[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/25/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/25/96 [19:12] Aco

---
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 - 2/25/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/25/96 [19:12] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #APOLOGETICS. [19:48] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [19:48] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) left #apologetics. [19:50] Spud (anon@van-as-05c08.direct.ca) joined #Apologetics. [19:50] Acolyte. [19:51] brb [19:52] spud brb [19:52] Woof. [19:52] ;) [19:53] ok [19:53] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [19:53] If it is an agrred upon axiom itis still assumed. Secondly agreement does not make it true [19:53] pascoe. [19:53] hi. [19:54] Indeed; but that's my point - it is *not* assumed to be true in any absolute sense; it is simply agreed upon as a basis for forming a meaningful framework of communications. [19:54] RedCloud (meil@meil.interlog.com) joined #apologetics. [19:54] spud if A/=~A has no basis in reality how does it relate to reality in any meaningful sense? [19:54] what is this? [19:54] why is everyone following me? [19:54] Acolyte: hey, you invited me. 8) [19:54] pascoe U I know [19:55] it is nice to know and be known. 8) [19:55] Acolyte: The same way mathematics as a whole does; it is occasionally useful for describing certain aspects of reality, while remaining independant of that reality. [19:55] spud ok, so a tree can be a rock and a tree at the same time? that does not seem merely formal to me, it seems more synthetic. [19:55] spud, if you are a naturalist there is nothing independeant of nature for all IS nature. [19:55] spud are you an atheist? [19:56] psud logic is not merely analytical but synthetic as well [19:56] Ac: No, I'm saying that if we can agree to use the label "tree" to describe a 4-legged furred animal, then as long as we do so, it remains a "tree". However, t he term "tree" is merely a handy descriptive label, having no actual effect upon the thing labeled. [19:56] Ac: I am an atheist, in the "without theism", rather than "against theism" sense. [19:57] spud fine,lets say I agree, the term T is a lable, can T be X in the same sense time and relationship? [19:57] No [19:57] Spud: so you begin with equivocation on the existence of God? 8( [19:57] psud reality is rational, if not, youwould never know it wasn't befause youwould not know anything [19:58] Spud the technical term is called Weak Atheism [19:58] Can T be X? Certainly - as long as they are not mutually exclusive, as defined in our system of communications. [19:58] Indeed. Oops... brb... [19:58] Spud Can T ve X in S, T, R? No [19:58] Spud ever seen a qurater/nonquarter? No. Not possible [19:58] weak atheists = agnostics or fense riders. 8( [19:59] I mean fence. 8) [20:01] lag [20:01] RedCloud (meil@meil.interlog.com) left #apologetics. [20:01] weak atheism is like weak pregnancy. 8) [20:02] CTCP PING: 572809468 ORC from pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) to #apologetics [20:05] Acolyte: who first used the term atheist? [20:05] pascoe greeks [20:06] Acolyte: in what context? [20:06] pascoe against socrates [20:06] called him an atheist [20:06] he denied the cities Gods [20:06] Acolyte: so the context is denial of a god. [20:06] pascoe originally yes [20:07] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line4.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:07] Acolyte: if all one can say is 'I have no comment on God' then how can he call himself an atheist? [20:07] Mode change '+o Alcuin ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [20:07] hi Alcuin. [20:07] pascoe that is not weak atheism tho [20:07] Hi pascoe [20:08] Acolyte: I don't find the concept of the term weak atheism very suitable at all. its just an attempt at association with a term without dealing with the implications of that term by those who claim it. [20:08] brb [20:09] spud, eh [20:10] pascoe2 (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:11] ]] rom 15 6 [20:11] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Read error to pascoe[xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu]: Connection reset by peer [20:11] Nick change: pascoe2 -> pascoe [20:11] pascoe I am on a call brb [20:11] logos5 (pasc8891@hidden.cs.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:11] Hey, pascoe2, here's a verse for ya [20:11] Acolyte: ok. [20:11] ;) [20:13] So, pascoe, have you fallen in with the Credenda Agenda crowd? [20:13] Alcuin: hahaha. 8) [20:14] Alcuin: fallen isn't the word. 8) [20:14] :) [20:14] Alcuin: what do you think of it? [20:14] It's interesting and entertaining. [20:14] Alcuin: I agree. 8) [20:14] alcuin, what do you think of Credenda Agenda? [20:15] Acolyte: It's interesting and entertaining. [20:15] Not particularly deep, nor complex--but not trying to be. [20:15] Action: pascoe is actually surprised that CA gets the exposure it does. It comes from a very small group here in Moscow. [20:16] Sorry... [20:16] Douglas Wilson, Douglas Jones, ... , [20:16] Doug Wilson is the teaching elder at CEF, he gave a good message today from Heb. [20:16] Pascoe: So-called "weak atheism" is nothing more than not choosing to believe in deities; what are the implications of this? [20:17] Acolyte: you were entertaining the notion, as I recall, of explaining your view of material infallability and formal infallability.... [20:17] primetime (tdoane@muselab-gw.runet.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:17] Spud: the implications are that weak atheists are riding the fence or simply don't know. [20:17] greetings, primetime [20:17] hello Alcuin. How are you tonight? [20:18] Spud: if they don't know they are more properly called agnostic. if they are riding the fence, they should get off it. [20:18] Well, we obviously don't know that a deity exists, or we wouldn't be in the position we're in. And it is simply not possible to know that a deity doesn't exist, so what would you prefer as an alternative? [20:18] Spud: so you are claiming to be agnostic? [20:19] Pascoe: Depends. If you look again at the derivation, an agnostic has traditionally taken the view that gods are by nature unknowable. The atheist suggests that gods _may_ be knowable, but remain as yet unknown. [20:19] spud: It does not follow from "the position we're in" that "we don't know that a deity exists"--those propositions can be [and should be] construed as consist ent. [20:19] Spud: but you are in fact saying that god is unknowable. [20:19] primetime (tdoane@muselab-gw.runet.edu) left #apologetics. [20:19] Spud: the atheist claims that there is no god. [20:19] And either way, since you seem (by implication) to suggest that agnostics are also fence-riders, which side of the fence should they come down on with neither evidence nor reason to adfopt either side? [20:19] spud what are the preconditions of epistemology, metaphysics and Ethics? [20:20] pascoe: I'm an atheist and I make no such claim, so don't tell me what I believe or claim. [20:20] Spud don't get so uppidy [20:20] Spud: what *do* you believe and claim, since some of us [me] came in after the discussion had begun.... [20:20] No, I'm saying gods are unknown. I haven't met any, but they may be out there - I have no solid evidence either way. [20:20] Spud: so you want to associate with the term atheist but you are in no way expected to answer for the claims that atheism makes? [20:21] spud what are the preconditions of epistemology, metaphysics and Ethics? [20:21] Spud: if you do not know if God exists, you are agnostic. [20:21] Spud: do you believe in logic, science, and morality? [20:21] Alcuin: I am an atheist - not an antitheist. I lack belief in deities, but am open to the possibility that they may exist; I simply require some tangible evidence before I'll accept the claim. [20:22] pascoe remeber a few days ago, and what I told you about Flew? [20:22] Pascoe: I'm not a "strong atheist" - those guys are as lacking in rational foundation for their beliefs as is the theist who maintains that some god exists, but without any rationa; basis for the claim. [20:22] Spud, have you read Antony Flew? [20:22] Acolyte: Damned if I know; I'm just a lowly programmer. [20:22] Spud: an antitheist would be against god. an atheist is one who says there is no god. you say you do not know therefore you are agnostic. [20:23] Spud: There are several definitions of "atheist"--some deny theism, some are agnostic with respect to theism--and that agnosticism may take two forms: "might someday know," and "will never know." [20:23] Acolyte: sorry, I don't remember Flew. 8( [20:23] spud that is apparent [20:23] Spud do you think that all beliefs have to have grounds to be held as rational? [20:23] Spud: Now in the eyes of some, all these flavors amount to a denial of the existence of God, flat out. [20:23] pascoe rememebr now? [20:23] Acolyte: 8) [20:23] pascoe: You're confusing strong atheism, weak atheism and agnosticism. There ain't no such animal as an agnostic, properly speaking, since even they have - or lack - a belief in deities. [20:24] Spud do you think that all beliefs have to have grounds to be held as rational? [20:24] Acolyte: your sarcasm is beautiful. [20:24] Spud do you think that all beliefs have to have grounds to be held as rational? [20:24] Spud do you think that all beliefs have to have grounds to be held as rational? [20:24] Spud do you think that all beliefs have to have grounds to be held as rational? [20:24] aluin I love you man. [20:24] Spud: It sounds like you have a willingness to be persuaded rationally if such persuasion is possible. [20:24] Acolyte: Having fun with your macros? Anyhow, I would have to suggest that yes, they do. [20:24] Alcuin: Bingo. [20:25] spud ok, well I think that there are problems with that principle, would you be willing to help me illustrate and perhaps solve them? [20:25] Spud: I'm willing to try to show you, from inside a theistic frame of reference, why some of us here think that there's good reason to believe in God. [20:25] Action: Acolyte hands Alcuin a dark Beer [20:25] *POP!*, tschhhhhh, quaff quaff [20:26] glorp glorp glorp glorp glorp [20:26] alcuin done like a True Reformed Philosopher [20:26] Ahhhhhhh. [20:26] Ac: Certainly. However, let's never lose sight of the difference between things which are believed, and things which are claimed to have observable impact upon the universe. Since God is constantly claimed to be in both categories , it strikes me as more valuable to seek instances of the latter. [20:26] Action: Acolyte cracks out his Pipe [20:26] spud perhaps, but lets examine this principle of yours [20:26] Spud: atheism is a classification based on a claim about God. I haven't met an atheist of any variety that is willing to make reponsible defenses of their claim. they simple want to be left alone is generally the response. [20:26] Alcuin: Shoot. How about starting first with the reason for accepting that *any* deity, let alone a specific one, exists. [20:27] spud for the sake of convienience I will call the principle "Any Belief _______ needs grounds in order to be held as rational." Principle F. [20:27] Pascoe: Then go talk to some strong atheists - who claim gods don't exist. Don't bother with us weak atheists who simply lack belief in deities - since we make no claims one way or the other, we have nothing to defend. [20:28] Ac: with you so far. [20:28] Spud: I'll defer to Acolyte for the time being, since it wouldn't be good to have two threads spinning at once. OK? I'm eager to speak with you, however. Acolyte and I may or may not agree on details. [20:28] Alc: Sure thing. [20:28] Spud: what you are saying is that weak atheism makes absolutely no claim and is therefore beyond responsibility to any claim. 