[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/25/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/25/96 [00:04] 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 - 4/25/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/25/96 [00:04] NowIC (intent@stpfl1-20.gate.net) joined #Apologetics. [00:05] NowIC (intent@stpfl1-20.gate.net) left #Apologetics. [00:11] Johnb7 (johnb7ea@max4-gg-ca-23.earthlink.net) joined #apologetics. [00:11] Johnb7 (johnb7ea@max4-gg-ca-23.earthlink.net) left #apologetics. [00:12] Afalconer (larryg@206.14.69.117) joined #apologetics. [00:12] Afalconer (larryg@206.14.69.117) left #apologetics. [00:26] bethb (bethb@freenet.grfn.org) joined #apologetics. [00:26] bethb (bethb@freenet.grfn.org) left #apologetics. [00:28] Daisey (RoyK@206.112.27.144) joined #Apologetics. [00:28] Daisey (RoyK@206.112.27.144) left #Apologetics. [00:31] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [00:53] Humanless (xhx@ezvlppp38.epix.net) joined #apologetics. [00:53] apolo whata gics? [00:53] what is this place? [00:54] Humanless (xhx@ezvlppp38.epix.net) left #apologetics. [01:05] Elysium (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined #apologetics. [01:05] Elysium (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) left #apologetics. [01:30] Achimoth (caan@ix-dfw10-27.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [01:30] Achimoth (caan@ix-dfw10-27.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [01:31] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [01:35] Pergolesi (~jb@phx-ip-247.netzone.com) joined #Apologetics. [01:36] cephas (dave@c5mc1-asy14.newcastle.edu.au) joined #apologetics. [01:36] Hi [01:36] cephas (dave@c5mc1-asy14.newcastle.edu.au) left #apologetics. [01:45] tomAthest (tomk@lute.qnet.com) joined #apologetics. [01:45] hello tomAthest [01:46] Hello, Pergolesi [01:46] what's on your mind tonight? [01:46] Oh, I just wanted to see what was going on. [01:46] Not much just now. [01:46] all alone with the ApoloBot and W till you joined [01:47] I saw you in #bible. [01:47] I assume W and ApoloBot are bots. [01:47] yes, I was rather disappointed with the convo...rather be by myself instead [01:47] yes, they are bots. [01:48] They were just fooling around [01:48] Thank you, ApoloBot. [01:48] I know tom, just not in that mood tonight [01:48] Spring is coming. Fast, now. [01:48] Summer is here! [01:49] Where? [01:49] where do you live [01:49] I am in Arizona [01:49] VA - I wish I were in Az. [01:49] Phoenix? [01:50] do you like 105 degrees in April? [01:50] 8 miles W of Wash. DC [01:50] Yes, I do, if the humidity is low. [01:50] hmmm, give me the California coast :) [01:50] I came from Washington St. long ago. [01:51] I lived in E. Washington, where it is similar to Arizona. [01:51] N. California is good. [01:52] yes, I lived in Santa Cruz...beautiful [01:52] I've been to all 50 states. [01:52] Oregon seems to have the most interesting beaches. [01:53] rocky and cliffs [01:53] There are sea animals among the rocks. [01:53] Where in AZ do you live? [01:53] sounds wonderful [01:53] I am in Tempe, by Phoenix [01:54] Is that East of Phoenix? [01:54] yes southeast [01:54] I spend a week around Phoenix December before last. I liked it. [01:55] about 12 miles from downtown [01:55] very nice except summer months [01:55] I had a week of leave to use or lose by New Year's/ [01:55] but not enough trees here [01:55] I know. [01:55] I love the trees [01:55] giant redwoods [01:55] You in the military? [01:55] The best trees. [01:55] No, Govt. [01:56] I liked the Christmas music station! [01:56] Twice [01:56] FBI? [01:56] X-files? [01:56] haha [01:56] Naw. We buy pencils and hammers and paper and sell it to other agencies. [01:57] What is the Christmas music station? [01:57] No secret stuff. No military stuff. No tax stuff. [01:57] The station in Phoenix. [01:57] U never heard of it? I listened to it the whole time. [01:58] KTWC [01:58] Do you buy those $75.00 toilet seats for the govt? [01:58] I think it just switches over at Christmas. [01:58] Nope. That was probably the military. [01:58] There are cool steel drums on the radio now! [01:58] Yes, it was a seasonal thing for them. [01:59] haha [01:59] Poingo Pwango. [01:59] The steel drums are a fun instrument, no? [01:59] Yes, the music makes everyone feel like they're on vacation. [02:00] exactly :) [02:00] I am in Jamaica on a hammock right now, sipping an iced tea [02:00] yep [02:01] A funny thing happened while I visited Phoenix. [02:01] what's that? [02:01] Ever heard of Sheep Bridge? [02:01] no, I don't think so [02:02] It is North of Phoenix about 40 miles. [02:02] ok [02:02] I saw that there was supposed to be some interesting rocks around ther. [02:02] So I decided to go. In the rental car. [02:03] The road was a fairly rough gravel road. [02:03] There was a place where a creek was crossing the road. [02:03] So I stopped the car to get out for quick look to see how deep it was. [02:04] The stupid car locked its door on me when I was outside! [02:04] haha [02:04] sorry [02:04] :) [02:04] I was in the middle of a desert with the car in the middle of the road and the motor running. [02:05] What to do? [02:05] swim? [02:05] I took a big rock and busted the back window. [02:05] The little triangle window. [02:06] I got inside and kept on going for the rest of the day. [02:06] quite an adventure [02:07] Yeah, I guess. [02:07] I would've done the same I think [02:07] In the Bahamas, someone broke the same kind of window of our rental car there and stole some stuff while we were looking at a beach. [02:07] that's a drag [02:08] I sure wish I had travelled as much as you [02:08] Yes, you don't want to waste a whole day of vacation waiting for nobody in the desert! [02:08] you married [02:08] Traveling is only one thing to do in life. [02:08] Just got married 2 months ago. [02:08] And you? [02:08] Congrats! [02:08] THanks! [02:09] No, I am not, but I would like to travel a lot with my wife. [02:09] All that traveling I did was not with my wife. [02:09] I am sure [02:09] We did go to Italy on our honeymoon, though. [02:10] Was it romantic? [02:10] Do you have a wife? [02:10] I mean Italy [02:10] It was. [02:10] No I do not have a wife...not God's timing yet, I guess [02:10] Italy was nice, interesting, expensive. [02:10] What does your nick stand for? [02:11] guess [02:11] It kind of sounds like Atheist... [02:11] right [02:11] There aren't enough letters. [02:11] rasqual (rasqual@pool2-056.wwa.