[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/21/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/21/96 [02:59] Aco

---
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 - 3/21/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/21/96 [02:59] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:59] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [02:59] LibRul (Hempster@modem65.wwonline.com) joined #apologetics. [02:59] hullo [02:59] Arai (iris@prism.com) joined #apologetics. [02:59] re arai [02:59] why apologetics? [02:59] re all [02:59] ..as in Christian apologetics? [02:59] it fits the channel purpose [02:59] yes [02:59] hence my nick [03:00] Acolyte [03:00] ah well [03:00] anyhow, I don't think viability is a test of what a thing is, but rather wht it can do [03:00] undernet is kinda slow [03:00] depends efnet splits [03:00] its a trade off [03:01] anyhow [03:01] about abortion [03:01] yes. [03:01] anyhow, I don't think viability is a test of what a thing is, but rather wht it can do [03:01] I think natural viability should be the litmus test of personhood [03:01] why? [03:01] I need to run for a bit. back later [03:01] Arai (iris@prism.com) left irc: Arai [03:01] I dunno..let mother nature dictate the rules? [03:01] Oblivion (kwernebu@IS.Dal.Ca) joined #apologetics. [03:02] lib is that what medicine is for? [03:02] What's the argument? [03:02] abortion [03:02] noticed (some) Christians can be very testy when it comes to topics? [03:02] lin its just the channel format is all [03:02] we should avoid the whole problem and just sterilize the race [03:02] Oblivion that would be a final solution ;) [03:03] oblivion gee sounds like some german I once read about [03:03] C. S. Lewis was a fraud. [03:03] oblivion how was lewis a fraud? [03:03] rapture is false doctrine [03:03] soup is good food [03:03] lib sure the rapture is so? [03:04] His whole system was dogmatic. [03:04] lib is medicine for the purpose of letting "nature" take its cource or for life? [03:04] Acolyte is so what? so true or so much bunk? [03:04] Oblivion that was the point, any system has dogma [03:04] brb [03:04] Acolyte I suppose so..unless it's hernal medecine :) [03:04] herbal [03:04] you can't argue from a dogma though. [03:04] That's *my* whole point. [03:04] It eliminates rational discussion. [03:04] RU a nazi? [03:05] What...you mean me? [03:05] oblivion u missed th point [03:05] yes/no? [03:05] no I am not a nazi [03:05] oblivion define dogma [03:05] heh..just asking [03:05] librul not even close [03:06] dogma: presupposed assumption of fundamental principles which are not questioned within the theology. [03:06] false [03:06] No... [03:06] dogma does not merely apply to theology [03:06] Of course not! [03:06] any system has dogma, [03:06] there's secular dogma [03:06] I meant with regards to our present discussion. [03:06] science etc [03:06] fine [03:06] we have zxioms, big deal [03:06] axioms even [03:06] so does everyone [03:07] so..lets plan the revolution :) [03:07] that does not preclude rational discussion [03:07] lib hardly [03:07] lib I am a theonomist, it would not go well [03:07] ;) [03:07] LibRul (Hempster@modem65.wwonline.com) left irc: Read error to LibRul[modem65.wwonline.com]: EOF from client [03:08] oblivin axioms are not some kind of crime [03:08] r they? [03:08] When examining such things as Christianity though, I think it's asking too much to presume salvation, though. [03:08] er...eliminate one though. [03:08] who ever said that? [03:08] I don't presume soteriology [03:08] I don't know, don't think anyone did. [03:09] The Triune God is the foundational axiom in my system, everything else flows from there [03:09] DGC (cashmore@cashmore.actrix.gen.nz) joined #apologetics. [03:09] But in a system such as Aristotle's, the axioms are limited to what is known to us, what is immediate to our experience. [03:09] hullo dgc [03:09] Exactly. And having that as an axiom skews the whole system from word go. [03:09] oblivion if one is disposed to a soley empiricst epistemology true [03:09] hi everyone [03:09] why? [03:10] what system does not have an axiom? [03:10] And an epistemology (or ontology) based on deontic principles is rubbish! [03:10] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal06-27.ppp.iadfw.net) joined #apologetics. [03:10] hey achimoth [03:10] hi aco.. made 51 in #bible finally [03:10] It remains unknowable. [03:10] Drawing conculsions from unproven hypotheses. [03:11] brb [03:11] One can not proceed in knowledge from what is unknown. [03:13] guess I should get some sleep. [03:13] Oblivion (kwernebu@IS.Dal.Ca) left irc: Read error to Oblivion[IS.Dal.Ca]: EOF from client [03:15] what's the topic - or is everyone too sleepy (it's only 8:15pm where I am) [03:15] I am talking on the ohone so hold on a second [03:17] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics. [03:17] zx (well@robertk.accessone.com) left #apologetics. [03:19] DGC (cashmore@cashmore.actrix.gen.nz) left #apologetics. [03:22] Hume (lagorer@pm110.spots.ab.ca) joined #apologetics. [03:23] Hume (lagorer@pm110.spots.ab.ca) left #apologetics. [03:25] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca14-23.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [03:25] silent as a whorehouse in Salt Lake CCity in here....................... [03:26] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca14-23.