#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/18/96
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/18/96
[18:25] ApoloBot joined #Apologetics.
[18:25] Mode change '+o ApoloBot ' by Wemail@example.com
[18:25] Rather long story, but essentially
I found contradictions I could no longer ignore.
[18:25] The problem of evil is probably the
biggest stumbling stone.
[18:25] "Decides?" Quest..i wasnt aware one decided
to become a Xian ..so how does one undecide?
[18:26] Topic changed by ApoloBotfirstname.lastname@example.org:
The Home of Rational Theism
[18:26] ProfG (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[18:26] Usually, in the protestant tradition
anyway, one does decide to be a christian. One accepts
[18:26] That is a decision in my book.
[18:26] Greetings ProfG
[18:26] hiya :-)
[18:26] Hey ProfG
[18:27] Roy: What do you mean, "i wasnt aware
one decided to become a Xian"?
[18:27] hi prof
[18:27] Not in historical protestantism quest..one
only has a change of mind and heart after one has been
regenerated..cause and effect
[18:29] petal (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined #Apologetics.
[18:29] I cant 'decide" to love the God whom i
hate and hate the sin i love quest..i have no power
to do that
[18:30] hello Prof
[18:30] Ah...I agree with that-man cannot choose
[18:31] Questian (serenity@slip21.UCS.ORST.EDU) left
irc: Ping timeout for Questian[slip21.UCS.ORST.EDU]
[18:31] petal (email@example.com) left #Apologetics.
[18:33] MrBell (Micah@ppp-302.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics.
[18:34] Questian (serenity@slip6.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined
[18:34] got disconnected again :-<
[18:36] hi quest
[18:36] So Roy, I'm afraid I never did understand
your point about conversion.
[18:37] what was yer prob with evil?
[18:37] Didn't much like it
[18:37] its origin?
[18:37] who does
[18:37] Yes, its continued tolerance by benevolent
[18:37] The usual suspects
[18:37] evil sucks
[18:38] But it continues for inscrutable reasons.
[18:38] yeah, sucks, heh heh
[18:38] According to orthodoxy.
[18:38] hehehe sorry; )
[18:39] without it would its oppisit exist?
[18:39] in 3d
[18:39] to us?
[18:40] i dunno, likei sed im new
[18:40] it sems imperitive to me tho
[18:41] I don't know that we needed the Holocaust
to appreciate love & goodness.
[18:41] quest you were saying you "decided" not
to be a Xian anymore..i making the point the one does
not "decide" to become one ..that is only an effect from
initial cause of regeneration
[18:42] it still doesnt seem that we as a
whole do appreciate it
[18:42] In any case, for me it is pretty concrete:
for any instance of intolerable, unredeemable evil,
if there is someone standing by able to prevent it
who elects not to do so, then that person or being
is not what I mean by good.
[18:42] or we woulnt create holocaust
[18:42] Roy: you seem to be saying that God
causes us to be saved or not saved by his/her whim;
a sort of fatalism.
[18:43] Which raises its own variant of the
prob of evil
[18:43] how do you decide what is good or bad,
[18:43] Bad is causing harm to other beings;
good is giving them love or service.
[18:43] what would we be without evil?
[18:43] X: good?
[18:44] why is causing harm to other beings bad?
why is giving them "love" or "service" good?
[18:44] i kinda thought individual conciousness
depended on it to be
[18:45] there is no good without evil is there
[18:45] fatalism or purpose Quest?.. Could it
be God really completely and intirely saves helpless,depraved
sinners acccording to His purpose and not our willy
nilly impotent "decisions"
[18:45] thats like wet without dry
[18:45] without its counterpart it loses its
meaning ...its self
[18:46] i think
[18:46] Action: Xpressor is no expert ..
[18:47] Action: Xpressor is just a guy who thinks stuff
[18:47] ProfG; all: I was sorry away for a
[18:48] Prof: is it not self-evident that
harm is bad?
[18:48] There have to be first principles,
or else we may as well debate solipsism!
[18:49] Questian: yes, there must be first principles...
but who says your first principles are correct?
[18:49] can you prove it?
[18:49] I do?
[18:49] Who says yours are correct, ProfG?
[18:49] If you say God, how do you know God
speaks to you, how do you know bible is inspired, etc,
[18:50] You get the idea.
[18:50] The Bible does, Questian. That is my
paradigm, and it is self-supportive. Can you make a
claim as to why your paradigm is not self-contradictory?
How can you prove something like logic?
[18:51] Roy: I don't see any point in believing
we're puppets of God.
[18:51] It removes all accountability from
us - & spare me the potter/clay metaphor, BTW.
[18:52] Prof: let me get this str8: you're
claiming the bible is a non-problematic starting point,
but logic isn't? Huh?
[18:52] Biblical theism allows for the use of
logic. how does your paradigm?
[18:53] You can pick paradigms out of a hat
for all I care, but I sure don't see where you can
claim superiority to a muslim citing the Koran.
[18:53] Quest not puppets...you said your "deciding"
to be a Xian is protestant belief..i just dont agree
with that statement..one no more can decide to become
a xian than one can change his own heart..i
cannot love that which i hate and hate that which
[18:53] I happen to be a deist, Prof, so I
think logic goes the heart of reality, as does love,
but I'm not sure it's necessary to cite the creator.
[18:53] Quest: because I can show self-contradictions
within Islam. There are none within Biblical Christianity
[18:54] prove the existance of logic, Quest
[18:54] How can any discussion get started
w/out presupposing logic? Presuppositions are crucial
[18:54] What I jsut said - it's a given -
or else we can be quiet right now.
[18:54] yes they are. plz examine yours. you
presuppose logic, but you show no reason why you should
[18:55] Prof: I'll ignore your stupendous
claim about lack of contradiction for now.
[18:55] I'll bet you will.
[18:56] Because I *cannot* live w/out presupposing
it - nor can you nor anyone - hence my earlier reference
[18:57] that's right, you cannot, but what *basis*
do you give for such a presupposition? *Where* does
logic come from?
[18:57] without a creator there is no reason
to believe there is any truth at all.. one cannot presupose
logic in an arguement to determin its validity
[18:57] How does one need a *basis* for a
necessary presupposition?? It's properly basic, that's
[18:58] but it must be a *rational* presupposition;
one cannot just presuppose *anything*
[18:58] X: one cannot even begin to "argue"
the valildity of logic - think about it, and read CS
Lewis while you're at it. He understood that, at least.
[18:58] Quest: you say you are a deist; can you
tell me why you believe this way?
[18:59] Quest: YES, logic is valid. But not outside
of a Biblical theistic paradigm.
[18:59] One must presuppose what is literally
essential to life, what is literally inescapable, words
to the contrary notwithstanding.
[18:59] Logic is preeminent among such things.
[18:59] one can that believes that it comes
[19:00] you SAY it is essential. PROVE it, without
using what you are trying to prove.
[19:01] ProfG: you might visit my growing
deism website (http://www.orst.edu/~collets/deism.html)
for more details, but suffice it that I found naturalism
wanting in explaining various facets of existence,
& found theism contradicto
[19:01] X: one can believe that logic is rooted
in god, but it isn't & can't be necessary to a discussion.
[19:01] to believe in the source I mean.
[19:02] Questian: you might visit the #apologetics
growing website (http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html)
for info, links, and *especially* the channel debate/discussion
[19:02] ProfG: you are asking for the logically
impossible. " PROVE it, without using what you are trying
to prove" - when the "it" is logic - this is nonsense.
[19:03] I could just as easily ask you what
you gain by telling me god "made" logic - it doesn't
justify logic as if logic could be doubted otherwise.
[19:03] it IS nonsensical, when one insists that
logic can exist apart from the God of the Bible
[19:04] Well, I can't seem to escape this
feeling of circular futility with you, Prof, with all
[19:04] Oh that verse really cleared things
[19:04] just wanted to see it :-)
[19:04] saw a bumper sticker with it on it today
[19:05] "NATIONAL ATHEIST'S DAY: April 1"
[19:05] Plenty of christians are guilty of
"abominable iniquity" as you well know. Doesn't seem
germane, but it's OK if you like seeing it.
[19:05] Action: Questian laughs
[19:05] I guess that's as good a date as any
if they are fools
[19:06] so explain to me why you claim "deism"
as your paradigm
[19:06] Anselm, the namesake of my alternate
nick, made a lot out of the verse "the fool has said
in his heart there is no god" as you know.
[19:06] a regular op here often uses the nick
[19:07] or St_Aidan
[19:07] ProfG: I see you dropped in on #deism.
[19:07] or Acolyte
[19:07] Yes, I know all too well :-<
[19:07] Ppl kept confusing me w/ him for a
while & it made me somewhat unpopular
[19:07] I guessed you'd be ther
[19:07] good guess, huh
[19:07] He is not universally liked, you know
[19:08] clever man, yes.
[19:08] I'll bet
[19:08] he is one of our best ;->
[19:08] I had to put "I am not Acolyte" in my
whois for a while!
[19:09] The problem was that I was hanging
out on #atheism a lot.
[19:09] But I've moved on to other channels
[19:10] I don't doubt they confused you with
their worst nightmare
[19:10] Action: Questian laughs
[19:10] Acolyte that is
[19:10] I guess so
[19:10] Roy-- (Rooster@188.8.131.52) left irc: gotta
[19:10] A couple ppl were really hard on me-
too much so & too hastily,it's one thing that soured
me on atheism - the channel I mean.
[19:11] I hang on #holysmoke a lot now, besides
maintaining the existence of #deism, of course.
[19:11] I'm a couple of email/nick backers
shy of getting deism registered.
[19:12] As for your question about deism,
it's a bit long to go into since I need to leave shortly.
[19:12] I understand
[19:12] please return sometime so that we may
[19:12] I've visited your web page, BTW>
[19:12] I am interested, as I once claimed that
paradigm for myself
[19:12] I shall be back occasionally.
[19:12] Oh, really?
[19:12] I hope you enjoyed your visit to the
WWW site :-)
[19:13] So what was the sequence for you?
Were you raised religiously?
[19:13] Yes, I liked your site.
[19:13] Have you made any changes in recent
[19:13] I was raised "religiously" but not as a
[19:13] well guys thanx for the ride !!!
but i gotta go to my kids teachers meetings G'blessprof
and... uhhh... good luck question
[19:13] So you embraced deism as an adult?
[19:13] Xpressor (firstname.lastname@example.org) left irc:
Read error to Xpressor[slip2.worldaxes.com]: Connection
reset by peer
[19:13] Bye Xpressor.
[19:14] Changed the People page, and converted
the logs to html
[19:14] He thinks I require luck? Perhaps
because I'm no longer a Christian.
[19:14] What is your URL (my bookmarks are
all messed up)?
[19:16] ApoloBot has the URL in its /whois
[19:16] Oh, good
[19:16] So you created &/or control ApoloBot?
[19:17] Action: Questian laughs
[19:17] I run ApoloBot
[19:17] created by some #Bible ops
[19:17] I have been an op on #Bible for forever
[19:17] When you say you were a deist, do
you mean the prevalent notion that the creator is fairly
indifferent to creation?
[19:18] You're in your 30s, may I ask?
[19:18] roughly speaking, yes
[19:18] I see you have a nice animated gif
on your page now.
[19:18] heh, lifted it from the IRS ;->
[19:19] I was a "Jeffersonian" deist
[19:19] Well, Jeff didn't think god is indifferent,
[19:20] Action: Questian is wondering why Alcuin is
[19:20] I know it's Yale, what's the big deal?
[19:20] he simply prefers to keep his online
presence limited to IRC
[19:20] Is somebody stalking this guy or what?
[19:20] I'm just curious, I'm not criticizing.
[19:21] I observe that ppl have widely varying
levels of concern for privacy online.
[19:21] no, he's just that way. I know him, and
[19:21] I've got a phone call gotta go
[19:21] God bless, we'll talk later
[19:21] Me too bye
[19:21] ProfG (email@example.com) left irc:
[19:21] Questian (serenity@slip6.UCS.ORST.EDU) left
[ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page
[ref003]Return to LOGS Page
[ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library