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:12] Hey rasqual [02:12] it could also be...tom A theist...haha [02:12] hello hasqual [02:12] Yo! [02:12] Pergolesi: true, one of those things that is hard to tell. [02:12] Like: [02:12] in which case you are in the right room [02:12] GODISNOWHERE [02:13] yes, exactly [02:13] what is happening rasquel [02:13] Good question! [02:14] What is the answer [02:14] tom: very few people truly believe that God does not exist. [02:14] I know. [02:14] Most are agnostics. [02:14] What's this "ApoloBot?" Someone want to demo it for me? [02:14] sure [02:14] But as for the question... [02:15] Whoa~! [02:15] Kewl.... [02:15] I look at it in terms of probabilities. [02:16] OK, now how about this "W"--is that a bot too? [02:16] oh really, explain please [02:16] yes, W is the bot that keeps the channel alive, so to speak, all day and night [02:16] Kewl again. [02:17] How hot does this channel get? [02:17] it does not recognize me as worthy to be an op though :( [02:17] Like the probability that rasqual is male. Each of us decides on a probability of some assertion. [02:17] depends what you mean by hot [02:17] [02:17] rasqual: hardly anyone is ever here [02:18] That's because you never discuss Plantinga's transworld depravity, counterfactuals of freedom, or middle knowledge... [02:18] To me, the probability of the existence of God is less than 1%. [02:18] that is because it is supposed to be an "intellectual" channel...and very few people fit that description on the irc [02:18] I will take that bet, thank you :) [02:18] On what basis, though? [02:18] tomAthest -- how do you quantify all that? [02:19] It isn't really quantified. [02:19] Just low. [02:19] So 1% is "qualified?" :) [02:19] What is the chance that life as we know it would have evolved exactly the way it has til this point? [02:19] Does that make me an agnostic? An atheist? [02:19] 0% [02:20] right tom [02:20] -1% ;) [02:20] Jpar (joupp@max3-gg-ca-18.earthlink.net) joined #Apologetics. [02:20] But it did happen. [02:20] I think that makes you an agnostic...definition: do not have sufficient evidence to know whether or not there is a God. [02:20] No one does. [02:21] I do. [02:21] That's not an agnostic statement... [02:21] The "no one does," I mean [02:21] Most agnostics, though, seem to talk like the probability is more like 50%. [02:21] Also, "does not have," or "is not aware of warrant for?" [02:22] they can not determine odds, because they do not have evidence [02:22] Right [02:22] They are not agnostic, they are confused :) [02:22] They don't know what they believe [02:22] If God appeared here on Earth for everyone to see and talk to, then we would all know. [02:22] But he does not and so we don't. [02:22] He did at one time [02:22] Tom, we would still doubt. [02:22] Well, that _is_ what some claim... [02:22] hello Jpar [02:23] Hiya [02:23] And yup, doubt happens [02:23] I doubt.. [02:23] therefore [02:23] but I believe [02:23] Paul Bunyan was here at one time too. [02:23] My crisis is not of belief, but of trust [02:23] As Os Guinness would say, only faith doubts [02:23] a crisis? [02:24] Yes, I have a crisis [02:24] What is your crisis of trust? [02:24] Well, I thought for a long time that I had a crisis of belief... [02:24] ok [02:25] that is sometimes I thought I believed, and sometimes I didn't [02:25] same as everyone, probably [02:25] but God has shown me that I do indeed believe, but do not trust [02:25] Bing-go. [02:25] That is a big difference [02:25] Huge! [02:25] BIG difference [02:25] I just realized this last evening [02:25] Too big. [02:26] Why too big? [02:26] If God existes, he cannot be trusted. [02:26] How to lean on what some deem a void, believing that the personal Ground of all being is their to butress life itself... [02:26] You see, I do not really believe fully that what God has planned for me is in my best interests. [02:26] That is the crisis of trust. [02:26] People who trust in God to save them often die. [02:26] or _there_ to buttress, as the case may be ;) [02:27] We all die [02:27] If we didn't, I would believe! [02:27] And few of us trust God [02:27] But trust is believing that God will direct you in a perfect way, regardless of the cost [02:27] Life is sometimes the cost [02:27] Yup. [02:28] If we didn't you'd believe? [02:28] I trust God, and I accept the fact the things are not always going to be for *my* benefit. [02:28] If good, moral people lived for hundreds of years because God saved them, then I wold believe. But they die just like everyone else. [02:28] Yup again, to Jpar. [02:28] The wages of sin is death... [02:28] all shall die. [02:28] tomAthest, that's a scriptural observation. ;) [02:28] But God only can redeem [02:29] Things cannot possibly be for everyon's benefit all the time. Think of the job of grave digging. [02:29] In a world where death is real, grave digging is a very good thing. [02:29] The wages of morality is death also. [02:30] We may not SEE things as being for our benefit...but if we let God have our life in His control, He will direct our paths. [02:30] rasqual: my point [02:30] If God allows me to starve to death, I figure I'll be miserable for a couple months, then I'll be in heaven. I can accept this. [02:30] Imagine being a coroner. [02:30] If God existed, would death be His fault. [02:31] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [02:31] freaky bot [02:31] Pergolesi: but it is indistinguishable that our life paths are not random. [02:31] Perhaps. The question is whether, a posteriori, it is in fact. [02:31] I know that my life path is not random. [02:31] If God existed and created everything, it would all be his 'fault [02:31] Not so, tomAthest [02:32] at least not in toto [02:32] There are profound historical quirks [02:32] Oh, yes, it is all his creation. [02:32] no, God has given us the ability to choose, and each one of us chooses a will other than God's [02:32] Indeed, but the randomness is not evident everywhere at all times. [02:33] God didn't have to give us the ability to choose, did he? [02:33] The dice are loaded [02:33] hehe [02:33] He chose to do it; his fault. [02:33] If we were to be "we," yes, he did. [02:33] Don't understand rasqual. [02:33] Oh, I get it. [02:34] no, he didn't Have to, but would you want to be an automaton [02:34] That begs the question as to whether God was doing what he must. [02:34] If we were to be who we are and not a case of Apolobot... [02:34] not my choice [02:34] God desires for us to be in a relationship with him, not as a slave, but a friend [02:34] Choice is really the point. [02:34] I gotta agree with tom on the choice part. Never have understood that. [02:35] Thanks, Apolo. [02:35] A friend honors a friend's differences. [02:35] Exactly, tomAthest [02:35] a friend also tells a friend when he is in error, no? [02:35] A friend does not punish a friend for differences. [02:36] Exactly [02:36] Differences simplicitur, no. [02:36] But a friend does not make rules for another. [02:36] But there are differences among differences [02:36] No? [02:36] God is not just a friend, but also God the Father [02:36] You just made one for God... [02:37] God could have made people with just as much choice, but more trusting in him. [02:37] my father is my friend, but he also punished me when I strayed from the path he wished me to be on [02:37] punishment - a difficult topic [02:37] He desires us to enter a covenant [02:37] a two-way relationship [02:37] I don't think bad things happening in life are God's punishments. [02:37] both parties responsible [02:38] Perhaps [02:38] How does one "make" people trust more? [02:38] Although, God does allow all things [02:38] Good ?, rasqual [02:38] rasqual: a personality difference [02:39] rasqual: don't say God couldn't accomplish it [02:39] Wouldn't all people be more the _same_, and less _diffrent_, then? We were speaking of respect for differences... [02:39] People have a range of personalities. [02:40] Not necessarily the same. More the