8( [20:28] Alcuin, everyone is entittled to my opinion. ;) [20:28] spud ok, now lets take Principle F and plug it someonewhere [20:28] spud so, it would read as follows [20:29] Acolyte: On the other hand, I'm willing to gab on, ad infinitum, if you care to take a breather, Acolyte ;) [20:29] Acolyte needs better macros. 8) [20:29] pascoe: Since we don't claim thta God exists, and don't claim that God doesn't exist, what claim we you suggest we are making? About all we have to offer is this: the evidence for deities is not sufficient to warrant our (individua l) beliefs in deities. [20:29] "Any belief __Principle F__ needs grounds in order to be held as rational." [20:29] Spud do you see the problem or no? [20:30] Action: Alcuin passes out a leaflet reading: [20:30] Egads: Are you going to goedelize it into infinity? ;) [20:30] Alcuin you talk? naw [20:30] Spud: how can you possibly classify yourself as atheist if you don't even make any claims one way or the other? [20:30] spud, do you see the problem or no? [20:30] "Does Principle F itself need grounds in order...." [20:30] pascoe: Simple: because I lack - am without - prefix 'a' - any beliefs in deities, which is to say, theism. [20:30] spud, do you see the problem or no? [20:31] "Does the Principle that Principle F itself need grounds need grounds?" [20:31] Ac: You want to get into infinite regress. Fine, dandy, what's your point? [20:31] Spud the point is that your epitemic principle is self referrentially absurd. [20:31] spud it is self refuting [20:31] "Does the Principle that the Principle that Principle F itself need grounds need grounds need grounds..." [20:31] Chemy1 (gt6186a@fitten185.residence.gatech.edu) joined #Apologetics. [20:31] sdfgfsdgdfgsdfgssdfgsdfg [20:31] sdfgdfgsdfgfddfgs [20:31] dfgsdfgdfgdfgdfgs [20:31] spud it cannot satisfy its own criteria [20:31] dfgsdfgsdfgsdfgdfgs [20:31] dfgsgfddfgdfgsdfgdfgfgds [20:31] dfgdfgdfgssdfgsdfgfgsd [20:31] dfgsdfgsgdfsdfgdfgdfgs [20:31] sdfg [20:31] sdfg [20:31] dfgs [20:31] dfgs [20:31] dfg [20:32] sdfg [20:32] Spud: I think you are the one who enters into infinite regression when you arbitrarily demand that all beliefs be grounded in evidence. [20:32] Chemy1!gt6186a@fitten185.residence.gatech.edu kicked by Alcuin!kingtutor@remote4-line4.cis.yale.edu: Alcuin [20:32] Mode change '+b *!*@fitten185.residence.gatech.edu ' by Alcuin!kingtutor@remote4-line4.cis.yale.edu [20:32] Al: Care to show me *any* approach to anything which can't be demonstrated absurd in one manner or another? [20:32] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [20:32] Spud: Yes, I do care to. However, Acolyte has the mic. [20:32] spud it cannot satisfy its own criteria [20:33] spud do you have a way out of this dielemna or do you not see the problem? [20:33] Al: Sorry, that should have been aimed at Ac. ;) [20:33] ok [20:33] spud, are we discussin ANY approach or this one? [20:33] spud this one. [20:34] spud please justify yor aproach [20:34] Ac: Oh, I see the problem; I simply don't see that _any_ formal system, regardless of its base foundations, can be both complete and consistent. In this case, the application of infinite regress exposes a flaw in this one; big deal . Got a better approach? [20:34] Goedel. [20:34] spud are you trying to imply that since any view can be seen as absurd that we should just take yours? and that it does not matter? that it is arbitrary? [20:34] Spud yes [20:35] Spud, ever read Augustine? wait, forget that [20:35] credo et intellagam [20:35] Action: Alcuin stands near the bar, quietly stirring his Schloesser Alt [20:35] Ac: Yes, you have a better one? One that is complete and self-consistent, makes absolutely no contradtions whatsoever? Well I suppose "I'll believe anything" would fall into that category; what' s your answer? [20:35] alcuin you of age my friend? [20:35] Acolyte: old enough to know better, and then some. [20:36] Ac: No, I'm not a big fan of most philosophy - having listened to far too many philosophers confuse themselves endlessly. [20:36] spud, I a know enough of Godel not to fall into that verbal trap thank you very much [20:36] Action: Alcuin notes that Spud is asking good questions and has a healthy scepticism regarding philosophical rabbit-chasing. [20:36] spud thats funny...yeha right...anyhow [20:36] Ac: So what *is* this wonderful system that meets all these requirements? [20:36] Action: Alcuin hands Acolyte an umlaut [20:36] "You dropped this" [20:37] spud why not modify the principle F? [20:37] alcuin umlaut? [20:37] Spud: if you say you are atheist, then you are making a claim about the existence of God based on the meaning of greek and the historical origin of the word. it is obvious that you do not want to deal with the implications of th at association, but this is the pattern I find amoung atheists in general. 8( [20:37] Funny? What's funny? You should hang out at some of the coffee shops here in town. All sorts of students - and occasionalyl professors - of philosophy. [20:37] Go"del [20:37] ][XQUS (mondar@cs4-14.sun.ptd.net) joined #apologetics. [20:37] Spud, all we have to do is say that SOME beleifs require grounds in order to be held as rational. [20:37] pascoe: Ok. I'm without belief in deities. There's my claim. Happy now? [20:37] Spud: Vancouver? [20:37] Hi, ][xqus [20:38] Al: Yup. [20:38] <][XQUS> hello all [20:38] Spud: that's more consistent. 8) the question then becomes, why? [20:38] pascoe: and that leads us to the conversation that has already begun... [20:38] Ac: So far so good - now, let's nail down exactly which sort of belief falls into that category. Does the belief "some beliefs require evidence" fall into that category? [20:39] Alcuin: true, I guess we are past that already, but I like to tidy up loose ends. 8) [20:39] spud sure, why not [20:39] pascoe: Why do I lack belief? Simple: I've never seen evidence which warrants beleif. [20:39] spud if you never start a race you can never finish it [20:39] Ac: Ok, so that belief requires evidence. Got any evidence for it? [20:39] Spud: what are your criteria for acceptable evidence? [20:39] Action: Alcuin stands by the bar, twirling evidence on his keychain [20:39] spudm sure, the impossibility of the opposite [20:40] Spud: do you believe that George Washington existed? [20:40] '"The Impossibility of the Opposite" for a limited time now at your Buick dealer...' [20:40] Pascoe: First, a mechanism from which predictions may be drawn. Second, physical evidence consistent with that mechanism, and none contradictory to it. Third, that the mechanism be less complex than alternative mechanisms. [20:41] Ac: Okay, for the nonce, let's go with that. [20:41] Spud: what is an example of a mechanism from which predictions may be drawn? [20:41] spud, we assume some beliefs as basic and that are neceesary to rationality, Liek the intelligability of reality, self existence, etc [20:42] spud anything that is a necessary PREcondition to rationality [20:42] Spud: what is the mechanism that allows you to believe that George Washington existed? [20:42] brb-got a call [20:43] Spud: would you care to engage the issue from a different angle, with me? [20:43] Alcuin: hey, wait your turn. 8) [20:43] pascoe: Oh, take for example Newtonian mechanics. One prediction which can be drawn from that is that if you travel at velocity X for time Y, you'll travel a distance X * Y. You can perform the experiment and determine for yoursel f whether the mechanism is at least close to what is observed in reality. [20:43] Ac: Okay. [20:43] Spud: are you saying you require a repeatable mechanism for all of your beliefs? [20:44] Ac: Which is one reason I laugh at these self-styled philosophers. Sure, questions such as "Do you know X exists" may not be answerable in an absolute sense; but only they would spend days, weeks , worrying about it. [20:44] As long as you don't perform the experiment [a] near a black hole, or [b] with electrons....:) [20:44] Nick change: Alcuin -> ALcuin [20:44] Spud: if your standard is repeatability then that would preclude your belief in history? [20:44] Spud: This is ALcuin, not AColyte :) [20:44] Al: Shoot. [20:45] pascoe: Nope, because if you look at the class of incidents which make up history, most of them _are_ repeatable. [20:45] Ok. Spud, as I understand it, you are "so far" not convinced of the existence of God [however defined]; you are willing to be shown; and you are interested in the paradigm of scientific method as a means of demonstration. [20:45] Spud: can you use George Washington as an example? [20:45] Spud: then use Plato and Muhammad. [20:46] Are we together so far? [20:46] pascoe: Sure. Met many people. Some of them were generals, some were politicians. What's your question? [20:46] AL: Works for me. [20:46] Spud: my question is why do you believe any of this as historical fact? [20:46] Spud: it seems to fail your mechanism of repeatability. [20:47] Spud: Your claim is that you do not know God, and have no evidence of God's existence. My claim is that you do know God [though you do not realize|acknowledge that you know God], and that I can prove this to you. [20:47] pascoe: Nope. Try again. [20:47] AL: Shoot. [20:47] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca2-02.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [20:47] Spud: how can you use your mechanism to show the existence of George Washington? [20:47] Spud: Now, I take it that you have some notion of science, some notion of logic, and some notion of morality. [20:47] hey. [20:47] ciao, Cassidy_ [20:48] hellohellohello [20:48] Spud: what you appear to be doing is setting up false criteria for what is acceptable evidence while you use no such criteria in the rest of your beliefs. [20:49] pascoe: The claim that a person existed at some point in history is mundane; it requires mundane levels of evidence. Leadnig armies or being polititcian is hardly unusual. Add to the mundane nature of the claims the body of eviden ce from seaparate sources, and it is entirely reasonable to conclude that there is little reason to suppose that the whole thing was a colossal and complex hoax. [20:49] With respect to science, you take for granted several things: you assume continuity in empirical experience, you assume causation, you assume that future contingencies will somehow relate to past events. Scientific method may be characterized in this way across the board. [20:49] Action: ALcuin pauses to let these ideas settle with Spud. [20:49] Spud: so the question becomes, why don't you accept equivalent evidence in the form of Scripture? [20:50] AL: Two out of three. I have some notions of both science and logic, although neither are complete - I'm not omniscient. As to morals, I have none. [20:50] hey cassidy [20:50] Alc...nice effect. [20:50] hey aco.....I've been asleep since the moment I got home. [20:50] Spud: you have now abandoned your prior criteria for acceptable evidence BTW. [20:51] Spud: OK, so you have "incomplete" science and logic, and no morals. Well, well get back to the morals issue if you wish, at a later point. Let's deal with the terrain that is least problemati c. [20:51] caissidy sickie poo [20:51] pascoe: Simple; the evidence is *far* too scanty especially in light of the magnitude of the claims being made. Were you to claim simply that "Jesus, a carpenter, lived 2,000 years ago", the evid ence available would suffice. The *additional* claim that Jesus was a divine figure needs other evidence. [20:51] Spud...I should say you do.] [20:51] Spud: With respect to logic, you assume the existence of abstract [immaterial], unchanging, universal "laws" of thought. You with me on science and logic? [20:51] spud what evidence have you consulted? Just