#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/8/96
#apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/8/96
[22:16] Orwell_ (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined #apologetics.
[22:23] davefont (email@example.com)
[22:23] Hello Orwell!
[22:23] Are you the only live one?
[22:24] Was there a recent split...my last
server was empty.
[22:26] I have no idea, just got on myself.
[22:27] Do you visit often?
[22:28] No generally, since most tend to coagulate
on #bible instead of here...for reasons I cannot fathom.
[22:29] Not especially.
[22:29] What brings you here then?
[22:30] Topic changed by ApoloBotfirstname.lastname@example.org:
The Home of Rational Theism
[22:30] Opposed to irrational ideas being named
[22:30] The bot said that not me!
[22:31] Are you into philosophy, science,
[22:31] Yes, a bit.
[22:31] and actually, the makers of the bot
said that, not the bot ;)
[22:32] Can you be specific about irrational
ideas named rational?
[22:33] Theism, in particular.
[22:34] Rational ideas have evidence to support
them in reality.
[22:34] Any sort of a deity would transcend
[22:35] Well, you may be suprised to find
that although I am a Christian apologist, I do not
give much credence to the so-called rational proofs.
[22:35] Kant did a nice job with them.
[22:35] Not particularly surprised...
[22:36] I'm sure you've been down the ontological,
teleological, etc. road?
[22:37] I've heard it all before.
[22:37] Do you supose that a-theism is rational?
[22:37] But my main point is that theism supposes
that there is both a natural and supernatural existence.
[22:37] And belief in a supernatural has no
basis in reality.
[22:38] dave: Yes, I suppose so.
[22:38] Well if we concede that there is only
natural existence, what does that say about life, meaning,
[22:39] davefont: It follows that as an atheist
I believe there is no "purpose" to existence.
[22:40] At least not an objective one.
[22:40] are you a nihlist?
[22:40] I myself may have reason to live, but
that has little to do with other objects in the universe.
[22:40] I would not consider myself a nihilist,
[22:42] Where does the capacity to discern
rationalism and have reason to live come from?...it
is not strictly natural is it?
[22:42] Sure it is.
[22:43] "Reason" is another one of evolution's
[22:43] To increase survival.
[22:43] Does evolution then have a purpose?
[22:44] I was personifying.
[22:44] to increase survival?
[22:44] I should have said. "Reason" is another
variation in the genotype.
[22:44] It appears to be adaptive.
[22:45] Thus far.
[22:45] Considering our species still exists.
[22:45] When you say Theism is irrational,
what criteria do you use to make that assesment?
[22:46] I's just a bloated frontal lobe.
[22:46] er It;s.
[22:47] I already said that, so I'll repeat.
Rational beliefs have basis in reality. There is no
basis for the supernatural in reality. Therefore, theism
is not rational.
[22:48] But how do you make these assements...where
did you receive the axiom "rational beliefs have basis
in reality" for example?
[22:48] Oxford, I believe. Do you have another
[22:50] What I am asking is "how do you assess
reality confidently" if there is no purpose to existence?
[22:50] What does a purpose have to do with
[22:50] Poor wording, I know?
[22:50] Do you employ axioms such as cause/effect?
[22:51] You mean, one event causes another?
[22:51] Of course.
[22:51] How do you know that these are so?
[22:51] But only in a physical sense.
[22:52] I do not really KNOW anything (Ecc
8:17). Through the sensory transfer of symbolic data,
I think I know things.
[22:53] I can only assume that my data is correct.
[22:53] And then I must look for more.
[22:54] So in an objective sense atheism is
void of knowledge and purpose?
[22:55] In a certain light, perhaps.
[22:55] But you said earlier that it contained
no objective purpose and just recently that you don't
really KNOW anything.
[22:55] SAy I have a picture of tree.
[22:55] A tree in Ulan Bator.
[22:55] I will never be able to see that tree
[22:55] but I can still know things about it
via the picture, the symbolic representation.
[22:56] I never came in contact with the tree.
[22:56] Yet I conceptualize it.
[22:56] Some of my ideas regarding it may be
true, and others false.
[22:57] The only way we acquire any knowledge
regarding anything is through symbolic exchange.
[22:57] Is symbolic knowledge "real" knowledge?
[22:57] Is it worthwhile? I think so.
[22:58] but you have no way to know that there
is really a tree in Ulan Bator.
[22:58] davefont: Exactly.
[22:58] You have no confidence at all that
your symbolic knowledge of it corresponds in anyway
[22:58] davefont: If I like,
[22:58] I might try to find more data.
[22:59] I may even visit Ulan Bator and find
[22:59] But sensory input is still symbolic.
[22:59] So I never really "know" there is a tree.