same, probably. [02:40] Should God respect differences? [02:40] More. So now we have fine lines and gray areas in the divine calculus? [02:40] Why not cut to the chase and [02:40] have him set it all up so _no _one doesn't trust? [02:41] why not? [02:41] Because ti would be a set-up [02:41] is it a game? [02:41] In that case, yes. [02:41] With one player. [02:41] I don't know why. One of the things I going to ask. [02:42] ask it [02:42] indeed. [02:42] What kind of punishment does God use? [02:42] when? [02:43] for what? [02:43] I don't know why God set it up so _no_ one questions. I just have to respect his sovereignty. [02:43] why? [02:43] whenever, for whatever [02:43] none. [02:43] not now. [02:43] later. [02:43] later? [02:43] Sure. Hell. [02:43] God disciplines in various ways to bring us back to Him. [02:43] What happens in Hell? [02:44] I disagree with rasqual on this point [02:44] Nothing. Nihil. Ennui city. [02:44] Excitement in the embers. [02:44] >\? [02:44] exactly. [02:44] sounds like Phoenix :) [02:44] [02:44] excitement and boredom? [02:44] yup. [02:45] God disciplines in various ways to bring us back to Him. [02:45] more like Tucson [02:45] desires unfulfilled. [02:45] [02:45] back from Hell? [02:45] those were for tuscon [02:45] Perg's speaking of dicipline, you asked about "punishment" [02:45] a big difference [02:45] differentiation: [02:46] punishment is sometimes mistaken for discipline [02:46] we must clear up the term punishment [02:46] the one signifies irremediality, the other, the hope of redemption. [02:46] one speaks of deserts and justice, [02:46] Do both happen after life? [02:46] the other of mercy and restoration. [02:46] they seem to be synonymous in our society though [02:46] Some say yes. [02:47] Perg: That's true, sadly. [02:47] I know that God has allowed "bad" things to happen to me, but has always brought good out of it. [02:47] Purgatory? Maybe. I don't hold to it, but it's possible. It would be an act of grace.... [02:48] I have seen it time and time again [02:48] Read Lewis's "The Great Divorce" [02:48] Indeed! Do read! [02:48] Pergolesi, but unlike you, some people had no good come out of it - they died horribly. [02:48] a fictional setting of purgatory [02:48] Frankly, God has allowed bad things to happen to me, too. I haven't always seen the good in it. Yet. [02:49] Also tomAthest -- read Chesterton's _Orthodoxy_ [02:49] I believe that God is a righteous God and knows what he is doing [02:49] I can not explain the toll of evil [02:49] Perg, that sounds like trust. [02:49] Bad things happen - just as if there was no god at all. [02:49] A little [02:49] Horrible deaths. Yes. Some words of Ivan Karamozov come to mind... [02:50] Rain falls on both the just and the unjust [02:50] Why not trouble and death [02:50] True [02:50] Yeah Perg, that _does_ sound like trust. [02:50] :-) [02:50] Why do people think that only good things will happen if you are Christian? [02:50] That's tom's randomness. [02:50] Once you start to trust, rasqual, it becomes much easier [02:50] But in Job... [02:50] Exactly. [02:51] Jpar: I don [02:51] the randomness served a different purpose that's pretty astonishing. [02:51] Jpar: I dont think anyone really thinks that. [02:51] True enough, Perg. [02:51] tomAthest:vSeems to be your recurring question. Why does God allow bad things if her really there. [02:51] Does every event serve a purpose? [02:52] yes [02:52] I don't think so. [02:52] Jpar: right [02:52] maybe [02:52] I just spilled my pepsi all over the floor. To what purpose? [02:52] yes, no, maybe ! [02:52] so you'd have somthing to do for a minute? [02:52] to illustrate your silliness? [02:52] haha [02:52] Jpar: for us all to think upon [02:53] But say, [02:53] In Job... [02:53] Wasn't meaning to be silly. was trying to so use simple illustration. [02:53] God cites all kinds of things [02:53] that make no sense to Job. [02:53] Throughout the book, [02:53] Job was trying to resolve three tensions: [02:54] Young children die in fires. They are innocent, yet life offers them little. [02:54] 1. God is just -- yes or no? [02:54] 2. He was guiltless of sin -- yes or no? [02:54] Pergo (~jb@phx-ip-247.netzone.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:54] Randomness is just -- yes or no? [02:54] bear with me tom... [02:54] 2. (Job, that is) [02:55] ack, I have split in two, how is this possible? [02:55] 3. The "retribution principle" holds -- yes or no. [02:55] One had to go. [02:55] Whoa! MPD! [02:56] God showed Job the retribution principle had to go. [02:56] Pergolesi (~jb@phx-ip-247.netzone.com) got netsplit. [02:56] he did this by pointing to randomness. [02:56] I don't know what the 'retribution principle' is. [02:56] IOW, deserts aren;t the rule of life. [02:56] Nick change: Pergo -> Pergolesi [02:56] OK tom, definition: [02:56] The RP holds that you get what you deserve. [02:57] OT thinking [02:57] Corollaries cropped up, though. [02:57] One being: "AH, you're suffering -- you must've done something wrong!" [02:57] But that doesn't follow. [02:58] If A entails B (A->B), [02:58] of course not [02:58] then ~B entails ~A, but [02:58] B does not entail A. [02:58] IOW, Job's buddies were dead wrong. [02:59] But Job couldn't figure out why he was suffering, in a world view where the RP was paradigmatic. [02:59] Not everyone who is suffering is doing so because they did something wrong. [02:59] Exactly. [02:59] That's what Job discovered. [03:00] If you want to know the intricacies of God, to believe that God knows every event, look at God's answer to Job's speech in chapters 38 and 39. [03:00] But it's the context of that discovery that's so interesting... [03:00] He discovered randomness. [03:00] Yes. [03:00] BUT... [03:00] he discovered God's _wisdom_. [03:00] Here's what I mean. [03:01] God did NOT answer Job's question, which was kind of a "why?", though not really. [03:01] Instead, he pointed out creation, and said "OK, _you_ manage it, if you're wise enough to think that [03:01] God answered alright! [03:02] Pergolesi (~jb@phx-ip-247.netzone.com) got lost in the net-split. [03:02] you can figure out my _justice_. Surely mere management of [03:02] the cosmos would be light work for someone who aspires to plumb the divine justice." [03:02] Jpar (joupp@max3-gg-ca-18.earthlink.net) left #Apologetics. [03:02] And so God told Job to give it a shot. [03:02] does any know Job's ending reply? [03:03] Job was a bit reluctant, and discovered that [03:03] if God can be trusted to be _wise_ enought to set up and maintain a cosmos which is in fact contingent, then [03:03] he might well be trusted in his justice. IOW, [03:04] if we can't aspire to outdo his wisdom, [03:04] why are we so quick to set ourselves up to judge him? [03:04] That may not be [03:04] convincing to the modern Joe Schmoe, [03:04] but it was enought for Job. [03:05] [03:05] It is enough for me. [03:05] Nick change: tomAthest -> joeschmoe [03:05] More knowledge only equals more questions and less answers? [03:05] Where does it stop? [03:05] tom bailed out on us. [03:05] he is joeschmoe [03:05] no, i am here [03:06] And you're back to one person again. :) [03:06] hahahahaha [03:06] :D [03:06] Nick change: Pergolesi -> Job [03:06] Now you're job! [03:06] You