curious? [20:52] Spud: so now you impose a subjective arbitrary 'scanty' provision on what you will accept as evidence for the existence of God? clever. [20:52] pascoe: I have? Or have I simply refined it for the benefit of those who have apparently never heard of the scientific method? [20:52] Action: Acolyte sits back and lets Alcuin take the Mic [20:52] Ac: In relations to what? [20:52] Action: ALcuin nods in acknowlegement to Acolyte [20:52] AL: "Laws of thought"??? [20:52] spud claims of Christ [20:53] cassidy the tract by Jeremy Taylor is COOL [20:53] Spud: OK, I've posited some things about science and logic. Before we proceed, I'll clarify "laws of thought." Do you believe in laws of logic? [20:53] RedTango (silver@ip033.lax.primenet.com) joined #apologetics. [20:53] Spud: to conclude our conversation. you appear to be saying that your criteria for acceptable evidence for God's existence is completely arbitrary and subjective. [20:53] Action: Cassidy_ gets far, far, far outa the way of all the nodding and "mic" taking....... [20:54] Ac: Well, let's see. I've read (albeit not memorized) both the OT and the NT. I've discussed the issue with church leaders, with believers, with non-believers. I've talked with people from many religions, and read a book or three on the topic - not all related to Jesus, of course, but to other religions as well. [20:54] Action: ALcuin sends a tall one sliding all the way down the bar to where Cassidy has retreated. The glass comes to an effortless standstill just in front of Cassidy [20:54] Spud what have you read that specifically on the evidence for the claims of christ? [20:54] AL: which ones? Ac and I just concluded that some things are, well, outside of and precursors to, logic. [20:54] Action: ALcuin notes that Spud is in a position to seriously question the pros and cons of these issues. Kudos for making an effort, Spud. Many don't bother to think at all. [20:55] Spud I agreed to no such thing [20:55] Ac: Claims of Christ as a person? Or claims of Christ as a deity? [20:55] spud Christ's Claims to Deity [20:55] Ac: Oh? That wasn't your point? Then how about making your point? [20:55] Spud: Interesting. Ok, to keep it simple, let's ask this: Do you believe that the law of logic known as the law of noncontradiction [~(A&~A)] exists? [20:56] Spud Alcuinis doing a fine job of making my point. [20:56] What is th topic here? [20:56] Nick change: Acolyte -> St_Anselm [20:56] Ac: *everything* I have read in relation to Christs claims to deity were, directly or indirectly, derived from the Bible; so there is little reason to bother with them, when the Bible is available, [20:56] RedTango: We're going step by step through a rational demonstration that Atheism is incompatible with intelligible human experience. [20:56] Ac: Okay. [20:57] spud, ah so the NT is not historically reliable IYO? [20:57] Action: ALcuin observes that one can of worms at a time is plenty ;) [20:57] AL: Do I believe that such a law exists? Not really; at least, not until it can be derived and proven. I will accept it as an axiom, if it will make your job easier. [20:57] atheism is incompatible with intelligible human expereince? How do you figure that? [20:57] Atheism is founded in rational thinking. [20:58] redtango watch and learn [20:58] Red...I've heard you say that before...and seen you eat those words too. [20:58] Spud: Your response suggests some conceptual unclarity. For example, laws of logic cannot be derived from empirical observation of the material world. They *must* be accepted as axiomatic if at all. [20:58] St, no amount of theorums, philospohy and logic theories are going to make a whit of difference in an attempt to justify the beleif in mythology. [20:59] RedTango: That's the *popular* view of atheism, anyhow. It's hard to reconcile atheism with tough, rigorous thought. [20:59] Cassidy, never once in the year i have been on IRC have i "eaten any words>" [20:59] Red gee logic makes no difference. IC. Scrap logic everyone. ;) [20:59] Al, atheism is very simple. [20:59] there is nothing complicated about it at all. [20:59] If you are prone to beleif in myths, i can see why it would be hard for YOU to accept it. [20:59] AL: A law, at least as has been explained to me, is something which is both derivable and provable within the system to which it applies. It is not axiomatic; it is derived from axioms within the system. [20:59] Red....noooo, of course not. I'm not suggesting that you would ever admit to it. Then again...... [20:59] redtango just listen to Spud's and Alcuin convo [21:00] Redtango Ethics are a nice myth too [21:00] Spud: If the law of non-contradiction is rejected, then what on earth are the criteria by which you evaluate "evidence" for logic? [21:00] Cassidy, i am the first to retract something if i feel it is wrong or inappropriate. [21:00] alcuin bingo [21:00] Cassidy, not everyone is afraid of being wrong or making mistakes. [21:01] hmmmm...Perhaps it is another "redtango" that I am thinking of then...no? [21:01] Spud: You are referring to the notion of generalizing a scientific law--highly probably regularity--from a controlled and limited set of data, and then using that law to "predict" the classifica tion of as-yet untested data, right? [21:01] AL: I'm not rejecting anything; you're (supposedly) attempting to delineate the formal system under which this discussion will continue. I'm all for it, let's just make sure we both know what we're talking about. [21:01] redtango yeah, they are called lunnies [21:01] what is a lunnie? [21:01] Spud: " let's just make sure we both know what we're talking about." ---Agreed! [21:01] redtagno think read hard about it. it will come to you eventually [21:01] Red nor am I. I have come to adore a loss time and again. Its good for the soul. [21:02] Action: St_Anselm hands Alcuin the BIngo Medal [21:02] AL: No, that would be a theory. A law is an absolute which has been derived within the system. [21:02] Spud: You said: "Do I believe that such a law exists? Not really; at least, not until it can be derived"--that looked like a rejection of the law of logic that I had specified.... Anyhow.... [21:02] St Anslem, why are you being so snotty and condescending? [21:02] breeding. [21:02] redtango sorry din't mean to be [21:03] cassidy blah, you're jelous [21:03] AL: Not rejecting it - merely not accepting it *as a law* until demonstrated to be such. Go ahead; derive it and prove it. [21:03] blah? More unsolicited intelligence.... :-) [21:03] Spud try talking without it. [21:03] Spud: Now you're beginning to expose the cracks of irrationality in the scientific approach. How can a LAW--which is by definition abstract, universal, and invariant--be derived from *concrete*, *relative*, and *contingent* data? [21:03] cassidy you should be used to that by now, you do it all the time. [21:03] St: I'm willing to adopt it as an axiom - I already said that. [21:04] Spud: "Go ahead; derive it and prove it." [You're anticipating me :) ] [21:04] Spud: why are you unwiling to adopt the existence of God as an axiom? [21:04] spud, try talking without it [21:04] AL: Because it isn't derived from the data per se, but from the formal system used to _desribe_ that data. [21:04] MacBinary (ircle@dial196237.wbm.ca) joined #apologetics. [21:04] hi [21:04] hey mac [21:04] Spud: Account for the origin of the "formal system used to _describe_ the data." [21:04] pasoe: Purely for purposes of discussion, I am. [21:04] St....I will disassemble and reconstruct that as a complement...thank you! (g) [21:05] yawn [21:05] MacBinary...hello! [21:05] Action: ALcuin points to the end of the line *All in good time, RedTango...* [21:05] Red take a number [21:05] AL: Rather than buggering around for the next thousand years with pointless word games, why not get on with this "you know God" bit? [21:05] Alcuin, i have sat through conversations like this before. [21:06] There is no conclusion or breakthrough on either side. [21:06] red for some there is [21:06] MacBinary: cassidy: your nick looks familiar [21:06] Let's put it this way, AL: if worst comes to worst, I can always rely on my senses. My senses tell me that the table exists, and the ground, and the air and the stars - but no gods are apparent. ;) [21:06] St, i assume you mean there are those who abandon logic and accept God? [21:07] Mac....yes...yesterday morning. Who was I debating......Jeremy perhaps? [21:07] Spud: only because you impose subjective criteria on what you accept as evidence for God's existence. [21:07] Spud: The point behind the "buggering" is that you posit logic as contingent unless it be demonstrated to be absolute, and yet logic is the only means by which such demonstration could take plac e. Does this not look problematic from where you're standing? Lemme know that, and we'll move on to the Theistic implications of this situation. [21:08] Red no, in our view you have to abandon logic in order to be an Atheist consistently [21:08] oh okay - everything is a blur :) [21:08] Red, there is no basis for logic in an atheistic system. [21:08] AL: 'Scuse? Did I say that? I certainly didn't intend to. Let's see. "Logic is a purely arbitrary set of tools which can occasionally be used to describe aspects of reality". That better? [21:08] Spud: Ok, let's move to: "My senses tell me that the table exists".... Do they? All that you can claim to know on the basis of your sense data is that in place X and time y, your sensory organ s are appeared to by stimulants in manner Z. [21:08] St, how so? [21:09] AL: Yup. I don't claim the wall is there if I'm not looking at it. [21:10] redtango, think about it, what is logic but an arbitray determine bio-chemical response in an organism on a third planet in a small solar system in a meduim galaxy in one part ofa multi-galactic galattic cluster in an unrationa l universe? arguments would [21:10] Spud: Oh my. Now rationality has truly gone awry, hasn't it? Logic is purely arbitrary, and occasionally descriptive. If this is the notion to which we held, all science, discourse, and evaluation would grind to a halt. On th is basis, all I need to to Prove Theorem Q is to posit a contingent set of logical principles that make my point. [21:10] not be true,they wpould just be statements with mo truth value [21:10] Mac...it was jeremy...you were there...I checked my log. [21:10] redtango, think about it, what is logic but an arbitray determine bio-chemical response in an organism on a third planet in a small solar system in a meduim galaxy in one part ofa multi-galactic galattic cluster in an unrationa l universe? arguments would [21:10] not be true,they wpould just be statements with mo truth value [21:11] Spud: Yup, you relativie perception to your circle of immediate experience. I don't think you yet see how damaging this fact is to the atheist position that you take. May I explain ? [21:11] I could say the same of religion, superstition, mythology, they are all irrational ways to explain the universe we live in without the use of any sort of research. [21:11] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu] [21:11] red you could but that does not make your system rational. If we have the same problem, it doesnot make your problem go away. [21:11] AL: Not quite. You need to develop a formal system of description which is acceptable to and accepted by, others. Put it this way: 3 * 3 = 97, as long as we agree that it does. Of course, since we won't get most mathematicians to agree to use this system of description, its usefulness is limited. [21:12] red again, what is logic but a random determined bio-chemical reaction in an organism? [21:12] AL: Carry on. [21:12] St, i dont really consider any lack of logic in atheism particularly troubling, as i will never resort to mythology and magic to answer open ended questions. [21:13] I can easily live my life without having to fill in the gaps with supernatural events. [21:13] redtango ok, so youw ould not resort to what you consider mythology, but if there is not logic, what have you got left? [21:13] Red...but their IS always rhetoric to fall back on, eh? [21:13] red, lack of logic is not troubling?