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [03:28] DGC (cashmore@cashmore.actrix.gen.nz) joined #apologetics. [03:41] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal06-27.ppp.iadfw.net) left irc: Leaving Gangsta-G 3.0(c), Homies inc. BY MrNiceGuy [03:41] DGC (cashmore@cashmore.actrix.gen.nz) left #apologetics. [03:42] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal06-27.ppp.iadfw.net) joined #apologetics. [03:44] hey achimoth [03:46] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [03:51] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal06-27.ppp.iadfw.net) left #apologetics. [05:17] mrsbw2 (billwade@st-ppp19.hevanet.com) joined #apologetics. [05:17] mrsbw2 (billwade@st-ppp19.hevanet.com) left #apologetics. [05:37] JamesBond (Mark@mi2958.wlv.ac.uk) joined #apologetics. [05:38] JamesBond (Mark@mi2958.wlv.ac.uk) left #apologetics. [05:38] JamesBond (Mark@mi2958.wlv.ac.uk) joined #apologetics. [05:40] JamesBond (Mark@mi2958.wlv.ac.uk) left #apologetics. [06:16] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [06:19] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics. [06:19] Mode change '+o W ' by Manhattan.KS.US.Undernet.Org [07:58] ProfG (greenew@SL2.elink.net) joined #apologetics. [07:59] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [07:59] whats the prob? [08:00] no apologetics on #Bible [08:00] blah [08:00] :> [08:00] Elim (derudder@felix.kulak.ac.be) joined #apologetics. [08:00] 'allo 'allo :) [08:00] Elim :-) [08:01] spell worship right [08:01] Actually, I was trying real hard to accept the bible as the word of god, just for this discussion. [08:01] hmmmmm [08:02] nope [08:02] Action: ProfG is about to turn ApoloBot off - you can privately MESSAGE the bot for this stuff! [08:02] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line16.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [08:02] You know, calling your bot 'Apolo' might make ppl think this is a Greek channel :) [08:02] geez touchy [08:03] I can't even search, sheesh [08:03] yes you can, in /msg or /query [08:03] THERE IT IS [08:03] YAHOOOOO [08:03] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [08:04] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [08:05] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [08:06] so how are you Ac? [08:07] hey alcuin can you give me a hand? [08:07] ok [08:07] Action: Alcuin holds out a hand to Acolyte. [08:07] alcuin I am doing a problem with formulas [08:07] hold on a sec [08:07] thanks guys, sorry to force the move like that [08:08] ProfG: Why should you be sorry to enforce a legitimate rule? [08:08] not sorry to enforce the rule :-) [08:08] sorry to have to enforce it on friends :-) [08:09] We only flagrantly violate the rules to test you. ;) [08:09] heh [08:09] so who is this weetbix person? [08:10] I suspect that one cause behind the frequent appearance of apologetic discussions in #bible is the fact that some folks can only open one window at once, and are reluctant to leave that channel. The superior bot might also be a f actor. [08:10] ""weetbix2 ~dumb@mark.manawatu.gen.nz * Mr Ed"" [08:10] "superior bot" THIS [08:10] "superior bot" = logos9, no? [08:11] actually, they have the same guts, except for more versions [08:11] profg personally you are about the only op I obey in #bible [08:11] lol [08:11] profg others...we...I bend [08:11] and bend [08:12] and bend ...oops it broke! ;) [08:12] Cannibal (philcs@slip13.vianet.net.au) joined #apologetics. [08:12] alcuin anyhow [08:12] I got this problem [08:12] Action: Alcuin passes a hand to Cannibal. [08:12] weetbix2 (dumb@mark.manawatu.gen.nz) joined #apologetics. [08:12] "here, you can have one, too," [08:12] Hi Cannibal [08:12] hi Alcuin :) [08:12] hi Acolyte :) [08:12] it is with factoring perfect suqare trinomials [08:13] alcuin I can't seem to factor this one term [08:13] Lemme see. [08:13] hi Cannibal [08:13] welcome weetbix2 [08:13] hi ProfG :) [08:13] hello [08:13] alcuin the trinomial is: 16x2+72xy+81y2 [08:13] So, weetbix2, where were we? [08:14] alcuin its the middle term I need [08:14] who knows [08:14] 72xy<-------------this one [08:15] oh wait [08:15] I see it [08:15] never mind [08:15] DUH [08:15] [4x+9y]^2, no? [08:15] Action: ProfG 's palms begin sweating as the numerical discussions swarm around his head... [08:15] yes [08:16] thats the one I got [08:16] Action: ProfG grows dizzy [08:16] I saw it just a sec ago [08:16] hmmmm [08:16] what were you discussing, weetbix? [08:16] well been good but must go [08:16] no, wait [08:16] oh ok [08:16] I'm interested [08:16] ProfG: Hmm, is this what you get when you don't accept the Bible as the word of God? I see your point now, trying to keep this out of #bible :-) [08:16] profg thats anb understatment [08:17] Elim: blame Acolyte with his dumb ol' math [08:17] :) [08:17] brb [08:18] the fact is that i can see the reason why most religons cant be seen as the same [08:18] when you take them down to the fundamentals they say believe in me and love thy neighbour [08:18] I was most interested in that last comment you made in #Bible [08:18] profg hey it took me a long time to get over my prob with math, don;t you start it up again [08:19] prof