guys are nuts. Heck, I might drop in sometime again. [03:06] Action: Job repents in ashes and dust [03:07] ;D [03:07] thanks for dropping by rasqual [03:07] Nick change: Job -> Pergolesi [03:07] I'd love to stay, but I oughtn't. [03:07] joe: you must morph back [03:07] Nick change: joeschmoe -> tomAthest [03:07] ahhhhhhh [03:07] ok [03:08] good night, ras [03:08] Later y'all. I think I'll do this again (first time in a chat) [03:08] rasqual (rasqual@pool2-056.wwa.com) left #Apologetics. [03:08] boy will he be disappointed--it is not usually this busy [03:08] He has a way to make things busy. [03:09] haha [03:09] technical jargon [03:09] but a good guy, it seems [03:09] true [03:09] guy? [03:10] You're a believer! [03:10] You believe that he is a guy. [03:10] I am agnostic on the matter [03:10] ha [03:10] ah [03:11] I saw an interesting statement the other day. [03:11] well, I think that it is very interesting talking to people such as yourself with other views on the world [03:11] and God. [03:11] Jesus knew it all, but forgot to write any of it down himself. [03:12] Did Jesus have time to write? [03:12] Is it better to write about being God, or to be God in action? [03:12] Talking here is educational. It engenders knowledge about yourself - as well as others. [03:13] Writing is important. [03:13] Was Jesus literate? [03:13] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [03:13] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [03:13] Besides, even if Jesus wrote, the same people would believe, and the same would disbelieve, don't you think? [03:13] Yes, Jesus was literate [03:13] hullo all [03:13] Pergolesi: an interesting question. [03:13] hello Acolyte [03:13] whitey (cmwhite@anx_p12.mr.centuryinter.net) joined #Apologetics. [03:13] hell whitey [03:14] hullo whitey [03:14] Hello, acolyte. [03:14] hello :) [03:14] sup, what's going on in here? [03:14] Elysium (clayton@RED.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined #apologetics. [03:14] Hullo Elysium [03:14] Bon (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [03:14] heya Bon [03:14] just finished a discussion with a couple other people...starting again maybe [03:14] hey there acolyte [03:14] hiya [03:14] hell elysium, bon [03:14] hello [03:14] I keep forgetting that o, dangit [03:14] Hey acolyte, what did you think of what I sent you? [03:14] Pergolesi: he was literate? Are you sure? [03:14] Elysium I am still constructing a response, as wellas still unpacking, but I am working on it [03:15] Reasonably sure. [03:15] Action: Elysium nods. [03:15] no one knows [03:15] I'd like to keep it informal but, what are some of your ideas? [03:15] Elysium, well It hink you have a basic grasp on some of the questions entailed by the TRans Arg, but it needs some reconstruction to be a more effective critique [03:15] Action: Elysium nods. [03:15] He was able to read the scripture of Isaiah from the scroll in the temple [03:15] Elysium well it varies, and I am tr....BRB phone call (at work) [03:15] Ah, so. [03:16] That's something I'm very concerned about. It wont do to present a cheese version of the argument [03:16] He also knew Aramaic [03:16] and Greek, it appears [03:16] He who? [03:16] But no writing. Hmmmmm. I wonder if it was a good policy. [03:16] Jesus [03:16] hey, bon, what's going on? [03:17] not much whitey whatcha up to? [03:17] I told you, he was a man of action--words are less than actions [03:17] not much, just trying to figure out what everyone is talking about. [03:17] The pen is mightier than the sword. [03:17] heh, I wonder what the myth that grew up around his name was actually like. [03:17] What difference would it have made [03:17] oh :) me too [03:17] Love is mightier than the pen [03:17] was he the "righteous rabbi" as so many people think, or was he an itinerant pharisee rabbi? [03:18] ok back [03:18] Wasn [03:18] Was he a carpenter? [03:18] what's that tom [03:18] for a long while, he was [03:18] Elysium have you been following the 3rd Quest much? [03:19] What 3rd Quest? You mean the jesus seminar? [03:19] Elysium well the JS is just part of the 3rd quest [03:19] heh, quest for the historical jesus [03:19] Jesus was a carpenter until his 30th year, when he was called into full time ministry [03:19] Elysium there are a whol host of schoalrs on the 3rd quest, the Js is only about 100 of them in America [03:19] Yes Quest for the Historical JEsus [03:19] No, I haven't. Haven't been doing much religious reading at all. [03:20] Elysium ic [03:20] What is the third quest, in short? [03:20] Pergolesi it is an attempt by scholars from multiple fields to construct what the real Jesus of history said, did and taught etc [03:20] It's good I think. The less I read of religious writings, the less gripe I have with it. [03:20] ^bK [03:20] Bon (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left irc: Leaving [03:21] Pergol the first one started about 150 yrs ago and stopped in the 30's, the second started in the 40' or so and ended in the 60's and now the 3rd one is starting [03:21] Elysium out of sight out of mind? [03:21] apelles (RicHaahr@www-40-236.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [03:21] I must go. It is late. Peace and Love to all. [03:21] How will they know...they all bring preconceived worldviews? [03:21] Tom: take care [03:21] tomAthest (tomk@lute.qnet.com) left irc: Leaving [03:21] good to talk to you. [03:21] Not really, I've been thinking about religious matters a lot. Just haven't been reading religious writings. [03:21] perg very true, but, the schoalrs vary deping on methodlogy and paradigm and other factors [03:22] Elysium such as? [03:22] So how will they determine who is the winner of the $64,000 question? [03:22] The more I interact with people from varying religious backgrounds, the more you see how strong a social influence religion has. [03:22] pergo, dunno. [03:22] Elysium any paradigm does, it varies tho. [03:22] hmmm, no one can really know the historical Jesus then, I guess [03:23] Most of the lay believers, whether hindu, or catholic that I've met wouldn't know the difference between a presuppositional apologetic and an evidential apologetic [03:23] Perg I beg to differ [03:23] Elysium true [03:23] Elysium most atheists I know wouldn't either. [03:23] good, I was hoping you would [03:23] perg why? [03:24] because I think that we can have an accurate idea of the historical Jesus... [03:24] it's pretty funny, these issues seem like they're terribly important, but they really aren't. [03:24] Elysium most start with McDowell type evidential stuff then move to other stuff [03:24] but He can't be separated from the spiritual Jesus [03:24] Ely why do u say that? [03:24] Per, I wasn't aware that the two were different ;) [03:25] If a dead savior god is going to come back floating in a cloud wielding a sword, he's gonna get the crap kicked out of him. We have nuclear weapons now. [03:25] Ely ahahahaha [03:25] Ely you are a bitter pill aren't u? ;) [03:25] the Jesus Seminar scholars often separate the two without a second thought [03:25] still, I appreciate christianity. [03:25] Ely why? [03:25] nah, hehe, i just thought it was a humorous image. [03:26] Ely well I am postmill so I don't think that the Olivet Discourses