\ [21:13] Spud: so the formal system of description is relative and contingent, but must be accepted by others. By how many? By all? By some? Why *should* scientist S accept your or my system, unless that system is lawlike in character. If it's not lawlike, it cannot be used to predict. [21:13] Action: St_Anselm looks up to heaven and says OY VEY!! [21:14] oy. [21:14] redtango you just dumped all math, science, langauge, ethics, EVERYTHING. [21:14] St, well, there is a method of operation to the universe, random and changing as it is, and i dont feeel that mythology has any part in it. [21:14] St Anslem, no matter what i say to you, i am going to lose. [21:14] AL: All that's really needed is to agree - between whomever is going to need to communicate using the system - upon the basic axioms and operations of the system. Beyond that, all else within the system can be derived. [21:14] Redtagno but you don't know that since all your thoughts are determined. You canot know qanything other than what you are forced to think [21:15] redtango, no, if you abandon logic you are going to loose [21:15] I am going to say the wrong thing, think the wrong way, simply because i dont accept Gods and myths and supernatural forces. [21:15] MacBinary (ircle@dial196237.wbm.ca) left #apologetics. [21:15] redtango no because you just rejected logic [21:15] Spud: let's take stock. You've denied that logic is universal and unchanging. You've asserted that somehow, garnering a majority consensus is sufficient to establish the viability of logical laws. You have claimed that knowledg e is entirely based on sensory experience. Let's look closely at sensory experience, and then at God. [21:15] St, the idea of forced thought is a rather limited way of seeing yourself. [21:15] AL: Which is to say, for here and now, all that's necessary is for you and I to agree upon a system of communication and its axioms. If it proves useful, we can alway introduce others to it later. [21:15] Action: Cassidy_ pulls up his boots...."it's rollin in thick!!" [21:16] redtango you are in the same camp witht he mindless fundies who blindly believe what you call mythology. YOur view is JUST asmytheological as theirs, it is NON-rational and arbitrary. [21:17] AL: I've never said anbything of the sort. What I said was that any particular formal system of descriptions is inherently man-made and arbitrary. What makes them useful is that WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE SYSTEM the axioms are non -changing. [21:17] redredtango you are a myth maker as well [21:17] St, science makes sense to me. Evolution makes sense to me. Gods and myths are political, man made, they exist to control people and explain the universe, but the answers are "self evident" .. too subjective. [21:17] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial80.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics. [21:17] AL: Further, any resemblance between such a description and what we call "reality" is purely a happy accident. [21:17] Spud: That's saying a lot. How is such a thing possible? If you mean by "system" something like "language" with its syntax and semantics, then fine. But th e very possibility of asking whether we can engage in discourse on *any* terms presupposes noncontradiction, bivalence, and denotation. Logic *cannot* be relativized as you suggest, if deciding on a "system" requires its use! [21:17] profg...welcome. [21:17] I am not a myth maker, i accept evolution, and evoution doesnt "save my soul" or "give" me anything, it just is. [21:18] hey prof [21:18] hiya :-) [21:18] redtango you accept any idea because you were determined to. hence all your ideas are not true or false [21:18] Spud: Your universal claims about the correspondence of system and reality are remarkable religious in character, not being based on any set of observations!! [21:18] Topic changed by St_Anselm!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com: St, i dont really consider any lack of logic in atheism [21:18] +particularly troubling, [21:18] Greetings, profg [21:18] AL: No, a language isn't terribly formal. Take the simple arithmetic we're all familiar with as a better example. The operations are well-enough defined that you're not going to confuse multiplication with, say, oranges. [21:19] St, i dont really consider any lack of logic in atheism [21:19] +particularly troubling, [21:19] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [21:19] Topic changed by St_Anselm!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com: St, i dont really consider any lack of logic in atheism [21:19] +particularly troubling, [21:19] St, it isnt purely determination without choise, we have choices, but they are based on emotions as well as what we feel is logical, and i prefer to subscribe to a line of thinking that doesnt offer me something like "eternal life", "salvation" as these.. [21:19] Spud: Yes, formal languages are more regular than natural languages. That's not my point. The point is, how does an atheist have interactions with any language whatsoever, if logic is merely contingent? [21:19] ..concepts are all man made. [21:19] LOL, keep trying St ;-) [21:19] redtango all your theoughts and emotions are bio-chemical reactions, determined. [21:20] Topic changed by St_Anselm!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com: St, i dont really consider any lack of logic in atheism particularly troubling. [21:20] Spud: Let's try to sum up. You want to base knowledge on sense experience. You have not experienced all data across all space and time. Therefore, you cannot ground any generalizations about reality on your experience. [21:20] there [21:20] st, they arent "determined" as you have choice and we are all raised under unique circumstances. People have very very differeing points of view. [21:20] Profg I thought that would bless you brother. ;) [21:20] AL: because the population in general accepts certain limited sets of semi-formal systems with poor, but almost adequate, defined descriptions for coping with many aspects of "reality". [21:21] St: that SLAYS me - but RedTango has always been very entertaining [21:21] red yor choices are part of nature, they are bio-chemical reaction determined bny nature [21:21] :-) [21:21] Spud: I'm not saying that the population doesn't cope. Indeed, I'm claiming the population *does* cope, precisely because human experience is not and cannot be as the atheist claims. [21:21] St, yes, we are governed by nature, but we have choices within that determination...all sorts of options. [21:21] Coping would be out of the question if logic were relative and if sense data were unreliable. [21:21] redtango but those choices are determined [21:21] AL: Not quite. I'm saying that either we agree on a set of axioms and operations, to define a formal system of communications which is agreeable and understood by us both, or, if we can't do that, let's chuck it all and adopt the s impler "If you can't show it to me, it don't exist" approach. [21:22] st, by what? youkeep repeating yourself. [21:22] Spud: OK, and what I'm saying is, "Spud, show me that logical laws exist and that scientific method is possible, or else treat them as if they don't exist." [21:22] St, are you calling yourself a fool? [21:23] AL: Okay, so just exactly how is human experience, according to the atheist, and why can't he (being a part of humanity) cope with it? [21:23] Redtango its simple, you have choices, I agree. You make choices I agree. But all those choices are CAUSED by nature. [21:23] Red GUESS [21:23] no kidding. so? [21:23] Red hence your views are neither true nor false [21:23] okay, you are calling yourself a fool. [21:23] meaningless [21:23] Guessed wrong [21:23] AL: Fine - but we need to agree upon the system of communications, and realize that "logical laws" is a fallacy *except* within the confines of that system. [21:23] i am a fool? [21:24] why? [21:24] red it is amazing to me that you would rather give up logic than look for another paradigm. [21:24] FOOLISH [21:24] real touch [21:24] Do you not consider yourself wise? [21:24] red no but other ppl do [21:25] Red....either your thoughts are part of the physical world...or they are not. If they are not, then they are non-physical...hence, metaphysics. If they are, then they are subject to the same laws as ALL other matter. Now...does milk have a choice whether or not to come pouring out of the bottle when it is tipped on end? [21:25] Which brings up the obvious quesion: are they wise enough themselves to be able to tell? ;) [21:25] cassidy hahaha [21:25] St, so because i think i am intelligent, i am really stupid? [21:25] Action: St_Anselm hands Cassidy_ some cookies that CHOOSE mto be eaten. [21:26] Spud: The atheist [based on what you have said about your atheism] claims that laws of logic are generalizations based on experience. The atheist claims that all knowledge derives from the evidence perceived by the senses. Yet t he atheist *copes* as if laws of logic were abstract, unchanging, and universal. The atheist *copes* as if causation, the regularity of future contingency, and probability theory were apparent. However, the noti [21:26] AL: No, no, no and NO!!!!!! [21:26] Red no beacus eyou would rather dump logic, ethics, Epistemology, Metaphysics, aesthetics, than look for another paradigm you are foolish. [21:26] AL: The "laws of logic" as you keep saying, are absolutes - WITHIN THE SYSTEM IN WHICH THEY ARE DERIVED. [21:26] Alcuin BINGO [21:27] spud how about the system of reality? [21:27] Spud: Outside of the "system", how does one determine whether something is a fallacy or not. You continue to speak as if there is some other criterion of evaluation apart from the laws of logic themselves, when you say: "logical laws" is a fallacy *except* within the confines of that system" [21:27] how about the cosmos? [21:27] Action: Cassidy_ eats them fancying that he has a choice so to do....but then the melencholy pangs of truth stop him cold.....according to Redtangoes worldview...I have no choice at all!!!!!! [21:27] cassidy machines lack volition [21:28] i simply do not accept that a God created the universe. [21:28] AL: However, since at least one such system - mathematics - is occasionally useful in describing that world; so, we tend to use it _as if it were a description of that world_. It isn't, but it is generally regarded that way, simply for convenience. [21:28] i dont beleive in a "motive" for ir. [21:28] redtango, fine but you still reject logic [21:28] St, i dont reject logic. [21:28] redtango, u use constantly what you reject [21:28] SPUD: it is unintelligible to claim that the laws of logic are "derived". There is no outside to that system. Logic is a precondition of *all* predication whatsoever. Logic is different than, say, a Euclidean axiom in that denial of a Euclidean axiom doesn't undermine the possibility of predication as such. [21:28] i dont reject logic. [21:29] Red...as if it would be in Gods best interest to show *you* His motive............... [21:29] Redtango look at the channel topic please [21:29] AL: The very term "Law of Logic", based upon at least the scientific/mathematical concept of "law", comes across as inherently contradictory. [21:29] Topic changed by St_Anselm!