[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/22/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/22/96 [00:11] S

---
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 - 5/22/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/22/96 [00:11] SuperFix (Bjohns7764@www-62-100.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [00:11] Have you asked Him to save you? [00:11] The bible says it is a gift by faith, and that all things are lawful for us as Christians...but not beneficial... [00:12] Right. [00:12] See, Licea, I'm back. [00:12] Salvation comes through putting your faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work on the cross. [00:12] Hello Superfix. [00:12] But then it says that liars, fornicators, drunkards, etc...shall have no part in the kingdom of God [00:12] We didn't mean to offend you. [00:13] Hi Super! Glad you are back [00:13] If one is a true believer, they will not be any of those things. [00:13] Oh, Jub, yes, I have asked Jesus into my heart. [00:13] No problem, if it's a forum and not a sermon. [00:13] Ok [00:13] Actually, I think Christians lie & stuff. Sometimes. [00:13] Well, I can't promise not to be preachy... sometimes I just can't help it. [00:14] But you are welcome to butt in any time. [00:14] 1John 1:8-9 says we do. [00:14] Ok. Let me ask.... are Jews doomed to Hell? [00:14] We all sin in one way or another on a daily basis. [00:14] It also says that we get cleansed when we confess it. [00:14] Super, are you a Christian? [00:15] And I think that just because someone drinks occasionally, they are not necessarily a drunkard [00:15] More or less. [00:15] Agnostic, is more accurate. [00:15] Licea, there is a difference between fellowship with God and relationship with God [00:15] Fellowship is broken when we sin. [00:15] I don't know if Jews go to hell or not. Obviously some do [00:16] Relationship lasts as long as we have faith in Jesus as our savior. [00:16] But I have read the Bible cover to cover more than once. [00:16] Boy, then fellowship is broken constantly all day every day [00:16] Super, the only way for a Jew to go to heaven is by the way that Paul preached. [00:16] That's what I meant. Jews don't believe in Jesus. [00:16] That is pretty much true, Licea. [00:17] What is agnostic? [00:17] Nor Hindus. [00:17] 1John 1:8 says,"If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." [00:17] An agnostic means "my mind is open on the subject". [00:17] So we must rely on Christ's total atonement on the cross to remove our daily sin. [00:17] The next verse says, "if we confess our sin, God is faithful and just to forgive us of our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." [00:18] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx08-27.teleport.com) joined #apologetics. [00:18] Yes, in order to maintain fellowship with God. [00:18] Sometimes you just can't remember them all to confess them [00:18] Ask the Holy Spirit to bring them to remembrance. :-) [00:18] He will. [00:19] Another question. Anyone know who wrote the books of the Gospel? Not their names. [00:19] I don't try to confess every sin every day. I usually just say, "Father, forgive me for my sins." [00:19] I confess that I have sinned and ask Him to show me any specific sins that He would like for me to deal with. [00:19] Well, Super, Athiests are looking for logic. God is not logical. I think that's why athiests hate Christianity so. At least you are open to hearing [00:20] I'm glad you're not athiest [00:20] Superfix, I believe they were written by the ones who's names they bear. [00:20] God is not logical??? [00:20] Oh, brent, what I mean is... [00:21] Actually, the books were written up to 100 years after Jesus was crucified. [00:21] God IS logical, just not to our feeble human minds sometimes [00:21] Brent, there is no need to argue with Licea. Have some mercy on her. :-) [00:21] Ahhh ... I agree, we do not always understand the logic of God [00:21] Superfix has been wanting to talk to someone, Brent. [00:21] We cannot comprehend His ways with our "wisdom" [00:21] No, go ahead. [00:22] Super...you like to debate? [00:22] Super, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. [00:22] I'm just looking for answers to questions in general. Yeah, I like to debate sometimes. [00:23] Licea, did you understand the difference between fellowship and Relationship? [00:23] #bible is a good place for forums like that. They are always debating [00:23] Sorry, SuperFix, I think we're in agreement that God is indeed, logical. As for when the gospels were written, I believe the last of them (John?) was written about 70AD, well within the lifetime of the Apostle John. [00:23] Right. That's a correct answer. Just not the apostles. [00:24] How long after Jesus death was John beheaded? [00:24] I think pretty soon after. [00:24] God is very logical, but not always to the human mind. Our minds are like ants compared to his [00:24] It doesn't really matter, Super. [00:24] The Bible does not say, and I don't have my commentaries in my work office. [00:25] Sorry, that was addressed to Superfix. [00:25] John the baptist was beheaded. Not John the apostle. Right? [00:25] What matters is the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed around 70 AD and the gospels had to have been finished by then. [00:25] Or was He? [00:25] Licea, good point. What was I thinking? [00:25] I thought he was crucified upside down or something [00:25] John the apostle died on the island of Patmos. [00:26] CONEXION (CONEXION@www-25-127.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [00:26] Licea: That was Peter. [00:26] Peter was crucified upside down. [00:26] Why? [00:26] oops. How did John die? [00:26] Hi conexion [00:27] hi [00:27] The apostle John died of old age, I believe. [00:27] History says they tried to boil him in oil and it didn't kill him. :-) [00:27] What history? [00:27] So, they banished him to the island of Patmos. [00:27] Are you serious??? [00:27] Yes [00:28] Levis2 (lytler1@205.229.0.140) left #apologetics. [00:28] Is this page dedicated to answering and discussing issues like CRI Does on the radio? [00:28] My earlier point about Jews was that, according to Christianaty, only a Christian [00:28] The oil part may be a little embellished... it is definitely not scripture. But the part about Patmos is definitely sound. [00:28] can get to heaven. [00:28] CRI is cool [00:28] I don't believe it for a moment. [00:29] It's good to know the company you keep Licea. I Agree. [00:29] Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. [00:29] Yes Super. Jews must accept Jesus like everyone else. [00:29] CONEXION (CONEXION@www-25-127.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [00:30] Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, NO ONE goes to the father but by Him [00:30] How shall they escape if they neglect so great salvation? [00:30] That kind of thinking has a lot to do with why I'm an agnostic. [00:30] Is it Life or Light? I don't have my bible handy [00:30] Why would God send His Son to die on a cross and then let everyone do their own thing to get to heaven? [00:30] Either way, Jesus is the only way [00:31] It doesn't make sense. [00:31] If that was the case, then Jesus died in vain. [00:31] I also don't buy the bit about why God sent Jesus to be crucified. [00:32] It was God's good pleasure to give such knowledge to babes [00:32] So, why do you think Jesus came Super? [00:32] I think he came to show the world true right from wrong. [00:32] And that's all? [00:32] Not the heaven thing. [00:33] If that was the case, then He didn't do a very good job of it. [00:33] Because, He claimed that He came to die for sinful man. [00:33] Nobody said he did do a good job. [00:34] If He only came to show us the way, then He lied and showed us the wrong way. [00:34] Nonsense, Super. [00:34] The gospels claim he did a perfect job. [00:34] But think about what the "original sin" was, and the fact that God didn't have [00:34] the power to forgive it. [00:34] Think about what the original punishment for sin was and man didn't have the power to pay it. [00:35] So, thousands of years later, he set Jesus up as a sacrifice. [00:35] In the day that you eat of the fruit... you shall surely die? [00:35] That was the punishment. [00:35] They died spiritually that day. [00:35] For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH, BUT HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE. That is why Jesus came [00:35] Jesus came and paid the price for sin. [00:35] Hogwash! [00:35] Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. [00:36] Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. [00:36] The "original sin" was disobedience [00:36] The wages of sin has never changed. [00:36] The wages of sin has never changed. [00:36] It is still death. [00:36] Whimbrel (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) joined #apologetics. [00:36] And Jesus paid the price for YOU! [00:36] He loves you so! [00:37] Jesus is part of the Godhead so he had a say in what was to come I'm sure [00:37] Then what does 1 Cor. 5:10 mean? [00:37] And almighty God didn't have the power to handle the problem without Jesus death? [00:37] Jesus is Almighty God [00:37] Almighty God did handle it. [00:37] In due time. [00:38] "Where is it first said in the Bible "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me"? [00:38] Psalms [00:38] Psalm something [00:39] Psalm 22. Why did Jesus say it. [00:39] For a couple of reasons [00:39] Because his messianic plans lay in ruins [00:39] First, to fulfill prophecy [00:40] Second, because He bore the sin of mankind on his own body on the cross. [00:40] Heavy, but too complicated. [00:40] he failed, he died, he wasnt the meshiach [00:40] All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every man to his own way, and God hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. [00:40] He was a Jew. He was simply saying a prayer. The 22nd Psalm. [00:40] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [00:40] Qoheleth (jb@phx-ip-195.netzone.com) joined #Apologetics. [00:40] He rose again, 3 days later. [00:40] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [00:41] Because at the point that all the sin was placed on Jesus, God turned away from him at that moment because he can't stand sin [00:41] shepp (bigred@dd09-018.compuserve.com) joined #apologetics. [00:41] That proved that he was indeed the Messiah [00:41] Jesus has fulfilled all the messianic prophecies except 2 still to come [00:41] not [00:41] He was simply reciting a prayer. He didn't lose faith! [00:41] SuperFix: Because God the Father could not look on the sin which ha asked His Son to bear for us. For the first (and only) time in Jesus human experience, He was out of contact with the Father. [00:42] shepp (bigred@dd09-018.compuserve.com) left #apologetics. [00:42] Super, you have obviously never read Psalm 22 in its entirety and compared it's fulfillments to the life of Christ if you believe it was only a prayer. [00:42] Do you know how they prayed in those days? [00:42] how? [00:42] The first sentence aloud, the rest silently. [00:42] Jesus taught his disciples how to pray. [00:43] The same way they do today. Jews are sticklers for tradition [00:43] the early Christians prayed liturgically [00:43] Oh... silent prayer... [00:43] Where does the Bible say to give SILENT PRAYER [00:43] What is the first sentence of the 22nd Psalm? [00:43] licea Iguess St paul was too [00:43] Action: Acolyte has work to do [00:43] They prayed many ways in those days, just as we do today. Sometimes by quoting scriptures, sometimes by singing, sometimes extemporaneously. [00:43] bye [00:44] bye Aco :) [00:44] QED (pch1@osip90.ionet.net) joined #apologetics. [00:44] No acolyte, in some things maybe, but he accepted Jesus very against Jewish tradition! [00:44] I agree. Too much meaning is put on what Jesus said on th ecross. [00:44] Licea the early Church hd traditions too, Read 2thess 2:15 [00:45] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) joined #apologetics. [00:45] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) left #apologetics. [00:45] I also don't know why, when discussing the Bible, all those thees and thous. [00:45] SuperFix: More than once, when Jesus quoted scripture, it was during the act of fulfilling the prophecy of that scripture. [00:45] Jesus didn;t talk that way and neither do we today. [00:46] I'm not downing Jews. I love the Jewish people. But religious tradition that conflicts with scripture must be abandoned whether catholic, protestant, etc... [00:46] superfix they did 500 yrs ago, which is whent the translatin was done [00:46] Sometime Jesus quoted scripture incorrectly [00:46] Licea th Bible says that th written teachingis Tradition [00:46] Yeah, but Jesus nor you nor I lived in the days of King James. [00:47] Superfix so? [00:47] superfix speak greek? don't think so [00:47] Super, that is King James modern day speech. We dont live in King James day so we have modern translations without thees and thous [00:47] There you go. [00:47] SuperFix: And I don't speak in King James English, either. But I can read it, just as I can read and understand Shakespeare,. [00:47] Mode change '+o brentf ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [00:47] Do you understand shakespere? [00:48] superfix yes [00:48] Super: sometimes :) [00:48] I can't understand Shakespeare nor King James!!! Thank God for new KJ and NIV [00:48] What was meant in McBeth by "are you a man"? [00:48] Allos (Jesuswept@cs1-03.con.ptd.net) joined #apologetics. [00:49] Hi allos [00:49] hello all [00:49] topic of discussion? [00:49] gotta go dowork [00:49] Dominus vobiscum [00:49] What was Hamlet talking about with "to be or not to be"? [00:49] bye acolyte [00:50] Action: Jubilant sez... bye to Acolyte! Jubilant warmly shakes Acolyte's hand; lightly pats Acolyte on the back: and says, "I'll see you next time!" :-) [00:50] And I have to get some sleep ... was up too late chatting last night :( [00:50] allos, different things [00:50] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left irc: Leaving [00:50] bye brent...don't get so jumpy next time :) [00:51] Traditions with conflict with scripture should be abandoned? [00:51] The problem with quoting scripture is that it's out of context. [00:51] Boy Whimbrel, where have you been? That was a long time ago! [00:51] Not if it is a summation [00:51] the problem with quoting scripture is that scripture is wrong [00:51] Good night, Acolyte :) Catch ya next time. You too, Jubilant. SuperFix ... keep asking questions, start listening to the answers :) [00:52] Not if it is a key verse which sums up all that has been said [00:52] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [00:52] Or a misquote to make an improper point. [00:52] Action: Allos bows to logos [00:52] oops wrong channel [00:52] Hmmm... [00:52] Which Jewish trad. conflict with scripture? [00:53] I started reading Shakespere when I was 12 so I could understand the [00:53] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx08-27.teleport.com) left irc: God IS Logic [00:53] language of the Bible. Tough. [00:53] Wimb, I guess the jewish tradition of not believing in Christ. [00:54] What do you beliveing in Christ? [00:54] Action: Jubilant doesn't really want to get into Jewish tradition tonight... [00:54] I'm not talking about Jews, I'm talking about religions in general. I don't know what traditions exactly, but wasn't it the pharisees who were told they made the word of God null and void by their traditions? [00:54] Ok. Don't. [00:54] Jews belive in a messiah [00:54] but if you insist I will follow you. [00:55] Yes, Licea [00:55] christ was a messiah..so why didnt they beleive him? [00:55] You are correct. [00:55] They just don't believe Jesus is it [00:55] Yeah, a messiah. Not Jesus, and not yet. [00:55] Qoheleth (jb@phx-ip-195.netzone.com) left #Apologetics. [00:55] Which Jews are you talking about. [00:55] I know a number of Jewish Christians... [00:55] some belived he was, so? [00:55] All jews. [00:56] could it have been the jesus had the possibility to upset jewish rule? [00:56] They didn't believe in the one who came in the father's name. Yet one will come in his own name and him they will receive [00:56] A Jew who believes the Messiah has already arrived? [00:56] Yes [00:56] There are alot of Christian Jews [00:57] A Jew who believes in Jesus is a completed Jew. [00:57] There were Pharisees who belived Jesus was the messiah [00:57] I don't think so, Tim. [00:57] there were hundreds of messiah's around his time... [00:57] Whimbrel, the Apostle Paul was one. [00:57] QED (pch1@osip90.ionet.net) left irc: Write error to QED[osip90.ionet.net], closing link [00:57] Yeah, Joseph of Arimathea was one wasn't he? [00:58] Allos, you're right. [00:58] What does the word messiah mean? [00:58] None of the others rose from the dead 3 days later. [00:58] No, J, Paul was a apostate, I mean real Pharisee who remanined Pharisees [00:58] Messinger of God. [00:58] messiah means anointed [00:58] annoited one [00:58] prophet [00:58] Paul was a Pharisee before he became a Christian. [00:58] THE annointed one. [00:59] It means the same thing as the word Christ [00:59] no..not THE...an annoited one [00:59] Yep. [00:59] Some Pharisees remained Pharisees [00:59] Are you a Jew Whimbrel? [00:59] why must you know, L? [01:00] Is it important? [01:00] Are you afraid to tell? [01:00] I'll say it for all new. I'm agnostic. [01:00] You seem to be contending for them... and as a Jew you might have more insight [01:00] S, your agnostic? [01:00] I've been born-again by the blood of the Lamb [01:00] Yep. [01:00] Are you afraid to tell? [01:00] Yes, Im Jewish [01:01] If you are a Jew, you must be able to tell how revelation is coming true today [01:01] however Im a free thinker [01:01] The anticipated rebuilding of the temple... [01:01] Why, if he's Jewish must he automatically know anyting? [01:01] =niv john 8:32 [01:02] QED (pch1@osip118.ionet.net) joined #apologetics. [01:02] Well some of the exiles have returned if that what you mean [01:02] Because if he has knowledge of prophecy, he can see it happening today [01:02] The much needed peace in the middle east [01:03] "If" isn't automatic just be being jewish. [01:03] peace in the mid east??? [01:03] Suppose I have knowledge of prophecy and dont beleve Jesus was messaih [01:03] how about peace in this country!! [01:03] creation (dcovalt@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu) joined #apologetics. [01:03] Mode change '+o creation ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [01:03] Israel became a nation again in May of 1948 the fig tree put forth its leaves. [01:03] May 14th [01:04] or was it March? [01:04] Qoheleth (jb@phx-ip-195.netzone.com) joined #Apologetics. [01:04] There are now Jewish Christians again [01:04] It doesn't matter Allos. Everything is tied in with the state of things in the middle east [01:04] May [01:05] I don't automatically buy the teachings of Moses, Jesus, Islam, Buddah, etc. [01:05] how so? [01:05] Qoheleth (jb@phx-ip-195.netzone.com) left #Apologetics. [01:05] Also, we are moving toward a cashless society where the tracking of the buying and selling of every human on earth [01:05] Sola_Fide (baun@fat-24.cybergate.com) joined #apologetics. [01:05] S, didnt you say something about rejection of scripture and Jesus being the messiah? [01:05] For the first time in history we have the technology for that [01:06] Yeah, I guess that's what I said, more or less. [01:06] And you beleive that and your agnostic? [01:06] Yeah, so? [01:06] who are you talking to allos? [01:07] you [01:07] S, so it implies a belif in scripture [01:07] Absolutely not. Nor does it automatically deny the possibiity. [01:08] so, what is the discussion? or do we have a few discussions going on? [01:08] QED (pch1@osip118.ionet.net) left irc: Write error to QED[osip118.ionet.net], closing link [01:08] well, cash is being phased out. Being replaced by "smart cards" direct deposit etc... they are testing an identification implant in animals now... [01:08] yeah, several overlapping. [01:09] S, you believe Jesus was messiah? [01:09] It' s hard to have absolute belief in the scriptures when you don't have absolute [01:09] belief in Jesus. [01:09] No. [01:09] Allos (Jesuswept@cs1-03.con.ptd.net) left #apologetics. [01:09] Action: creation says that Jesus is God [01:09] But I'm open to opinion. [01:09] Action: creation says that Jesus was both fully God and fully human [01:10] Action: Licea says AMEN [01:10] Did Paul say Jesus is God? [01:10] fully divine and fully human. [01:10] one person 2 natures [01:10] creation, the discussion has been around the question of the identity of Jesus for the last 30 minutes. [01:10] Did Jesus say he was God? [01:10] It shifted along several lines. [01:10] Son of God, Son of man. [01:10] But that is the crux [01:10] Whimbrel: y3es [01:11] in the Synoptics? [01:11] Jesus said "I am" [01:11] jubilant: Jesus was God. Simple. [01:11] I AGREE [01:11] Licea: Jesus said I and the father are one. Pretty clear. [01:11] Did Jesus say so? [01:11] Jesus IS God [01:11] Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. [01:11] Jesus also accepted worship [01:11] Did Jesus say he was God in the Synoptics? [01:11] Hey, its not me saying Jesus isnt God [01:12] or only in John? [01:12] Isa 43:10 says there are no other true Gods besides Jehovah. [01:12] John 1:1 says Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus must be Jehovah! [01:12] Revelations 1:7-8 says that the "Almighty" has been "pierced." This is [01:12] Jesus, and He is Almighty God. [01:12] John 8:58 "Before Abraham was, I AM" is a reference to Ex.3:14, [01:12] Where God,"I AM that I AM; tell them, I AM sent me to you." Thus [01:12] when Jesus claims to have "existed" (Greek: Ego eimi = I am, I [01:12] exist) before Abraham came into existence (Greek: egeneto = became), [01:12] Can you make that point without using John? [01:12] Jesus' words are nothing less than a claim to be God. [01:12] Jubilant> yep [01:13] Well, the majority of the world disagrees with you people. [01:13] ooops [01:13] Whimbrel, why would we want to? [01:13] Did Paul write Colossions? [01:13] What's the point? [01:13] Because John is a later source, and not historicly accurate [01:13] Whimbrel, that is hogwash [01:14] Whimbrel: prove it [01:14] The earliest existent fragments are of the gospel of John. [01:14] No its can be proven very easly [01:14] existant fragments of what? [01:14] whimbrel: then it shouldn't be a problem for you [01:14] The Gospel of John could not have possibly been written after 70 Ad [01:14] Its no problem for me correct [01:14] AD [01:14] Because Colossians says Jesus created everything and we know that God created everything soooo, who does that make Jesus? [01:15] Action: creation is waiting [01:15] The Rylands fragments [01:15] whimbrel: So, when were they written? [01:15] Why couldn't the Gospel of John been written after 70 ad? [01:15] John is usally dated to about 100 [01:16] If the gospel of John was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, it would have been a much different book. [01:16] Whimbrel: source? [01:16] There is too much internal evidence pointing to it being prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. [01:16] Whimbrell, you are correct. [01:16] Thats when most biblical scholars date it, but thats not that important [01:17] Superfix, you and Whimbrel are obviously using textual criticisms which are outdated. [01:17] Hardly. [01:17] whimbrel: wrong. [01:17] Those dates haven't been used by Biblical scholars since the 1950's [01:17] John had completly given up on the idea of a Jewish messiah [01:17] whimbrel: what biblical scholars are you talking about? [01:18] Whimbrel: hehehehe sure. [01:18] That is completely false, Whimbrel. [01:18] Jubilant: do you know why --- you had the perfect opportunity to have a great discussion :) [01:18] You are speaking of things which you know not of. [01:18] Ok, Sola_Fide. Put me in my place, friend! :-) [01:18] Toadie (diogenes@becker2.u.washington.edu) joined #apologetics. [01:19] I could go and look in A.N. Wilson bibliography but its not that important [01:19] Is there a scientific scholar that currently believes the books were written within 70 [01:19] Hello? [01:19] years of Jesus death? [01:19] Yes [01:19] whimbrel: a bibliography?????? [01:19] Jubilant: heh heh heh LOL [01:19] :-) [01:19] whimbrel: you get your information from a bibliography? [01:19] hehehehehe [01:19] That is the funniest thing I ever heard [01:19] hi toadie [01:19] You from books generally [01:19] Gotta go. Nite all. [01:20] Hello? [01:20] SuperFix (Bjohns7764@www-62-100.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [01:20] night super [01:20] Whimbrel: So, do you just pick names out of a hat and that is the person of scholarly authority? [01:20] Hi Toadie!!! I said hi [01:20] miche (mspring@ra01-05.sota-oh.com) joined #apologetics. [01:20] No do you [01:20] Ah...sorry... [01:20] What is the topic? [01:21] Toadie: The dating of the Gospels and their authenticity and credibility. [01:21] Whimbrel: What scholars support your position? [01:21] creation: lots of great stuff on the Web about that [01:21] Action: Toadie wonders how far you can get with a gospel on the first date....