have anything to do with the end of the World at all [03:26] Ely neither does Revelation [03:26] hello whitey, hello apelles [03:26] hi there [03:26] hullo apelles [03:26] Are you enjoying the tea party? [03:26] between all of the prooftexting and embroidery, you see jesus showing mercy to people who didn't receive much mercy in those times; samaritans, women, [03:26] interesting i think [03:27] Ely very true, leopers as well [03:27] Yeah, I thought the idea that a book written in the 1st century to people with very real problems (i.e., domitian/Nero) [03:27] that kind of book being about a prophecy thousands of years in the future makes no sense. What good would that do the people then? [03:27] Elysium yes I think it has to do with the NEronian Persecution and the judgement on Isreal for messianic rejection etc [03:27] Ely very true [03:28] Ely hence the term "I am comeing QUICKLY" [03:28] Still, Revelation is very apocalyptic, and I think it's telling that none of the specific prophecies occured in the time period indicated. [03:28] quickly is not 2,000 yrs [03:28] ely HUH? [03:28] whitey (cmwhite@anx_p12.mr.centuryinter.net) left #Apologetics. [03:28] Ely they all did [03:28] perhaps if you do a bit of reading into the text, but their face value meanings never happened. [03:28] or if they did, they must have taken place on some other planet. [03:28] Ely compare matt 24 w/ rev [03:29] Ely please elaborate [03:29] give me an example [03:30] I dont have my bible with me. Off hand I seem to remember a dragon [03:30] and Daniel 9 [03:30] along with 4 unpleasant gentlemen bearing pestilence and other sundry sort of things. [03:30] I wonder why you would accept a writing about some else of that period but not the writings about Jesus [03:30] Still, that isn't taking the supposed paradigm into account. [03:30] apelles: I dont accept most of the writings of that period. [03:30] Elysium ever read Josephus' account of the Destruciton of the Temple and the Roman Seige of it? [03:31] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [03:31] acolyte: I read a portion of that account in the skeptical review. [03:31] Elysium, the plauges are signs of jdugment from the Exouds account [03:31] Elysium ic, well the rest of it is very telling as well [03:31] Acolyte: heh, that's what I meant by if you read a bit into it then I suppose it happened. [03:31] Ely thatis Till's group right? SR? [03:31] where did you get your superior knowledge [03:31] Acolyte: yep, that's till's magazine. [03:32] Ely well what other type of writing would u expect from a Jewish priest? [03:32] Ely I had some brief correspondence w/ him [03:32] acolyte: I have no idea who wrote the book we know as revelation. [03:32] Tried to set up a dabate [03:32] Ely I do. ;) [03:32] I dont really like till's debating style. Or debates for that matter. [03:32] Ely but anyhow, it is thoroghly hebrew and employs hebrew apocalyptic symbols [03:32] Ely why? I am curious. [03:33] Because they're another attempt to rescue people from working through these issues on their own. [03:33] what do u mean? [03:33] A debate can never really get to the heart of an issue because of the physical constraints [03:33] true [03:34] what else tho? about his tactics? [03:34] There are time limits, there are lots of questions. Evolution debates for instance, or absolutely ridiculous [03:34] I am assumoing u saw the Giesler debate [03:34] Acolyte: I read a transcript of it. [03:34] ic, well he was rather melodramatic inthe debate [03:34] excuse me, where can I find the Geisler debate? [03:34] It's on freethought [03:34] Ely, he commits a number of fallacies, on presentation, Till did better, but I think on content Geisler did better [03:35] Perg Ithink it is on the WWW [03:35] freethought.tamu.edu under debates. [03:35] thanks [03:35] Ely have you heard the Bahnsen/Stein debate? [03:35] btw Bahnsen died [03:35] as did gerstner [03:35] the transcript of the debate wasn't on freethought when I looked [03:36] haven't read that one. [03:36] goodnight [03:36] ic [03:36] Pergolesi (~jb@phx-ip-247.netzone.com) left #Apologetics. [03:36] So what are some of your critiques of what I wrote you? [03:36] Elysium well the things u think are assumptions in the ist part are not assumptions [03:36] they are products of the argument [03:36] conculisins that is [03:37] I was trying to formalize the argument. [03:37] ack conclusions [03:37] I know, I will include a few formalized types of it [03:37] Clark, Van Till,Manion, etc have different formulations of it [03:37] Lewis does as well in 2 of his bks [03:37] ahhh, good. I'd like to see some. [03:37] I have included at least 2 so far [03:37] but [03:38] they work in differnt systems better or worse [03:38] van Till is more suited to Kantian or Post kantian [03:38] Tell me something, do you believe that one must be rational? [03:38] what do u mean? [03:38] or perhaps more specifically, that a person must use logic? [03:38] Ely how can one not use it? [03:39] Acolyte: solipsism. [03:39] Ely does not seem possible. The whole of reality is rational [03:39] ely ic [03:39] hhhmmm [03:39] Well still, it uses logic [03:39] now there I'm not sure I can agree. [03:39] I know, but anyhow [03:39] In the absence of thought, rationality is not present. [03:39] Elysium I think thought is alwasy present, but [03:39] somethng else to think about [03:40] even if there is no mind [03:40] a rock is not a fish [03:40] No I mean, suppose someone begins their understanding from the premise that a is not a. [03:40] ok and? [03:40] Or even with that, suppose someone insists that a rock is a fish. [03:40] u mean in violation of the LofC? [03:40] I don't know what they are talking about then [03:40] how can A be ~A???? [03:41] I mean talk about fringe [03:41] TDS (GBXC1JC1@193.129.160.84) joined #Apologetics. [03:41] What I'm getting at is that logic's existence is conditional [03:41] why would one wishto give up rationality? [03:41] Elysium this is very true [03:41] conditional on thought's existence [03:41] Elysium, it has certain pre conditons [03:41] Excellent - just what I'm looking for (people arguing about nothing!) [03:41] Identity for instance is the result of reflection. [03:41] TDS gee thanks [03:41] Ely very true [03:42] you're welcome - sounds like just my sort of argument too! [03:42] carry on! [03:42] So we aren't really able to conclude that logic is the result of god's existence. [03:42] Ely why not? [03:42] We can't even verify whether or not rationality is contingent on thought. [03:42] Ely whats so bad with that? [03:42] apelles (RicHaahr@www-40-236.