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com: St, i dont really consider any lack of logic in atheism particularly troubling. [21:29] Spud: *Again* you speak with great faith about whether or not MATH corresponds to the WORLD. How on earth do you know whether it does or not. [21:29] Action: St_Anselm LOOESES IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [21:29] St, your game for today is that the universe isnt logical. So my views arent. So what else im a supposed to say to you? Thats is how you think. You think the universe isnt logical. So, i am not, and you arent. [21:30] Action: St_Anselm just got some RAD news [21:30] nananananna [21:30] hehahahha [21:30] AL: Okay, fine. You give me one of these so-called "laws". Unless I happen to accept it *as a law or axiom", you cannot use it to communicate meaningfully with me, can you? Go ahead, pick one. [21:30] aco...forget it...huh? [21:30] spud: that's because logic is prior to math, not derived from math--and *certainly* not derived from scientific observation. [21:30] what? [21:30] red no, your views lead to a rejection of logic, that makes me thinkt hat there is something ASKEW just a TAD bit with your views. [21:31] AL: Did I say logic weas defined from math? No. Quit putting words in my mouth and try understanding what I'm saying instead. [21:31] of course you are going to think my views are fucked up. [21:31] You dont agree with them! [21:31] red tango watch the language [21:31] Action: Cassidy_ reports: Error! Error! Unlawful activity by RedTango ... Self destruct mode commencing in zero five zero seconds... [21:31] hehehe [21:31] red no, if I agree with you I come to the same conclusion, rejection of logic [21:31] I find more of a problam accepted that Noah had 80,ooo animals on aboat and that a woman came from the rib of a man. [21:31] Like that makes sense. [21:31] Spud: I posited such a law long ago in our conversation. Here it is again. If you deny it, your denial has itself assumed the thing denied: [F] ~(A&~A), which being translated means axiom F, that a proposition and its neg ation cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. [21:32] red I don't think he did. [21:32] St, you know what i mean. [21:32] Redtango, you take the Bible FAR too literal. [21:32] I dont take the bible at all. [21:32] Redtano I hope you never read Shaekspeare [21:32] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial80.fiu.edu) left irc: Leaving [21:32] many people here do. [21:32] i dont know how literally you take the stories in it. [21:32] Spud: If you accept this law of non-contradiction, then I am correct, since I claim it is universal. If you deny it, the practice of denying a proposition presupposes the law of noncontradiction and I am still correct ! [21:33] Because i find myself talking with people who think that evolution is illogical, but they think that a man had 80,000 animals, including dinosuars, on a boat. [21:33] Red I think believe that man built a ship and put a load of animals on it to save them from a flood told to him by God is FAR more rational than than REJECTING LOGIC alltogether [21:33] You posited an axiom which you claimed was a "law", which you haven't shown to be a law, and can't, since we don't even have a base set of axioms agreed upon by which to analyze it. I don't deny it; I simply don't accept it _as a law_ since it hasn't been derived, and hasn't been agreed upon as an axiom. [21:33] Spud the impossibility of the opposite. [21:33] St, why do you keep saying i reject logic completely? I tried to tell you that there are wholes in any idea, unsolved peices, in religion and non religion. [21:34] There are holes in scince and holes in myth. [21:34] redtango, yeah there is a BIG whole. look at the what you said [21:34] AL: So, do you want me to accept it as an axiom? I agreed earlier to do that. Do you want to derive it and prove it - thus show it to be a law? Fine; what basic axioms will we be using in the system under which you wish to derive it? [21:34] I have less of a problem with the missing pieces in scince than in mythology. [21:34] Topic changed by St_Anselm!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com: St, i dont really consider any lack of logic in atheism particularly troubling. [21:34] RedTango (silver@ip033.lax.primenet.com) left #apologetics. [21:35] redtango you did not say some hole sin atheism but LACK of logic [21:35] Spud: Don't you see that to decide whether to accept or not accept F [ the law of noncontradicition], you must have [a] a criterion of acceptance or rejection of whether something is a "law" and [b] a method of applying that criterion. Now we would all be *most interested* in seeing you demonstrate how, apart from F, you have a criterion and method of deciding whether or not F is a law.... [21:35] yes!!! tag and run........ [21:35] Action: ALcuin waits for Spud's demonstration. [21:36] AL: Since we have no formal mechanism in place for even discussing its possible "lawness", how would you like me to respond? Banana Cream Pie? [21:36] Action: Cassidy_ would like to see it too... [21:36] RedTango (silver@ip033.lax.primenet.com) joined #apologetics. [21:36] Spud: The atheist might as well respond "Banana Cream Pie" as anything else, sense atheism is, as you have suggested, inherently irrational. [21:36] redtango you did not say some hole sin atheism but LACK of logic [21:37] Action: ALcuin notes that even utterance and differentiation of sense data presuppose logic, so even "babana cream pie" from your lips would prove me right on this point. [21:37] sense=since [21:37] acluin all terms would be the same without predication [21:37] blah blah blah blah blah=I went to the store. [21:37] St_Anselm: Yes; they'd be infinite in scope and have no scope at all. [21:38] Holes in scince, St, not athiesm. [21:38] scince. [21:38] ugh [21:38] redtango look at the topic again [21:38] AL: Which does absolutely nopthing towards making your point. Care to try again? I can even give you a hint where - and why - you're not getting your point across. [21:38] Action: ALcuin hands RedTango an "e" [21:38] redtango U said LACK of logic IN ATHEISM [21:38] okay [21:38] i did [21:38] spud U gave Alcuin a HINT? right. [21:39] that was a wrong choice of wrods, a better description would be holes in scince, in evolution. [21:39] Spud: Actually, it does everything to make my point. You as a programmer must be rather adept at the application of both logic and mathematics, right? Are you familiar with the notion of "indirect proof" [21:39] redtango r u willing to defend that non-logical atheism or retract it? [21:39] redtango, ok, like what holes? [21:39] St, i didnt word it correctly, i mean holes in evolution. [21:39] Alcuin 456123 456423 45921 2100576 1564214 4384744 06644 36 [21:39] alcuin meaningless [21:40] redtango ok, so give me an example of one [21:41] St_Anselm (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [21:41] hang on phone call [21:41] AL: As a programmer, I can tell you that 10,000 by 10 is *not* necessarily 100,000 - that it *all* depends upon what system you agree upon to build your foundation with. You work *within* the system, not apart from it. [21:42] AL: And, in that vein, since you and I have not yet agreed upon a system to use as a foundation, your attempts to foist off "laws" on me are failing miserably. [21:42] To prove that Q follows from a S, T, and U, you can either [1]assume that Q+S+T+U is true and then demonstrate its consistency, or [2] you can assume that Q+S+T+U is false and then derive a contradiction from that assumption. [21:42] St_Anselm (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [21:42] Mode change '+o St_Anselm ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [21:42] I DO LOVE that function [21:43] Spud: How, apart from a tacit implementation of the law of noncontradiction did you arrive at the conclusion that "since you and I have not yet agreed upon a system to use as a foundation, your attempts to foist off "laws" on me are failing miserably." [21:43] AL: Or, you can adopt Q as an axiom, adopt a "successor" rule, and use that as a basis for deriving "S", "T" and "U". [21:43] yawn [21:44] AL: You've been trying to get me to agree to 'F' as a law for at least an hour, and I've been rejecting it as a law as long. The reason is simple - we don't even have any axioms in place; howinhell can we derive and prove laws? Yo u see - you use "law" where I would use "axiom". [21:44] Spud: Now, If we assume that God does not exist and that there are laws of logic and ontological norms that make science "relevant to reality", then we derive numerous contradictions. The use o f logic and the expectation of ontological regularity in a contingent field of experience are inconsistent with the premise that God does not exist. [21:45] Spud: If there are *no* axioms in place, then I ask--as I have asked repeatedly without your responding--*how* do you determine whether axioms are in place or not? [21:45] yawn [21:45] yawn [21:45] St, you thyere? [21:45] AL: Oh, really? Just for the sake of argument, I'll suggest that Odin is responsible for it all. Got a point to make? [21:46] Action: Cassidy_ invites RedTango to....CONVERT! come with us....enter in! clear your mind and JOIN US! We shall surely bond theologically as we trudge together the road of happy destiny.... [21:46] hehehehe!! [21:46] listen guys...I gotta go...... [21:46] no thanks [21:46] RedTango (silver@ip033.lax.primenet.com) left irc: Read error to RedTango[ip033.lax.primenet.com]: Connection reset by peer [21:46] hahaha [21:46] AL: Since we have not agreed upon any axioms - at least, I know I haven't - it follows that "we" - which would include me - cannot have agreed upon any axiomms. [21:46] Spud: Sure, the scandinavian mythos does not posit a God-concept [instantiated in Odin or otherwise] that is consistent with Logic and ontological necessity. [21:46] oooooof...didn't intend THAT to happen... [21:47] oh well.....nite people. [21:47] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca2-02.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [21:47] AL: Snd the god of the Bible is? Okay, explain that one. [21:47] Spud: Unclear. You think it follows from our lack of agreement on the axiom of noncontradiction that you're not using that axiom? Think again. It occurs to me that perhaps you haven't reflected adequately on what happens when you do not give assent to the law of noncontradiction.... [21:47] AL: Just don't wast my time with the tired old "If it exists, it was created" crap. [21:48] May I demonstrate what happens when you do not assent to the law of noncontradiction? Such a demonstration will prove to you, I hope, that you *are* in fact using the axiom I propose, though you deny that fact. [21:49] Spud: I agree that "if it exists, then it was created" crap is crap. [21:49] AL: No; I'm saying that since we have not adopted _any_ formal system for meaningful communications, and are instead relying on this piss-poor vehicle known as "English", it follows, as noted abov e, within the limits of this language to express it, that we cannot have adopted any axioms or derived any rules. [21:49] Action: ALcuin notes that he might object to the tired argument that "I'm not *using* logic to deny logic"--but he'll prove his point, instead. [21:50] AL: I've already - on several occasions - agreed to accept it _as an axiom_ - just not as a law. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is this intentional? Just curious. [21:51] Spud: You're not acknowledging however, that we're not simply tossing around English words willy nilly. We're consistently applying notions of syntax, semantics, and connotative convention. So, though we haven't engaged in the m aterial practice of *agreeing to a system*, our discourse already presupposes a *system* [viz. logic] as the precondition of its occurring at all. [21:52] AL: Indeed. Yet that system is *not* sufficiently formal - as should be obvious by now - to even agree on something as simple as the difference between a law and an axiom. [21:53] baimei (baimei@206.98.174.115) joined #apologetics. [21:53] AL: Glad you're not going to use the "it exists, it was created" line. It is ***sooo**** tired... ;) [21:53] baimei (baimei@206.98.174.115) left #apologetics. [21:53] Spud: Ooooh. Testy testy. You suggest you'll accept as an axiom what you are in fact accepting as a law. I've offered to demonstrate that you *are* accepting it as if it were a law, but you haven't taken me up on that offer. S till, you keep insisting that your use of logic would be contingent, as if that were possible. Logic as a system is sufficiently formal. The impediment here is your unwillingness [for logical reasons?] to acknow [21:55] AL: I admit only that a system of logic is only as good as its basic axioms and operations, and that it is only applicable purely as a form of mental masturbation. It *may* occasionally be useful for other things, but that's purely by chance. [21:55] Spud: Point to any material circumstance whatsoever to which laws of logic are not relevant. [21:55] Does that sum it up? ;) [21:55] spud he is not discussin *A* system of logic [21:56] St: Sure he is. [21:56] spud he sure is NOT [21:56] spud he said that in the beginning, do you have reading comprehension problem? [21:56] He's not? Fine; then what *is* he on about? [21:57] Action: ALcuin notes that Spud has not even been asked how an atheist can possibly have interact with abstract concepts when the atheist himself is concrete rather than abstract. [21:57] spud THE basis of ANY sys of logic [21:57] alcuin, what is abstraction in a naturalistic paradigm? bio-chemical reaction [21:57] He keeps trying to get me to adopt a certain set of rules, a certain approach to analyzing things - which is to say, a certain logical system. [21:57] spud no *sigh* he is not [21:58] spud look at what I said [21:58] spud THE basis of ANY sys of logic [21:58] St: Okay, here's a simple one. Explain "THE logic" in the numbering system: "One, Two, at least three, but not more than 12"? [21:58] Spud: Actually, you're right in a sense. I'm willing to grant that one can construct a consistent multivalent logic. There are many models of logic. Modal logic; doxastic logic; deontic logic. My point is that there are certai n universal characteristics underlying the very possibility of constructing systems at all. Formal logics 'systems of argument evaluation in symbolic form' presuppose certain *laws* [21:58] *THE* basis of *ANY* sys *OF* logic [21:58] Spud excluded middle, non-contradiction and identity [21:59] spud 1=1, 2=2, 3=3, Identity [21:59] excluded middle 1=~2, 2=~3 etc [21:59] non-contradiction 1=~2 etc [21:59] woops [22:00] AL: Fine - but you have to convince me to adopt even the fundamental mindset *behind* those systems and regard it as valid; as yet, I've seen no reason to. That is, since we've essentially agreed to chuck at least one approach, I'm taking it further - let's chuck it all, and start from scratch. So, in that view, you *cannot* expect me to accept this "law" as a law. [22:00] non-contradiction 1=~non-1 [22:00] Spud: So spud, if you give up the law of noncontradiction [called "F" above and symbolized [~(A&~A)], here's what happens. I'll put it in the form of a proof. I'd like you to think about i t, if you will. It will prove the inevitability of the laws of logic. [22:00] spud where does one start? [22:01] ===[1]A&~A [the law being tested, a denial of noncontradiction] [22:01] St: Actually, it's really simple: its the number of rabbits you can expect after breeding a pair. This is the logic used by a particular 5-year-old child. Now, you were saying something about "THE" logic? [22:01] ===[2]A [simplification from [1] ] [22:01] spud, *sigh* [22:01] spud yes the LofC is the basis of all rationality. That is THE logic [22:02] ===[3] A or Spud has three eyes on his nose [addition from [2] ] [22:02] spud it is basic to ANY sys of rationality or mathmatics or science [22:02] ===[4] ~A [simplification from [1] ] [22:02] brb [22:02] <][XQUS> good night, it was interesting reading [22:02] ===[5] Therefore, Spud has three eyes on his nose [22:02] JSL (JLeighton@www-22-119.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [22:02] ][XQUS (mondar@cs4-14.sun.ptd.net) left irc: Read error to ][XQUS[cs4-14.sun.ptd.net]: Connection reset by peer [22:02] bye ][xqus [22:03] hullo jsl [22:03] St: Marvellous. And most folks are miles beyond it. Yet at least one person here who seems to enjoy the fundamentals can't explain it well enough to have it accepted by someone who's already agreed to accept at least ne basic prin ciple in it. [22:03] JSL (JLeighton@www-22-119.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [22:03] spud quit the condencension please [22:03] Spud: Now if you reflect for a moment on this proof, you'll observe that the law tested in [1] is a denial of the law of noncontradiction. From the basis of such a denial, and proposition whatsoever logically follows. [22:03] AL: Why are you back on about that silly thing? I agreed to adopt it as an axiom at least an hour ago. Get on with it. [22:04] brb [22:05] AL: Fine. We agreed to accept this as axiomatic at least an hour ago; can we move on to step 2 now? [22:05] Spud: You don't seem to get it. The point is that apart from a worldview in which abstract entities exist [a Theistic, supernaturalistic worldview], there's no rational basis for engaging in "acceptance of axiom s" or "zipping of zippers" or anything else that you do everyday. You claim not to believe in theism; yet your practice presupposes a theistic model of experience. I said this "at least an hour ago, but it seems not to have stuck [22:06] No; I don't claim "not to believe in theism". I claim not to believe that gods exist as a real thing, independant of and apart from human imagination. There's a big difference. [22:07] Spud: We agreed to accept this as axiomatic. My point in providing this proof is to demonstrate to you explicitly that you also accept laws of logic prior to such alleged assent. They are the very mechanism of assent, and are no t the same as a *mere* contingent axiom within a formal construct. Denial of their status presupposes their status. I'll take you as having granted this point, unless you care to show otherwise. [22:08] By analogy: You say "You don' t believe in the Bible". I say "Heck, I've *seen* one; I just don't blieve its contents". [22:08] Spud: That's merely a semantic quibble. The claim "not to believe in theism" is in contradiction with the fact that your practice presupposes theism. [22:09] To not believe theism would presuppose theism. To believe that theism exists - while not accepting that the beliefs inherent therein are valid - is a fish of another colour. [22:09] When Theism is denied as the basic framework from within which experience is interpreted, all sorts of insurmountable contradictions gather. [22:10] Such as? [22:10] I take you as believing that theism exists [say, as a sociological phenomenon]. I take you as believing that the model of experience posited by theists as True is not True. I assert that both of these beliefs of yours presuppose the Truth of the Theistic model. [22:12] Such as: Gee, where to begin.... Persons are concrete [i.e., extended in space] while concepts are abstract. How can a concrete person [a] know that abstract things exist at all [b] interact with abstract things. [Abstract=n ot extended in space] [22:13] Spud: Such as: Concrete persons presuppose the universality and invariability of logic as a condition of the possibility of discourse. Yet a worldview that denies the existence of God [and of abstract beings in general] cannot ac count for the universality and unchangeability of logic. [22:13] No, I don't claim that their model of experience is not true; I simply suggest that they have not shown it to be true; there is a difference. [22:14] AL: I note that it is you, not I, who is arguing the universality of logic... ;) Sorta blows a hole in that line, don't it? [22:14] Spud: Such as: Concrete persons posit mere sense experience as the basis of knowledge. Yet such persons have a limited experience of sense data. From a limited data set, it is not possible to rationally derive generalizations ab out the material world. [22:14] And, if we're getting into semantics at this level, I'm fully willing to admit that I don't *know* that I exist, never mind anything else. [22:15] Spud: On the contrary. I believe that logic is universal, abstract, and invariant because I believe in abstract things, such as logic, God, and the number 3. [22:15] Such beliefs are, however, inconsistent with atheism, as our conversation tonight has indicated. [22:15] mfine (diamond_ma@berry.slippp.oia.net) joined #apologetics. [22:15] hey hey... [22:16] Spud (anon@van-as-05c08.direct.ca) left irc: Read error to Spud[van-as-05c08.direct.ca]: Connection reset by peer [22:17] eaglsprit (barber@198.68.31.82) joined #Apologetics. [22:17] Remember my mention of indirect proof? You now say: "I simply suggest that they have not shown it to be true; there is a difference." Well, the line of reasoning I have proposed proves the the sis that Theism is true by demonstrating explicitly that a denial of that premise undermines the possibility of reason, science, and even undermines the possibility of wondering about God's existence. [22:17] Hi, eaglsprit [22:17] I guess Spud had to leave. [22:17] hello? [22:18] Hi, mfine [22:19] eaglsprit (barber@198.68.31.82) left #Apologetics. [22:19] mfine (diamond_ma@berry.slippp.oia.net) left #apologetics. [22:20] alcuin why don't they see it? oh I forgot, sin [22:20] baimei (baimei@206.98.174.115) joined #apologetics. [22:20] baimei (baimei@206.98.174.115) left #apologetics. [22:21] Nick change: St_Anselm -> Acolyte [22:21] St_Anselm They don't see it for the same reason that you and I don't. Fortunately, Jesus sees it and makes us like himself. [22:22] alcuin btw how old r u? [22:23] Inferno (anon@van-as-10c06.direct.ca) joined #Apologetics. [22:23] AL: Spud/Heretic/Inferno here. [22:23] inferno we know [22:24] Hi, inferno [22:24] Well, excuse me for letting people know why my handle changed. [22:24] Hey, Al. [22:24] Acolyte is just being abrasive. It's his way of charming the guests. [22:24] : ) [22:25] :P [22:25] Sorry about that, Al; my server just hung up on me. Had to reconnect. [22:25] lol [22:25] Happens to me from time to time, too. [22:25] :b :P [22:25] The nature of the beast. [22:25] Action: Acolyte is off to check his email [22:25] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left irc: Leaving [22:26] Acolyte: I see that the tongue gets more distended. Perhaps you could put a little ansi animation together.... [22:26] So, anyways, as I was saying. If we're going to get to the level of "How does a person know [x][y][z]", I'm entirely happy to agree that I don't even know that *I* exist, let alone anything el se. [22:26] So where were we? Ah, yes. [22:27] Indeed, the very term "I" is something I am using purely for your convenience. [22:27] Action: ALcuin pauses to grab a drink. Ne quittez pas [22:28] Okay, off for a smoke... [22:32] re [22:32] Ah, that's better. Now, the argument under consideration is structured like this: [22:33] Let us call it, rather, a discussion. "argument" generally has connotations of confrontation; I don't feel particularly confrontational (believe it or not). ;) [22:34] If it is not the case that God exists, then human experience is Intelligible on naturalist premises. [22:34] However, human experience is not Intelligible on naturalist premises. Therefore, it is not the case