*pah-jing* [01:21] A. N. Wilson [01:22] Whimbrel: And what is A.N. Wilson's evidence? [01:22] creation: I would think that would be utterly blown out of the water. [01:22] EARLY 1900's => Archeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy ofthe New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri manuscriptsbridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts. [01:23] 1950's => Archeologist, Dr. W.F. Albright, stated emphatically thatthere was no longer any solid basis for dating any of the New Testamentbooks after A.D. 80. [01:23] toadie: what would be blown out of the water? [01:23] creation: Credibility. [01:23] Dating the Gospels is not my passion, sorry [01:23] 1960's => Dr. W.F. Albright presents new discoveries proving that theNew Testament books were completed before 75 A.D. [01:23] Whimbrel: So, you don't know what his evidence or arguments are? [01:24] 1970's => Dr. John A.T. Robinson, lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridgepresents evidence that the New Testament documents had to have beenwritten before 64 A.D. He dated the gospels in the late 50's A.D. [01:24] Im some what familar yes [01:24] Modern scholars believe John was written at 50, no later than 70 ad on the basis of... [01:24] Jubilant: That is TEDS :) [01:24] IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE SOME OF THE SKEPTICS OUT THERE HAVEN'T READ ANARCHEOLOGY BOOK IN A LONG TIME. Some are still trying to date thegospels in the early 200's A.D. and claim the mystic religions had aneffect on them. I've had s ome computers that were like these skeptics,they may not have been very good but at least they were slow. [01:24] Anarchyology...I like that. [01:25] hehehe [01:25] Excerpt from Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade, editor, [01:25] in John 5:2 it says IS a pool at the sheep gate, not WAS a pool. Indicating a time before the destruction of Jerusalem [01:25] :-) [01:25] Article: Anti-Semitism by Alan Davies: [01:25] Here is a sourse for you, are you happy now? [01:25] Jubilant: Since there are no manuscripts dating back to the 50's...the issue remains that all extant document had to be written down by people who in all likelihood never saw Jesus personally. [01:26] Which date John to the end of the 1st century [01:26] creation (dcovalt@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu) left irc: well, it's been fun. Have to sleep. [01:26] Toadie, there are fragments that date back to approximately that timeframe. [01:27] But, that doesn't matter as long as the copies agreed concerning the major facts as stated in the case they are still accepted as ancient documentary evidence of the events. [01:27] Jubilant: Fragments of what date back to roughly 50-60 CE when people who saw Jesus as adults could still alive? [01:27] John obviously wrote his gospel before the fall of Jerusalem [01:28] Licea: Many dialects of many languages use the present tense to give narratives in the past. [01:28] Toadie, there is much debate even now concerning the age of the Rylands fragments. [01:29] You can't prove exactly how young or old they are. [01:29] In the Greek there are distinct past and present tense [01:29] Toadie, there is much more internal evidence pointing to the FACT that the gospels were written early. [01:29] Jubilant: So you are saying there is nothing that can be confirmed to have been written down by someone who, as an adult, actually saw Jesus? [01:30] Licea: The same is true of German. But you often find stories of past events written in the present tense. [01:30] That is not what I am saying. [01:31] But that is not the case with the bible. The past is past and the future is future. [01:31] I am saying we have good, dependable copies of works which were eyewitness accounts of Jesus life, death, and ressurrection. [01:31] Prophets are very precise [01:31] LIcea; In colloquial spoken English, people give stories in the present tense for theatrical effect. [01:31] They claim to be eyewitness accounts and the internal evidence points to their validity. [01:31] So is the Holy Spirit [01:31] burnbaby (burn@www-44-125.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [01:32] Licea: Greek is Greek, and people are people...and people are prone to put narratives in the present tense for theatrical effect. [01:32] That may be true, but God's word is God breathed. Too important to us to be beefed up in a theatrical way [01:32] God has no need to "spice" up his word [01:32] Toadie, the gospels are not theatrics. Dramatic writings were written in much different style. :-) [01:33] Qoheleth (jb@phx-ip-195.netzone.com) joined #Apologetics. [01:33] Licea: Since you take on faith that the Gospels are true therefore there must be historical evidence to that effect (and not the contrary) why should anyone bother to argue with you? [01:33] Toadie, do you read any of the works of Julius Mantey or Bruce Metzger? [01:33] Jubilant: The point is that the use of the present tense does not show anything. What other internal evidence is there? [01:33] hello [01:33] Licea: Answer my question. [01:34] Good question, Toadie. Why are you arguing when you have no contrary evidence from the first century to prove that the gospels were phony? [01:34] burnbaby (burn@www-44-125.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [01:34] Jubilant: I am arguing that there isn't sufficient evidence in the gospel manuscripts to prove they are genuine. [01:34] Well, everyone thought the ark was a legend because they had no "historical Proof" til they found it buried in ice right on the top of ararat where God said it was [01:34] hello [01:35] Toadie, I suggest you get the book by John A.T. Robinson and read what that brilliant man had to say about it. [01:35] Licea: Show me the ark. [01:35] BTW, he is not what anyone would call a fundamentalist Christian. [01:35] Licea: Show me a picture of the ark. [01:35] Hi Qoheleth [01:35] He just deals honestly with the facts. [01:35] thank you Licea [01:35] Show me an atom... [01:35] Unlike some others I know. [01:35] Jubilant: Either you can support your own views or you cannot. [01:36] Cannibal (philcs@slip56.vianet.net.au) joined #apologetics. [01:36] We are now in a fairly comfortable position to date papyrus manuscripts according to their handwriting. We do not have to rely on manuscripts of the New Testament only. We have hundreds of papyrus manuscripts of Greek pagan lit erary texts from this period and again hundreds of carefully written papyrus documents that show the same types of handwriting. These documents are very important for paleographers because they are often exactly dated. [01:36] Licea: At the U of W, we actually have a picture of an atom. [01:36] T, you can't argue against the evidence unless you have contrary evidence. [01:36] Sorry Qoh, I was wrapped up in a conversation and didn't see you right away [01:36] That won't stand up in any court. [01:36] Licea: Admittedly it is a little blue speck on a black page...but it is an atom none the less. [01:37] Anyone took a look a handwritting in the 1930's? [01:37] T. either you can support your own views or else you cannot. [01:37] In the United States? [01:37] Toadie, either you can support your own views or else you cannot. [01:37] Licea (licea@ppp-3-74.Exis.Net) left irc: Read error to Licea[ppp-3-74.Exis.Net]: Connection reset by peer [01:38] Experts, can from the style of writing use date documents fairly accurately. [01:38] Jubilant: Well you were the one making postive claims. Actually my view stems simply from that having read the gospels I find them to be inconsistant. [01:38] Licea (licea@ppp-3-74.Exis.Net) joined #apologetics. [01:38] Toadie, I doubt that you have actually read them. [01:38] Wow, major netsplit! [01:38] Toadie: do you find a centralized message? [01:38] You probably read someone else's ravings about them. [01:38] Jubilant: Ah but I have...several times in fact. [01:39] This technique produces results accurate to about 40-80 years. [01:39] Qoheleth: Not really. [01:39] Jubilant, personal attacks do not advance your argument. [01:39] Thanks, Cannibal. I just don't believe him. :-) [01:39] Toadie, do you believe atoms exist because you can SEE them, or do you just take someones word for it? [01:39] Jubilant, then demonstrate your claim. [01:39] I apologize, Toadie. [01:39] Jubilant: I have read them in the Revised Standard Version, the Authorized Version, and a 1950's updating of the German Lutherbibel (A german RSV). [01:40] Really, I see the predominating theme as God sending his Son to save the world and teach them Godly ways [01:40] Licea: I have seen a picture of an atom. [01:40] I am getting tired and a little grumpy. [01:40] I am going to take a break.... [01:41] Toadie, do you believe in mental pictures? [01:41] Qoheleth: I see varying degrees of Jewish nationalism and Roman hating, Jesus views of himself as a servant of god, Jesus moral message, Jesus actions and teaching, Jesus expectations of what would occur after his death...etc. in the course of the 4 gospels. [01:41] Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. [01:41] Qoheleth, do you have reservations about the atomic theory? [01:41] Go to a library Toadie and research the Time and Newsweek backissues for the picture of what scientists believe to be Noah's ark [01:42] So there is a general theme you see... [01:42] Qoheleth: What do you mean by 'mental pictures'? [01:43] Qoheleth: But the personality of Jesus and his perception of himself and his mission are not consistent...if the core message is the moral message...then it is not consistant. [01:43] Sola_Fide, a fragment does not prove that the entire gospel as we have it was in existence, your reasoning is faulty. [01:43] well, if I give you a verbal description and I say "a woman, 6'0 tall, blond hair, and a red dress, with a pretty smile...you can comprehend to an extent, right? [01:43] If you must see to believe in something...that is sad. You have no faith beyond your own senses [01:43] Qoheleth: Yes... [01:43] Cannibal: Have you seen the fragment :) [01:43] And all too often our senses decieve us [01:44] Sola_Fide, I have seen photographs of it and several others. [01:44] Licea: I would not do that withou at least a year to narrow it down to. Those are weekly magazines after all. [01:44] Licea: The fact is that a picture exists. [01:44] Search the internet then [01:44] well, then what if I told you that she was very loving and peaceful and outgoing and fun to be around, would you get some sense of her personality? [01:45] http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html [01:45] Qoheleth: No. [01:45] A picture of Santa Claus exists too...and bigfoot, what does that prove? [01:46] Licea: heh heh heh .... you mean you doubt the fragment actually exists that a picture was taken of? heh heh [01:46] Licea: What is your point? [01:46] I find that hard to believe...you can't imagine someone with general peaceful characteristics compared to someone with violent characteristics? [01:46] Qoheleth: There are varying ways of being peaceful and varying ways of being violent. [01:47] Qoheleth: The gospels do not provide a consistent picture of the personality of Jesus even if I could extrapolate accurately in such a way. [01:47] Just because you SEE something doesn't mean it exists. by the same token, just because you can't see it doesn't prove it doesn't exist. I say that to your insistance on seeing "pictures" of ever ything [01:47] I think I would do better to come back tomorrow night... :-) [01:47] Thank you all for the wonderful chat! [01:47] Sola_Fide, 125 CE is quite a long time after the claimed date of authorship of the gospel of John. And it is entirely possible that a redactor at a date later that 125 AD prepared the version that we have available now. [01:47] Bye Jubilant [01:47] Toadie, I apologize again for being rude to you. [01:47] Do you not see his predominate message as love? [01:48] LIcea: Eh? [01:48] Perhaps you have read the Bible... [01:48] God bless you all and good night! :-) [01:48] qoh: The predominant message given in the gospels is not love. [01:48] Jubilant (griff@dialup28.nmia.com) left irc: Praise to the One who sent us His Son! [01:48] can you give an example of Jesus? [01:48] qoh: Eh? [01:49] of Jesus not communicated, being Love [01:50] If I were to point to a predominate message it would be self-concern...that one must only be concerned with getting oneself into heaven...everything else is simply a means to that end and thus suitably subjugated to that end. [01:51] Qoheleth, Luke 19:27 But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.'" [01:51] Jesus does not come to bring love..but a sword..to turn families against each other. [01:52] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [01:52] Jesus comes to tell one to reject everything but heaven as worthless. [01:52] I believe that he brings a higher calling, not of division, but of following God unhinderedly [01:52] Toadie, our own salvation is important and stressed because how are we able to help anyone else if we are screwed up ourselves? [01:53] I dont see where that is justified in the texts themselves. [01:53] After we are saved, we are commissioned to preach the gospel to everyone else [01:53] Qoheleth, Luke 14:26 "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple. [01:54] Jesus comes to say that any town that rejects his message...it will be better for Sodom than them in the judgement. [01:54] It is similar to a military draft in a way...You must leave your family and serve your country...but the idea is not to break up your family...rather a "higher" calling [01:55] qoh: that is not justified at all in any of the actual texts. [01:55] Qoheleth, hate is a bit stronger than leave [01:56] leave??? [01:56] I disagree with you Toadie [01:56] miche (mspring@ra01-05.sota-oh.com) left #apologetics. [01:56] Qoh: ONly by reading into the text. [01:56] Toadie, it is called eisegesis [01:56] Qoh: Or by emphasizing those parts of an inconsistant text that agree with you... [01:57] There is also the matter of inconsistancy of accounts as to the order of actual events...the number of angels in the tomb...Jesus' last words... [01:57] I could say the same thing about you reading into the text...but I look at the big picture and put things in context...everyone does it daily [01:58] Qoh: If the text were of divine origin you shouldn't hahve to 'look at the big picture'. [01:58] Licea (licea@ppp-3-74.Exis.Net) left #apologetics. [01:59] the text is divinely inspired through the hands of God's people [01:59] Qoheleth, many biblical scholars do see inconsistencies in the NT, it is a mistake to think of it as having a consistent message, it has many messages that are sometimes contradictory. [02:00] Qoheleth, have a read of James D G Dunn's book "Unity and Diversity in the New Testament" [02:00] I believe the message to be consistent, though I recognize insignificant textual errors [02:01] qohel: What were Jesus' last words on the cross? [02:02] Qoheleth, there are clear differences between Paul in Romans and James. Peter is rebuked by Paul in Galations (acts records a watered down and more Irenic version of the dispute). [02:02] If Jesus is a messenger of love why does he whither a fig tree on which he can find no fruit? [02:03] Cannibal: perhaps the dispute had been settled :) [02:03] an illustration Toadie [02:03] Qoh: Of what? It is an illustration of no message of love. [02:03] Qoheleth, the gospels and ! Corinthians cannot be made into a single harmonius account of the resurrection of Christ (without omitting details from some sources). [02:04] It is an illustration that those who know the truth, yet do not show results are as good as dead [02:05] Sola_Fide, if you take Luke as a commentary on Pauls work written while Paul & Luke were in Ceaserea then it is a gloss, Galatians is not so mild. [02:05] qoh: And that is reading in far more than is justified in the text. [02:05] Cannibal, it could take hours to go through examples, yet what is the consistent message of the gospel? [02:05] Cannibal: Oh my ---- looks like you make aa few presuppositions. [02:06] Sola_Fide (baun@fat-24.cybergate.com) left #apologetics. [02:06] Qoh: We've established...there is no consistent message. [02:06] Note: I am trying to hold down four conversations at once...be kind [02:06] how do you read the text Toadie [02:06] Qohel: A childish display of power. [02:06] The consistent message is Christ [02:07] Qoheleth, there is not a single message, that is what I stated before :) [02:07] tepy (tepy@ip154.sky.net) joined #apologetics. [02:07] how do you explain parables Toadie [02:07] Qoh: But they dont agree on what Christ is. [02:07] hello :o) [02:07] Qoh: It is not offered as a parable. [02:08] What is the discussion about? [02:08] The inconsistency of the gospel accounts. [02:08] I see, thanks. [02:08] tepy (tepy@ip154.sky.net) left #apologetics. [02:09] they do...Christ is God's son, sent to save the world...that is the message [02:10] Qoh: That is so nebulous a message as to be void of any practical worth. [02:10] also.... [02:10] Qoheleth, it is not the message in Matthew and Mark, not in the same way it is in Paul. [02:11] Qoh: Fine if you want to be that vague...I guess they all say something to that effect...but no one can agree as to what any of that means. [02:11] Cannibal: if I characterized you as one-dimensional in personality, attribute...it would not do you justice...in the same way...Christ is larger than one-dimensional [02:12] it means... [02:12] yeah...he's schizo...or so the accounts would indicate if they are all true. [02:12] Qoheleth, you are working with an assumption that the NT is a unity, when that is the very thing in question. It is a poor methodology. [02:13] I do not assume that, but I find consistency in the message...and through experience (my own) [02:14] the men who "compiled" the NT, the Septuagint, also found the consistency from a set of individual manuscripts [02:15] brb [02:16] Qoheleth, the LXX is not the same as the NT. It is a Greek Translation of the OT + books that Protestants regard as non-scripture. [02:17] I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not askingfor proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day tha t their mostimportant doctrine was born. [02:18] The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to theend of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the storyin I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. [02:18] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined #apologetics. [02:19] Toadie (diogenes@becker2.u.washington.edu) left irc: Leaving [02:19] back [02:19] guess I missed Toadie [02:19] he just left [02:20] do you want me to read right now? [02:20] Qoheleth, it may be better to do it later. [02:20] Qoheleth: Interesting name, Hebrew obviously, care to give a definition? [02:20] preacher, lugen [02:20] lugen, it is the first word in Eccliasties. [02:20] Cannibal, mind telling me the point of your challenge [02:21] let me finish it :) [02:21] Then, without omitting a single detail from theseseparate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: whathappened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; an d where these things happened. [02:21] your point is that there are differences, no? [02:21] Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does nothave to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of a ll of the facts. [02:22] Additionalexplanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that notone single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough? [02:22] your point is that there are differences, no? [02:22] Qoheleth, the point is that it cannot be done. [02:22] Cannibal, stay with me... [02:22] at least I have never seen it done successfully :) [02:23] 1) collector (of sentences), preacher, public speaker, speaker in an [02:23] assembly, Qoheleth [02:23] interesting [02:24] lugen, it is the name of Eccl in Hebrew. [02:24] Say you witnessed an auto accident...several other people saw it also from different angles...would they all produce the same exact account [02:25] Qoheleth, that is not the point, and you must know that. The NT gospels are INSPIRED, if you see them as no more than the personal recollections of some witnesses, then my point is established. [02:25] The answer is no, yet through good detective work a pretty good idea of what happened (many consistencies) [02:26] I believe that the message is inspired Cannibal [02:26] that the people were inspired [02:26] Qoheleth, I take it that you reject infallibility & inerrancy then. [02:26] yet they wrote from different viewpoints and talked to different people [02:26] yes, frankly I do [02:27] Qoheleth, then Dunn's book would be very interesting for you. Have a read of it if you can. [02:27] I shall...what is his perspective [02:28] Qoheleth, probably neo-orthodox. [02:29] I firmly believe in the inspiration of the writers of the New Testament, yet realize that they were unique individuals with different writing styles, etc... [02:30] Qoheleth, an inerrantist would say the same. [02:31] yes, perhaps, but how can I deny seeming contradiction in fact...nevertheless the message is the same [02:31] no errors are fundamental to the message of Christ's love and salvation [02:31] Qoheleth, that is much more a statement of position than a position derived from the text of the NT. [02:32] please back up your assertion [02:32] Qoheleth, James & Romans are very different. they have been a problem for commentators for millennia. [02:32] miche (mspring@ra01-05.sota-oh.com) joined #apologetics. [02:33] yet I see them as both following after Christ's example [02:33] Qoheleth, I previously provided you with some NT gospel passages that do not convey a "message of Christ's love". [02:34] did I miss them? [02:34] the one about forsaking family [02:34] Qoheleth, the message is of Christ's love to you because you concentrate on the words that reinforce such a view. [02:35] there are many words that do not. [02:35] there are differences of opinion in the NT documents. [02:35] please share [02:35] and many differences of perspective, some being contradictory. [02:36] perhaps you concentrate on the few that "seem" to deny such a view [02:37] Qoheleth, no, not really :) I am aware of evangelical views, and the message that you mention. I point out to you that there is more to the NT. James Barr documents interpretative mechanisms that lead to the view you have expres sed, and Dunn deals extensively with [02:38] NT diversity [02:38] how can you be sure that your "interpretation" is the correct one [02:38] have a look at James Barr's Fundamentalism. [02:39] and James Dunn's Unity & Diversity in the NT [02:39] they are well written, and may be helpful. [02:39] and do they trust in Christ as their Lord and Saviour when all is said and done? [02:40] Qoheleth, both men call themselves Christians, but weather you will accept that claim is up to you. [02:40] Dunn wrote a well known book on the Holy Spirit. [02:41] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined #apologetics. [02:41] many men hear the Word, yet fail to understand [02:41] Mode change '+o creation ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [02:41] I am not to judge...but God [02:41] And yet you do not believe, though you admire the arguments of those who do? [02:42] Qoheleth, like I sdaid, you will have to decide for yourself. [02:42] I have decided after much searching and experience [02:42] Qoheleth, I admire factual information, and sound hypotheses. [02:42] Christ is the Lord [02:43] Cannibal, don't be afraid to use your heart [02:43] Qoheleth, the decision I typed of is not about being a Christian, it is about what you think of the authors I mentioned. [02:44] I will continue to read...yet I only come closer to knowing God more fully...He will not turn me away [02:45] You also must make a decision...that requires facing the claims of Christ not just intellectually but with your heart...will you let God into your life [02:46] Qoheleth, repetition of "faith words" though no doubt comforting to you does not constitute a argument in favour of belief. [02:46] The world does not revolve around just arguments [02:47] Qoheleth, It should not revolve around platitudes. [02:47] You will not believe because you have not seen...yet have you not heard? [02:47] this is the claim.... [02:47] Qoheleth, I do not believe because I have not been convinced. [02:48] give it a try...ask God to help you...what will it hurt? [02:49] you have the carrage round the wrong way. [02:49] Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. [02:50] Qoheleth, Pascal's wager is not a reason for faith. [02:50] check out Romans 5:8...call out to Him now... [02:50] Qoheleth, I know romans well :) [02:50] while we were yet sinners... [02:50] the physician does not come for the healthy but for the sick [02:51] Qoheleth, the we in question are those who already acknowledge Christ as Lord. [02:51] He calls to those who do not know Him [02:51] Qoheleth, I even know the gospels :) [02:51] I see no evidence of the use of Pascal's Wager here... must be a different conversation [02:51] Cannibal, how can any man come to God then [02:52] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [02:52] lugen, it is implied in the statement that I should try ... just try! God out and see if he is real. [02:52] Cannibal: then you do not understand the nature of Pascal's Wager [02:52] lugen, read carefully: [14:48] give it a try...ask God to help you...what will it hurt? [02:52] you lose nothing if you ask God if He is indeed real...if the Christ's claims are true [02:53] lugen, look to the last clause. [02:53] I've been following the discussion. You're interpreting in what is not there. [02:53] there is no wager!!!! [02:53] lugen, look at this then - [14:52] you lose nothing if you ask God if He is indeed real...if the Christ's claims [02:54] lugen, this is Pascal's wager [02:54] Cannibal: then you do not understand the nature of Pascal's Wager [02:54] lugen, I do, but perhaps you want to explain it. [02:54] cloak yourself in Pascal's Wager if you will... [02:55] Qoheleth, sorry, that was just a diversion, I know lugen from another channel. [02:55] Cannibal: No, I'm just pointing out that you're reading something in that is not there [02:57] "Pascal's wager" expresses the conviction that belief in God is rational: if God does not exist, one stands to lose nothing by believing in him anyway, while if he does exist, one stands to l ose everything by not believing. [02:57] NOSEMAN (sabrams@phx-ts11-11.goodnet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:57] how can a man say "I firmly believe there are not rings around Saturn" if he has