why? and what about it [08:20] hello [08:20] hello [08:20] jello [08:20] smello [08:20] hullo [08:21] hello [08:21] For an answer to your inquiry, press [1]. For a rhyme on "*ello", press [2] [08:21] ahahaahah [08:21] prof why? and what about it [08:21] Action: ProfG has closed that #Bible window, and can't quote weetbix now unfortunately [08:21] alcuin how old r u? [08:21] profg u on mirc? [08:22] Action: Alcuin puts no stock in ages, which are a construct of man [08:22] alcuin ok so tell me anyhow [08:22] alcuin humor me [08:22] Iforgot [08:22] Time is an interesting thing. [08:22] alcuin every thing we have is a construct of man [08:22] Acolyte yes [08:22] most of what we see is to [08:23] Action: ProfG is not a constructivist [08:23] though I *love* deconstructionists - they do my job for me on modernity :-) [08:23] weetbix2: There exist some things which are not constructs of man. [08:23] but most of life is [08:23] :) [08:24] Elim (derudder@felix.kulak.ac.be) left #apologetics. [08:24] The real question is whether we try in futility to construct a representation of reality for ourselves apart from God, or whether we accept and work within God's construction of reality. [08:25] profg yup [08:25] As Derrida insists, there's no reaching a transcendental signified, if one starts with the autonomous mind. [08:26] hmm [08:26] Action: ProfG has to read Derrida, et. al, for - can you believe it? - International Relations... it's an infestation, I tell you! [08:26] Which text[s]? [08:27] heh, can't remember now (thank God) [08:27] Nick change: Cannibal -> JohnKnox [08:27] if god revealed him self to moses etc could he not have revealed himself to others [08:27] ? [08:28] weebix2: Could he have? Yes. Did he? Yes. [08:28] It's recounted in the OT as well as the new ;) [08:28] could those ppl not have interpreted it differently [08:28] profg try Wittgenstein [08:28] weebix2: Could they have? Sure. Did they? No. [08:28] ie formed different religions [08:29] Acolyte: yup, him too [08:29] Jesus and Moses are in accord; ditto the other canonical sources. [08:29] alcuin come on who are you kidding how many religions are based on the bible [08:29] profg just thought of soemthn [08:29] at least 30 odd [08:30] profg, that is a RAD VERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [08:30] profg look at it and think Modalism [08:30] Acolyte :-) [08:30] SO IS that suposed to mean sommit [08:30] profg it KILLS modalism [08:30] Acolyte: well, of course ;-> [08:30] weebix2: I'm not claiming that there are not other interpretations of the Bible. I'm saying that the interpretations within the bible are authoritative, and those outside of it are not necessarily authoritative. [08:30] profg, have you read Boyd's book on Oneness Pentacostals? [08:31] no [08:31] u should [08:31] that and bowman's bk on JW's [08:31] biff (Mofo@pc24.astro.lu.se) joined #apologetics. [08:31] Action: ProfG has to read too much IR caca [08:31] have you read Bowman on the Trinity? [08:31] IR? [08:31] Acolyte: u know Carson's little book on "gifts" ? [08:31] but the bible was written after god revealed himself to moses right [08:31] caca? yuk [08:31] Int'l Relations [08:32] each has their calling [08:32] weetbix2: right. [08:32] biff (Mofo@pc24.astro.lu.se) left #apologetics. [08:32] profg I just wonder what would have happned if you were in calif when you were in ECUSA and had met me when you were an atheist. ;) [08:32] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: You've got questions? We've got answers. [08:32] so could have god revealed himself to some one else and thats how the koran was written [08:32] Acolyte: I would have killed you. :-) [08:32] as an example [08:32] in a drunken rage. [08:33] weetbix@: The koran contradicts the bible, but there is no contradiction within the bible. Therefore, the koran could not be of God. [08:33] profg you mean I would have killed you, with the gospel and some Josh McDowell bks. ;) [08:33] Acolyte: Not to mention some Chuck Smith tapes. [08:33] Acolyte: heh, got a question for you [08:33] what? [08:34] "Like the [several] suppressed ones where CS predicts the date of Christ's return" [08:34] alcuin there must be contritictions in the bible hence the different religions beliving in different things bbased on the bible [08:34] if you have 4 Episcopals in a motel room, what do you always have? [08:34] Topic changed by Acolyte!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com: Do you have Answers? then We've Got Questions! [08:34] A fifth [08:34] profg a 5th [08:34] LOL [08:34] profg woks with any denomination [08:34] nyaa nyaa nyaa nyaa nyaaaaaa [08:34] weetbix2: It is possible for differing contradictions to derive from a noncontradictory source. For example, a good movie need not be contradictory for people's interpretations to differ concerning it. [08:34] Acolyte: I think it works best with Episcopals [08:35] good point [08:35] lol to one and all [08:35] profg know what you have when you have 4 charismatics in one hotel room? [08:35] Action: ProfG shuts up so that Alcuin can apologeticalize weetbix2 [08:35] heh [08:35] profg CONFUSION [08:35] Never mind apologetics....let's tell jokes. [08:35] heh [08:35] alcuin is human!!! [08:35] hehehehe [08:35] Action: Alcuin is all too human [08:35] there's