that it is not the case that God exists. [22:35] Inferno: I agree. You and I are having a friendly discussion. In the context of that discussion, I am position a formal argument, where "argument" = "list of statements, one of which is a conclusion implied by a conjunction of the others" [22:35] position=positing [22:35] AL: Your first premise requires an a priori assumption that human experience is intelligible at all. While I would certainly agree that *some* of it is, I wouldn't dream of suggesting it is entirely so. [22:36] Fine; just as long as you realize I'm not getting narked off at you. ;) [22:36] Inferno: And my point in response is that, apart from the a priori of God's existence, you wouldn't be able to tell whether *some* of it is or not. [22:36] : ) [22:36] Nick change: ALcuin -> Alcuin [22:37] Further, it presumes that God - and *only* God, of all discovered _and yet to be discovered_ possible causes, could be the sole source of intelligibility. I'm certainly not willing to accept that without support. [22:37] Action: Alcuin notes, as a basis concept of ontology, that if some of reality is unintelligible and some not, then either [1] the some and the not are two distinct universes, or [2] the two interact, rendering the whole unintelligible. [22:38] I am *not* arguing for God as a first cause. Leave that to the medievals. [22:38] No, I meant as a cause of intelligibility. [22:39] I'm not claiming that God is the cause of intelligibility. I'm claiming that having a worldview in which God exists is a *precondition* of intelligibility. [22:39] Okay, then without urther explanation, I would have to reject ontology. [22:39] Inferno: Cool. In so doing, you reject all science. [22:40] Scientific method presupposes [1] probability theory [2] that future contingencies will resemble past experience [3] that what characterized examined data will characterize as-yet unexamined data. [22:40] just a sec... [22:40] All of these are ontological assumptions in applied science. [22:43] Your explanation above requires that if any given part of "reality" is unintelligible, then _all_ of reality becomes unintelligible. I don't accept that premis as it stands, hence, I must reje ct ontology. [22:44] Simple example: Science will never be able to explain how this particular universe came to be, yet we know it must have, somehow. The answer remains unintelligible. It follows, then, that the rest of man's "kn owledge" is meaningless. Not so? [22:45] Inferno: "yet we know it must have, somehow" Eh? On the basis of an atheistic worldview, how is it that we know such a thing? [22:46] It exists. Therefore, it has either existed eternally (which one could make a good argument for), or it had a start. However, since we can see some evidence of a universal "starting point", i t seems likely that it did have a start - likely to the point of certainty. [22:46] At least, insofar as we can "know" anything. ;) [22:47] Inferno: Besides, that's a question of lack of information, not a question of unintelligibility of information. I suspect you aren't seeing just how radical the claim is that I'm making. I'm not saying that if there are some thi ngs we don't know then we don't know anything [though there's something to that in an atheist universe]. Rather, I'm saying that the raw data that bombard your senses can't even be differentiated apart from the a [22:47] apart from a.... ? [22:47] from the a.... rather. [22:48] By the way, "since we can see some evidence of a universal 'starting point'" is as much evidence for an expanding and contracting eternal universe as it is for a universe with a beginning. So, the likelihood you suspect is there isn't. [22:50] My point is that [a] if the universe is intelligible at all, then it is all intelligible [though not all information in it is known, it is potentially knowable under specified conditions], and [b] that observing the universe assum es not only intelligibility, but much much more that isn't consistent with a naturalistic viewpoint. [22:51] Al: Misunderstanding. When I said "this universe", I meant "this instance of this universe" - which means either "this universe. in toto", or "this oscillation cycle". [22:51] To re-pose a question that you didn't choose to answer earlier: Do you believe in concepts? Do you think that they are abstract [nonmaterial] or concrete [material]. [22:51] Inferno: misunderstanding acknowledged. [22:51] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [22:51] Hi, ac [22:51] hullo [22:51] brb [22:52] Okay, you've said that twice now, but I don't see why it necessarily is true - that if any part is [is not] intelligible, then it all is [is not] intelligible. [22:52] Inferno (anon@van-as-10c06.direct.ca) left irc: Leaving [22:52] As for your "self"--it doesn't make a rat's posterior of difference to me whether you believe in [a] an essential self [b] a cognitive self [c] a socio-functional self [d [22:52] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [22:53] ] a collective self. I'll be glad to translate my argument into whichever model of human identity trips your trap. [22:55] Action: Alcuin wonders how much a rat's posterior of difference is going for these days on the open market. [22:56] Topic changed by Alcuin!kingtutor@remote4-line4.cis.yale.edu: Stand up and defend your lack of belief in God! [22:58] Action: Alcuin slaps Alcuin repeatedly with a large tilapia [23:01] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line4.cis.yale.edu) left #apologetics. [23:04] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line18.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [23:04] Mode change '+o Alcuin ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [23:11] Inferno (anon@van-as-10c06.direct.ca) joined #apologetics. [23:11] Hi [23:11] Sheesh. What a nuisance. [23:11] Sorry. [23:11] Hi tech world. [23:11] No biggie. [23:11] Where were we? [23:12] You had just said: "Okay, you've said that twice now, but I don't see why it necessarily is true - that if [23:12] any part is [is not] intelligible, then it all is [is not] intelligible. [23:12] " [23:12] Aha. Okay, and your response? [23:12] And I had just said: "As for your "self"--it doesn't make a rat's posterior of difference to me whether you [23:12] believe in [a] an essential self [b] a cognitive self [c] a socio-functional self [d ] a collective self. I'll be glad to translate my argument into whichever model of human identity trips your trap. [23:12] : ) [23:12] Heh. [23:13] Now, my response to your last statement is in the form of an illustration: Imagine you have a two litre beaker in front of you. [23:13] Okay, well, I guess what I want to know is, why would the unintelligibility of _a_ part of the universe mean that the _entire_ universe would, of necessity, be unintelligible? [23:13] Hokay. [23:13] To the left is a 2/3 litre glass of muddy water. To the right is a 1+1/3 litre glass of clear distilled h2o [23:14] Hokay. [23:14] Put them in the {world} in such a way that they're both there but the distilled water isn't muddied. [23:14] hesofine (Dennis@excell.wanet.com) joined #Apologetics. [23:14] hesofine (Dennis@excell.wanet.com) left #Apologetics. [23:14] Action: Alcuin notes that Plato had a heck of a time with this conundrum and finally gave up. [23:14] Easy as pie. Just pour 'em both in and let the particulate matter settle out. [23:15] Or, run 'em through a filter, collect the "mud", put it in a plastic bag, and dump it into the now clean water. [23:15] Exactly, except that [a] the mud is still in the water, and [b] there is no analog in experience to the sedimentary phenomenon in question. [23:16] Filter? Ah, and where does that filter come from in an atheist construct of reality? [23:16] Ahh... the mud's in the water, but the water isn't mufddy - which was your requirement. [23:16] Usually at the chemist's. Why? [23:17] Inferno: "muddy" seems to be ambiguous here. I wouldn't drink from a glass that had mud at the bottom :) [23:17] No, Inf, I mean the conceptual "filter" that would distinguish unintelligible experience from intelligible experience. [23:17] While there may not be a "sedimentary" effect, I, at least, am entirely capable of filtering my thoughts "around" past experiences, if you will. [23:18] I don't dispute that you are capable of so doing. I assert that you are capable of so doing precisely and only because the world is not as you claim it is. [23:18] I would. I've drunk such water many times. It's much the same as drinking home-made beer; you just leave the dregs. [23:19] The question is, *how* can an atheist, not believing in abstract entities, filter his thoughts? [23:19] My only positive claim about the world, really, is that "I" "experience" "it". ;) [23:19] Well, I suppose it would help if we defined what "thought" is... ;) [23:19] I've drunk homemade beer, too. I'm speaking of drinking the muddy water of an undifferentiated world of raw experience! How do you determine, on principle, whether a particular experience X is dreg or draught? [23:20] AL: On principle, I don't. I do it on experience - my personal experience (insofar as we're assuming, for sake of discussion, that "I" exist...) [23:20] My claim about the world is that "i" and "it" as well as "experience" cannot possibly be rendered as more than sound and f ury apart from a theistic a priori. [23:21] Inferno: You differentiate experience on experience? Help me see why that isn't a tautology. [23:21] Well, I'd certainly agree that I couldn't make _you_ accept the concept of "I". However, I have no problem with it. If you want, we acan assume I'm a solipsist. ;) [23:22] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp22.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [23:22] Even the possibility of solipsism presupposes theism. Analog: person on a passenger train denying the possibility of rail travel. [23:22] Hiall [23:22] Ciao, Ned [23:22] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( Alcuin )))))))))) [23:23] Mode change '+o NedFlndrs ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [23:23] How's that an analogy of solipsism? It still seems to presume something in _your_ world view, rather than his. [23:23] eg: whereinhell did this train come from? [23:24] Inferno: in other words, the atheist has no basis even for predicating within a solipsistic pseudo-system. Insofar as he predicates at all, he borrows theistic premises [while denying that fact] [23:24] Action: Alcuin notes that the question might be better phrased as "where in heaven" [23:24] You have yet to show that _anything_ we've talked about has any basis in theistic premises. [23:25] Inferno.....such as???? [23:25] If you think that predication is possible apart from theistic premises, if you think that rationality and science can be made intelligible apart from theistic premises...well...let's see how. [23:25] Damned if I know - that's what I've been trying to get out of him for two or more hours now. [23:25] Inferno....you have no question???....this is a monlogue? [23:26] God exists. His existence is a precondition of our existence, our predication. [23:26] Ned, we've been at it for hours :) [23:26] lol [23:26] God is pure absolute system. Internally coherent. [23:26] Inferno.....so whats the bottom line for you? [23:27] AL: Let me turn that around. I see intelligibility in at least _some_ aspects of the universe, but have no reason, as yet, to assume that it is in any way theistic. You are supposedly maintaining that it _is_ theistic. Why don 't you support your own claims, rather than having me waste my time by trying to shoot them all down? [23:27] Our use of logic depends on his nature as logical. Our application of logic to concrete data depends on his having made the data susceptible to such