[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/08/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/08/96 [05:25] N

---
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 - 4/08/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/08/96 [05:25] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp22.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [05:25] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip04.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [05:26] sowwy [05:26] I get carried away [05:26] NedFlndrs: no problem. discussions have to start somewhere. [05:26] true [05:26] Orwell (blair@199.218.197.247) joined #apologetics. [05:26] NedFlndrs: this channel is good to finish discussions in tho. [05:26] Hm. [05:27] Action: Orwell has approximately 10 minures. [05:27] er minutes. [05:27] Orwell....can I ask you a question? [05:27] ohhh [05:27] By all means, do. [05:27] well....never mind [05:27] Orwell: could you explain how you determine religious truth if it is not related to historical or scientific truth? [05:27] it will take longer than 10 mins [05:28] Orwell: I don't. :-) [05:28] er pascoe [05:28] shouldn't stay up all nite... [05:28] Orwell: so you don't know how to determine truth, yet you are prepared to say that truth is relative? [05:28] If you believe that God's truth is contained in the bible, good for you. [05:28] lol [05:29] But understand that what is true for the ancient Hebrews maynnot be true for us. [05:29] Orwell: again, what if truth is not relative? [05:29] how so [05:29] Orwell: you already admitted that you don't know how to determine truth. [05:29] Hebrews believed in other gods.We don't. [05:30] Red Herring; The fallacy of diverting attention to an extraneous issue rather than providing evidence for the claim. This is a rabbit trail away from the real issue at hand. [05:30] This fallacy deters the argument and trys to win the argument by another unrelated issue. It avoids the original issue all together. [05:30] Orwell: how do you know there aren't many gods? [05:30] whoa...come back, nedflndrs. [05:30] pascoe: How do I know anything? [05:30] dude...you are way out there...you are evasive to the core issue [05:31] Orwell: if you claim to know nothing, then how do you know truth is relative? [05:31] nedflndrs: which is? [05:31] Orwell: to assert that truth is relative would require some knowledge about truth, would it not? [05:31] how do you come to know truth...and by what methods do you know something is true??...is truth relative or Absolute? [05:31] pascoe: A system can not comprehend itself. Therefore, I may be able to discern truth without knowing how I do it. [05:31] strix (aquila@cmking.slip.waikato.ac.nz) joined #apologetics. [05:32] pascoe: Do you know how to make your heart beat? [05:32] Rational theism? That sounds better :) [05:32] Orwell: but again, how do you know that what you are discerning is even related to truth? [05:32] Orwell...thats self-defeating....How would you know if you dont know what truth is? [05:32] Orwell: heart beats are not relative. 8) [05:33] true pascoe...lol [05:33] Action: NedFlndrs is heartless??? [05:33] lol [05:33] So give me your version. [05:33] 5 min. [05:33] Orwell: you are making a claim that truth is relative and at the same time the claim that you don't know what you are talking about. doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent? [05:33] ohhh thanks for the great alotment of time [05:33] I said at the beginning I had to leave in 10 minutes. Sorry. [05:34] Orwell....well we can finish anytime you like :) [05:34] pascoe: nope...truth is relative, so whatever I feel is true is automatically true for me. [05:34] Hi strix....can I help you? [05:34] :=) [05:35] Orwell: we can test that theory of yours. just feel that you will not be injured by a speeding car and throw yourself in front of it and see what happens. [05:35] Orwell...well, when we get a chance to talk again...I think you will be surprised at what that states when we talk [05:35] pascoe: Well, I didn't say anything about the universe. I only have control over what's true in my mund. [05:36] er mind [05:36] dern gotta go [05:36] seeya later [05:36] Orwell (blair@199.218.197.247) left irc: Ignorance is strength. [05:36] Orwell: just believe in your mind that you will not fall off the cliff and then jump off. [05:36] ned- [05:36] see ya Prwell...good talkin...love to talk again [05:36] Yes? [05:36] orwell- what do you mean by the word "truth"? [05:37] strix: good question. [05:37] lol [05:37] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( pascoe )))))))))) [05:37] pascoe- somehow I think that definitions of "truth" are being mixed up here.. doesn't help at the best of times.. [05:38] it is true that [05:38] (doh) [05:38] lol [05:39] strix: I like to use the standard definition of truth. truth = the actual state of reality. [05:39] it is true (oh dear, that's a dangerous word to use) that truths about your personality are up to oneself to control, then there are facts, then there are "truths" (oh dear) [05:39] strix: I think Orwell's definition of truth goes something like this... truth = whatever I want to believe in my mind. [05:39] thats about it [05:40] pascoe- that sounds fair enough. [05:40] pascoe: Well, I didn't say anything about the universe. I only have control over what's true in my mund. [05:40] pascoe- mmm... his definition is correct, but only over a very limited range of examples. [05:40] Orwell> pascoe: nope...truth is relative, so whatever I feel is true is automatically true for me. [05:40] hmm. [05:40] :) [05:40] I love Cut and paste! [05:40] comes in handy [05:41] lol [05:41] ned- tell me about it! Just try to learn to use cut and paste in emacs though! :) [05:41] arrgghh... [05:41] strix: are you using an emacs client? ouch. 8) [05:41] eeeewwwwwwwwww [05:41] Im sorry [05:42] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [05:42] those guys have it ruff! [05:42] pascoe- the problem arises when you start talking about the truth/falicy of abstract, or intangible concepts. How do you determin what is right and what is not in those things? [05:42] Logic; The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference...... [05:42] the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study...... [05:42] a particular method of reasoning or argumentation. [05:42] Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal and informal......Not everything is subject to logic, Only truth claims are subject to logic. Logic is descpriptive, not prescriptive. I n other words.... [05:43] Logic states the way we reason correctly. [05:43] strix: I agree. if we are discussing scientific or historic truth, it is not relative. and much of the Bible is historic in nature and is therefore either true or false. [05:43] pascoe- emacs is an editor - a huge editor, for unix. IT is very very complicated, and uses arcane keystrokes, But it is powerful, amazingly powerful. It even contains a lisp interpreter as a part of the editor (well, actually, emacs was written in lisp) [05:43] 1st Law, The law of non-contradiction, A is not non A. [05:43] No Two contradictory statements can be true at the same time and in the same sense. [05:43] 2nd Law, The law of Identity, A is A. This law states that something is itself. [05:43] 3rd Law, The law of excluded middle, either A or non A. This law excludes any middle alternative between alternatives. [05:43] 4th Law, The law of Rational inference, A=B, B=C, C=A. This law allows inferences to be reached from a series of premises to a conclusion. [05:43] strix: I used to run an emacs IRC client on my machine. 8) [05:44] pascoe- yeah, it either did happen or it did not happen, but particular truth is boolean in nature. [05:44] strix: if we are discussing moral truth, we have not basis to assume that our own minds determine truth if God has revealed that He Himself is our judge and therefore morality comes from Him and not us. [05:45] strix: I suppose that if God has said 'I will judge you by your own standards of right and wrong' then moral truth would be relative to us. But God has said just the opposite. [05:45] ned- not necessarily - a relation can be one OR more than one of, reflexive, symmetric and transitive.. there are plenty more kinds of relation attributes, but I stopped taking logic papers ages ago.. [05:45] pascoe- ew :) [05:46] pascoe- actually, that's quite impressive... [05:47] pascoe- in the case of our perception of God, and the concepts of christianity, moral truth is relative to god. *but*, it is *still relative*. [05:48] strix: I can accept that statement. but God does not change His moral standard of judgment. [05:48] no, we are fortunate that our reference to which we compare is constant. Else our lives would be hell. [05:49] Ouch that has some ramifications :) [05:49] strix....relativism in its purest form is self-defeating....to make the statement that truth is relative...you have made an affirmitive truth claim...ie...absolute [05:49] strix: exactly. without a consistent authority of reference for moral truth, then we are left if no authority and no consistency. [05:49] true [05:50] left 'with' no authority, I mean. [05:50] its still true [05:50] ned- not really, nearly all things are relative in one way or another. By nature, philosophy is non-homogenous, it is heterogenous. [05:50] lol [05:50] ned- :) [05:50] strix....give me an example ...like if someone is dead...how is that relative??...they are still alive? [05:51] ned- that statement is simply a relation. The trouble is, it is not possible to reach any kind of conclusion about *anything* without having something axiomatic from which to build an argument. [05:51] strix: philosophy does not consistently recognize any authority for moral truth. its conclusions therefore carry no authority. [05:52] strix...the bottom line is that you have to use the core laws of logic to assume anything...and relativism violates those basic properties [05:53] you have consistantly used those laws in our discussions...yet you dent thier ramifications...why so? [05:53] dent=deny [05:56] ned- ok, to take that example: one who is comatose. Compared to my father, he is very much alive and kicking. But compared to me or (presumably) you, this person is basically dead. [05:56] thats not relative....thats a catagory error...we are talking truth claims...not material analysis [05:56] philosophy is sometimes *about* moral truth. No authority is needed because philosophy is a discipline that allows the determination of moral truth. [05:57] ned- like I said, in order to build any kind of argument, you must use some basic axioms. (axia?) Logic is about relating one thing to another. [05:57] strix: I think we have agreed that there is a difference between repeatable tangible truths and unrepeatable intangible truths. [05:58] yes ...he did say that pascoe [05:58] ned- um sorry, I have lost you there... "you have consistantly used those laws in our discussions...yet you dent thier ramifications...why so?" -- can you elaborate? [05:59] strix: the conclusions of philosophy need some basis of authority if they are to be considered worthy of any investigation. if they are ramblings without authority, then they can safely be ignored. [05:59] ned- we are going in a cylic argument here :) This is I think, where we came in. For morals at the very least, Truth, and claims of truth are relative. [06:00] pascoe- indeedy... [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_4_8_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