flesh among all that brain matter [08:36] but my main problem is that i cant understand the idea that religion has to be so constructed [08:36] and ridged [08:36] Action: ProfG has to get back to work now [08:36] profg work shmurk [08:36] Action: ProfG notes the ridges on Alcuin [08:36] weetbix2: That's a legitimate concern. No one wants rigidity if the rigidity is of man instead of God. [08:36] Action: Alcuin may be from Rhodesia. [08:37] my point that the rigidity is of man [08:37] Acolyte: got promoted to Administrative Dean of MCU - ought to at least *pretend* to work... [08:37] :-) [08:37] weebix2: On the other hand, who wants to avoid clear answers, if the alternative is a complete lack of cogency, perspective, and efficacy? [08:37] profg so when is this radio thingie gonna occur? [08:37] Rhodesia, lol [08:37] take the common ground of most religions what is it ..................... dont do bad things [08:37] Congrats on the promo. [08:38] Acolyte: we have had some probs with the ISDN line... should be fixed to day, hopefully have the station up in the next 2 weeks [08:38] Alcuin: thanks. The former one is retiring tomorrow [08:38] profg so am I in thr running? [08:38] weebix2: What is needed is a justifiable method for determining whether and how much a given specimen of "rigidity" is from God. [08:38] Acolyte for what? [08:39] profg for the answering quesiotn thingie with Dr. North [08:39] ? [08:39] and there isnt one [08:39] Acolyte: of course :-) [08:39] Action: ProfG really has to go now [08:39] God bless [08:39] ProfG (greenew@SL2.elink.net) left #apologetics. [08:39] weebix2: For example, it may be correct to observe that, superficially, most religions condemn "bad behavior". On the other hand, what the religions define as bad behavior varies considerable. [08:39] considerably [08:40] so then the idea that most religions are equal ie most religions higher being the same [08:40] weebix2: Why do you believe that there is no method for objectively determining whether and how God communicates? [08:40] not really that different [08:41] weebix2: There is an enormous difference between, say, Buddhism and Hinduism. Likewise Christianity and Islam. Ditto Shintoism and Wicca. [08:41] not really [08:41] weebix2: Have you studied these matters in any depth? [08:41] alittle [08:42] they mostly say that killing is bad so is theft etc [08:42] Action: Alcuin notes that one's perception of similarity among X, Y, and Z is not necessarily identical to actual similarity among X, Y, and Z. [08:42] but what is the exact simarlity and who judges that [08:42] who is to say [08:43] perception and "reality" are hard to distinguish. [08:43] weetbix2: You are basically similar to Fidel Castro. You have the same type of circulatory system. You have a similar neurological infrastructure. You are a mammal. [08:43] Do you not grant that there are still enormous important differences between you and Castro? [08:44] Action: Alcuin wonders whether weetbix2 *is* Castro. That'd blow Alcuin's argument.... [08:44] JohnKnox: You are correct. Good point. [08:44] yes ther are but there big similarity on a simplistic level [08:45] alcuinnot in 7 yrs it might not [08:45] weetbix2: And the "similarities" among religions are also fairly superficial. It's simplistic to depend on them for an argument. [08:45] Acolyte: eh? [08:45] alcuin re castro [08:45] All the things that you "know" are held in a brain that mediates between you and "reality" [08:45] the diference between me and castro are are superficail [08:45] john is yourbrain non-reality? [08:46] JohnKnox: The brain mediates knowing. ok. [08:46] weet so you are basically the same person as he is? [08:46] on a fumdermental level we are both liveing breathing humans [08:46] weetbix2: Are the differences between you and, say, someone on death row superficial? [08:46] yes [08:46] weetbix2: Then why don't you go stand in for someone on death row, and let that person go free. [08:46] ? [08:47] Are the differences between you and a homeless person superficial? [08:47] they chose a different path than me so they suffer the reprocussions [08:47] It is difficult to "know" if there is a "reality" ... one can postulate one (with good reason and abundant evidence) but it is very difficult to KNOW that t here is one. [08:47] yes [08:48] Weetbix2: Sure, but according to you, we're all basically interchangeable anyhow. Why don't you give your home to a homeless person and go live in the streets? [08:48] JohnKnox: Your comments about the difficulty of knowing whether there's a reality do not follow from your premise that the brain mediates knowledge. [08:48] JK how do you define knowledge? [08:48] the thing that is in common is we all breathe eat sleep exist we are humans fundamentally [08:48] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [08:49] weetbix2: IF that similarity is superficial, then it's our particularity that is most important about us. If that similarity is more important than our particularity, then we are interchangeable. You can't have it both ways. [08:49] if we where all lobotimized we would be the same [08:50] Likewise, though some religions share some characteristics, religions differ in *significant* ways. [08:50] If religions were all stripped of their particularity, they'd