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

---
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 - 3/19/96 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] ../

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank