[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96 [21:11] Q
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/19/96
[21:11] Questian (serenity@slip190.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined
[21:11] with logic, reff...etc
[21:11] re Questian
[21:11] the saint somebodys prayer that defines
[21:12] Hi question....got a question?
[21:12] X: the Nicene Creed?
[21:12] hi question!
[21:12] X: the Apostles' Creed?
[21:12] yea yea
[21:12] thats it!!
[21:12] Yup, it says "Giver of live"
[21:12] Does anyone here know masterq
[21:12] no, it's "giver of live", as in "live ammo"
[21:12] it sez "giver of live
[21:13] Questian is ~serenity@slip190.UCS.ORST.EDU
* > http://www.orst.edu/~collets/deism.htmlQuestian
on #Apologetics @#deism
[21:13] very good
[21:13] Nick change: Alcuin -> Answier
[21:13] Answier, lol
[21:14] Ned: what's the popint of pasting
[21:14] point, that is
[21:14] yeah, whawhat's ththe popoint?
[21:14] Questian: Saves everyone a lot of typing...
[21:14] Action: NedFlndrs thinks it is interesting
[21:14] Answier to the Questian
[21:14] Action: NedFlndrs allways does a whois :)
[21:14] the /whoismeister
[21:15] Action: NedFlndrs is nosey
[21:15] It's your channel.
[21:15] Topic changed by ApoloBotfirstname.lastname@example.org:
You've got Questians? We've got Answiers!
[21:15] Action: Questian is nosy too, but I don't let
everyone know that
[21:15] Questian: You can whois is, too, by
typing "faq" without the quotes, followed by the nick
you're interested in...
[21:15] NedFlndrs is email@example.com
* NunyaNedFlndrs on #Apologetics NedFlndrs using SanDiego.CA.US.Undernet.org
[184.108.40.206] CONNECTnet UUnet/MCI serverNedFlndrs
has been 16 seconds idle, Fri Apr 19 16:09:00 signon
lndrs End of /WHOIS list.
[21:16] At least, that's the theory...
[21:16] uh oh
[21:16] watch the lightning
[21:16] Ned: what about #deism?
[21:16] Apolo...you better re-think that
[21:17] cute; more of the xian caricature,
[21:17] uhh ohhhhh
[21:17] needs work...
[21:17] you ppl better get to work on those faqs!
[21:17] Questian: How did you come to settle
[21:17] Chem2555 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[21:17] Nick change: Answier -> Alcuin
[21:17] hi Chem
[21:18] Question..If you have a resolve against
Christianity...please throw it out.....But semantical
statements are not needed
[21:18] Topic changed by ApoloBotemail@example.com:
The Home of Rational Non-Deism
[21:18] you put in a faq for deism before
[21:18] Questian: You're a deist?
[21:18] Hi, Chem
[21:18] I don't understand your last remark
[21:18] hi chem!
[21:18] Ned, that is
[21:18] Hi Chem
[21:19] Alcuin: yes i am
[21:19] Question.......remarks that are synical
[21:19] But I don't accept the xian caricature
of the philosophy.
[21:19] That's an atomic verse for Chem.
[21:19] Ned: Did I make such a remark?
[21:19] you slay me Al
[21:20] Questian: Do you accept philosophical
analysis of the philosophy?
[21:20] that's the best kind
[21:20] Question.....thats an assertion...I
asked for a resolve
[21:20] Ned: "resolve" - as in a debate?
[21:21] Question....lol....yes that is what
a resolve is :)
[21:21] nice and simple
[21:21] Action: NedFlndrs sicks a herd of Angry Chihuahuas
[21:22] I've never been involved in *formal*
debates so I don't tend to think in such terms, Ned.
[21:22] Action: Alcuin hands ProfG a moist towelette
[21:22] Question...now is the time to start
[21:22] Questian: Is there a reason that you
endorse deism, or is it more of a personal preference?
[21:23] OK, Ned, my resolve is that deism,
as embraced by most historical deists, did not entail
an absentee, uncaring creator; merely a non-controlling
[21:23] My reasons are highly philosophical,
certainly not whimsical or emotional or particularly
[21:24] Roswell (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined #Apologetics.
[21:24] Topic changed by ApoloBotemail@example.com:
atheism Atheism ("a" = no, "theos" = god): Asserted belief
that there is no God; alternatively, asserted disbelief
re is a God.
[21:24] thats a mere statement of discription.......a
better resolve would be that it is superior to Christianity??...correct?
[21:24] Correct, since christianity is false,
[21:24] prof>>lol.....you ok man?
[21:24] Question...ok....how so?
[21:24] duh, .topic instead of .faqset...
[21:25] heh heh
[21:25] Topic changed by ApoloBotfirstname.lastname@example.org:
The Home of Rational Non-Deism
[21:25] Questian: is there a particular expression
of deism that you find compelling? A particular philosopher
or school, for example?
[21:25] Sue...would you like to have this
one with Question?
[21:25] Action: NedFlndrs is evil
[21:26] yeah and Ill chair the meeting blindfolded!
[21:26] Yes - Charles Hartshorne, with the
proviso that he perfers the term neoclassical theism,
but it's essentially the same.
[21:26] or prefers
[21:26] I will be watching tho :)
[21:27] It's Questi*a*n, btw, not to be picky,
but it's not as tho I've unwittingly mispelled "question"
[21:27] Nick change: ProfG -> PrafG
[21:27] HARTSHORNE CHARLES HENRY 1802-1865
[21:27] may I call you Q ?
[21:27] Im a lazy typist...
[21:27] Thanks :)
[21:27] HARTSHORNE CHARLES HENRY 1802-1865
[21:27] May I smack you sue?
[21:27] No, Charles Hartshorne (1897- )
[21:27] It must be the latter one.
[21:27] Action: NedFlndrs smacks Sioux over the head
with a big book
[21:28] HARTSHORNE CHARLES 1897
[21:28] OUCH :fi
[21:28] his son?
[21:28] yup. Prolific creature, wasn't he?
[21:28] lots of children?
[21:28] No, I don't think so. Anyway that
would be biologically impossible.
[21:28] Nick change: NedFlndrs -> NadFlundr
[21:29] newsong (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:29] Topic changed by ApoloBotfirstname.lastname@example.org:
Tha Hame af Ratianal Thaism
[21:29] new :-)
[21:29] Preeminent exponent of process theology/philosophy.
[21:29] Nick change: Sioux -> Saoo
[21:29] Nice one, Apolobot!
[21:29] HARTSHORNE CHARLES 1897
[21:29] Nick change: Saoo -> Sioux
[21:30] So, you find process philosophy intellectually
[21:30] What is process theology?
[21:30] Nick change: NadFlundr -> NedFlndrs
[21:30] Action: PrafG is lost on process philosophy,
and hands the ball to Alcuan
[21:30] Roswell: It's a dialectical construction
of theological issues. Emphasis on dynamics of change.
[21:31] More so than traditional theism, yes,
not to say it's entirely free from problems.
[21:31] theological thesis/antithesis/sythesis,
[21:31] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( newsong ))))))))))
[21:31] Uh, *definitely* not to say it's entirely
free from problems... ;)
[21:31] hi newsong!
[21:31] ProfG: do you consider yourself an
expert on apologetics (considering you have a website)?
[21:31] synthesis even
[21:32] Praf: that's one way of configuring
[21:32] Newsong....How are ya???
[21:32] an "expert"? haha
[21:32] I have some knowledge in the area, Q
[21:32] great....in the joy of the Lord
[21:32] Nick change: PrafG -> ProfG
[21:32] expart??...yus thut would bee Praf
[21:32] Questian: Are you fond of Whitehead,
[21:33] Alcuin: would those comprising the Jesus
Seminar then be "process theologians"?
[21:33] OK, I just wondered since you aren't
familiar with process phil., a major alternative to
xianity in the philosophical marketplace - no disrespect
[21:34] It involves, among other things, some
[21:34] Alcuin: more fond of CH & David Griffin
than Whitehead, but WHitehead was a great man.
[21:35] perhaps I know it under a different name,
[21:35] sure, perhaps.
[21:36] I am currently building a deism website
& have a few arguments *for* a creator out there, but
nothing contra christianity yet.
[21:36] Roswell (email@example.com) left #Apologetics.
[21:36] so is the main objection to the christian
God is that he intervenes sometimes as opossed to never
[21:37] Questian: You may be interested in passing
a bit of time here. You'll come across some of the
more important obstacles to rejecting Christianity....
[21:38] I am always open to dialog in a spirit
of good will.
[21:38] Chem2555 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[21:38] Should you choose, you'll also come
across compelling reasons to reject deism ;)
[21:38] The *Creator* has a few questions,
I would suspect, for you also......Q
[21:38] Xpressor: the xian god, being omnipotent,
elects to intervene seemingly whimsically or inscrutably.
[21:39] newsong: He monitors the group, but
seldom pipes in. Whenever He does, he get's /whois'd
[21:39] Questian: the omnipotent God acts non-arbitrarily
[21:39] Alcuin: I was once a devout evangelical
Christian, so it is likely that I've heard most of
the apologetic approaches, but you might surprise me.
[21:40] hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....that's unusual.....I
know the Creator as very Vocal...Alcuin
[21:40] I wonder if you are, though.
[21:40] Action: Alcuin observes that newsong has been
reading her bible
[21:40] Questian: I'm willing to submit to your
judgment as to whether I'm open.
[21:41] Questian: I would hazard the guess,
however, that you haven't heard the apologetic approach
that will likely be offered to you here....
[21:41] Alcuin: well, is it even conceivable
that you're wrong in your belief?
[21:41] Perhaps I haven't, feel free to procee
[21:41] Questian: what is your response to the
transcendental argument for the existence of the Christian
[21:42] Outline it for me, please.
[21:42] Simply put, the proof of the existence
of the God of the Bible is that without His existence,
one could prove *nothing*
[21:43] so it's an epistemological reductio
[21:43] e pluribus unum, even
[21:43] Questian: I prefer to put it less simply,
however. It employs a reductio argument. Technically,
it's a transcendental argument, if you're into the
[21:44] habeas corpus
[21:44] That is my own favored approach to
metaphysical argument (very presuppositional), I just
don't see how it can yield the *christian* god.
[21:44] Questian: yes, this is the place for
you then. Most ops here favor presuppositional apologetics
[21:45] more than evidential apologetics
[21:45] Alcuin: sometimes I'm into the lingo;
other times it makes me laugh; depends on my mood.
[21:45] Interesting. I would argue that the
specifically Christian model of God is a necessary
precondition (in the TA sense) for epistemology, ethics,
[21:45] for example, "qua" never fails to crack
me up, I'm not sure why.
[21:45] Yup! It's right up there with the ubiquitous
[21:46] So you think omnipotence is essential.
[21:46] Action: Questian laughs
[21:46] and Alcuinus Yaleus
[21:46] "Yalensis" actually
[21:46] my bad
[21:46] from a "historically Calvinist school
in New England"
[21:47] Questian: Yes, I not only think that
omnipotence is essential, but I argue that a denial
of it undermines the possibility of denial *qua*...
[21:47] Questian: Or should I say, "denial _tel_quel_"...
[21:48] ok, that will be quite enough of that!
[21:48] Questian: So, *have* you encountered
a specifically christian transcendental argument before?
[21:48] Give me an author or two to refresh
[21:49] Topic changed by ApoloBotemail@example.com:
The Home of Rational Theism
[21:49] Cornelius Van Til
[21:49] Greg Bahnsen
[21:49] John Frame
[21:49] I read an essay by Van Til a long
time ago - can't even recall name.
[21:49] Well, for transcendental arguments as
such, you'd want to look at Stephen Arndt, for example.
[21:49] Bahnsen - on the web now, I think
I saw a reference to him; haven't read him
[21:50] Bahnsen has a book coming out on Van
[21:50] I could check out some of his material
& later respond to it.
[21:50] http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant/ Questian
[21:50] Questian: He was a philosopher of the
early 20th c. Studied under A. A. Bowman at Princeton.
Won a couple of awards for his work on Whitehead,
[21:50] The preceding refers to Van Til, btw.
[21:50] Does that school of thought cohere
well w/ Plantinga's approach
[21:51] Alcuin: what is the guy's name that Icarus
(loathian) likes so much?
[21:51] Plantinga! that's the guy!
[21:51] Plantinga doesn't use a transcendental
argument, though. He's more of a neo-Reidian.
[21:52] better off with Van Til, Bahnsen, and
[21:52] personally speakin as a novice grunt
..i'll take what he gives ..even if its when he feels
its right to give it ..who am i to tell him what is
[21:53] Plantinga I'm more familiar with;
I attended a lecture by him recently, too.
[21:53] Questian: Plantinga and Wolterstorff
provide considerations that are in some measure consistent
with the TA that Van Til developed; the latter, however,
provides argumentation more than analysis, while the
former are more descript
ive and analytical.
[21:53] At Oregon? Or at Notre Dame?
[21:54] Oregon State.
[21:54] In January.
[21:54] A refutation of naturalism.
[21:54] Does his notion of epistemic warrant
as "proper function over an effective design plan" ring
[21:54] One of the few things I agree with
[21:54] That's how he construes it, yes.
[21:55] ChuckF (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined #apologetics.
[21:55] Acolyte has it from someone at SCCCS
that Bahnsen's book on VT will be printed in 1997.
[21:55] ChuckF (email@example.com) left #apologetics.
[21:55] hiya chuch
[21:55] chuck even
[21:55] Alcuin (firstname.lastname@example.org) left irc:
Don't neglect to quit not being illogical!
[21:55] oh no
[21:55] not 97
[21:55] JimG (email@example.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:56] hi again Chuck
[21:56] So: to give you & your way of thinking
a fair shake, I wd do well to check out Van Til, Bahnsen
[21:56] Alcuin (firstname.lastname@example.org)