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [03:43] Well if we can't tell whether or not logic is independent of human thought, then we can never uniquely conclude that it is the result of god's thought. [03:43] Ely well It hink that is addressed in the TA [03:44] but that's what I'm attacking. I do not believe we can verify the statement that logic is transcendant. [03:44] Ely ok then what is it? [03:44] I dont know. [03:44] Ely is it immenant [03:44] IC, [03:44] well I must say this for you, youa re asking the right questions [03:45] But if transcendancy requires independence, then we have no way of verifying the transcendance. [03:45] Do you both believe in the existance of god (just trying to work out where you are comming from..) [03:45] creation (dcovalt@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu) joined #apologetics. [03:45] Ely define independence [03:45] I can't stay long [03:45] Well, I'm a weak atheist. Acolyte here is a compentent theist:) [03:45] TDS I do, he doesn't [03:45] competent even [03:45] Ely now thats a compliemtn [03:45] Ely why do u say that I am competent? [03:46] creation thaks for the warning [03:46] Ely too bad u can't come to dialog [03:46] By independent I meant that it's existence isn't dependent on human thought for existence. [03:46] good point! [03:47] In fact, that might even have implications for any claim with respect to being "infinite" or transcendant. [03:47] Ely would not the identification of the nature or proerties of the things help in some sort of rational verification, in either direction? [03:47] I dont see how they could. How would we ever check the properties of thought in the absence of human thought? [03:48] Ely, no, that is not what I mean, in identifying logically a property of an idea, what it is, would that not determine depdenace? [03:48] Ely I mean if it is necessary to rationality or not? [03:48] But the process of identifying requires human thought. [03:49] Ely is there any paradigm that does not? [03:49] Well, I better go. I'm getting tired and I want to get more work done before I go to bed. I'll talk to you later. OK? [03:49] Ely there is no nuetraility, thats the problem, but I am not so sure it is a problem [03:49] Sorry - I'm getting confused - is the argument about "Is human logic Gods invention?" [03:49] Creation did you look for the Swinburne stuff [03:49] or something like that... [03:49] TDS no [03:49] No. Which is why I dont think we can ever base an argument on a premise which includes an "independent" of human existence clause. [03:49] or does it go deeper? [03:49] TDS the Transdental argument [03:49] ahh! [03:49] Acolyte: I will do that after finals are over. [03:49] trooper (vgtyhbnju@wwendell13.magiclink.com) joined #Apologetics. [03:50] Ely, think on that more. [03:50] anyone in here [03:50] trooper yes [03:50] ggod morning [03:50] That's part of what I wrote to you about;claims about actual infinites are unverifiable. [03:50] Even if we might conclude that an objects actual infinitude is necessary. [03:51] Ely ok, but would necessary preconditions, and the property of necessity be a way of verification? [03:51] creation (dcovalt@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu) left irc: have to do work [03:51] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined #apologetics. [03:51] hullo lugen [03:51] That was another difficulty I had with the TDS [03:51] hey Acolyte, you rang earlier?? [03:51] ely with the what? [03:51] lugen just saying hullo [03:52] ah, hullo then :) [03:52] \part [03:52] sorra, Transcendental argument. [03:52] ely okie [03:52] trooper (vgtyhbnju@wwendell13.magiclink.com) left #Apologetics. [03:52] Ely btw where r u? [03:52] School [03:52] state wise [03:52] Pennsylvania. [03:52] ic [03:52] too bad [03:52] Why's that? [03:52] I am in CA [03:52] Action: Elysium chuckles. [03:52] I wish I was there. [03:52] it would be interesting4 u to come to Dialog and siscuss this more [03:52] Time for more jazz, brb. [03:53] I agree with you though, in my system, logic is unaccounted for. [03:53] Ely BRB phone call [03:53] I realized it when alcuin asked me a question. [03:53] BRB hold that thought [03:53] the veracity of logic is always assumed.... self reflexive truth [03:54] True, but I think that is assumed of necessity. [03:54] I asked a friend of mine, why do we accept the law of identity as true. [03:54] He had just written a paper on logic; his answer was that the law of identity is the result of reflection. [03:54] Identity is the underpinning of reflection. It is a necessary truth. [03:54] TDS (GBXC1JC1@193.129.160.84) left #Apologetics. [03:55] The problem is that in order to formalize the law, you must experience revelation. [03:55] not too sure about it being a necessary truth per se..... identity that is [03:55] Which doesn't make any sense unless identity is true. So you're question begging. [03:55] Lugen: You don't think that, for knowledge, A is A isn't a necessary axiom? [03:56] Now that I think about it, it's fairly odd that the foundation of knowledge is nothing more than tautology. [03:56] if A represents some "thing", then I would say no... metaphysical systems work from apearances, not things..... [03:56] Sort of like being able to construct the set of integers from the empty set. [03:56] Well now, how do we verify that though? [03:56] all knowledge, in philosophy, is a tautology :) [03:56] Since A is A is the result of a mind working in a physical environment where A is A is certainly true. [03:56] you can't.... [03:57] Ely back [03:57] re acolyte. [03:58] identity, in so far as it pertains to things, is a matter of faith, based on appearance, not necessarily actuality... [03:58] lugen: well, perhaps in the most technical sense that is true, but in practice it isn't true. [03:59] Doors look like doors and act like doors. So when I run into a door, I'm reasonable to conclude that it's a door. The same can't be said of gods. [03:59] lugen a precondition [03:59] I dont have any problem though, accepting identity on faith. [03:59] a pragmatic epistemology will not allow that kind of presupposition that naive realists make [04:00] Even though I dont really believe it's faith, It's experience. Faith as a term has too much baggage. [04:00] Elysium: still talking appearances, within a context of a coninuity of events [04:00] Ely why somethng is there is different question from how it is there adn how it is known to be there. [04:00] lugen assuming there is some kind of uniformity in reality of course [04:00] Right, and I believe the question why is *completely* dependant on human thought. [04:01] Ely? [04:01] Because I dont have much reason to assume differently. [04:01] Ely how do u know it is? [04:01] Ely but u did say u cannot account for logic in ur sys. [04:01] Acolyte: No, I can't say I know it is. It's unverifiable. [04:01] Acolyte: we interpret it that way, things are Empirically real, which is to say that they appear as they are, but transcendentally ideal, in that they conform to the possibility of experience, and interpreted as such. [04:02] Ely empirically yes, that is true, but rationally? I am not so sure of that. [04:02] lugen thanks Kant ;) [04:02] Strict Kantian epistemology... ya gotta love it [04:02] :) [04:02] Now that's a tough one acolyte, "thought" experiments are notorious for their failure. [04:03] well I side more with an inside out of Kant thanto kant, more van Tillian [04:03] Ely so are empirical ones [04:03] Ely, the quesiton still is, what are the necessary preconditions for ratinality? [04:03] Acolyte: right, but at least with empiricism when we stumble on a correct answer, it's the result of testing. The same can't be said for an idea who's verification is solely the result of introspection. [04:03] Acolyte: I side more with Wittgenstien and Heidegger, who chose to do away with the metaphysical issues as a whole :) [04:04] Ely how can one do testing nwithout some epistemology tho?? [04:04] Assumptions accepted on faith of course:) [04:04] Lugen well Van Till is simmilar to Wittgenstein in some respects, as far as nuetraility goes [04:04] Until we come into a situation where our assumptions accepted on faith are leading to unacceptable results. [04:05] Ely how they are accepted does not answer why they are accetped tho, which is what the question is directed at [04:05] Though to be fair, that doesn't really address the *actual* truth of an epistemology. [04:05] Ely: unfortunately empiricism came to an end with Hume and his "unintelligible labyrinth" [04:05] JohnKnox (philcs@slip46.vianet.net.au) joined #apologetics. [04:05] Ely what criteria does one use for determining what is "unacceptable"/ [04:05] ? [04:05] lUGEN correct [04:05] Acolyte: They're variable. But I'm speaking in a pragmatic sense. [04:06] Acolyte: Something along the lines of an unexplained photoelectric effect, for instance, [04:06] Ely and how does one know the truthof pragmatism? and what if pragmatism didn't work at one time? then what? [04:06] Ely then it would be un explained, so? how is that unacceptable? [04:06] Ely: true pragmatism in epistemology leads to nihilism, where everything is a matter of faith, not knowledge, and all knowledge is derived [04:06] Acolyte: When pragmatism breaks down, we'll deal with it then. [04:07] Lugen nihilism everythng is a matter of nothing at all [04:07] Ely I think it already did [04:07] Acolyte, how does one define truth? [04:07] yeah right [04:07] Jk that is context relative [04:07] humans live longer than ever before; the poor are better fed now than in centuries. [04:07] Ely, does not say why to do it tho, only that one does it [04:07] Acolyte, what is the context relative definition for this context? :) [04:08] Ely ability does not entail the necessity of the event entailing [04:08] Acolyte: exactly. The why is up to you; there isn't an *actually* existent why. That is, a why verifiable by our senses. [04:08] Ely we have the ability to feed everyone, but we don't [04:08] Acolyte: Nah, I think that Husserl managed fine without any metaphysical committments, and the same in Heidegger's ontico-existential ontology [04:08] Ely is the mind a sensor? [04:08] FauxReal (ZCLL4@ETSU.east-tenn-st.edu) joined #apologetics. [04:08] Lugen I am not so sure of that [04:08] Acolyte: I believe that it pretty much is. Along the lines of a sensor. Tabula rasa and such. [04:09] Action: Elysium asks you to excuse him while he takes a bong hit. [04:09] Elysa tabula rasa? Hume stomped on the tabula rasa [04:09] Ely man why do u waste your brain on that stuff [04:09] Acolyte: the beauty of Heideggerian ontology is that everything becomes an a priori truth, without presupposition [04:10] Lugen I am a lowly undergrad, I am not that far into Heideggerrian thought. [04:10] Lugen u will have to excuse my ignorance [04:10] Ely someone as smart as u should not be smokin that junk [04:10] FauxReal (ZCLL4@ETSU.east-tenn-st.edu) left irc: FauxReal [04:11] Action: Elysium is back. [04:11] Ely someone as smart as u should not be smokin that junk [04:11] heh, I dont mind it. [04:11] Acolyte: how about Buberian dialogical relations between I and thou and I and it, kind of a metaphysical dependency of "thingness" based on relations [04:12] Lugen I have read some Buber, not much tho, I have to read stuff on Church history right now mostly. and Anthropology [04:13] Ely you should mind, its a waste of your intellect, IMO [04:13] Action: Elysium chuckles. [04:13] Ely man seriously [04:13] Ely its a waste [04:13] Ely so many ppl are so far behind u in terms of thought and you waste it [04:14] bums me out [04:14] Tell that to my CSE prof; I do most of my programming stoned. [04:14] Ely even worse [04:14] Action: JohnKnox is curious ... do the philosophical distinctions represent actual teaching(s) in scripture ... or are they a addendum that you are using to interpret scripture? [04:14] But acolyte the issues that we talk about aren't of particular relevance. [04:14] Ely, that is because the chemicals recall data learned under that state [04:14] Acolyte: being of Jewish origin myself, I kind of like his panentheistic depiction of God, and the principle of I-thou [04:14] Ely they are to me [04:14] What happens if it turns out that, after thousands and thousands and thousands of years, god actually does exist. [04:14] Lugen well I am not too fond of bi-polar theism [04:15] Ely what about after u die, he does exist, what then? [04:15] I'll deal with that when I get there. [04:15] Ely what if thats too late? [04:15] BUt would it have any effect? Would the poor be fed better, or science work more efficiently? [04:15] Bet your life my freind, use what you have well, live well. [04:15] Would politicians become more honest, or ethical dilemmas less problematic? [04:15] JohnKnox: I don't tend to mix philosophy and the Bible.... but that is another story :) [04:15] Ely they will, they will indeed [04:16] The tale of christianity is a case in point. Even if god walked the earth in human form, most humans wouldn't accept him. [04:16] lugen, do your philosophical studies and musings add to your primary religious beliefs or are they neutral or damaging to them? [04:16] Ely, will your dilema before th Creator become easier by treating these questions and wasting your life on drugs any better? [04:16] So arguing about necessary preconditions for knowledge, induction, identity, etc., aren't particularly important. Though I enjoy it:) [04:17] Ely *sigh* too bad [04:17] That's the rub acolyte. There's no part of me that is in fear of a creator or a day of judgment. [04:17] ely u depress me dude [04:17] Ely smokin pot no wonder. [04:17] JohnKnox: they are primarily neutral, from the point of view that everyone creates their own weltanchauung, and sees what they want to see [04:17] I mean, no part of me at all. I read the creation story and laugh like I'd read a story that says the earth is suspended on the back of an elephant. [04:17] Ely man why waste what you have? [04:17] Acolyte, are you sure there is such a thing as knowledge? [04:18] JKm, yes [04:18] Even something as simple as that question. It's unanswerable. [04:18] How can you be sure of knowledge? [04:18] Acolyte, what kind of knowledge? [04:18] JohnKnox: not in the humanistic sense, no.... [04:18] Ely how and that I am are 2 different questions [04:18] JK and having a reasona nd giving a reason are not the same either [04:18] How do I know that my senses, from the beginning, were not the result of some finite, but advanced creator species? [04:19] How do we determine the point at which a concepts transcendance requires the existence of an infinite being? [04:19] Acolyte, I did not ask about a reason ... or for one to be given. [04:19] Ely, to me its a shame that you waste what you have been given. [04:19] Jk i am absolutely certainof some things, and not of others [04:20] The platonic notion of beauty, is that concept not quite transcendant enough to have *necessarily* been the result of an infinite mind? [04:20] anyhow I gotta read my email [04:20] Elysium, do concepts have existence outside of "brain"? [04:20] Acolyte: Answer my question