[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/19/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/19/96 [18:49] Act

[ref001]


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 
council.
[18:50]  heh
[18:50]  ApoloBot is just that, a Bot  :-)
[18:51] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line8.cis.yale.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[18:51]  Youmean I'm talking to an android!!!
[18:51]  Alcuin  :-)
[18:51]  :-)
[18:51]  Hi, people
[18:52]  Hi apolobot
[18:52]  man, ApoloBot is lagging tonight...
[18:52]  ""Banish fatjac Falstaff, and Banish all 
the world..."
[18:52]  Enough of this Hi stuff. What shall 
we discus?
[18:52]  Hi Fatjac
[18:53]  :)
[18:53]  what is your paradigm, Fatjac?
[18:53] Action: Fatjac says I hate it when you're right! 
Alcuin
[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 ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
"Start talking...it's your paradigm...."
[18:53]  :-)
[18:53]  What is a paradigm?
[18:54]  worldview
[18:54]  You mean where am I coming from?
[18:54]  presuppositions
[18:54]  paradigm: set of interconnected beliefs 
about reality
[18:54]  yeah
[18:54]  yo, baby
[18:54]  This sounds more philosophical than 
theological.
[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]  true
[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]  wow
[18:55]  all this time, we've been doing just 
that...
[18:55]  boy, I'm glad you fixed us, Fat!
[18:55]  :-)
[18:56]  Ok, that's a starting place....
[18:56]  Alcuin:Would you agree to my refinement?
[18:56]  sorry...
[18:56] Action: ProfG got a little sarcastic
[18:56] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2023.telepath.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[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 
= nihilism
[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]  hmmmmm
[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]  lol
[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

teresting....
[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 
marvelous universe?
[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 
"rational").
[19:02]  fatjac: many suppose that no one 
is responsible.
[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 (jonsawyer@204.134.14.2) 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 
name
[19:03] BibleMan (jonsawyer@204.134.14.2) left irc: 
BibleMan
[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 (jonsawyer@204.134.14.2) joined #apologetics.
[19:04]  Greetings, Alcuin. I have returned.
[19:04]  rehi...So how is everyone?
[19:04]  Hey, Milhous!
[19:04]  hi Nephi
[19:05]  hello
[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' 
are you?
[19:07]  alcuin: is one who believes in evolution 
"rational"?
[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 
Problems (tm).
[19:07]  or what denomination 'are' you?
[19:07] VitamnTom (VitaminTo@dial-9.r2.gaagst.InfoAve.Net) 
joined #apologetics.
[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 
swal
[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 
laws.
[19:10] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2023.telepath.com) 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 ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[19:10]  Milhous: I'll be back later, too.  Hope 
our paths cross.
[19:10] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2023.telepath.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[19:11]  Be back later, people.  
[19:11]  Alcuin:How about the laws of nature?
[19:11] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line8.cis.yale.edu) 
left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical!
[19:11]  c u Al
[19:11]  boy that chaps me when the server 
does that!
[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 (jonsawyer@204.134.14.2) left #apologetics.
[19:12] Nephi4 (jonsawyer@204.134.14.2) 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 
(Timeout)
[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 W!cservice@undernet.org
[19:15]  ether:I liked that one!!
[19:16]  vitamin: so what do you call the 
decalog?
[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]  Yes
[19:18]  ok
[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]  Logician.
[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
[19:20]  ok
[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 
yet deciphered?
[19:22]  milhous: are you an athiest?
[19:22]  Tom: are preconceptions real?
[19:23]  The the individual, yes.  To others, 
maybe not.
[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]  Contrated=cantrasted
[19:24]  cantrasted= contrasted, This damn machine 
can't spell.
[19:24]  Tom: how do you know that you can trust 
your perceptive abilities?
[19:25]  milhous: do you buy the "natural law" 
idea?
[19:25] Action: ProfG apologizes, but his wife must 
use the phone for a couple of minutes. He will be right 
back.
[19:26]  VT: hold those thoughts...  :-)
[19:26] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial100.fiu.edu) left irc: 
Leaving
[19:26] Maestro7 (PhilSC@atl-ga21-03.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[19:26]  milhous: do you buy the "natural law" 
idea?
[19:26] Maestro7 (PhilSC@atl-ga21-03.ix.netcom.com) 
left #apologetics.
[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 
disiplines.
[19:27]  ether:Do you see 'natural law' as the 
rules of the universe?
[19:27] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.247) left irc: 
Write error to Milhous[199.218.197.247], closing link
[19:27] Milhous_ (hlm3mr@199.218.197.247) joined #apologetics.
[19:28]  The universe follows measurable and 
predictable formulas.
[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, 
justice etc.
[19:29]  LOVE!!!
[19:29]  ether:Just trying to narrow the definition.
[19:30]  Whoa.
[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) 
joined #apologetics.
[19:32] Maestro7 (PhilSC@atl-ga21-03.ix.netcom.com) 
left #apologetics.
[19:33]  lag?
[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 
for existence?
[19:35]  eter: a trained physician can measure 
various body chemical levels and tell you EXACTLY what 
emotions are being expreienced.
[19:36]  VT:BS!
[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 
cockroach.
[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 
that right?
[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 
or no?
[19:41]  I don't believe in god foro the same 
reason I don;t belive in unicorns, fairies, goblins, 
or ghosts.
[19:42]  ether: yes
[19:42]  VT:That's not much of a reason.
[19:42]  existence is meaningless. am i understanding 
you correctly?
[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 
creatures.
[19:43]  Fat: I don;t.  they are equally mystical 
and supernatual.
[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 (wgreen01@131.94.2.113) joined #apologetics.
[19:44]  re
[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 
irc: 
[19:45]  VT
[19:45]  I just got back
[19:45]  you're going already?
[19:45]  so I see
[19:45]  *sigh*
[19:46]  Prof: I'm not going (for a little 
while)
[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]  ok
[19:46]  you say that only "material" things are 
real
[19:46]  Yes
[19:46]  To me, at least
[19:46]  are material things particular only?
[19:47]  say agin
[19:48] ^MOM^ (dananova@ppp49.snni.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 
interchangable)
[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 
by "particular."
[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]  OK
[19:49]  it is *particular* - in one place at 
one time
[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]  ok
[19:50] <^MOM^> No its not NED its his wifey :)  Ned 
is asleep
[19:50]  do material things have a nature?
[19:51]  Once again, definition
[19:53]  ?
[19:53]  Do they have properties?
[19:53]  more like...
[19:54]  ok...
[19:55]  do they have properties?
[19:55] <^MOM^> lagggg  brb
[19:55] ^MOM^ (dananova@ppp49.snni.com) 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 (kpb@204.83.156.114) joined #apologetics.
[19:56]  so material thing M2 posesses the same 
properties as another material thing M2
[19:56] Kehn (kpb@204.83.156.114) left #apologetics.
[19:56]  M@?
[19:56]  M1 and M2 I mean
[19:56]  er, M2?
[19:56] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2023.telepath.com) got 
netsplit.
[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 (wgreen01@131.94.2.113) got netsplit.
[19:56] VitamnTom (VitaminTo@dial-9.r2.gaagst.InfoAve.Net) 
got netsplit.
[19:57] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2023.telepath.com) returned 
to #apologetics.
[19:57] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2023.telepath.com) left 
irc: Write error to ether_ore[zoom2023.telepath.com], 
closing link
[19:58] VitamnTom (VitaminTo@dial-9.r2.gaagst.InfoAve.Net) 
returned to #apologetics.
[19:58] ProfG (wgreen01@131.94.2.113) returned to #apologetics.
[19:58] ^MOM^ (dananova@ppp67.snni.com) 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^ (dananova@ppp67.snni.com) left #apologetics.
[19:58]  properties that do not change? I mean, 
glass is glass is glass, yes? Gold is gold is gold, 
yes?
[19:58]  this piece of gold has the same properties 
as that piece of gold, yes?
[19:59]  Simplifying it, yes
[19:59]  ok
[19:59]  now
[19:59]  please tell me how, in your paradigm, 
material things which are particular can? have something 
universal about them
[20:00]  no ?
[20:00]  gold on the earth is gold on the 
moon.
[20:00]  ProfG: They share the same structure. 
Duh.
[20:01] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2160.telepath.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[20:01]  VT: yes, that is true. But how *can* 
it be true in an atheist paradigm?
[20:01]  profg: They share the same structure.
[20:02]  I don;t know what you mean, Prof. 
 they have the same atomic mass, the same atomic number.
[20:02]  Mil: duh. But how is this possible in 
a paradigm which insists that all that is real is material 
things; material things are particular, yet you are 
saying that they posess universals. How is this possible?
[20:03]  Mil: I know. but you don't get it, do 
you?
[20:03]  Prof: Are you saying because I cannot 
SEE the gold on the moon then it is not gold?
[20:03]  dag nabbit! i figured you wuz headed 
this way prof and i think i missed the whole enchilada!
[20:03]  The atheist paradigm insists that the 
only thing which is real is the Material World (TM).
[20:03]  The attributes of the material world: 
 all of matter is particular; it is changing & in flux; 
it is found in one local place; it is concrete
[20:04]  ether: get the logs off the Web site 
 :-)
[20:05]  No ProfG.  MY paradigm is that the 
universe is constant.  al the elemnets on earth most 
porobaly exist on other worlds, in other galaxies.
[20:05]  in order to even debate the existence 
of God, one must employ laws of logic.
[20:05]  The laws of logic are not particular, 
they are *universal*; they are not material or concrete, 
they are *abstract*; they are not changing, they are 
*absolute*
[20:05]  Teh earth is not the center of the 
universe
[20:05]  profg: No. I don't see how we get 
from disbelieving the existence of God to utter chaos 
throughout the Universe.
[20:05] buddy (FEY@www-8-175.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[20:05]  VT: who said it was?
[20:06]  YOU.  You are saying that only things 
within our grasps are "material."  I disagree.
[20:06]  VT: YOU said that!
[20:06]  you said that all that is real is "material"
[20:07]  the "material" is all that is real
[20:07]  YOU said that
[20:07]  Prof: My definition of material is 
matter/energy.  they both exist troughout the universe.
[20:07]  VitamnTom: YOU.  You are saying that 
only things within our grasps are "material."  I disagree.
[20:07]  VitamnTom: YOU.  You are saying that 
only things within our grasps are "material."  I disagree.
[20:07]  You disagree?
[20:07]  Prof: My definition of material is 
matter/energy.  they both exist   troughout the universe.
[20:07]  Prof: My definition of material is 
matter/energy.  they both exist   troughout the universe.
[20:07]  Prof: My definition of material is 
matter/energy.  they both exist   troughout the universe.
[20:08] buddy (FEY@www-8-175.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[20:08]  "taste, touch, smell, hear, feel"
[20:08]  etc
[20:08]  Prof: My definition of material is 
matter/energy.  they both exist   troughout the universe.
[20:08]  you are being self-contradictory, VT
[20:08]  irrational
[20:08]  illogical
[20:08]  in fact, in your paradigm, logic cannot 
exist
[20:08]  how can there be in the atheist paradigm 
something which doesn't have the attributes of matter, 
but the very *opposite* of the attributes of matter
[20:09]  I can't help it if I cannot go to 
another part of the universe and see etc the things 
there, but I'm kinda stuck.
[20:09]  The laws of logic are not particular, 
they are *universal*; they are not material or concrete, 
they are *abstract*; they are not changing, they are 
*absolute*
[20:09]  If you are really going to live by the 
atheist worldview, then you must be willing to give 
up using the laws of logic;
[20:09]  but if you give up this idea, then there 
is really nothing by which you can debate or by which 
you can judge a debate
[20:10]  therefore, by even debating against the 
idea of the existence of God, THE ATHEIST LOSES
[20:10]  :-)
[20:10]   material = energy/matter 
(they are interchangable)
[20:10]   material = energy/matter 
(they are interchangable)
[20:10]   material = energy/matter 
(they are interchangable)
[20:11]  VT: that changes nothing of what I said
[20:12]  ProfG: Prythee, what is existence?
[20:12]  ProfG:  I've already said that logic 
has no laws.  therefore your solution is meaningless 
to me.
[20:12]  profg: The laws of logic are not absolute.
[20:12]  pofg: There's inductive, and deductive...geometric, 
and algebraic....boolean...
[20:12]  VT: if logic has no laws, then it is 
not logic. logic must be universal and absolute or 
it is not usable.
[20:13]  ProfG: Sure it is usable. The human 
mind is not universal and absolute, but it is usable.
[20:13]  vitamntom: getting backed into a 
corner and changing the rules?
[20:13]  if logic can change from one moment to 
the next, then scientific inquiry is impossible
[20:13] Nick change: Milhous_ -> Milhous
[20:14]  ProfG: Bull.
[20:14]  Milhous: the human mind is not equal 
to logic
[20:14]  I NEVER said I am logical, except 
within myself.  Boyle's gas law is just as true on 
eaeth as it is on mars.  THAT is a universal truth.
[20:14]  Milhous: Cow.
[20:14]  VT: prove it.
[20:14]  profg: :-)
[20:14]  I don't have time to teach 10th grade 
chemistry today.
[20:15]  Profg: If we think it works, who cares 
whether it "really" does.
[20:16]  VT: you have claimed a universal truth. 
Please explain how one can KNOW (TM) that what you 
have claimed IS a universal truth (besides by looking 
in your 10th grade chemistry book)
[20:16]  Milhous: be serious already  ;->
[20:16]  ProfG: I am serious. Why do we insist 
on truth? My cat doesn't give a crap.
[20:17]  I can prove it over and over again 
in a lab.  It NEVER fails to be true in a human's expreience.
[20:17]  VT: why wouldn't it perhaps be NOT true 
tomorrow? There are no absolute laws, correct?
[20:17]  Milhous: then why are you here?
[20:17]  go give you cat a laxative and forget 
about truth
[20:17]  Fun.
[20:18]  Truth is unknowable.
[20:18]  Milhous: is that the truth? how do you 
know that?
[20:18]  :-)
[20:18]  NO. ProfG.  Don;t put words in my 
mouth.  Boyle's gas law is a law in name only.  It 
is actually a universal phemonenon.
[20:19] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.247) left irc: 
Read error to Milhous[199.218.197.247]: Connection 
reset by peer
[20:19]  VT: how do you know it is a "universal" 
phenomenon? You have tested it everywhere in the universe? 
It could be tested again tomorrow and not be true. 
How do you KNOW that it won't be?
[20:19] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2160.telepath.com) left 
irc: ours is not to wonder why, ours is to manipulate 
the data!
[20:19]  Just you and me, kid  ;->
[20:20]  The same reason I KNOW I'm not going 
to fly off the face of the earth tomorrow.  It is as 
real as gravity.
[20:20]  VT: just because you haven't flown off 
the face of the earth so far, what makes you sure that 
you won't tomorrow?
[20:21]  Because gravity is always there. 
 It cannot NOT exist.
[20:21]  VT: how do you KNOW that?
[20:21]  Because it has been shown in LOGICAL 
mathematical formulas.
[20:22]  just because it has been there in the 
past, what reason is there to believe that the same 
will hold true tomorrow?
[20:22]  The universe is constant.  It doesn;t 
change.  Only our perception of it does.
[20:22]  ah, but what if those LOGICAL formulas 
are different than the logic we use today or tomorrow? 
Logic is not absolute, right?
[20:23]  if our perception changes, then how can 
we trust our perception at all? How do we know that 
we can know ANYthing about the universe at all?
[20:23]  Just because we don;t percieve gravity, 
doesn't mean it isn't there.
[20:24]  VT: "just because you say you don't perceive 
God, doesn't mean He isn't there." Would you accept 
me saying that?
[20:25]  if we can't perceive gravity, then how 
do you know it is real (MATERIAL)? you must perceive 
material things for them to be real, no?
[20:25]  ProfG: Right now, gravity is just 
a force to us.  Some theorize that there are 'gravity 
waves' whcih exercise this force.  We cannot measure 
them now, but we may learn in the future a way to measure 
them.  Then our perception w