be the same, too. That's the point. [08:50] ppl put alot of emphisis on personality etc when the basis thing why we have these thing is because we are human [08:51] It is fallacious to reason on the basis of similarities, without taking differences into account as well. You don't want to interpret fallaciously, do you? [08:51] knowledge if defined as the perceptions of human minds is not a problem ... if however a knowledge that is not mediated is in existence then it does seem that the mediation of the mind does present problems, unless that mediatio n is such that the minsd's perceptions and reality coincide at some points. [08:51] weebix2: Yes, we are all human. Your reluctance to sit on death row or go homeless, however, shows that you do in fact distinguish sharply among the so-called similar humans in your experience. [08:52] ok the way i see it is this [08:52] JohnKnox: Yes, reality and the mind's understanding of reality must coincide at some critical points, or else we are in trouble, knowledge-wise. [08:53] 1> we on the most simplistic level are carbon life forms [08:53] How can we know if the do coincide at any points? [08:53] this is related to the similaritys in religions [08:54] JohnKnox: We can know about such coincidence by inquiring into what is necessarily true if knowledge is to be possible. [08:54] what we do with our lives is different from person to person [08:54] this is a major difference [08:54] that will not tell you if knowledge acti\ually exists. [08:55] but does it put less worth on our lives [08:55] ??? [08:55] JohnKnox: Sure it will. [08:55] how? [08:55] weetbix2: Does murdering a family of six put less value on the life of the murderer than feeding a family of six puts on the grocer? [08:56] JohnKnox: Here's a little exercise: Try asking yourself this question: [08:56] "Do I know whether or not I know?" [08:56] yes [08:56] no i mean [08:57] Action: Alcuin watches weetbix2 [08:57] the murderer had no choice in the matter [08:57] you have formed an opinion on that, but it is not easy to say if you do. [08:57] What? [08:58] every decision we make is based on things that have already happened [08:58] experiences Knowlege we have gained [08:58] etc [08:58] Nwambe (einstein@206.116.243.240) joined #apologetics. [08:58] Nwambe (einstein@206.116.243.240) left #apologetics. [08:59] so by that logic fundamentally he is worth as much as the grocer [08:59] JohnKnox: Follow this for a sec. If you tell yourself that you do *not* have certain knowledge, then the question arises how you "know" that you do not have certain knowledge. If you tell your self that you are not sure whether you have certain knowledge or not, then the question arises how you know whether your state of knowledge is uncertain or not. If you tell yourself that you *do* have certain knowledge, then there's no problem. W [08:59] he has a much right to life as you do [09:00] weetbix2: Then you acknowledge that you are of equal value to, say a homeless person? No more, and no less? [09:00] yes [09:00] Then there is no particular reason that you should have your home, rather than any given homeless person? [09:00] no [09:01] i have a home because that is the way my life has lead me [09:01] Then why, *in practice*, do you act as if you are of greater value than homeless person P? Why do you not share your home? [09:01] i do [09:01] i live with 7 ppl [09:01] 4 of which pay to live here [09:01] Were any of them homeless until they moved in with you? [09:02] because we can afford to [09:02] yes [09:02] Why do you not take the place of someone who's starving? [09:02] because my life has not lead me there [09:03] So in other words, one can explain differential treatment merely by appealing to the course of history? [09:03] yes [09:03] and no [09:03] Then by that logic, one can explain not lumping all religions together either, since they have had startlingly different histories, as have their adherents. [09:03] QED [09:03] Action: Alcuin watches weetbix2 having it both ways again. [09:04] diferential treatment is mainly due to social conditioning [09:04] So? Differences among religions are largely due to social factors as well. [09:04] Action: JohnKnox wakens from his other channels conversation [09:04] social factors yes [09:04] not fundamental factors [09:05] Why do you arbitrarily differentiate between "social factors" and "fundamental factors" ? [09:05] so by that most religions could be seen as equal [09:05] After all, you said ""every decision we make is based on things that have already happened"" [09:05] yes so? [09:05] "every decision" sounds pretty fundamental... [09:06] yes? [09:06] the way others interpret them is not [09:06] weetbix2: since different relgions come from diverse cultural milieux, it follows that different religions are *not* to be seen as fundamentally the same. [09:07] but the cultures are the same things just a different approach [09:08] For example, Molech worship in ancient Palestine involved sacrificing infants in a flame. Aztec devotion involved tearing the heart out of the virgin proxy of the deity. Shintoism, however, involves revering animist spirits. An d Buddhism involves denying the ukiyo-e [09:08] JohnKnox: Follow this for a sec. If you tell yourself that you do *not* have certain [09:08] knowledge, then the question arises how you "know" that you do not have certain knowledge. [09:08] If you tell yourself that you are not sure whether you have certain knowledge or not, then the [09:08] question arises how you know whether your state of knowledge is uncertain or not. If you tell [09:08] yourself that you *do* have certain knowledge, then there's no problem. [how do you know that you DO in fact have certain knowledge]? [09:08] oop[s [09:09] religion is a candle in a lantern [09:09] weetbix2: You say: ""but the cultures are the same things just a different approach"". If cultures are basically the same, aren't sociologists, anthropologis ts, and historians wasting their [and our] time? [09:09] [how do you know that you DO in fact have certain knowledge]? [09:10] The fact is that cultures differ dramatically over space and time. Likewise, religions. From which it follows that one can discriminate among religions [as among anything] on the basis of the particular traits of those religions . [09:10] JohnKnox: Because when you attempt to deny the proposition that you have knowledge, you end up in paradox. [09:11] Alucin, perhaps you only end in an antimony. [09:11] JohnKnox: So the choices are: [1] certain knowledge is possible, or [2] everthing is an irrational, paradoxical flux. [09:11] it may be the process of reasoning that is faulty. [09:11] JohnKnox: On the basis of antinomy, any proposition whatsoever can be proved. [09:11] each side of the lantern has a different colored piece of glass in front of it i am on one side and you are on another i see the candle a blue and you see it as red to us it is that color to someone else it is a different colo r .......................but is it or is it not the same candle [09:11] the Trinity is so based, as is the Doctrine of Predestination. [09:12] weetbix2: That's a charming illustration, but it doesn't prove relativism. After all, the flame that weetbix2 sees as blue might *actually* be blue. [09:12] Does one IN FACT escape the "paradox" by positing CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE? [09:12] it is [09:12] JohnKnox: Neither the Trinity nor Predestination is based on antinomy, though both involve the possible appearance of paradox. [09:12] and the flame you see is actually red [09:12] Yes, one does. [09:13] antinomy is an apparant paradox. [09:13] Both of the doctrines you cite can be formulated in terms that are logically valid. [09:13] Do so Alcuin. [09:13] Make them both Logical. [09:13] eon (gi30283@ip111.z03.glo.be) joined #apologetics. [09:13] make them both independent of the "revealed data" [09:14] so in that way all of them are equally valid [09:14] antinomy is a real paradox, unless there's some basis for believing that it's only apparent. When we disallow the possibility of certain knowledge, we also rule out the possibility of establishing an antinomy as only *apparently* paradoxical. [09:14] JohnKnox: Here's a logically valid formulation of the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination: [09:15] For some Person P and some action X: [09:15] ==[1] God foreordains that P freely choose to X [09:15] Antimony="contradiction of two inferences both of which rest on equally valid premises" [09:15] Jezus man....what the f*ck are you guys talking about !!??? [09:15] ==[2] P freely chooses to X [09:15] JohnKnox: There, that wasn't so hard. :) [09:16] so then if the"one true religion" seen to be the candle then all strains are equally valid [09:16] it is the inferences that are seen to be contradictory ... the logic that produces them may be faulty. [09:16] eon (gi30283@ip111.z03.glo.be) left #apologetics. [09:16] Now if knowledge is fundamentally antinomous, then anything whatsoever can be proved. Obviously, that's experiental nonsense. [09:16] hello [09:16] ? [09:17] JohnKnox: The formulation that I provided is logically valid. The logic is not faulty. Some person P may not *believe* that God can foreordain free choices, but that is not a logical problem; it's a metaphysical issue. [09:17] free choice doesnt exist [09:18] weetbix2: You say: "" if the"one true religion" seen to be the candle then all strains are equally valid"" However, this is a fallacious inference. There are different shades of blue. [09:18] Alcuin that is a case of smoke and mirrors :) [09:18] why are you afraid to look at things simplisticly [09:19] everything is simple ,nature is simple etc [09:19] weetbix2: You say: "" they chose a different path than me so they suffer the reprocussions"" Uh, what about your denial of free choice? [09:19] JohnKnox: Really? Why? [09:20] it is a question of definitions. [09:20] man tries to over completcate things to make himself feel secure [09:20] For some Person P and some action X: ==[1] God foreordains that P freely choose to X [09:20] JohnKnox: More importantly, why isn't the claim that knowledge is impossible "Smoke and Mirrors" when it's quite obvious that people *act* as if knowledge is indeed possible? [09:20] both terms have not been defined. [09:20] read back i said because of the path im led on [09:20] what is "freely choose" [09:20] JohnKnox: Which terms shall I define? [09:20] what is foreordain? [09:21] weetbix2: So, since there's no free choice, no one is responsible for her actions, right? ;) [09:21] yes [09:21] JohnKnox: Foreordination is a species of causation. [09:21] Nick change: weetbix2 -> weet [09:21] There is causation(a) with compulsion [09:21] There is causation(b) without compulsion [09:22] The foreordination of weather is of type a, while the foreordination of free choices is of type b. [09:22] no one can be held responcible for there actions [09:22] weet: Then I can win our little debate just by having you slain, right? [09:22] compulsion? [09:22] internal? [09:22] external? [09:23] katmar (katmar@zel12.fyi.net) joined #apologetics. [09:23] one can go on for a very long time qualifying the definitions. [09:23] Action: Alcuin hands JohnKnox a dictionary [09:23] good2go (SLIMGIN@www-29-211.