not looked through the telescope to see them? [02:57] Cannibal: in this case you lose nothing if you don't believe...you are no different than before asking [02:58] Qoheleth, if you can "see" god then you have some evidence that I would like to examine. [02:58] I have a telescope [02:58] Cannibal: if you could see God, you would no longer need faith, you would have knowledge [02:58] Qoheleth, show me the evidence. [02:58] lugen, this is a point that I well understand :) [02:59] does a belief in God need evidence in order for that belief to be rational? [02:59] Cannibal: Babel fish argument, Douglas Adams [02:59] must I show you again the Word that points to God and to Christ as the savior of man [02:59] lugen, I kinda liked his babel fish :) [02:59] you choose not to see [02:59] there is no evidence [02:59] hahahaha [02:59] good one cannibal [02:59] do I have to pull out the Hitchhiker's Guide again...haha [03:00] NOSEMAN: what would constitute evidence? [03:00] an act of god viewed by me [03:00] creation, beliefs can be rational without being either correct or useful. [03:01] NOSEMAN: that would be knowledge, not an act of faith, moot point [03:01] faith has no fact [03:01] sorry about that noseman. I said, prove that there needs to be evidence. [03:01] creation, do you see belief and faith as the same thing? [03:01] NOSEMAN: On the contrary, everything is a matter of faith [03:02] in the extreme point of view [03:03] lugen, do you see that "faith" as of the same kind as religious faith in God? [03:03] NOSEMAN: knowledge is a confabulation of the human mind, based on an unfounded committment to a set of categories [03:03] the best way to find out if something is real is to go to the source...our answers will prove nothing...why don't you just ask God if He is real? [03:03] cannibal: My point is that empirical evidence is not necessary for a belief to be rational. [03:03] i have...no reply yet [03:03] Cannibal: Pistis in the Greek works both ways, rather well.... [03:04] creation, a poor point to make, are you saying that your faith in God has no empirical evidence? [03:04] "firm conviction, based on hearing" [03:04] Cannibal: No, just taht it doesn't REQUIRE empirical evidence in order for the belief in God to be rational. [03:05] goodnight all [03:05] NOSEMAN (sabrams@phx-ts11-11.goodnet.com) left #apologetics. [03:05] creation, so - what is your point? [03:05] actually I should get on with some training notes :( [03:06] Cannibal: what you fail to understand is that all of empirical reality is a matter of faith, one which you choose to believe, due to its appearent immediacy [03:06] cannibal: My point is that, before you ask for evidence that God exists, you have to prove first that the belief in the existence of God is a belief that requires empirical evidence in order for that belief to be held rationall y. [03:06] cannibal: If youdont, then your asking of evidnece is futile. [03:07] Cannibal: Before you go...may I ask what you feel to be the strongest reason one may choose to believe in God? [03:07] creation, I think it is rational to ask for evidence for a postion before you decide weather it is sensible or not. [03:07] creation, besides, the type of God you are talking about is more particular than a general; theism requires. [03:07] Cannibal: I'll wager that you break that position every day [03:07] cannibal: But you are saying that its sensibility is dependent upon empirical evidnece. Prove that all beliefs need evidnece in order to be sensible first. [03:08] Cannibal: Do you believe in logic? [03:08] Cannibal: Give me evidnece of logic without being circular [03:09] Cannibal: Give me evidence of logic without first assuming logic. [03:09] creation, the NT & OT constitute a set of propositions about your god, and they can be examined for consistency and it contains propositions about the world, history, science - these too can be examined . [03:09] Cannibal: true, but it isn't necessary. [03:09] Cannibal: Prove it to be necessary to believe that the Christian God exists. [03:10] creation: the only way to vidicate logic is through the use of logic [03:10] lugen: exactly my point :) [03:10] creation, your wish for a discussion about logic is not worth getting into, it is the detail that contains the devil in your system. [03:10] proof of necessity is not proof of reality [03:10] Cannibal: If you say so :) [03:10] hehehe [03:11] I can not prove that brown moths need to exist...nevertheless they do [03:11] proof of necessity is futile [03:11] Qoheleth: or at least you "believe" they do :) [03:11] qoheleth: the difference is, God necessarily exists and exists necessarily [03:11] haha, yes something splatted on my windshield anyway [03:12] Cr, was that you I was talking to before? [03:12] Whimbrel: yeah, I believe so. [03:12] Qoheleth: or so it appeared :) [03:12] lugen, maybe we should use emperical evidence, or a majority vote to determine truth :) [03:12] So did you want to say John was of early authorship? [03:12] yes, but proof of existence does not lead to belief in God's ways [03:12] qoheleth: God is the being that has the greatest array of compossible great making properties. Existence is a great making property, so God necessarily exists :) [03:13] Whimbrel: why not? [03:13] c, Got some reason for it? [03:13] Action: creation thinks acolyte should be coming on soon. [03:13] Cannibal: empirical evidence is about appearances, not about existences. All that is present is what appears, and not what exists. [03:14] Action: Qoheleth thinks he prefers Mere Christianity [03:14] creation, didn't Kant demolish that argument :) [03:14] Cannibal: I don't think so [03:14] lugen, at least you believe that what appears is not the same as what exists :) [03:15] Cannibal: I'm an epistemological nihilist, so no other position is available to me :) [03:15] with respect to "metaphysics" that is [03:15] well, goodnight, have fun proving your existance [03:16] Qoheleth (jb@phx-ip-195.netzone.com) left #Apologetics. [03:16] creation, "Particularly important were the writings of David HUME and Immanuel KANT, which established that attempts to prove the existence of God from the world order were invalid." [03:17] Cannibal: with regard to the use of reason, not with regard to ethics. Read the second Critique [03:17] creation, why use the ontological agrument if it is not really sound. [03:17] Cannibal: Who's proving God from the world order? [03:17] Cannibal: I guess you haven't read Plantinga. [03:18] creation, you must be fond of Aquinas :) [03:18] brb [03:18] Cannibal: He has a verson that is very sound [03:18] creation, I have, some time ago ... [03:19] creation, actually he critises the use of reason as a basis for faith in God. [03:19] creation, he follows Calvin in that, and Barth a bit too. [03:19] Cannibal: So? His critique may be wrong. [03:20] Action: lugen is back [03:20] creation, then why did you bring him up? have you read him? [03:20] whim: what gives you the idea that it was written late? [03:20] Cannibal: Read who? Aquinas? [03:21] Cannibal: Hume? [03:21] creation, Plantigna [03:21] c, oh, this stuff, thats what most scholars say, as I already said [03:22] whim: consensus gentium fallacy [03:22] cannibal: A little. [03:22] Cannibal: not everything by him [03:22] Action: creation has to sleep [03:23] got some reason for that? [03:23] Whimbrel: simple, Just because the majority (or even everyone) believes something doesn't make it true. [03:24] creation, why did you bring him up then? his version of the ontological argument is not useful for Christianity, he really wants you to believe because the HS changes your heart, he is a Calvinist man, not a Catholic, he does no t like Natural theology. [03:25] Cannibal: That has nothing to do with the argument. Just becuase he holds a certain position doesn't make the argument any less plausible. [03:25] c, is that the only reason you have? [03:25] yeah, just look at the jury in the O. J. Simpson trial :) [03:26] Whimbrel: evidence is all around you, it depends on what you're looking for, and how you choose to see it [03:26] Whimbrel: no, the fact that I can get just as many scholars that daate John early as you can that date John late. So, it isn't an argument of whose got scholars to back them up. It is who has the better arguments. [03:27] L, talking about John? [03:27] creation, he says himself that the argument is only a plausibility argument, it proves nothing, just allows one to claim that theism is rational, and that is not so difficult, even paganism can be made rational. [03:27] W.: Talking about you [03:27] whimbrel: lugen is still right [03:27] what about me? [03:28] Well, I do have to get sleep. I am continually staying up later than I should. Finish this tomorrow. [03:28] creation, your belief system is not a bare theism, it is Christianity with all its baggage and all its documentation, Van Til would tell you that. [03:29] W. You see the world according to your own "weltanchuuing", which is, according to the concepts and categories that you've deemed to be reliable, or acceptable. There are, however, more ways of l ooking at things [03:29] c, what are your arguments? [03:29] Cannibal: Like every other belief system. I guess. [03:29] Whimbrel: tune in tomorrow [03:29] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) left irc: Leaving [03:29] creation, it is the detail of a system that makes or breaks it. [03:30] l, what other ways do you have in mind? [03:31] lugen, being an epistemic nihilists, why do you want others to accept your epistemological nihilism :) [03:31] Cannibal: you're caught in the classical huristic paradox, you cannot see because you do not believe, and you do not believe because you do not see [03:31] Cannibal: because it is the only logical answer [03:32] lugen, what is the motive for it :) [03:32] hahaha [03:32] lugen, I'll give you a prise for that one :) [03:32] lugen, and is logic TRUE? [03:33] lugen, by the way did you look up YHWH and ELOHIM? [03:34] Cannibal: my intention is not to proselytise, my intention is to explain that even the most immediate things of our experience are matters of faith, that we all take for granted. And yet, upon a closer inspection, one would find th at there is nothing [03:34] to support the conclusions we hold to be absolutely true [03:34] YHVH = God, "I Am", Elohim = God, generic, plural [03:35] kind of like the distinction between Isvara and Krishna in the Gita [03:35] lugen, you need to do more research :) [03:37] Cannibal: I do not claim to be a thologian, nor will I pretend that I am one [03:37] theologian that is.... [03:38] lugen, YHWH is "I AM" or "I will prove to be", the self existent one ... God is not actually a part of it's etymology, but it is applied as the covenant nam e of God :) Elohim is as you said generic plural for God. [03:40] Cannibal: that depends on whether you view Exodus 3:14 as a metaphysical statement of God, or as a statement of truth [03:41] lugen, it depends on weather you believe Genesis at all too :) [03:41] oops [03:41] whether :) [03:41] either according to the Masoretic or Rabbunic views [03:41] you assume it as a literal account, which misses the point [03:42] lugen, I reflect the stated positions of many Xians on #bible and elsewhere. [03:44] Cannibal: you should listen to Romer on the Hebrew stories, and their significance [03:44] lugen, If Romer wants to show me the stories I'll have a look. [03:45] miche (mspring@ra01-05.sota-oh.com) left irc: Leaving [03:46] Action: Cannibal is amazed that some people think I am clever from what they see on IRC, I am a terrible typist (slow as hell:) and IRC is not good for detailed debate. [03:47] I just think you're misinformed and naive :) [03:48] lugen, what do you think was Kant's most significant contribution to philosophy? [03:48] Action: Cannibal is sadly naive and often misinformed, and he knows it well. [03:48] that Metaphysics is dead... took almost 100 years for that one to sink in [03:49] lugen, it has not sunk in for heaps of people that come here :) [03:49] People that haven't read Kant carefully :) [03:49] lazy people [03:49] lugen, where does that leave you? [03:50] where I am.... [03:51] lugen, why and how do you deal with God, spirits, demons, the thought of eternity, and heaven, hell, the promise of everlasting life, glorification, transcendece, and the attributes of God ? [03:51] :) [03:51] what do you think there is to deal with?? [03:52] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [03:52] Action: Cannibal expects to see the book published in a few years :) [03:52] Whimbrel (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) left #apologetics. [03:52] lugen, the details of the faith that you profess. [03:52] I wouldn't hold your breath :) [03:53] belief is not dependent upon metaphysics, by any stretch of the imagination. [03:53] you do profess a form of Xianity, and it has all those elements in it. [03:54] lugen, what do those things mean in your system of thought. [03:55] what kind of an answer are you looking for