ill change.
[20:26]  VT: "We cannot measure them now, but we 
may learn in the future a way to measure them"? What 
great faith you have!
[20:26]  :-)
[20:27]  The ancients perceived eclipces, 
and said they were omens from the gods.  We see them, 
and KNOW it is mearly the moon passing in from of the 
sun.  You expect me to also beieve in a religion that 
was created in these times?

[20:28]  Just because ideas come from the same 
time period doesn't mean you can dismiss one if the 
other is false. Fascism arose in the 20th century, 
as did the concept of human rights. "You expect me to 
also believe in so

mething that arose in these
[20:28]  times?"
[20:29] Action: ProfG will brb, putting son to bed
[20:30]  I've gotta go too.  I WILL try to 
get with you again.  I find your debates very stimulating.
[20:30] VitamnTom (VitaminTo@dial-9.r2.gaagst.InfoAve.Net) 
left irc: A wink's as good as a nod to a blind bat.
[20:31]  gone, oh well
[20:40] ^^MOM (dananova@ppp67.snni.com) joined #apologetics.
[20:40]  re  :-)
[20:41] <^^MOM> Hi :)
[20:41] <^^MOM> Lag isnt so bad now eh?
[20:41]  nope  :-()
[20:42] <^^MOM> It was kickin me around pretty good a 
while ago :(
[20:43]  sorry, I'm over in #atheism, pretty wild 
tonight  :-)
[20:44] <^^MOM> Its ok I have a few chat windows open 
myself  :)
[20:45] <^^MOM> matter of fact.....  gotta go anyway...take 
care prof !
[20:45]  God bless!
[20:45] ^^MOM (dananova@ppp67.snni.com) left #apologetics.
[20:57] Zoaraster (freely@pc39ms108-f.cislabs.okstate.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:57]  hang on
[20:58] Yeah-yeah (jdl@iad_ppp0442.iamerica.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[20:58]  yello
[20:58]  hiya
[20:59]  where's alcuin?
[20:59]  coming
[20:59] ^Alcuin^ (kingtutor@remote4-line11.cis.yale.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:59]  too much scroll there
[20:59]  re al
[20:59]  okay, I have to account for it by 
your rules?
[20:59]  what would satisfy you?
[21:00]  the whole basis of the proof is based 
on logic.  If you don't believe in the worth of logic, 
then there really is no need to argue anything, and 
you by saying logic is worth nothing also say that 
you can't prove your own belief

s, and can also not distinguish your own beliefs as 
being any better than any other set of beliefs or religion.
[21:00]  yello
[21:00] Action: ProfG is interested in hearing Zoaraster's 
proofs
[21:00]  what about what I said back in #athslavery?
[21:00] <^Alcuin^> ciao, Yeah-yeah, Zo
[21:00]  whoa!
[21:00]  what happened to my line?
[21:00]  Zo: gotcha
[21:00]  heheheh
[21:01]  zo zo zo
[21:02]  Zo: in the atheist paradigm or worldview, 
there couldn't be *any* kind of laws, much less laws 
of logic; just consider the *attributes* of laws of 
logic in contrast to the *attributes* of the only thing 
that is *real* according to 

the athei
[21:02]  you Episiarch?
[21:02]  atheist paradigm
[21:02]  okay, look... in the  south, the 
christian slave owners touted the bible to support 
their justification in ownership of a person
[21:02] <^Alcuin^> Zo: We endorse logic, because theism 
alone can account for logic.
[21:02] Toadie (diogenes@becker2.u.washington.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[21:02]  and now they say "of course it's wrong" 
but the bible says the same thing it always did
[21:02]  the only thing that is *real* according 
to the atheist - the *material world*
[21:02] <^Alcuin^> Yeah-yeah: The Christians in the south 
could've been pinheads.  So what?  The issue is whether 
the system of thought is true, despite the existence 
of inconsistent adherents.
[21:02]  logic is not a law.  It is the way 
of sorting things out, either something is or isn't
[21:02]  Logical Theism is an oxymoron... 
;)
[21:02]  Ah...the material world...
[21:02] Action: Toadie sighs.
[21:03]  they were pinheads... and they still 
are
[21:03] <^Alcuin^> Zoaraster: You say that logic is not 
a law?  It's a way of sorting things out?
[21:03] Action: Toadie asks to be shown any of the 
nonmaterial worlds....
[21:03]  sure
[21:03]  I think it will take a very long 
time, but man as a race will "outgrow" the need for a 
god and religion
[21:03]  The attributes of the material world: 
 all of matter is particular; it is changing & in flux; 
it is found in one local place; it is concrete
[21:03]  The laws of logic are not particular, 
they are *universal*; they are not material or concrete, 
they are *abstract*; they are not changing, they are 
*absolute*
[21:03]  So how can there be in the atheist paradigm 
something which doesn't have the attributes of matter, 
but the very *opposite* of the attributes of matter
[21:03]  If you are really going to live by the 
atheist worldview, then you must be willing to give 
up using the laws of logic;
[21:03]  but if you give up this idea, then there 
is really nothing by which you can debate or by which 
you can judge a debate -
[21:03] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Do you believe in the number 
2?
[21:03]  therefore, by even debating against the 
idea of the existence of God, THE ATHEIST LOSES
[21:03]  beat that, SUCKA
[21:03]  :-)
[21:03]  it just doesn't seem like it now, 
because we live in the christian era
[21:03]  Alcuin:  I believe when I see wo oranges 
there are two oranges.
[21:03]  wo = two.
[21:04]  what was that?!
[21:04]  assuming logic doesn't exist...even 
that proof is invalid...you failed yourself
[21:04]  that didn't make sense to me
[21:04]  Wow, I missed profg's big proof in the 
scroll.
[21:04] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal15-28.ppp.iadfw.net) 
joined #apologetics.
[21:04]  but just as greek mythology is regarded 
as such- mythology- so will jesus and so on
[21:04] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Ok, so you believe in oranges. 
 Do you believe in numbers apart from things which 
instantiate them?
[21:04] Action: ProfG apologizes, he had incredible 
lag, and it all scrolled up
[21:04]  sure
[21:04] Action: ProfG wondered why no one was answering 
what he had to say
[21:04]  assuming logic doesn't exist...even 
that proof is invalid...you failed yourself
[21:05]  eventually, I hope
[21:05]  :)
[21:05]  I did
[21:05] <^Alcuin^> Yeah-yeah: Whatcha afraid of? ;)
[21:05]  assuming logic doesn't exist...even 
that proof is invalid...you failed yourself
[21:05]  Alcuin:  I believve the mind is capable 
of abstracting the idea of number from material instances 
of that number (like two oranges)...but that a number 
in itself cannot be said to exist other than as an 
abstraction of a material r

