow
"measurable and predictable formulas".
[19:34] vt: i was busy and not here for a
second, it may not be lag at all.
[19:35] VT: No the quiet. How do you account
[19:35] eter: a trained physician can measure
various body chemical levels and tell you EXACTLY what
emotions are being expreienced.
[19:36] Remember you said exactly.
[19:37] Fat: why must existance be justified
or acconted for? the Universe just is, it's existence
is not for us to question.
[19:37] vt: so why are you here?
[19:38] vt: if that's the case, why do you
say you are an athiest?
[19:38] I m here because I was born. ther
is no grand plan for humanity anymore than for the
[19:38] Tom you're single aren't you.
[19:38] VT:Boy, if that isn't begging the question.
Not for us to question???
[19:38] What can be the cause of its own existence?
[19:39] Fat: Humans do not have the capacity
to fully understand the universe.
[19:39] vt: i was meaning why are you here
on THIS particular channel? if there is no grand plan
for humanity, then existence is meaningless, isn't
[19:39] VT:True, but that doesn't mean they
cannot understand any of it.
[19:40] ether: I am an atheist because I
don;t believe in a god or religion. It is mearly a
definition of such a person.
[19:40] I said fully...
[19:40] vitamintom: we don't have the capacity
to fully understand the universe, and yet you say unequivocally
there is no god. THAT is the definition of athiest.
[19:41] ether:Nice shot!
[19:41] vt: is existence meaningless? yes
[19:41] I don't believe in god foro the same
reason I don;t belive in unicorns, fairies, goblins,
[19:42] ether: yes
[19:42] VT:That's not much of a reason.
[19:42] existence is meaningless. am i understanding
[19:42] Fat: then YOU believe in unicorns?
[19:42] ether: Yup
[19:43] VT:No, but I see a rather signifcant
difference between the Creator of everything and mythical
[19:43] Fat: I don;t. they are equally mystical
[19:44] vt: if existence is meaningless,
why are you here talking. you say existence is meaningLESS
but talk as if your words are meaningFULL. which is
it to be?
[19:44] Action: Fatjac says Aha! A little welcome humor.
[19:44] ether: Why do you live?
[19:44] ProfG (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined #apologetics.
[19:44] Damn, I always hit the wrong slap.
[19:44] vt: because i haven't died yet. :)
[19:44] Yo ,ProfG
[19:44] Well, it's been fun but I got to go.
[19:45] ethr: me too
[19:45] It's 'Howdy-Doody' time. My gin and
tonic are calling. Bye.
[19:45] Fatjac (Fatjac@bass-10.ppp.hooked.net) left
[19:45] I just got back
[19:45] you're going already?
[19:45] so I see
[19:46] Prof: I'm not going (for a little
[19:46] vt: but if everything is meaningless,
then what you have to say is equally meaningless.
for what you have to say to have meaning, the context
must also have meaning.
[19:46] can I ask you a quick question?
[19:46] Go ahead
[19:46] you say that only "material" things are
[19:46] To me, at least
[19:46] are material things particular only?
[19:47] say agin
[19:48] ^MOM^ (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:48] in other words, there is only a *particular*
aspect to material things, right? They are not universal,
they are material. Particular.
[19:48] <^MOM^> Hi Prof :)
[19:48] material = energy/matter (they are
[19:48] fine, but material = particular, yes?
[19:48] Ned :-)
[19:49] or is it MrsNed? :-)
[19:49] I'm still not not sure what you mean
[19:49] <^MOM^> uh oh...... did I come in right inthe
middle of something :)
[19:49] if something is material, it can be seen,
felt, etc., right?
[19:49] it is *particular* - in one place at
[19:50] MOM - when is there NOT "something" to
come in the middle of here? :-)
[19:50] It is unique? I'd say yes.
[19:50] <^MOM^> No its not NED its his wifey :) Ned
[19:50] do material things have a nature?
[19:51] Once again, definition
[19:53] Do they have properties?
[19:53] more like...
[19:55] do they have properties?
[19:55] <^MOM^> lagggg brb
[19:55] ^MOM^ (firstname.lastname@example.org) left irc: Blah
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah !!!
[19:56] Yes. I'd say so. However, sub-atomic
particles tend to homogenous.
[19:56] Kehn (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:56] so material thing M2 posesses the same
properties as another material thing M2
[19:56] Kehn (firstname.lastname@example.org) left #apologetics.
[19:56] M1 and M2 I mean
[19:56] er, M2?
[19:56] ether_ore (email@example.com) got
[19:56] so material thing (M1) posesses the same
properties as another material thing (M2) - in other
words, material things have a nature
[19:56] Execpt for things like position,
temperature, and some other properties.
[19:56] are those "material" things?
[19:56] ProfG (firstname.lastname@example.org) got netsplit.
[19:56] VitamnTom (VitaminTo@dial-9.r2.gaagst.InfoAve.Net)
[19:57] ether_ore (email@example.com) returned
[19:57] ether_ore (firstname.lastname@example.org) left
irc: Write error to ether_ore[zoom2023.telepath.com],
[19:58] VitamnTom (VitaminTo@dial-9.r2.gaagst.InfoAve.Net)
returned to #apologetics.
[19:58] ProfG (email@example.com) returned to #apologetics.
[19:58] ^MOM^ (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined #apologetics.
[19:58] <^MOM^> Re All
[19:58] Action: ^MOM^ (((((((((( ProfG ))))))))))
[19:58] If your asking if material things
have measurable properties, then yes.
[19:58] ^MOM^ (email@example.com) left #apologetics.