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [09:23] katmar (katmar@zel12.fyi.net) left #apologetics. [09:23] what is "free" in your example? [09:23] no because of the path that your life is on it is against your morals [09:23] weet: On the basis you suggest, wherein you admit that morality is impossible, there's no particular reason to adhere to one's morals or to any morals. [09:24] Poimen (tashley@erc.cat.syr.EDU) joined #apologetics. [09:24] you believe in the bible the information in the bible says killing me is wrong so you wouldnt do it you have no choice in the matter [09:24] weet: After all, if I were to choose to have you slain in order to win the argument, then *that* would be the path I'm on. On the basis you provide, there's no difference. Anyone can do anything, and appeal to the fact that "it's their path" for exoneration!! [09:25] Good morning. Is anyone here? :> [09:25] yes they could because it is on there path [09:25] weet: So let me get this straight. You're claiming that all religions are basically the same, and that we can't know "truth"--but you're appealing to my worldview to explain why I can't operate in terms of your premises?? [09:25] Hi, Poimen [09:26] religion is in your heart. [09:26] either you have it or you dont [09:26] Good morning Alcuin. :> [09:26] im not saying we CANT know truth im saying all know god but interpret it differently [09:27] weet: If anything goes, interpretation-wise, then it follows that we can't know truth... [09:27] why??? [09:28] this converstaion is enough to see that ppl see thing differently [09:28] weet: Cuz for any proposition P, if you interpret it as True, I can interpret it as false. Hence, contradiction. On the basis of contradiction, anything whatsoever can be proved. Ergo, truth is impossible on your basis. [09:28] thats what its all about if we didnt see things differently then how can we learn [09:29] weet: You and I see things differently. However, there's only 1 truth. [09:29] excuse me for a second.... [09:29] TRUTH is not certain ... unless you care to posit it to be ... there can be no proving it. [09:30] There are tangible standards. For instance, if I assert white is white, and you assert the same color is black, only one of us correct. It is not a matter of how we each percieve the electromagnetic spectrum in visible light. W hite is white, no matter who sees it. [09:30] both could be wrong [09:30] JohnKnox: that position is easily refuted: Is it True that "there can be no proving" truth? [09:30] not true [09:30] i disagree there are many truths go to the candle the truth to me is that it is blue whereas to you it is red who is wrong to us it is the color we see it [09:31] Alcuin, can you prove that any part of your knowledge is TRUE? [09:32] weet: You say: ""yes they could because it is on there path"" But one's path is whatsoever one does. So one can do *anything* and say "Gee , that must've been my path!!" [09:32] weet: That's bunk. From an observational standpoint, providing both of our visual accuity senses are functioning normally, but is red/green/blue to you WILL be red/green/blue to me. [09:33] JohnKnox: If there's a tile and A says it's white, and B says it's black, then yes, both could be wrong. However, if of the same tile, A says it's white, and B says it's not the case that it's white, then one of them *must* be co rrect. [09:33] JohnKnox: You ask "Alcuin, can you prove that any part of your knowledge is TRUE?" Yes. [09:33] but the reason they do that is because of things they have already experienced [09:34] Isn't that a bit like creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? I did it, ergo it must have been my destiny, ergo I knew I would do it? That's a logical mobius loop, and quite dangerous. [09:34] alcuin nominate the part that you can prove to be true [09:34] good2go (SLIMGIN@www-29-211.