[23:00] But the symbolic knowledge is usable.
[23:00] do we agree on that?
[23:00] Yes. We agree that nothing can be known,
except via symbolism.
[23:00] Which is only the putting of ideas
into ones mind.
[23:01] So how do you have confidence that
your sybolic knowledge is rational?
[23:02] I must.
[23:02] In order to survive.
[23:02] Humans are not completely free-willed,
no matter what anyone says.
[23:03] If we cannot know anything in reality
without sybolism, then your critique that Theism is
irrational can be said of any proposed truth?
[23:03] Proposed truth, perhaps
[23:03] Why must you survive?
[23:03] But not proposed falsehood.
[23:04] I evolved from amolecule that had only
one purpose: to replicate.
[23:04] How do you discern proposed truth
from proposed falsehood without TRUE knowledge of reality?
[23:05] In order for my genotype to survive,
my phenotype must survive at least long enough to reproduce.
[23:05] davefont: Back to the picture.
[23:05] davefont: Someone says it's not an
oak, it's really a maple.
[23:05] Orwell: How do you know you evolved
from amolecule...and how would you every know it had
[23:06] Sorry, go on.
[23:06] davefont: Using my symbolic picture,
we can ascertain that it is not a maple at all, but
definitely an oak.
[23:06] excuse me.
[23:06] leave out the definitely an oak.
[23:07] just not a maple.
[23:07] because its leaves and seeds are wrong.
[23:09] How do I know I evolved from a molecule?
Because there is a surfeit of evidence to support the
idea, and it has not been falsified
[23:09] If you just said something, I did not
see it...my client hung.
[23:10] but is it falsifiable?
[23:11] Futhermore...what is the surfeit of
[23:11] Very difficult to prove false, probably
about as difficult as "The sun produces light."
[23:11] But falsifiable.
[23:11] OK where do you want to begin?
[23:11] Chemistry, biology, archaeology, or
[23:12] Just a few branches that support it...
[23:13] any transitional fossles?
[23:13] Fossil record indicates a definite
pattern of older life forms being simpler and newer
lifeforms being complex.
[23:13] davefont: Yup. Lots.
[23:13] davefont: Every fossil is transitional.
[23:13] that's news to me...explain?
[23:13] Do you have web access?
[23:14] Have you seen the talk.origins page?
[23:14] OK...I'll give you the address in a
[23:14] do you have it now?
[23:14] All forms are transitional, because
evolution is simply the change in genotype of a population
over successive generations.
[23:15] Yes, let me look at my bookmark file...brb.
[23:16] Lona (Doer@sl10.pstbbs.com) joined #apologetics.
[23:16] But how do you account for radical
leaps in the fossil chain?
[23:16] Hello Lona.
[23:16] here it is: http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs.html
[23:17] wings^ (LPH9@www-22-78.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[23:17] davefont: Combination of vastly incomplete
fossil history and relatively rapid rates of genetic
[23:17] Hi wings.
[23:17] hello, lona, wings.
[23:18] Hi orwell_
[23:18] DryData (email@example.com) joined
[23:18] what's the topic??
[23:19] But does it not seem odd that we have
records from species to species but not in between?
[23:19] I'm sorry wrong channel.
[23:19] There is no bloody in between.
[23:19] We are debating the named topic: Orwell
contends that Theism is irrational.
[23:19] well I was looking for VicN or Professor
[23:19] DryData (firstname.lastname@example.org) left
[23:19] Nick change: Orwell_ -> Orwell
[23:19] Lona: haven't seen them.
[23:19] Lona (Doer@sl10.pstbbs.com) left #apologetics.
[23:20] no inbetween...how does one species
[23:20] Genetic change.
[23:20] Read the faqs at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs.html
[23:21] wings^ (LPH9@www-22-78.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[23:22] Perhaps, I should do that to learn
better where you are coming from. It is not making
sense to me.
[23:22] I know.
[23:23] This may mark a nice spot to end the
discussion...I need to get going soon...will I see
you again sooon?
[23:23] If it made sense to you, you'd believe
it. Perhaps not atheism, but theism and evolution are
[23:23] do you visit #atheism often?
[23:23] Perhaps. I'm on quite a bit...
[23:23] #philosophy at times.
[23:24] I used to frewuent #bible, but another
user at mys site apparently had a falling in with the,
[23:24] er them
[23:24] and frequent
[23:24] and my
[23:25] Well, thanks for the stimuli for my
[23:25] my site was banned too!
[23:25] I'll see ya soon!...Have a good night.
[23:25] See you later...thanks for the chat.
[23:26] davefont (email@example.com)
left #apologetics.Original file name:log_5_8_96.txt
[ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page
[ref003]Return to LOGS Page
[ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library