eality.
[21:05]  afraid of?  I don't understand... 
what did I miss?
[21:05]  no one's answering ME
[21:05] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Abstracting!  Wow!  How is 
such a thing possible?
[21:05]  oh
[21:06]  lag sux
[21:06]  rational theism is an oxymoron
[21:06]  alcuin:  Well the mind is complicated.
[21:06]  Zo: what are you talking about? You claimed 
that Christian theism dismisses the use of logic. I 
showed you how atheism itself proves theism by even 
USING logic.
[21:06]  prof:  I missed that proof.
[21:06] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Are you admitting that the 
"mind" has an abstract (immaterial) aspect to it?
[21:06]  send it again
[21:06] Action: ProfG wonders if he should scroll up 
and paste what he had to say again?
[21:06]  Alcuin:  No...and I certainly did not 
use "abstract" in that sense.
[21:07]  it does, but just because we can't 
explain it with contemporary science doesn't mean we 
give it divine qualities
[21:07] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: What other sense of "abstract" 
did you mean?
[21:07]  ok, here:
[21:07]  If an atheist argues that there is no 
God, he employs *logic* to debate the point - which 
means that he must ASSUME the existence of God
[21:07] RXXpert (rgrh@pool029.Max4.Philadelphia.PA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) 
joined #apologetics.
[21:07]  Debate *requires* use of the laws of 
logic; you have to have some standards by which you 
may evaluate argumentation (what is valid, what is 
invalid, etc.)
[21:07]  However, in the atheist paradigm or worldview, 
there couldn't be *any* kind of laws, much less laws 
of logic;
[21:07]  The mind is material, but is capable 
of abstracting certain concepts from material observation...of 
course those abstractions only exist in the scope of 
a material mind.
[21:07]  just consider the *attributes* of laws 
of logic in contrast to the *attributes* of the only 
thing that is *real* according to the atheist - the 
*material world*
[21:08]  The attributes of the material world: 
 all of matter is particular; it is changing & in flux; 
it is found in one local place; it is concrete
[21:08]  profg:  How does the use of logic presuppose 
the existence of a god?
[21:08]  The laws of logic are not particular, 
they are *universal*; they are not material or concrete, 
they are *abstract*; they are not changing, they are 
*absolute*
[21:08]  So how can there be in the atheist paradigm 
something which doesn't have the attributes of matter, 
but the very *opposite* of the attributes of matter
[21:08]  can't really follow your logic...too 
much assumed
[21:08] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: So then, just what is an "abstraction" 
?  Is it an arrangement of neurochemical transmissions 
in the brain?
[21:08]  profg:  That made no sense whatsoever.
[21:08]  If you are really going to live by the 
atheist worldview, then you must be willing to give 
up using the laws of logic;but if you give up this 
idea, then there is really nothing by which you can 
debate or by which you can judge a de

bate -the
[21:08]  so because the brain exists in one 
place and logic does not, means we're wrong?  what 
the hell is THAT?
[21:09]  alcuin:  An abstraction is an idea...all 
ideas exist within the scope of a material mind.
[21:09]  you have already failed yourself 
in the usage of the word universal
[21:09]  However, in the atheist paradigm 
or worldview, there couldn't be *any* kind of laws, 
much less laws of logic;   <  prove that little part
[21:09] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: So an "idea" is [a] material 
and [b] limited to existence within a particular material 
mind?
[21:09]  I just showed you, YY, what part did 
you not understand?
[21:09] RXXpert (rgrh@pool029.Max4.Philadelphia.PA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) 
left #apologetics.
[21:10]  Alcuin:  MOre or less...though I wouldn't 
characterize it in exactly those terms.
[21:10]  right... the brain IS the soul... 
all things "transcendental" will one day be TOTALLY accounted 
for by science... then the mystery will vanish and 
THEN what will you believers do about the SO

UL?
[21:10]  YY: my, what great faith you have! "all 
things "transcendental" will one day be TOTALLY accounted 
for by science... then the mystery will vanish"
[21:10] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Before I demonstrate that 
your idea undermines rationality, I'd like to feel 
that you're comfortable with the terms.  I'll use any 
that you prefer....
[21:10]  1.  there are both micro and macro 
laws...but to say universal laws in it self is an oxymoron. 
 For that to be true, every thing would have to be 
in the same state...which it is not.
[21:10]  all of it
[21:11]  it made no sense whatsoever
[21:11]  Zo: how can we have laws of logic if 
they are not universal?
[21:11]  why must I give up laws of logic 
to be an atheist?  I thougt it was the other way around 
for xtains
[21:11]  thank you
[21:11]  thank you PG
[21:11] Action: ^Alcuin^ notes that there's at the 
corner of 59th and Main, the laws of logic do not apply. 
Have fun....
[21:11]  I do have faith in science... more 
than in a man who was born from a women who never had 
sex and died and rose again and so forth
[21:12]  Alcuin:  I'd say that no idea has any 
existence apart from a physical arrangement in a material 
mind.  That is ideas exist materially in minds, however 
the object of the idea does not exist materially in 
a mind...thus my idea of a