interpretation. [23:27] true alcuin [23:28] Inferno: To *re*phrase the matter as clearly as I am able: The support for the claims I am making is [a] their internal cogency, and [b] the fact that denying my claims yields contradiction. QED. [23:28] Which presumes, without apparent reason, that the data *cannot* be susceptible to such interpretation without him - a point you've studiously avoided even attempting to support. [23:29] Inferno: It is remarkable, in light of the fact that I've even gone so far as to offer explicit logical proofs [premises, conclusions, and whatnot], that you claim I haven't attempted to support my argument. Perhaps reviewing our discussion would help? [23:29] Data *cannot* be susceptible to such interpretation---I have not merely "presumed" this. [23:29] You keep claiming that, but you have yet to show a contradiction beyond that derived from the A/~A bit. Certainly you've not shown me a *shred* of anything which would even remotely convince me to accept the claims you've been m aking about theism as even potentially valid. [23:30] I have demonstrated it on principle. You have yet to offer even the most rudimentary counterproposal that can explain how interpretation is possible from a non-theistic viewpoint. [23:30] AL: You've shown that _if_ one adopts your pet formal system, one can derive a contradiction by ignoring one of its axioms. Beyond that, I've seen diddly. [23:30] As for your "self"--it doesn't make a rat's posterior of difference to me whether you [23:30] oops [23:31] log-spill :) [23:31] ;) [23:31] bbl [23:31] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp22.snni.com) left #apologetics. [23:32] Okay, now you've asserted that data can't be susceptible to such interpretation. Yet, while madly claiming there is some great contradiction at work, you've yet to show it. [23:32] Inferno: You've correctly characterized the nature of that proof. You still, unaccountably, waffle on the universality of the "pet formal system" in question. [23:32] Inferno: On the contrary, I've stated the contradictions repeatedly. Interestingly, you've repeatedly failed to address them. So here goes, one more time: [23:33] Wll, look at it this way. You have adopted 'A' as an axiom. You've adopted '~A' as an axiom. You've adopted '&' as an axiomatic operator. You haven't given me reason to agree to adopt either the axioms or th operator; hen ce, I am in no way obligated to accept as an absolute your formal system. Worse, you haven't even _defined_ the operator! [23:33] The atheist is a concrete [extended in space] entity. Concepts are abstract [not extended in space]. The atheist must either account for [a] why he believes in abstract things and [b] how he interacts with them; or the atheist m uch forego using concepts. Is that explicit enough on this particular contradiction? [23:34] Action: Alcuin puts on record his willingness to derive a propositional calculus and justify it metalogically, if that will make Inferno feel more secure about the semantic tokens involved. [23:35] Part [A] is an assertion. As is part [B]. As to why _he_ believes in abstracts, I can't tell you. I can tell you why I believe in them; because I can experience them. Simple enough? As to how I interact with them, it is usua lly by biochemical activity in my brain. [23:36] Action: Alcuin notes that, regardless of Inferno's acceptance or nonacceptance of the formal language that I employ, the laws of logic instantiated in that system are the inevitable presupposition of his stance. [23:36] Oh, no need to go that far - especially since we'd just end up in infinite regress anyways. ;) [23:36] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [23:37] So, to keep the subject keyed to your experience: all sorts of new contradictions crop up: [1] if your brain is biochemical [material] do you believe that your brain interacts with abstract [immaterial] things? [23:38] [2] what makes you think you're interacting with abstractions instead of concrete arrangements of neurological impulses? [23:38] AL: The brain? Or the activity of the brain? Well, I suppose that the latter would, to some extent at least, imply the former. So, yes, as long as we keep "interact" carefully undefined. ;) [23:39] Interact: material process. That's the only logically relevant aspect of the definition. [23:39] If concepts are material, then of course a material brain can interact with them. Atheists are materialists, naturalists. [23:40] However, the notion that concepts are material strips them of all generality and communicability. [23:40] AL: Why is it the only logically relevant aspect? You're asserting (inherently) that *apparently* non-material things (eg 'beauty') cannot have a physical effect, is that right? [23:41] I'm asserting that an atheist account of experience must dissolve into contradiction on this point. Theists believe in non-material things and their interaction with the material universe :) [23:41] AL: Why would reducing concepts to material strip them of communicabiolity? I can "throw" a thought at you (as I've been doing for two hours) usually more easily than I could lob a brick at yo u. [23:42] AL: Fine - buty that only necessarily applies if you insist that "interact" requires _physical_ interaction, no? [23:42] You can communicate your thoughts to me, and vice versa, with a tolerable degree of efficacy only because the world is theistically constructed. On the premises you *espouse* [but cannot practice], it would be impossible to throw your brain chemicals at me. [23:43] Let me rephrase that. Take, oh, "beauty". It is certainly an intangible. Yet it has a definite physical impact. [23:43] Inferno: No. The question is how abstract things can engage concrete things whatsoever. Posit any definition of "engage" that suits you, and then deproblematize the atheist quandary. [23:44] Inferno: I don't deny the existence of beauty, and I don't deny it's impact. I assert that it's existence and impact are nonsense from an atheistic standpoint. [23:44] Atheists feel the impact of beauty exactly because the world isn't as they claim. It isn't purely material. [23:45] Al: perhaps; nevertheless, as an atheist, I can assure you I appreciate them. ;) [23:45] AL: When did I insist that the world was purely material? [23:45] Inferno: and as a theist, I am not at all surprised that you do ;) [23:46] Inferno: it's one lemma of the contradiction that I posited earlier [the one that I offered for the 3rd or 4th time in response to your claim that I hadn't shown any contradictions in atheism yet ;) ] [23:47] AL: Let us not forget that I've agreed to accept a number of your offerings purely for the purposes of discussion, without claiming them as my own views. [23:47] IF you wish to affirm that the world is not purely material, then the contradiction still looms. Theists believe in things beyond the natural [i.e., we're supernaturalists. most atheists are naturalists] [23:48] Inferno: And let's not forget that your accepting any offerings [ad argumentum or otherwise] is a discursive practice that can only make sense in terms of theism. [unless you can show otherwise :) ] [23:48] leyla (ssgill@204.174.245.136) joined #Apologetics. [23:48] AL: Try this - I assert that to _the best of my knowledge_ the universe is purely naturalistic. I do not claim that it _must_ be purely naturalsitic; I simply have yet to see reason to accept otherwise. And let us not confuse "materialistic" with "naturalistic" - you've said nothing of note about the latter. [23:48] hey, leyla [23:48] Randee (rbritt@cscark1-21.cswnet.com) joined #Apologetics. [23:49] i'm sorry [23:49] no really IM SORRY [23:49] Randee (rbritt@cscark1-21.cswnet.com) left #Apologetics. [23:49] Inferno: for the sake of clarity, before I address that last remark of yours, could you please explain how you distinguish "materialistic" from "naturalistic" [23:49] wow, this is the channel I've always been looking for. I'll come back latter to view my theories on the existence of religon :) [23:49] AL: In short, since the terms you use seem to be almost absolutely flexible, and almost absolutely interchangeable, when - at least in my worldview - they aren't, I'm having a damnably hard time following *anything* you're saying . [23:50] Randee (rbritt@cscark1-21.cswnet.com) joined #Apologetics. [23:50] I really am sorry [23:50] you'll be heartily welcomed, leyle [23:50] bye [23:50] e=a [23:50] Randee (rbritt@cscark1-21.cswnet.com) left #Apologetics. [23:50] leyla (ssgill@204.174.245.136) left #Apologetics. [23:50] bye [23:50] AL: We've already determined that some things (eg 'beauty') are not necessarily material. This does not make them super (or supra) natural. [23:51] Inferno: I am surprised that you view my terms as "almost absolutely flexible" when as far as I've seen, I alone have offered numerous definitions of the terms under discussion. I'll be glad to stick them out there again, if it will help: [23:51] Ruhster (Hello.the@www-21-174.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [23:51] Ruhster (Hello.the@www-21-174.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [23:52] material=extended in space; natural=material=extended in space; abstract=not extended in space; immaterial=abstract=not extended in space. [23:52] Let me suggest this, then: anything which occurs *within* the universe in toto is, by definition, "natural", unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that it was caused/created by some agent *external to* and not limited by the confines of the universe. [23:53] That definition won't work, since even if the wind outside could be shown to be caused by some agent external to the universe, that wind would still be natural. [23:53] Heck, take off the "extrnal to". Just as long as it ins't limited to the universe and the apparent "laws" operable therein. [23:54] AL: Nope - if you can *show* that the wind is caused by an external agent, then, as I said, it wouldn't be natural. The air it's made of might be, but that's a different matter. [23:55] naturalism: "the universe is not dependent on any supernatural or transcendent beings" Antisupernaturalism: "all phenomena can be explained without reference to the supernatur al". As you can see, my use of 'natural' as a synonym for 'material' is standard philosophical usage [see Peter Angeles, Dictionary of Philosophy] [23:55] Randee (rbritt@cscark1-21.cswnet.com) joined #Apologetics. [23:55] i am realllyyyy SORRY [23:55] Randee (rbritt@cscark1-21.cswnet.com) left #Apologetics. [23:56] AL: Fine. Don't forget - I'm not into philosophy. To my way of thinking, as I've explained, nature and material are not synonymous. [23:56] Or, rather, not _necessarily_ synonymous. ;) [23:56] You never logically distinguished them. If you'd like to, I'll adopt your terminology. [23:57] I did, about three messages back. ;) Agreed, I maybe should have done so earlier, but it didn't seem necessary until then. [23:57] Point is, as an atheist, you're in a quandary when it comes to abstract beings, whether you want to call them immaterial or supernatural. [23:58] " I did, about three messages back. ;) " Eh? Where? [23:58] Define "abstract" - a new term in the discussion. Are we talking intangibles such as "beauty"? Or products of the imagination such as "Ju Ju the jungle god", which _would_ have a physical existence - as the electrochemicals in my brain? [23:58] Is something "natural" also "material" ? Are there "natural" things that are not "material"? [23:59] AL: Is "beauty" material? I would suggest not - yet it is definitely within the realm of the natural. [23:59] Whereas a tree, for example, is both material _and_ natural. [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_2_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