here? (obviously you have one in mind) [03:56] Mud (dougtil@s05-pm03.usc.campus.mci.net) joined #apologetics. [03:57] JesusFrek (kelder@sno1.whidbey.net) joined #apologetics. [03:57] lugen, the answer that means most to you personally, not really a philosophical answer, such things can be interesting but often do not touch the life of a person. [03:57] What's the topic? [03:58] dunno just got here myself. [03:58] most people do not understand what "philosophy" is in the truest sense of the word..... [03:58] lugen, that is no doubt true. [03:59] not just in terms of a "love of wisdom" from an etymological point of view, or in terms of metaphysics or something like that.... [03:59] Action: Cannibal found an interesting article on Kant :) [03:59] if you want to know about Kant, read Henry Allison's Kant's Transcendental Idealism, and interpretation and defense [03:59] and = an [04:00] lugen, I have a copy. [04:00] best book on Kant out there [04:00] lugen, I read some of it some time ago. [04:01] I did my 4th year thesis on it.... :) [04:01] about 300 pages worth :) [04:01] hahah [04:01] I did my thesis in Mathematics :) [04:02] Action: Cannibal is not a philosopher by any means, but I kinda like to read, and philosophy can be interesting. [04:02] Action: Cannibal also did a research year in Chemistry. [04:03] Action: Cannibal is a bit of a physical scientist, but more of a computer freak :) [04:03] From Kant's point of view, the philosophical traditions of both EMPIRICISM and RATIONALISM had reached a "dark, confused, and useless" dead end. What he proposed was a radical, new synthesis in which he would incorporate both experience and reason without falling into the skepticism of the empirical school or the vast, unverifiable metaphysical structure of the rationalist school. [04:03] Oh, that's better than my minor, which is in sociology (research methogology/statistical analysis/demographics [04:04] Petrel (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) joined #apologetics. [04:04] Hello [04:04] Action: Cannibal did a triple major, Physical & inorcganic Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Mathematics ... went on to further studies in Mathematics. [04:05] Jack of all trades, master of none :) [04:05] lugen, pretty bloody good at maths :) [04:05] hehehe [04:06] Mud (dougtil@s05-pm03.usc.campus.mci.net) left #apologetics. [04:06] Action: Cannibal entered Uni 2 years early. [04:06] what's the square root of infinity bright boy :) [04:06] lugen, what kind of infinity, a countable or uncaoutable, and what order :) [04:06] JesusFrek (kelder@sno1.whidbey.net) left #apologetics. [04:06] Petrel (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) left irc: changing servers [04:06] Petrel (petrel@grove.ufl.edu) joined #apologetics. [04:06] Oh, that one cleared the house [04:06] :) [04:07] heheh ====================================================== [16:14] Unbelievr (jeff@206.138.221.19) joined #apologetics. [16:14] howdy [16:15] lugen: if someone knows that monkeys evolved into man and someone knows they didn't, both of these knowledges look the same from an outside observer, yet only one of them can be the truth. [16:15] hi. [16:15] jane (talktome@vav13.netaccess.on.ca) left #apologetics. [16:15] lugen: it doesn't matter how the knowledge was arrived at, it must agree with reality to be considered truth. [16:15] to think one "knows" and to "know" are two separate and distinct issues [16:16] lugen: otherwise, if we exclude faith from the knowledge process, we must conclude that knowledge is not possible. [16:16] pascoe: is it? [16:16] lugen: how does one determine whether one 'actually' knows, instead of just thinking they know? [16:16] Bard (druid@pm046-13.dialip.mich.net) joined #apologetics. [16:17] pascoe: what has faith got to do with knowledge? [16:17] Hrmm... Quiet channel... [16:17] Unbelievr: that is a good question. [16:17] You just came in during a lull [16:17] It has been spinning. [16:17] I noticed. [16:17] Unbeliever: direct necessary links, the argumentation being both sound and valid. [16:17] Unbelievr: a lot. [16:18] pascoe: The only way seems to be to trust that an examination of the external physical world will reveal the answer. [16:18] lugen: Sez you. [16:18] lugen: but we already agreed that 'direct necessity' is an appeal to faith in logic. [16:18] Unbeliever: naive realism [16:18] pascoe: right [16:19] Unbelievr: yes, faith seems to underly all other methods of arriving at truth. [16:19] Bard (druid@pm046-13.dialip.mich.net) left #apologetics. [16:19] lugen: but what you are saying is that knowledge is based on faith since is it based on faith in the concept of 'direct necessity'. [16:19] Oops, sorry, are we talking about the real world here, or just philosophical mumbo-jumbo? [16:20] pascoe: the central issue here still eludes you [16:20] pascoe: I'm not saying that direct necessity is possible [16:20] Unbelievr: sometimes we need to clear a little mumbo-jumbo out of the way so we are talking on the same plane. 8) [16:21] lugen: so you are saying that knowledge is not possible? [16:22] pascoe: What I mean is, philosophy concerns itself with a lot of tricky *semantic* issues, that may have nothing at all to do with real issues. [16:22] pascoe: what is at issue here is 1) what is available to us; 2) how we interpret it; and 3) and what can be "known" without appeal to induction or faith [16:22] pascoe: Like, for example, the whole idea that 'knowledge' requires 'faith'... [16:23] Unbelievr: sometimes that happens, but it does help lay a foundation if we can get rid of the obvious inconsistencies. [16:23] lugen: do you think that knowledge is possible? [16:23] pascoe: But a semantic problem may be 'obvious' without it really being a problem in the real world. [16:24] lugen: can you name something that we know that does not require faith at some level? [16:24] pascoe: define 'knowledge'. [16:25] 1) what is available to us is what appears, not what is, 2) we interpret it through a basic committment to fundamental concepts in a framework of sorts, and 3) we can make factual statements without deriving existential conclusions [16:25] Unbelievr: sure, but in order to communicate we need to get rid of as many semantic problems as we can so that we communicate effectively. especially on IRC. [16:25] Unbelievr: knowledge is what we know, what we use base our reasoning from, what we believe. [16:26] pascoe: Okay, then please define what you mean by 'knowledge'. Because whether or not knowledge requires faith depends on what is meant by 'knowledge'. [16:26] lugen: do you think that knowledge is possible? [16:26] pascoe: 'Knowledge is what we know' is not a useful definition. [16:26] pascoe: in a very limited sense, yes [16:27] pascoe: and by saying knowledge is 'what we believe', you're *defining* knowledge as equivalent to faith. [16:27] Unbelievr: knowledge is what we know, what we use base our reasoning from, what we believe. We can arrive at knowledge thru faith, formal proof, and repeatable science. [16:28] pascoe: Okay, I disagree with your definition. Knowledge is what we've *learned*. Faith has nothing to do with it. [16:28] Unbelievr: knowledge is a set of propositions that we use as a basis for our reasoning. [16:29] Unbelievr: no, faith is a means to knowledge just as formal proof and repeatable observation is. [16:29] Unbeliever: that is what you call knowledge, but that does not mean that it is knowledge [16:29] lugen: can you name something that we know that does not require faith at some level? [16:30] events [16:30] Unbelievr: but we have learned many things which may not conform with reality. [16:30] pascoe: No it isn't. Faith = Belief. But belief doesn't equal knowledge. Or are you saying that believing something makes it true? [16:31] Unbelievr: your definition equates knowledge with the term truth. [16:31] pascoe: We have? Name one. [16:32] Unbelievr: no, I am not arguing that knowledge is the same as truth. that is what you are saying. [16:32] pascoe: Yes it does. You can't 'know' something that is false. You can easily *believe* something that is false, though. [16:32] pascoe: Yes I am. If someone says that they 'know' [16:32] AmNeSiA (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) joined #apologetics. [16:33] er, 'know' something, but are *wrong*, they they didn't 'know' it - they just believed it. [16:33] wassup? [16:33] Unbelievr: name something that we know that is not based on faith at some level. [16:33] pascoe: Define what you mean by 'faith'. [16:33] Unbeliever: everything you call knowledge is, in point of fact, faith [16:34] Unbelievr: so you are saying we don't know anything, we just believe things? [16:34] hmm... [16:34] pascoe: No, I'm saying that believing does not create knowledge. Belief creates an *illusion* on knowledge, which may or may not be accurate. [16:34] lugen: knowledge and faith are not the same thing. [16:35] lugen: faith is a means to knowledge. [16:35] pascoe: No it isn't. [16:35] I'm still waiting for a definition of faith, BTW. [16:35] faith is a method of extending credibility to a concept without having perfect evidence that it is true. it is accepted into our body of knowledge. [16:35] I do not consider either faith or knowledge to be a thing, but in terms of processes which "happen" [16:36] Unbelievr: so do you believe that knowledge is possible? [16:36] Unbelievr: how do you know? [16:36] he said faith is a means to knowledge. [16:36] Unbelievr: please tell us how you know that knowledge is not possible. [16:36] pascoe: Okay. That what I thought you meant. The problem is that there is NO SUCH THING as 'perfect evidence'. So your definition is meaningless. [16:37] lugen: faith is a process which helps us arrive at a thing, a body of knowledge. [16:37] pascoe: I never said that knowledge wasn't possible. I'm saying that faith doesn't produce knowledge. Faith produces *conclusions*, but those conclusions may easily be wrong. [16:37] knowledge is not an entity, but our language makes us deal with knowledge as an "it" [16:37] Unbelievr: that is why I don't confuse faith with the term knowledge. [16:38] Unbelievr: if you believe that knowledge is possible then please name something we know that is not based on faith at some level. [16:38] As Witgenstein once said "metaphysical problems occur when language goes on holiday" [16:39] pascoe: The problem is that I reject your definition of faith. By your definition, *all* conclusions require faith, since 'perfect evidence' is NEVER possible. [16:39] lugen: its these types of discussions that help us to tighten our language and be more precise in our conversation. [16:39] pascoe: but do you agree that knowledge is not a "thing" or "entity" per se? [16:40] Unbelievr: but you said that knowledge is possible, therefore, give an example of something we know that is not based on faith at some level. [16:40] pascoe: My definition of faith is: belief without conclusive evidence. [16:40] pascoe: can you accept my definition of faith? [16:40] Unbelievr: ok, but faith is a valid means of arriving at knowledge. [16:40] pascoe: No it isn't.