please:)! [04:20] lugen c-ya [04:20] Ely stop smokin pot and i will. [04:20] Acolyte: OH man, dont play with me like that. [04:20] Acolyte: That was the crux of my letter to you. [04:20] L8er Acolyte [04:20] Ely hey man don't be a jerk and waste your brain, there are so many ppl that don't have the brains u do and u waste it, [04:21] Ely I know what the crux of the letter to me was. [04:21] Ely u r closer, but still not there [04:21] anyhow [04:21] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left irc: Leaving [04:21] Acolyte: By what criterion do we determine whether or not a concept is transendant, and whether or not that transcendance required the existence of an infinite mind. [04:21] If we can't do that, then we can't say that the existance of logic necessarily indicates the existence of the christian deity. [04:22] Elysium, I sometimes wonder what the point of discussion with Acolyte is ... he has an annoying habit of leaving in the middle of a discussion. [04:22] john: I enjoy discussing with him when I'm not goading him. [04:22] but john, what's your take on these ideas? [04:22] and lugen, you too. [04:23] my take is that the notion of idea and it's significance has to be defined first before we can proceed to discuss what the consequences of ideas are. [04:24] but definition itself is an idea. [04:24] Physical objects just *are*. [04:24] for example do ideas have an independent existence? [04:24] are they non-material? [04:24] john: the idea of gravity does. [04:24] Ely: as I said, logic is self reflexive, and is assumed, and with reference to the latter question, I do not subscribe to necessary apologetics, as it runs contrary to "faith", which is the basis of all knowledge [04:24] Elysium, where does that idea exist? [04:24] lugen: Perhaps faith is the basis of all knowledge. Faith in our senses. [04:25] john: It exists everywhere. What the idea of gravity describes certainly exists. BUt that isn't exactly the *idea*. [04:25] Ely: can't really say that with any certainty per se [04:25] What i'm saying is that gravity isn't a "thing"; it isn't the idea of gravity, but it is the substance of the idea of gravity. [04:25] Faith in the past. [04:25] or rather, faith in the future. That it will be similar to the past. [04:25] Ely: just because it appears that way doesn't mean it is that way.... cosmic slight of hand stuff :) [04:25] Elysium, it is the idea that I am discussing not the existence of a physical thing such as gravity. [04:25] and I think we do so with good reason. [04:25] Action: Elysium chuckles. [04:26] That's true. Perhaps gravity is very physical. GRavitons and such. [04:26] but wait, the field. [04:26] The concept of the field is not an object. i.e., the magnetic field. [04:26] Ely: we interpret gravity that way.... [04:26] Our concept of the field is referring to something; hell we can test for it's presence. [04:26] lugen: but gravity does exist. [04:27] lugen: And it isn't an object, unless the physical model of gravitons is true. [04:27] Elysium, fields have physical existence ... electromagnetic fields are mediated by photons. [04:27] Elysium: that can't be proven [04:27] john: Ahhhhh, you're right. [04:27] john: So then there really is no such thing as action as a distance? [04:27] Elysium, it is the idea that I am interested in., [04:27] john: mind you, the gravity question is still unanswered. [04:27] The idea itself exists as a configuration of neurons in human brains. [04:28] what that memory construct refers to isn't the memory construct itself. [04:28] Elysium, there appears to be no such thing ... action is mediated by some form of phisical entity ... all such mediation is limited by the speed of light. [04:28] Elysium: I don't subscribe to metaphysics, so I don't find it necessary to underpin scientific theories and laws [04:29] lugen: You believe that the truths are self-evident then? [04:29] Elysium, I would contend that the idea is as you observe the product of neurons in the brain ... and nothing more. [04:29] er10 (fhkxir@pc4.gilboa.israel.net) joined #Apologetics. [04:29] hi all [04:29] john: But wait then, if that's all it is, then what is the experience of that idea? [04:30] john: The actual experience of the idea; not recounting the memory, but forming the memory. [04:30] Elysium, the experience of the idea is more neuronal activity. [04:30] Ely: self-evident is not something I would say about anything.... we assume logic is true because the only possible way to vinidcate logic is through the use of logic itself, hence it begs the question. All truth is derived, and a matter of faith, nothing [04:30] more, nothing less [04:30] john: that's what I think, but someone asked me a question, which I can't recall, that I couldn't asnwer with that. [04:31] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [04:31] Elysium, at no point is your "experience" independent of some form of memory ... some form of neuronal activity. [04:31] lugen: What do you mean "a matter of faith". Though I see what you are saying. [04:31] john: true, but the experience isn't the memory. [04:31] john: Nor is it the memory of th ememory because then you'd have infinite regress. [04:32] john: If ideas are memories, and experience is an idea, yet experience is not a memory, then we have problems. [04:32] Elysium, the experience is the memory ... the gravity is not the memory it is a physical thing outside of your neurons (we assume) [04:32] How would I know that it's the physical thing outside of my neurons? [04:32] Ely: it's not something we can be absolutely "certain" of, it always involves an inductive leap from the observed to that which is not observed, which takes it to the level of probability, but no t certainty. [04:32] When the only way I can experience the physical thing is through my memory? [04:33] lugen: agreed. [04:33] Elysium, experience is a memory ... very short term ... there is not instantaneous processing in the brain. [04:33] john: No, I'm talking about the idea of experiencing an event. [04:33] john: what is that idea referring to? [04:33] Hence if it is merely probability we're talking about, we're talking about "faith", not "knowledge" (scientia in the Latin) [04:34] Elysium, an idea is a memory of a sort a recollection of things experienced ... or a construct of neurons using memory as a component. [04:34] john: what is the idea of justice? [04:34] Elysium, see the above. [04:35] john: or rather, what experience does the idea of justice refer to? [04:35] john: There are abstract ideas you know [04:35] Ely: read the Crito by Plato :) [04:35] john: platonic forms for instance. [04:35] Elysium, you would not be contending for some sort of "eternal ideas"? :) [04:35] I've read the crito. [04:35] john: I dont know. The more I think about it, the less I believe I have any way of *truly* knowing. [04:35] john: I could never verify an eternal idea. [04:36] Elysium, abstract implies an abstraction from things experienced ... and memory plays a role in that. [04:36] anyways... I'm off... enough pontificating for one night :) [04:36] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: Leaving [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_25_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