[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/8/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/8/96 [22:16] Orw

---
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 - 5/8/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/8/96 [22:16] Orwell_ (blair@199.218.197.247) joined #apologetics. [22:23] davefont (davefontz@pipe9.h1.usa.pipeline.com) joined #apologetics. [22:23] Greetings. [22:23] Hello Orwell! [22:23] Are you the only live one? [22:23] Yessir. [22:24] Was there a recent split...my last server was empty. [22:26] lag [22:26] OK. [22:26] I have no idea, just got on myself. [22:27] Do you visit often? [22:27] Sometimes. [22:28] Christian? [22:28] No generally, since most tend to coagulate on #bible instead of here...for reasons I cannot fathom. [22:28] Nope. [22:28] Opposed? [22:29] Not especially. [22:29] What brings you here then? [22:30] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [22:30] Opposed to irrational ideas being named rational, perhaps. [22:30] The bot said that not me! [22:31] Are you into philosophy, science, etc.?? [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 reality. [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, purpose, etc? [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] sp? [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, no. [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. [22:42] Explain? [22:43] "Reason" is another one of evolution's experiments. [22:43] To increase survival. [22:43] Does evolution then have a purpose? [22:43] No. [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] Hmm. [22:48] Oxford, I believe. Do you have another definition? [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 reality? [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] yes [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? [22:54] No. [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] ok [22:55] A tree in Ulan Bator. [22:55] I will never be able to see that tree "for real" [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? No. [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 to reality. [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 the tree. [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] Hmm. [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 that purpose? [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? [23:10] Correct. [23:11] Futhermore...what is the surfeit of evidence? [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 physics. [23:11] ? [23:12] archaeology. [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] ? [23:13] Do you have web access? [23:13] yes [23:14] Have you seen the talk.origins page? [23:14] no [23:14] OK...I'll give you the address in a bit. [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 [23:16] hello [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 change., [23:17] Hi wings. [23:17] hey... [23:17] hello, lona, wings. [23:18] Hi orwell_ [23:18] DryData (teledata@lspt-66ppp58.epix.net) joined #apologetics. [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 G [23:19] DryData (teledata@lspt-66ppp58.epix.net) left #apologetics. [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 become another? [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 not incompatible. [23:23] do you visit #atheism often? [23:23] Perhaps. I'm on quite a bit... [23:23] No. [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 subjective analysis! [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 (davefontz@pipe9.h1.usa.pipeline.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 [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_5_8_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