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [09:35] weet: Nice try, but be realistic. For any person P in situation X where P has the opportunity to kill Victim V, whether or not P does in fact kill V is *not* determined with reference to P's "path" [09:36] weet: The reason is that the "path" does not reveal what P will do. Every killer had to kill for the first time, before which, that killer's "path" did not i ndicate a proclivity to kill. [09:36] Nice comments, Poimen. [09:36] Howz upstate? [09:37] JohnKnox: ""alcuin nominate the part that you can prove to be true"" How about this proposition that I take to be true: [a proposition cannot be both true a nd false in the same sense at the same time] [09:37] Alcuin, is that absolute? [09:37] Alcuin: Pretty dismal today, but at least we don't have much to shovel! :> [09:37] ok i have an oportitunity to kill you ok..... im standing behind you with a pistol.. do i do it ......no ......why you ask .....based on things that have happened to me ie my sister being killed i know the pain this can cause to rel atives so really i like to think i have a choice to kill you but i dont because i wont let myself [09:38] Alcuin, is the law of non-contradiction ultimate? [09:39] this is due to a prevoius experience [09:39] JohnKnox: That's the law of noncontradiction. I believe that God is absolute, and that the law stated reflects God's method of thinking. [09:39] "VI believe that God is absolute, and that the law stated reflects God's method of thinking." [09:39] JohnKnox: Ultimate? Can you specify what you mean by that? I affirm that a denial of the truth of the law of noncontradiction involves affirmation of that same law. [09:40] God is ultimate, as far as I can tell. [09:40] weet: What previous experience dictates that P will kill V? [09:40] Alcuin: what is the basis of "I believe that God is absolute, and that [09:40] so god is only ulitmate in your frame of referance [09:41] LOSeed (LOSeed@www-31-10.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [09:41] maybe not one but many [09:41] Nick change: LOSeed -> QTpie [09:41] hello* [09:41] what r the questions? [09:41] everyones path is different so a question like that is imposible to answer [09:41] JohnKnox: Statements about God are a subset of my worldview. My worldview affirms the possibility of logic on the basis of God, because apart from God, such assertions are nonsense. [09:42] QTpie (LOSeed@www-31-10.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [09:42] weet: So then, you admit that the person P is more or less the sum of P's experiences, and P's experiences are more or less unique? [09:42] logic strange logic assumes black and white answers where there is really no such thing [09:42] So much for the fundamental similarity of all people! [09:43] weet: Is it absolutely black and white for sure that "there is really no such thing" ? :) [09:43] Alcuin: You then consider the stated "belief" to be an axiom of your world view. Is it any better than any other world view? Could you prove it to be ... would you ultimately have to rely on t he presuppositions to make your case? [09:43] experiences=differences genitics=fundamental similarities [09:44] JohnKnox: The fact of depending on a presupposition to make a case is not a problem Any worldview whatsoever will depend on it's presuppositions. This epistemic circularity is not the same as circularity within formal logic. I believe that some presuppositions can be demonstrated to be necessary. [09:45] weet: So is Person P's killing of V determines by experiences, or genetics? Both? In what proportion? [09:45] so you make presuppositions to make your decisions??? these are based on what??? [09:45] experiences only [09:46] Alcuin: other presuppositions (such as the existence of an ultimate Allah) are valid too? [09:46] weet: Everyone relies on presuppositions, for there is no escaping them They are a precondition of thought. Correct presuppositions are recognized as such by the impossibility of consistently denying them. [09:46] Alcuin: Why are they a precondition to thought? [09:47] JohnKnox: They are valid if they are necessary for the possibility of giving a cogent account of experience. They are false if they undermine rationality and intelligibility.. [09:47] JohnKnox: Why are they a precondition of thought? They are inevitably so. [09:48] More later, folks. I must run an errand now. [09:48] BBL...keep up the good work, Alcuin! :> [09:48] I'll be here later if anyone wants to pick up a thread! [09:48] Thanks for chatting, JohnKnox, weet! [09:48] Later, Poimen! [09:48] Alcuin: what is the reason for stating that? Is it another piece of your Knowledge? [09:48] Poimen (tashley@erc.cat.syr.EDU) left #apologetics. [09:49] JohnKnox: Haven't the time to respond fully to your good question. Later? [09:49] so i am irrational because i dont have the same presuppositions as you? [09:49] bye Acluin [09:49] Briefly, however, the answer is that denial that God is a precondition of knowledge leads necessarily to the abyss of irrationality and real antinomy that you were describing earlier. [09:49] bye buddy good chatting to you [09:50] Weet, there is a sense in which, insofar as you reason at all, you do presuppose a certain concept of God that makes such a thing possible. [09:50] *wave* Bye! [09:50] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line16.cis.yale.edu) left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical! [09:51] well jk very interesting chat but i to must be going [09:51] cu [09:51] bye [09:51] Action: JohnKnox thinks presuppositionalism is a lost cause [09:52] it is like firing cannons at eachother from islands [09:52] when you have no boats :) [09:53] hehehehe] [09:53] bye bye [09:53] bye [09:53] weet (dumb@mark.manawatu.gen.nz) left #apologetics. [09:53] JohnKnox (philcs@slip13.vianet.net.au) left #apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_3_21_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