 chair has a material exis
[21:12]  YY: no, laws of logic can exist withing 
the Christian theist paradigm; they cannot within the 
atheist paradigm.
[21:12]  I need to go read Douglas Adams, 
or dip my head in a bucket of ice water or something
[21:12]  existence independent of the chair to 
which it refers...whil the chair exists physically 
outside of my head.
[21:12]  the laws of logic, are the best we 
have...Sure it is possible that God exists, but logic 
doesn't prove it.  Any rational thinker who is truely 
honest about his objectivity finds himself a skeptic.
[21:12]  YY: you need to go read Cornelius Van 
Til, though the part about the ice water wouldn't hurt
[21:12] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Thanks.  Now on that basis, 
why should my concept of "2" or of "pizza" be the same 
as yours?
[21:12]  :-)
[21:12]  Logic suggests that in order for 
me to believe in a god, I must have proof for his existence
[21:13]  where is that proof?
[21:13]  Alcuin:  Because they both refer to 
the same mind-independent reality.
[21:13]  I can start from the beginning, then
[21:13]  eggzactly
[21:13]  Zo: "it is possible that God exists"? and 
you call yourself an atheist?
[21:13] <^Alcuin^> ProfG: Reading Van Til will probably 
not help, since he's not exactly the most *lucid* writer 
on earth....
[21:13]  I am Agnostic
[21:13]  the burden of proof is on the believer. 
 one cannot prove the non-existence of something
[21:13]  never claimed to be Atheist
[21:13]  YY: the proof is that without His existence, 
there could BE no laws of logic
[21:13]  not true
[21:14]  only if you assume that someone had 
to create us
[21:14]  you call that proof?  what, by the 
laws of logic, constitutes proof?
[21:14]  Zo: if you are an agnostic, then you 
are a hyprocrite. No offense intended.  :-)
[21:14]  logic is purely man made
[21:14]  just SAYING something?  that was 
your proof, according to LOGIC?!
[21:14] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: How in a non-theistic universe 
is it possible (apart from mere assertion) to *verify* 
whether MindA and MindB refer to the same ObjectC?
[21:14]  only because I see the fault in both
[21:14]  If a person was really an agnostic, they 
ought to go to church half the time! (John Frame)
[21:14]  "God exists because if he didn't, 
there would be no logic"  is THAT really what you are 
SAYING?
[21:14]  Atheists and Christians have both 
failed themselves...I'd rather be a hypocrit
[21:15]  Why be born again, when you can just 
grow up?
[21:15]  - yeah yeah
[21:15]  you see...as soon as you have found 
you don't have me where you want me...you resort to 
name calling
[21:15]  :)
[21:15] <^Alcuin^> Yeah-yeah!  Rather than shouting, 
go ahead and provide a philosophy of logic to disprove 
the claim!
[21:15]  Alcuin:  Ah verificationism...there 
is a distinction between naming something and knowing 
of something...if we both look at the same rock and 
I call it a chair and you a table...the labels we choose 
will not alter the absolute exi

stence of the rock.
[21:15]  YY: absolutely. It is called the Transcendental 
Argument for the existence of God, and I suggest you 
quit name-calling and get rational
[21:15] Mode change '+o ProfG ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[21:15]  I'm not shouting
[21:16]  and before I can "provide a philosophy 
of logic," I must assess what profg thinks logic is
[21:16] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp47.snni.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:16]  you can't debate with me...so you'll 
kick me right?
[21:16]  ok
[21:16]  name calling?
[21:16]  I called someone a name?
[21:16]  this is ridiculous
[21:16]  logic: e.g., A cannot be not-A
[21:16] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Nope, not verificationism. 
 That issue doesn't crop up every time the word "verify" 
does.  I'm asking how, if my mind is not your mind 
and my material idea is not your material idea, y

ou can ever know that our ideas have something to do 
with one another.
[21:17]  obviously...ProfG...you know you 
have no case
[21:17] <^Alcuin^> Chowder, Ned!
[21:17]  Prof...called me a hypocrite
[21:17]  Zo: what in the world are you talking 
about? Make some sense please
[21:17]  i probably am
[21:17]  sense has been made...you've failed 
yourself ProfG
[21:17]  Zo: You say that we really can't know 
one way or another whether God exists; then why live 
like we know He doesn't exist at all?
[21:17]  you claim to be agnostic, yet you live 
like an atheist
[21:17] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( ^Alcuin^ ))))))))))
[21:17]  Alcuin:  We communicate...we point. 
 Human minds are more similar than distinct, and most 
communication comes naturally to the human being...simple 
sign language is co
[21:18]  Alcuin, the burden of proof is not 
on me... it is on you and profg
[21:18] <^Alcuin^> Yeah-yeah: Here, we'll make it simple 
for you.  Here's a law of logic: ~(A&~A).  Go ahead 
and account for it.
[21:18]  because they look alike?
[21:18]  :)
[21:18]  alcuin:  simple sign language like facial 
expression and pointing are common across groups.
[21:18]  I wasn't name calling, and profg 
is doing the name calling... called zo a hypocrite
[21:18]  If we can't prove his existence...then 
we also can't prove the nature of God.
[21:18]  Which god would you have me follow 
ProfG
[21:18]  In other words, you act like an atheist, 
even though you don't want to admit they you *are* 
an atheists
[21:18]  how do I account for that?  and thanks 
so much for making it simple
[21:18]  YY: I am proving the hypocrisy right 
now
[21:18]  oh, that makes it okay, then, xtian, 
I'm sure
[21:19] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: You're expressing articles 
of faith.  On your definition, unless two physical 
brains are identical, they cannot have the same idea 
(though the ideas may or may not be similar--who knows?).
[21:19]  no...your proving your own ignorance...atheists 
say there isn't a god...agnostics say they don't know
[21:19]  "agnostics" say "Maybe God exists, but we 
can't know much about Him (or I don't care)" - when 
all is said and done, live their lives as though no 
God controls 

every event in this universe
[21:19]  that makes sense to me
[21:19]  and that God's moral character is not 
the foundation or standard of our moral judgments; 
God may not be the creator of this world
[21:19] <^Alcuin^> Zoaraster: No one can prove a universal 
negative statement, so no intelligent atheist would 
hold that there is certainly no god.
[21:20]  Lives as though everything that exists 
is material - "If it's real, then you've got to be able 
to touch it" -
[21:20]  Alcuin:  I am fully prepared to concede 
the ideas would not be identical...that would also 
fit with my experience...all I need is that brains 
are sufficiently similar that the ideas are similar.
[21:20]  it has to have some sort of *material* 
component to it, that's constituted by "physicality"
[21:20] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp47.snni.com) left #apologetics.
[21:20]  I agree with that, alcuin... there 
is no way to prove god's non-existence
[21:20]  Yet they *want* to believe that there 
are *ideals* in this world that should govern our living, 
and by which we should raise our children, etc.
[21:20]  If you really are as smart as you'd 
like us to think, answer the question...what god would 
you have me follow
[21:20]  so I cannot say that there is certainly 
no god
[21:20] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: And how do you ascertain whether 
brains are "sufficiently similar"?
[21:20]  The only true God there is, Zo
[21:20]  Alcuin...that's why I'm not Athiest
[21:20]  but I believe that there isn't one, 
because I have yet to see proof of his existence
[21:21]  who is that prof
[21:21]  Atheists and agnostics are people who 
will tell this world is "sound and fury, signifying 
nothing" - this would mean that there are *no* laws, 
*no* abstract principles, no controlling providence 


in this world - in other words, *no* predicta
[21:21]  oops
[21:21]  Alcuin:  I talk to the person...if after 
a long conversation it seems we aren't talking about 
the same thing...I conclude that we aren't talking 
about the same concept.
[21:21]  wrong key
[21:21]  Atheists and agnostics are people who 
will tell this world is "sound and fury, signifying 
nothing" - this would mean that there are *no* laws, 
*no* abstract principles, no controlling providence 


in this world - in other words, *no* predicta
[21:21]  predictability
[21:21]  go on
[21:21]  Yet they believe with all their hearts 
that there *is* predictability in this world,
[21:21] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: But they have a different 
brain than you do, so perhaps the same conversation 
appears different to them.  Do you concede that?
[21:22]  hat science studies that predictability, 
and that's why we can trust our doctors and expect 
that science ultimately will answer all of our questions
[21:22]  I believe everything is predictable...not 
in the sense you believe it is
[21:22]  Alcuin:  The brains are more similar 
than different.
[21:22]  that is what I mean by "hypocrisy
[21:22]  ""
[21:22] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: OK, now that you've clarified 
your position, here's a puzzle for you.
[21:22]  Alcuin:  As we talk longer about the 
thing, it is becomes more and more likely that if we 
are talking about different things we will make remarks 
that will make that obvious.
[21:22]  I've never claimed things aren't 
predictable
[21:23]  and for a human to heal a human sure 
makes jesus look small
[21:23]  Zo: exactly, but in your paradigm, how 
COULD they be?
[21:23]  how could what be?
[21:23]  you've rambled on and on and on about 
nothing
[21:23]  Alcuin:  I've had conversations where 
this very thing has happened...it can take an hour 
for people to determine that they really dont mean 
the same thing.
[21:23] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: You see your wallet.  You 
say, "it is the case that this is my wallet".  Person 
B sees the wallet, and says "it is the case that this 
is my wallet."

  On your model of what ideas are, how is it possible 
to resolve that situation?
[21:23]  and allowed no one to speak
[21:23]  how could there be predictability in 
your paradigm, Zo?
[21:23]  I believe that science will ultimately 
be able to answer questions about the nature of the 
brain and thinking and so on
[21:24]  Zo: have I gone to +m?
[21:24]  Alcuin:  The concept of possession has 
no material reality in the nature of the wallet.
[21:24]  how have I not allowed you to speak?
[21:24] DanceDr (dancedocto@ois.lemuria.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:24]  no
[21:24]  do you guys believe that the soul 
exists independently of the brain?
[21:24]  YY: what great faith, AGAIN!
[21:24] <^Alcuin^> Toadie!
[21:24]  Alcuin:  Possession could only be dettermined 
by further evidence of the history of the wallet.
[21:24]  thanks
[21:24]  :)
[21:24]  you've been lagging I think
[21:24]  greetings
[21:24]  hi DD
[21:24] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Exactly!
[21:24]  what's wrong with that?
[21:25]  alcuin:  At least we agree on something.
[21:25]  YY: you can't KNOW that. takes a lot 
of faith. but, in an atheist paradigm? golly...
[21:25] aegis (estoeben@asm4-3.sl011.cns.vt.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:25]  hey all
[21:25]  yeah.  golly
[21:25]  hi aegis
[21:25]  sorry you mind isn't set up to "get" 
that
[21:25] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: : )    So, in principle, your 
description of what ideas are cannot account even for 
how to resolve a difference of opinion rationally, 
since ideas are relative to particular minds, without 
reference to universals.
[21:26]  science has BEEN doing it through 
all time, and I think that it will continue
[21:26]  bbl
[21:26] DanceDr (dancedocto@ois.lemuria.com) left #apologetics.
[21:26]  the bible says the earth is flat
[21:26]  YY: show me how, in an atheist paradigm, 
one should rely on faith when science is what we are 
to rely on
[21:26]  Alcuin:  No, the case is we simply need 
more material information of all we and other person 
know of the wallet's past...given that we can determine 
who "owns" it...since ownership is a question

 of historical character.
[21:26]  Can God make a stone he cannot lift? 
 If he can, then he's not omnipotent because he can't 
lift the stone...If he can't them he's not omnipotent 
because he can't make the stone.
[21:26]  YY: nonsense
[21:26]  well, prof, the faith I have is from 
what I have seen repeatedly
[21:27] <^Alcuin^> Zoaraster: God's not stupid enough 
to make such a stone, so the answer is that he cannot.
[21:27]  sense
[21:27]  :)
[21:27]  Zo: you really haven't been studying 
this stuff long,have you?
[21:27]  prof:do you believe the Bible completely 
literally
[21:27]  if he can't...he's not omnipotent
[21:27]  he is even
[21:27]  YY: what proof is there that the past 
will repeat itself?
[21:27]  that's the only source of faith for 
me
[21:27] <^Alcuin^> Zoaraster: However, your inference 
is fallacious, since the definition of ominpotent that 
we assert is that God can do anything he wishes, consistent 
with his nature.
[21:27]  none
[21:27] aegis (estoeben@asm4-3.sl011.cns.vt.edu) got 
netsplit.
[21:27] Zoaraster (freely@pc39ms108-f.cislabs.okstate.edu) 
got netsplit.
[21:28]  profg history itself shows this
[21:28]  in fact, if you believe that, then you 
believe in MIRACLES
[21:28] <^Alcuin^> Netsplit?
[21:28]  yes
[21:28]  It appears so.
[21:28]  thank GOD
[21:28]  ex... the bible shows that there 
were people who believed in dieties, and people STILL 
do, dammit... tsk tsk
[21:28]  What god?
[21:28]  duh
[21:28] Action: Toadie laughs.
[21:28]  do you guys believe in the ark and 
all that?
[21:29]  No one has yet shown that there is a 
nonmaterial reality.
[21:29]  YY: "all that"?
[21:29]  Toadie: the laws of logic
[21:29]  fitting every animal into something 
whose dimensions make it impossible to do so?... or 
is it the case of the infinite tent?
[21:29] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: If there were a gun in Mary's 
hand, and she were aiming it at Bob, and if Bob abstracted 
it as a "gun" but Mary abstracted it as a "flashlight", 
wou

