#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/08/96
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/08/96
[05:25] NedFlndrs (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined
[05:25] pascoe (email@example.com) joined
[05:26] I get carried away
[05:26] NedFlndrs: no problem. discussions
have to start somewhere.
[05:26] Orwell (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined #apologetics.
[05:26] NedFlndrs: this channel is good to
finish discussions in tho.
[05:27] Action: Orwell has approximately 10 minures.
[05:27] er minutes.
[05:27] Orwell....can I ask you a question?
[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.
[05:29] But understand that what is true for
the ancient Hebrews maynnot be true for us.
[05:29] Orwell: again, what if truth is not
[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
[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
[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 (email@example.com) joined
[05:32] pascoe: Do you know how to make your
[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.
[05:33] true pascoe...lol
[05:33] Action: NedFlndrs is heartless???
[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
[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?
[05:35] 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) left irc: Ignorance
[05:36] Orwell: just believe in your mind that
you will not fall off the cliff and then jump off.
[05:36] see ya Prwell...good talkin...love
to talk again
[05:36] orwell- what do you mean by the word
[05:37] strix: good question.
[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
[05:39] 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
[05:40] I love Cut and paste!
[05:40] comes in handy
[05:41] ned- tell me about it! Just try to learn
to use cut and paste in emacs though! :)
[05:41] strix: are you using an emacs client?
[05:41] Im sorry
[05:42] Topic changed by ApoloBotemail@example.com:
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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[05:49] strix: exactly. without a consistent
authority of reference for moral truth, then we are
left if no authority and no consistency.
[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] 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
[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
[05:56] philosophy is sometimes *about* moral
truth. No authority is needed because philosophy is
a discipline that allows the determination of moral
[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