ld your worldview be able to rationally handle that 
scenario?
[21:29]  yeah, red sea parting, etc
[21:29]  prof:  Every law of logic I know refers 
to objects.
[21:29]  you believe that?
[21:29]  read your Bible, YY. it wasn't "every 
animal"
[21:29]  because it's in the bible?
[21:29]  Alcuin:  Yes.
[21:30]  okay, profg, not EVERY animal.. why 
do you get picky?  stalling because you have nothing 
to say regarding this?
[21:30] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: What object does this law 
of logic refer to: A&(BvC) iff (A&B)v(A&C)  ?
[21:30] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: How?
[21:30]  YY: because I will not agree to something 
that I don't believe, YY
[21:30]  Alcuin's showing off his logic notation... 
wow
[21:30]  :)
[21:31]  you don't believe in the flood?  
oh, whew... you're okay
[21:31]  YY: just because you didn't do it doesn't 
mean he's showing off  :-)
[21:31] <^Alcuin^> Yeah-yeah: That notation was specifically 
designed to impress high-schoolers.  Did it work?
[21:31]  alcuin:  Clearly the two are using different 
aspects of the material object to draw a conclusion 
as to its identity...so it is clear that Mary hasn't 
learned the proper things to look for in assigning 
and identity to a gun.
[21:31]  YY: ah, but I DO believe in the flood
[21:31]  that's obvious
[21:31]  Alcuin:  A B C are all objects so...
[21:31]  I DON'T beleive in "every animal" as you 
stated
[21:31]  well, I am in high school, so yeah, 
it impresses me
[21:31]  Alcuin LOL
[21:31]  hahahahhahaha
[21:32] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: ""so it is clear that Mary hasn't 
learned the proper things""  This is entirely arbitrary! 
 Maybe Bob's wrong!  
[21:32]  YY: what a surprise
[21:32]  not
[21:32]  Alcuin:  You said yourself it was a 
gun.
[21:32]  there's not enough water on the earth 
to make the flood possible... on or in the earth..!
[21:32] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Yes, I said it was a gun. 
 Let's say, however, that it's a flun.  Then what do 
you do?
[21:32] lokigonbd (KLS2159@PANAM3.PANAM.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:32]  YY: you really haven't studied up on 
this, have you?
[21:33] Zoaraster (freely@pc39ms108-f.cislabs.okstate.edu) 
got lost in the net-split.
[21:33] aegis (estoeben@asm4-3.sl011.cns.vt.edu) got 
lost in the net-split.
[21:33]  hi loki
[21:33] Zoaraster (freely@pc39ms108-f.cislabs.okstate.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[21:33]  hehehehehehehehehe
[21:33]  oh, damn me, then for saying every 
animal... what was it... seven of every clean, two 
of every unclean???
[21:33]  yes, I have!
[21:33]  hows it goin all
[21:33] <^Alcuin^> Flun= "Any object X such that Mary 
sees X as a flashlight and Bob sees X as a gun."
[21:33]  YY: yes.
[21:33]  alcuin:  Bob, Mary and I can take the 
material object and talk about its properties and what 
properties make something a gun or flashlight and determine 
what the proper label for the object is.
[21:33]  alcuin:  IN the process we will learn 
that one or both of them is confused.
[21:34] Mode change '-o ProfG ' by W!cservice@undernet.org
[21:34]  It's in _An Anthology of Atheism 
and Rationalism_  read it?
[21:34] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Yes, you can chat with Bob 
and Mary all day and night, but if your brains are 
not identical, and your ideas are limited to your brains, 
then in the nature of the case you'll all be talking 
in circles.  There's nothing ob

jective to refer to.
[21:34] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit.
[21:34] <^Alcuin^> Yeah-yeah: Is that the one put out 
by Golden Books? :)
[21:34]  alcuin, I know you're just trying 
to make a "point," but read how ridiculous that sounded
[21:34] Action: ProfG prefers to read primary sources, 
not secondary or tertiary (e.g., anthologies)
[21:34]  alcuin:  the object we are holding is 
objective.  Further we have established that minds 
are far more similar than differentt.
[21:34]  Solamente : how do i tell if i'm 
on 2 channels at once
[21:34]  SWAMP
[21:34]  SWAMP
[21:34]  lol alcuin
[21:35]  FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING
[21:35]  FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING
[21:35]  FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING
[21:35]  SWAMP
[21:35]  FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING
[21:35]  SWAMP
[21:35]  FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING
[21:35]  SWAMP
[21:35]  if one person looks at a gun and 
says it's a gun, and another says it's a flashlight, 
someone needs to lock him up or teach him english
[21:35]  FLOODING FLOODING FLOODING
[21:35] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: The word "protein" is similar 
to the word "proton" !op
[21:35]  SWAMP
[21:35] Zoaraster!freely@pc39ms108-f.cislabs.okstate.edu 
kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: flooding
[21:35]  Alcuin:  And?
[21:35]  hmmmmm
[21:36]  never mind the ban
[21:36] <^Alcuin^> Does that similarity in any way contribute 
to discerning what a protein is?
[21:36]  well, look up the _Anthology_ book, 
by golden books, and go to each source, if that trips 
your trigger
[21:36]  :)
[21:36]  Alcuin:  Of course not...and I never 
implied itt would.
[21:36] <^Alcuin^> Yeah-yeah: You're a fun kid.
[21:36]  we came here to get away from scrolling, 
and now it's just as bad
[21:36] Action: lokigonbd says ProfG, be not quick 
to jump on ban wagons.
[21:36]  thanks, alcuin, daddie
[21:37]  Solamente : how do i tell if i'm 
on 2 channels at once?
[21:37]  YY: fine, and you go to Richard Scarry's 
"Best Philosophy Books Ever!" for a kick  :-)
[21:37]  kid?
[21:37]  what, do I have to be a certain age?
[21:37]  kid
[21:37] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics.
[21:37] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org
[21:37] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit.
[21:37]  everyone has to be a certain age, YY
[21:37]  :-)
[21:38]  I didn't expect that kind of talk 
from you guys.. thought you'd stay up there, intellectually 
speaking, and not bring age into it
[21:38]  bye solamente.
[21:38]  how very christian
[21:38]  oh ha ha
[21:38]  you're funny, do you know that?
[21:38] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Think about this scenario: 
There's an object.  There's a radical difference of 
opinion as to what it is.  That difference arises from 
Mary's abstracting from the object and from Bob's abstracting 
from the object.  Since 

their abstracting leads them to difference "concepts", 
and since their brains are not identical (no matter 
how similar they are), do you really think that further 
abstracting from the object will resolve this?
[21:38] lokigonbd (KLS2159@PANAM3.PANAM.EDU) left #apologetics.
[21:38]  no, but now I do, because YOU told me
[21:39]  Alcuin:  If they limit the converstation 
to actual observable properties of the object everything 
will be resolved.
[21:39] <^Alcuin^> Yeah-yeah: Your age is not an issue 
in this forum.  Your behavior and maturity may become 
an issue, since the goal is rational purposive inquiry.
[21:39]  no one says you cannot reason at a young 
age, YY. Jesus certainly did; observe his actions at 
the Temple at the age of 12
[21:39]  There's this really good book I've 
been meaning to finish... _Eon_ by Greg Bear... any 
of you read sci-fi?  anyway, I guess I'll go read that 
now.. been fun, really
[21:39] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: That begs the question.
[21:39]  goodbye, YY
[21:39]  I'll get Dr. Buckner's response in 
email for you two asap, ok?  later
[21:39]  thank you, YY
[21:39]  Alcuin:  The properties of the object 
are objective truth.
[21:39] <^Alcuin^> Have fun, Yeah-yeah.  Drop by again 
some time.
[21:40]  yes, have fun, YY
[21:40] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics.
[21:40] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org
[21:40] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: The properties of the object 
are objective truth, you claim.  Yet, abstracting those 
properties does not take place in the same way for 
all people.  Therefore, there's an objective truth 
that is not accessible to all?
[21:41]  what have I done that is immature? 
 I have bantered when appropriate, and right along 
with you guys...
[21:41]  just because I don't GET what you 
have said to me doesn't make me immature
[21:41]  Alcuin:  Since the minds are similar 
the more different aspects of the object the people 
talk about..t.he more likely that if their concepts 
are radically different it will become apparent in 
conversation.
[21:42] <^Alcuin^> Don't worry about it, Yeah-yeah.  
Stick around and you'll learn a few things from everyone.
[21:42]  you are right, of course, YY. Please 
be sure to visit again sometime.
[21:42]  I mean, why pretend to be maturely 
discussing anything when you're really just being pompous 
and arrogant and cocky?  I haven't seen behavior like 
your superiority games in #atheism
[21:43]  see?  this is exactly what i'm talking 
about... jesus would be proud, really
[21:43]  as if
[21:43] Action: Achimoth is noticing the same type 
of behavior on his other 2 channels sheesh
[21:43] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Think about this theory of 
similar minds.  It's debilitating.  [a] You claim that 
most minds are similar, but you have no way to check 
whether this is true.  Whenever you think you discern 
a similarity of minds, Mary mig

ht be discerning a stark difference.  [b] Even if mind 
A is like mind B in most respects, any difference whatsover 
eliminates the possibility of objectivity.
[21:44]  YY: you believe in Jesus then? and the 
veracity of Scripture?
[21:44]  oh, yes, yes I do...
[21:44]  Alcuin:  (b) fails as the time for interaction 
increases...the more they talk the more likely it is 
that distinctions become apparent.
[21:44]  and I know that right now he's watching 
you
[21:44]  uh huh
[21:45]  Alcuin:  As a materialist, I do not 
believve that minds are created randomly, but rather 
via evolution which would lead to an expectation of 
greater similarity than difference...further the dissection 
of brains causes one to not a

 strong physical similarit
[21:45]  YY: be sure to visit the Web site. We 
will post replies and counter-replies. have a nice 
evening.
[21:45]  similarity across minds...and a physical 
similarity means mental similarities.
[21:45] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit.
[21:45]  watching you dismiss me as you have... 
a very christian way to behave
[21:45]  not = note.
[21:45] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Why?  If Bob thinks the wallet 
is his, and you think it's yours, no amount of talking 
is necessarily going to change that.
[21:46]  alcuin:  And situations like that do 
in fact occur in the real world...
[21:46]  YY: I have little distress over non-Christians 
bellyaching about what is a "Christian" way to behave
[21:46]  alcuin:  However research into the history 
of the wallet will reveal that one person can claim 
ownership and the other cannot.
[21:46] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: As a materialist, you have 
no basis for believing in the continuity of nature 
that macroevolution presupposes.  Likewise, you deny 
the existence of any objective means of employing rational 
thought.  Why does this config

uration appeal to you?
[21:47]  YY: tell it to Paul
[21:47]  :-)
[21:47]  Alcuin:  Brains have been dissected 
and found to be very similar structurally..this leads 
the conclusions that they think in the same ways.  

[21:47] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: But there can be a difference 
of opinion about the research into the wallet.  And 
there can be a difference of opinion about the opinions 
of third parties.  And....   It's an infinite regress, 
and it's thoroughly irratio

nal.
[21:47]  heh, wrong verse
[21:48]  anyway, I have to go... phone call... 
bbl maybe
[21:48]  God bless all
[21:48] ProfG (wgreen01@131.94.2.113) left irc: Leaving
[21:48]  Alcuin:  and it is a problem courts 
deal with on a daily basis.  
[21:48] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics.
[21:49] Mode change '+o W ' by okc.ok.us.undernet.org
[21:49] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Unless brain A is identical 
with brain B, there is no objective way to tell whether 
the same logic applies for both.
[21:49]  alcuin:  The only problems you can raise 
are problems that do in fact occur.
[21:49] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: So?  Are there no differences 
of opinion in the world?
[21:49]  alcuin:  My view in fact perfectly describes 
what occurs among people.
[21:50] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Description of what occurs 
among people is not so difficult.
[21:50]  alcuin:  There are...and every objection 
of yours amounts to an actual difference of opinion 
of the kind that do occur in reality.
[21:50]  Alcuin:  My point was that materialism 
fits all the facts.
[21:50] <^Alcuin^> Providing a frame of reference that 
can account for the objectivity and rationality of 
what occurs is obviously much more challenging.
[21:51]  alcuin:  But the world is what it is 
regardless of whether you want such a frame of reference. 
 I only want to know what the world is as it actually 
works.
[21:51] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Materialism does not fit the 
facts.  As you have demonstrated, materialism does 
not even provide for objective rationality and continuity 
of sense perceptions.  Nevertheless, you, Toadie, are 
able to describe the facts. 

 This is true because the world is not as you suggest 
it is.
[21:51]  alcuin:  The only way to disprove materialism 
is to bring up an actual situation that can actually 
occur which materialism cannot account for.
[21:52] <^Alcuin^> I admire your desire to know what 
the world is as it actually works.
[21:52]  alcuin:  You have assumed that your 
frame of reference actually exists...that is begging 
the question.
[21:53] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Have you not assumed the materialist 
premise?  
[21:53]  alcuin:  Go ahead and raise a real situation 
which materialism cannot account for...or for which 
materialism leads to a contradiction.
[21:53] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: I have provided two such situations: 
The flun and the wallet.
[21:53]  alcuin:  I've seen people argue over 
possession of a wallet before...
[21:53] <^Alcuin^> You claim that ideas are entirely 
material, and that there is no abstract, universal, 
invariant logic.
[21:53]  alcuin:  And the flun is contrived...show 
me where that has EVER happened.
[21:54] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Have you never heard of a 
case where the courts declared that Mary was deluded, 
and thought that she was merely turning on a flashlight, 
when she shot Bob?
[21:54]  alcuin:  the material world has its 
own rules...and logic is a reflection of these rules...thus 
it is invariant...and it is material.
[21:54] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: It is rather obviously not 
possible to derive laws of logic from empirical observation.
[21:54]  alcuin:  I have never heard of a case 
involving a claim that a gun would be a flashlight.
[21:55] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Nevertheless, you are familiar 
with the claim that some among us are deluded....
[21:55]  sorry... got a call.. what did I 
miss?
[21:55]  alcuin:  I'd say there are insane people...I 
allow that some minds very from the norm more than 
others.
[21:56]  vary
[21:56] <^Alcuin^> Do you grant that apart from logic, 
rationality is inconceivable?
[21:56]  alcuin:  What?
[21:56] <^Alcuin^> Is logic necessary to rationality, 
in your view?
[21:56]  alcuin:  I think those terms are not 
independent of each other...rationality is logical 
thought...or logic rational thought.
[21:57] <^Alcuin^> Good.  Then I am about to show you 
that materialism is necessarily irrational.
[21:57]  alcuin:  You are going to have to wait 
for me to get my laundry.
[21:57] <^Alcuin^> Toadie: Will you be here tomorrow?
[21:57] Action: ^Alcuin^ would like to grab a snack 
and get some work done...
[21:58]  alcuin:  LIkely not.  But it will only 
take up to 10 minutes to get the laundry...likely less...but 
if you must go...
[21:58] <^Alcuin^> Well, I'm in this channel often.  
This conversation has been logged, so we can take up 
the issue again some time if you wish....
[21:59]  Fair enough.
[21:59]  Brb.
[21:59] <^Alcuin^> I would encourage you to reflect on 
how universal laws of logic can be derived from relative 
empirical observations.
[21:59] ^Alcuin^ (kingtutor@remote4-line11.cis.yale.edu) 
left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical!
[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_19_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../