\ [16:40] Unbelievr: false definition, as all knowledge is tantamount to faith, or based there upon [16:41] lugen: how so? [16:41] knowledge is a set of propositions, faith is not a set of propositions, it is a method of including propositions into the set. [16:41] AmNeSiA (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) left irc: WildStar public access IRC. telnet telnet.wildstar.net login: guest [16:42] Unbelievr: but you said that knowledge is possible, therefore, give an example of something we know that is not based on faith at some level. [16:42] Unbelievr: knowledge is that which is absolutely certain, but there is no means possible to establish absolute certainty without faith in the means (logic), hence all knowledge is nothing more than faith (probability) [16:42] Unbelievr: if knowledge is possible, but faith is not a means to knowledge, then name something we know that is not based on faith at some level. [16:42] Unbelievr: i.e. knowledge via induction [16:43] pascoe: Okay. Based on *my* definitions, the rotation of the Earth around the sun can be accepted without faith. We have conclusive (not 'perfect' evidence that this is so. [16:43] lugen: if God reveals knowledge to us and all we have to do is accept it thru faith, can we say we have no knowledge? [16:43] Unbelievr: induction is a leap from the observed to what is not observed [16:43] pasco: Yes. [16:44] pascoe: God is revealed through faith (Hebrews 11:6), not through what is proven, or knowledge. If we had knowledge, we would not need faith, and therefore not need the concept of God [16:44] Unbelievr: but you have never observed the revolution of the earth around the sun. therefore, you must have accepted this notion by faith. [16:45] Jubilant (griff@dialup75.nmia.COM) left irc: Praise to the One who sent us His Son! [16:45] lugen: but you are saying that if we believe what God reveals to us, we still have no knowledge since we accepted it by faith and you say that faith precluded knowledge. [16:46] pascoe: Not at all. You're still defining faith as 'anything we conclude without PERFECT evidence'. But there is NO SUCH THING as perfect evidence. Your definition of faith is therefor meaningless. [16:46] pascoe: we believe it by faith [16:46] lugen: I am saying that God reveals knowledge to us in His Word and all we have to do is accept it by faith and we will have true knowledge. [16:46] brb (phone) [16:47] lugen: yes, but it is still knowledge from God. [16:47] lugen: therefore, we have knowledge. [16:47] Unbelievr: but your example of knowledge is based on faith so please give an example of knowledge not based on faith at some level. [16:48] Unbelievr: if you say that knowledge is not based on perfect evidence, then you agree with me that knowledge can be based on faith. [16:48] pascoe: You haven't offered any opposition to *my* definition of faith, so I don't see how you can accuse my example of being based on faith. It's not, by my definition. [16:49] pasco: I'm not agreeing with you. I'm rejecting your definition of faith. [16:49] pascoe: The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11), not "knowledge" :) [16:50] Unbelievr: but you apparently believe that the earth revolves around the sun tho you have never observed it doing so. you believe in this knowledge by faith. [16:51] lugen: yes, we live by faith, we accept the knowledge God supplies by faith. unless you say that God has offered us no knowledge. Faith is not a proposition. but God has offered us many propositions. [16:51] lugen: God does not simply say 'use faith', He gives us the proposition that we are to excercise faith in. [16:52] pascoe: Again, I reject your definition of faith. If you'd care to talk about definitions of faith, I think that would be useful. [16:52] Unbelievr: faith = firm conviction (Pistis in the Greek) [16:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.FIU.EDU: The Home of Rational Theism [16:53] Unbelievr: I did define it above, but I'll do it again. Faith is a means of accepting new propositions. Knowledge is arrived at by faith, formal proof, and repeatable observation. those 3 are examples of methods of accepting p ropositions. [16:53] lugen: That does not seem to imply that 'perfect evidence' is necessary. [16:54] lugen: a firm conviction is not the same as knowledge since knowledge is a set of propositions that we reason from. [16:55] pascoe: I am quite aware of what your definition of faith is. There is a problem with it, because by demanding 'perfect evidence', which is IMPOSSIBLE, you're *defining* all conclusions as requiring faith. [16:55] Unbelievr: do you still believe that knowledge is possible? [16:55] pascoe: you're metaphysicalizing the issue again, treating knowledge as "thing" [16:55] _AmNeSiA_ (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) joined #apologetics. [16:56] Action: lugen is lagged [16:56] pascoe: Certainly. [16:56] Unbelievr: who is demanding perfect evidence? I don't think I have. [16:56] Unbelievr: but it seems that you are holding certain beliefs as knowledge tho they are rooted in faith. [16:57] pascoe: You can't conclude that all knowledge requires faith just because you define it that way. [16:57] Unbelievr: the example you gave about the earth and sun is a perfect example of faith in action. [16:57] brb (changing servers, lagged) [16:57] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: changing servers [16:57] <_AmNeSiA_> hehe :) [16:58] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined #apologetics. [16:58] pascoe: faith is a method of extending credibility to a concept without having perfect evidence that it is true. it is accepted into our body of knowledge. [16:58] Unbelievr: ok, but if there is a knowledge that does not require faith, please give me an example. [16:58] pascoe: Your quote. [16:58] Unbelievr: yes, I do not demand that knowledge require perfect evidence tho. I am saying that knowledge can be arrived at by faith. [16:59] <_AmNeSiA_> pascoe - how about if someone chops off your hand? You'd know it wasn't there anymore. hehe :) [16:59] CTCP PING: 832798715 from lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) to #apologetics [16:59] hmmmmmmm [16:59] pascoe: If faith is defined as 'belief without conclusive evidence', then there are all kinds of things we can know without faith. [16:59] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: changing servers [16:59] _AmNeSiA_: hahaha, yes, the evidence would be very convincing. it would require very little faith. 8) [16:59] <_AmNeSiA_> hehe :) [17:00] Unbelievr: please name something we can know without faith at some level. [17:00] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined #apologetics. [17:00] pascoe: How can knowledge be acquired through faith alone, except by accident? [17:00] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: changing servers [17:00] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined #apologetics. [17:00] CTCP PING: 832798857 from lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) to #apologetics [17:01] Unbelievr: but you seem to be agreeing that knowledge is possible, which I assert too. [17:01] pascoe: The Earth's rotation around the sun. We have conclusive evidence. Faith is not required, except by your meaningless definition of faith. [17:01] that's a wee bit better [17:01] Unbelievr: why do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun? [17:02] <_AmNeSiA_> hey lugen - you get lost in the TwILIte ZoNe ??? [17:02] pascoe: I do agree that knowledge is possible. I'm only arguing with your claim that all knowledge requires faith. [17:02] Amnesia: nah, just trying to find a good server [17:03] pascoe: I don't 'believe' it. I accept it, based on the evidence. [17:03] Unbelievr: you are free to disagree, but your examples so far do not support your disagreement. they confirm mine since you are excercising faith. [17:03] Unbelievr: are you admitting that you have not personally verified this knowledge that you are using as an example? [17:04] pascoe: No they don't. They only seem to, to you, because of your silly definition of faith. [17:04] pascoe: But I have. [17:05] Unbelievr: but you are using faith to believe that the earth revolves around the sun even now since you admit that you have not verified the evidence. [17:05] pascoe: HUH? [17:05] I admitted no such thing. [17:05] Unbelievr: how have you verifed that the earth revolves around the sun? [17:06] Action: _AmNeSiA_ thinks pascoe might actually have a point...unfortunately [17:06] _AmNeSiA_ (guest@kiowa.wildstar.net) left irc: WildStar public access IRC. telnet telnet.wildstar.net login: guest [17:07] pascoe: What's your point? No matter what I say, you'll find some loophole where you'll jump in and say, 'see, that's not perfect evidence!'. [17:08] Unbelievr: exactly. my point is that faith is a valid method to arrive at knowledge. [17:08] pascoe: But again, it's your definition of faith that is in error. [17:08] AmNeSiA (guest@comanche.wildstar.net) joined #apologetics. [17:08] pascoe: No it isn't. [17:08] Unbelievr: my point is that knowledge does not require perfect proof. [17:08] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: changing servers [17:09] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined #apologetics. [17:09] Action: AmNeSiA thinks pascoe might actually have a point....unfortunately [17:09] Unbelievr: then please give an example that shows how my definition fails. [17:09] pascoe: Show me one thing that is true, that we *know* is true, without it ever having been verified by evidence. [17:09] define evidence [17:09] Unbelievr: let me ask you another question. did the point about the earth and sun become 'knowledge' before or after you accepted it by faith? [17:09] AmNeSiA: Stick around. [17:10] CTCP PING: 832799420 from lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) to #apologetics [17:10] much better [17:10] Unbelievr: Satan is a created being. That is knowledge that has not been verified by evidence that I know of. [17:10] pascoe: Give me one example of something that we know is true that is not supported by evidence - something we know is true that we know only through faith. [17:11] are you back in the correct time zone, lugen :) hehe [17:11] pascoe: It's also not knowledge. It's a claim. [17:11] Unbelievr: however, it is implied by God's Word. [17:11] Amnesia: so to speak, yes... [17:11] pascoe: Big deal. The Bible is not knowledge either. [17:11] Unbelievr: we know that Plato lived by faith. [17:12] pascoe: So do you. So what? [17:12] Unbelievr: everything that you believe to exist is merely faith, unverifiable [17:12] Unbelievr: your examples of knowledge seem to be just claims so far. [17:12] pascoe: Plato was a pagan [17:12] Unbelievr: let me ask you another question. did the point about the earth and sun become 'knowledge' before or after you accepted it by faith? [17:12] hmm.. good question [17:13] pascoe: My claims can be backed up by looking at evidence. That's why they deserve to be called knowledge. Your claim about Satan can't, which is why it *doesn't* deserve to be called knowledge. [17:13] lugen: I didn't mean Plato lived by faith, I meant we know he lived by faith. 8) [17:13] Unbelievr: what constitutes evidence? [17:13] Unbelievr: faith uses evidence too. the presence of evidence does not mean faith was not used. [17:14] Unbelievr: If God tells me that Satan is a created being then I consider that knowledge. It is a proposition that a reason from. [17:14] Action: AmNeSiA thinks evidence can be broken down into perceptions ... unfortunately. :( [17:14] that I reason from. [17:15] AmNeSiA: yes, and there is nothing wrong with using faith in evidence as a means to knowledge. [17:15] Amnesia: perceptions only deal with appearances, not with existences [17:15] egads... things that exist [17:15] lugen - I think I see that [17:15] lugen: Evidence is what you get when you examine the world systematically and sift through it for repeatable, reliable, independently verifiable patterns. [17:15] the appearance of creation is evidence for the Creator. [17:15] logographic skills failing me [17:16] I gotta get out of here before this starts making too much sense to me :( [17:16] pascoe: Just because you reason from it doesn't make it correct. [17:16] Amnesia: what are you afraid of :) ? [17:17] Unbelievr: exactly. some of our knowledge may not be correct. [17:17] of you lugen [17:17] AmNeSiA (guest@comanche.wildstar.net) left irc: Leaving [17:17] pascoe: I could reason from the assumption that all cows have wings, and that wouldn't make the idea that all cows have wings 'knowledge'. [17:17] Unbelievr: let me ask you another question. did the point about the earth and sun become 'knowledge' before or after you accepted it by faith? [17:17] Unbelievr: your treatment of this issue is based on empiricism, and naive realism [17:18] Unbelievr: but scientists believe in other planets and blackholes and use that knowledge to reason from but those concepts have never been proven. [17:18] pascoe: That which we believe, and which is NOT correct, is not knowledge. You can't 'know' falsehoods - you can only BELIEVE them. [17:18] Unbelievr: unfortunately for you, empiricism is bankrupt [17:18] pascoe: I never accepted the rotation of the Earth around the sun on faith, so your question remains meaningless. [17:18] Unbelievr: but you have already pointed out that just because you claim something is knowledge, does not mean it is so. yet it remains knowledge that you reason from. [17:19] Unbelievr: how have you personally verified the claim that the earth revolves around the sun? [17:20] lugen: Philosophy in general is bankrupt. [17:20] pascoe: I haven't. [17:20] Unbelievr: do you think that the revolution of the earth around the sun is knowledge even tho you have never verified it? [17:20] Unbelievr: that is the only way to accept the existence of the earth and the sun, and that the earth rotates around an entity called the sun. Those are not statements of fact, those are matters of faith. You believe them by appeal to the concepts of space, [17:20] and energy [17:20] Unbelievr: sez you :) [17:20] Unbelievr: I take it you don't understand what "philosophy" is [17:21] Unbelievr: if you haven't verified the claim then you are saying that something is knowledge without ever verifying it. that is an exercise in faith if I ever saw one. [17:21] pascoe: Let me correct that. I have verified it, by acquiring an understanding of how the conclusion was reached. But again, you'll jsut apply your erroneous definition of faith. [17:22] Unbelievr: so you did not verify the claim itself, you merely accepted the faithfulness of its source? that is much the same as what Christians do with God's Word in the Bible. I am sure you would call that faith. [17:22] lugen: I'm proud to say that I base my conclusions on an understanding of the real world, and not on the musings of philosophers. [17:22] Unbelievr: what is "real"? [17:22] pascoe: No I wouldn't. I would call it reason. [17:23] lugen: If you can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy, I doubt that my explanation would do you any good. [17:23] Unbelievr: so you agree that it is reasonable to place your faith in faithful sources of information like God's Word and science? [17:23] Unbelievr: that is not a definition [17:24] pascoe: NO, dimwit. I reject your definition of faith. Your definition of faith is GOOFY. So no, I don't agree one bit. [17:24] Unbelievr: that is an ad hominem, which does not address the issue, but trivializes it [17:24] Unbelievr: Care to try again? [17:24] lugen: I'm sorry. CAN you tell the difference between fantasy and reality? [17:25] Unbelievr: its easy for someone to stamp their feet and demand that they have no faith, but you have already demonstrated your faith several times. your faith in the conclusions of science is not different in principle than the Christian's faith in God's Word as a source of knowledge. [17:25] Unbelievr: I'm not interested in my definition, I asked about yours, now either you will answer the question, or continue to revolve in circles, skirting the issue because you lack the answer [17:26] pascoe: And it's easy for someone to come up with a goofy definition of faith and then claim that everything we know requires faith. [17:26] Unbelievr: you have admitted that you accept certain concepts without personally verifying them. yet you claim that you have knowledge. I would agree. [17:27] Unbelievr: actually its more difficult to make my claim since all you need to do is provide an example of knowledge that does not require faith. [17:29] lugen: Okay. Reality is what exists. [17:30] Unbelievr: what does it mean to "exist" [17:30] Unbelievr: actually, right now you are subconsciously excercising faith that you are not just wasting your time typing to another machine. you actually believe that a real person is on the other end responding to you. [17:30] pascoe: I can't provide an example that will satisfy you, because of your definition. But your definition is flawed, so my inability to provide an example proves nothing. [17:30] lugen: are you talking about tangible existence? 8) [17:30] lugen: Look it up in the dictionary. [17:30] Unbelievr: thanks for admitting that my definition works. 8) [17:30] lugen: I'll abide by the dictionary definition. [17:30] Unbelievr: skriting the issue again, you've used a term, what to know what you believe it means [17:31] Unbelievr: do you have faith in the dictionary as a source of knowledge? [17:31] pascoe :) [17:31] pascoe: What do you mean, it 'works'? It doesn't work, it only allows you to fool yourself into thinking you're right. [17:31] ROTFLOL [17:31] Unbelievr: is what an encyclopedia contains knowledge before or after you personally verify it? [17:31] lugen: What I 'believe' it means is irrelevent, isn't it? [17:32] LOL [17:32] Unbelievr: then your statment was irrelevant, because what you mean is irrelevant; is that it? [17:33] pascoe: An encyclopedia doesn't contain any knowledge. It contains an abstract physical representation of knowledge. [17:33] lugen: No, I'm saying that I accept that the word 'exist' means whatever the common definition is. [17:33] Unbelievr: so the process of recording knowledge destroys knowledge? hmm. [17:34] Unbelievr: then you are basing your definition on faith, which means that reality is a matter of faith; is that it?? [17:34] Unbelievr: that sounds like blind faith. 8) [17:35] lugen: No. I base my definition of the practical value of having a language that allows us to communicate meaningfully. [17:35] lugen: I believe that reality and truth are not a matter of faith. they are independent of faith. [17:36] pascoe: Everything sounds like faith to you. That's what's wrong with your definition, [17:36] Unbelievr: but what do you mean by the word "exists"? [17:36] Unbelievr: how is what you are doing any different than a Christian who puts his faith in what God's Word says? [17:36] pascoe: the truth about reality is the reality of truth [17:36] lugen: I mean the commonly accepted definition, which I'm sure Mr. Webster can phrase better than I. [17:37] Unbelievr: so you have no idea of what you stated? [17:37] Melkor (Morgoth@Cz.globalx.net) joined #apologetics. [17:37] Unbelievr: if you replaced the word 'dictionary' for the word 'Bible' in your logic, you would be no different than a Christian. [17:37] Unbelievr: you made the statement, I'm just asking you to elucideate on what you stated. [17:38] pascoe: Because everything I claim to know has been derived from a chain of evidence. Whereas Christianity requires faith - at some point, Christians must believe without any evidence. [17:39] Unbelievr: that is an empty claim since there is all kinds of evidence for Christianity. [17:39] Unbelievr: does Hamlet exist?? [17:39] hello everyone [17:39] Unbelievr: do unicorns exist? [17:39] lugen: Okay. Let's be honest. You want to drag me into a philosophical debate over tha nature of reality. I am not interested in that. I don't think that philosophy is particularly useful. [17:39] Unbelievr: what you really mean to say is that you don't accept the evidence for Christianity. [17:40] pascoe: Oh, sorry. I should have specified that I'm using the scientific definition of evidence. [17:40] what evidence pascoe? [17:40] lugen: Hamlet: Not any more, apparently. Unicorns: There's no reason to conclude that they ever did. [17:40] Unbelievr: you do not love wisdom, and do not find wisdom usefull, hmmmmm, that is interesting. (seeing of course that Philosophy literaly means "a lover of wisdom" [17:41] Unbelievr: scientific evidence must be repeatably observable, yet you have admitted that you have faith in certain scientific concepts without personally verifying them. [17:41] what evidence pascoe? [17:41] Unbelievr: hamlet is a character of fiction, not a "real" person that existed. A creation of William Shakespeare [17:41] lugen: Wow. You think philosophy = wisdom. How wierd. [17:42] Melkor: there is the evidence of creation, God's Word and the Holy Spirit in my life. [17:42] pascoe..what evidence ? [17:42] pascoe: The reason I can afford not to personally verify them is that I understand the process whereby others already *have* verified them. [17:42] who thinks that a proposition must have evidence to be believed? [17:42] lugen: Oops. Caught me on that Hamlet thing ;-) [17:43] i just want to know what u think is evidence for creation [17:43] Unbelievr: that is what philosophy is directly translated as, from the Greek. Philo = love, the kind of a brotherly love, sophos = wisdom [17:43] Melkor: I offered three classes of evidence, which one would you like to persue? [17:44] Unbelievr: yes, you find no difficulty excercising faith in sources that suit you, but you object strongly to others who do the same. 8( [17:44] i'll take creation please [17:44] pascoe: Of course a proposition can be believed without evidence. But if it is, then that's *faith*, not *knowledge*. [17:44] lugen: Yeah, well, if the Greeks said it, it must be true ;-) [17:44] Melkor: the banana is evidence for creation. [17:44] can u explain pascoe [17:44] Unbelievr: just pointing out that you do not know what you are debasing [17:45] pascoe: If Christianity were derived from science, I'd have no trouble believing it. But it's *not*. [17:45] Unbelievr: you are suggesting that if there is any evidence that we cannot excercise faith, however many issues involve strong evidence for both sides so faith has to come in somewhere. [17:46] lugen: Yeah, right. Like I'm sure you believe in Zeus and Athena, too, right? Wouldn't want to debase those old Greeks by not accepting their deities. [17:46] pascoe: No it doesn't. Your definition of faith is flawed. [17:46] Unbelievr: more proof that you do not know what you are talking about, in that philosophy in Greece was a means of explanation without appeal to myth or belief. [17:46] Unbelievr: science is simply a method of testing propositions, Christianity is open to scientific inquiry and does quite well. [17:47] Unbelievr: as defined by Thales et al (Pre-socratics) [17:47] lugen: So you support the idea of explaining the world without appeal to myth or belief? [17:48] lugen: ROTFLOL! [17:48] pascoe...u still haven't explained [17:48] Unbelievr: just pointing out again how ignorant of the subject matter you are [17:48] Unbelievr: I don't know of many propositions that are derived from science. its the other way around, science is derived from propositions. [17:48] lugen: No, Christianity does *not* 'do quite well' when examined scientifically. [17:50] Unbelievr: christianity is not an explanation of the "world", it pertains to God, through faith. [17:50] Melkor: the banana is evidence for special creation because it has a biodegradable container, a pull top, and skin that shows age or possible damage to contents, the contents are pleasant to the taste, the banana is curved for ea sy eating and comes in a multi-pak carrying case. [17:51] :) [17:51] and how is that evidence pascoe? [17:51] Melkor: it is evidence that the banana is created for a special purpose by an intelligent designer. [17:51] lugen: That depends on who you ask. There are all kinds of Christians who think it's appropriate to use the Bible as the source of info about tha natural world. [17:51] how do u know that pascoe? [17:52] Melkor: it is not conclusive evidence in its own right, but it is evidence, nonetheless. [17:52] Unbelievr: you've assumed that that is how I view Christianity, which is patently false. [17:52] Melkor: are you confusing evidence with proof? [17:52] pascoe..:) [17:52] not at all [17:53] Unbelievr: in point of fact, I have not raised the subject of Christianity at all, you did :) [17:53] pascoe: What would happen if the jungles were full of banana trees whose bananas had containers that were *not* biodegradable? [17:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.FIU.EDU: The Home of Rational Theism [17:53] Unbelievr: There are all kinds of unbelievers who think it's appropriate to use the dictionary as the source of info about the natural world. [17:53] so that banana could have been created by any intelligent designer? [17:53] Unbelievr: science is simply a method of testing propositions, Christianity is open to scientific inquiry and does quite well. [17:53] Action: lugen is not pascoe [17:53] pascoe: I was responding to lugen's comment about the Bible only being about God, and not about the world. [17:54] lugen: good point. 8) [17:54] Melkor: sure. but its evidence that supports God as the Creator quite well. [17:54] pascoe: The answer is that any plant whose seeds were not biodegradable would soon be extinct. [17:55] pascoe...it could just as well support me as the creator [17:55] fatjac (fatjac@wck-ca4-27.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [17:55] Unbelievr: what was the question? [17:55] pascoe: re bananas [17:55] Hi, you'all! [17:55] Unbelievr: did somebody ask a question about bananas? [17:56] Unbelievr: non-sequitur [17:56] does not follow [17:56] :) [17:56] pascoe: you're confusing the functionality of the world with design. If things *didn't* function, we wouldn't be here. So it's a *given* that things like bananas function - it *not* proof of a creator. [17:56] Melkor: perhaps, but it does indicate that the banana has an intelligent designer. 8) [17:57] pascoe: or evidence either [17:57] hmmmm, sounds like an anthropic principle to me.... nice cop out [17:57] Unbelievr: the points I raised about bananas have little to do with the functionality of bananas. [17:57] it is because that's the way it is :) [17:57] lugen: are you suggesting that we could be here if the universe *didn't* function? [17:58] Unbelievr: No, I'm suggesting that you're dancing around the issue again [17:58] lugen: Oh. Well, if you have no objection to the anthropic principle, why did you criticise me for it? [17:59] pascoe...explain why a banana has to have a intelligent creator [17:59] Melkor: Because he has no grasp of biology? [17:59] Unbelievr: additionally, you're treating the universe as a "conscious agent" by implying a sense of intentionality to events [17:59] unbeliever....perhaps [17:59] pascoe:How so? [17:59] We laggin'? [18:00] Melkor: the features of the banana are so well suited to consumption by mankind that it defies an appeal to random events. [18:00] lugen: No I'm not. The fact that banana seeds that couldn't get out of their skin would lead to the extinction of banana trees doesn't imply 'intentionality'. [18:01] pascoe:) [18:01] Unbelievr: but if banana seeds could not do that, then the universe would continue as normal, minus bananas of course [18:01] yep [18:01] Unbelievr: I suppose any single factor by itself wouldn't, but the whole of them seems to be quite intensional. [18:02] Please bring me up to speed. What is the issue? [18:02] fatjac: bananas. 8) [18:02] fatjac: that would take some doing :) [18:02] berryblue (blueberry@Canth.HACKS.Arizona.EDU) joined #apologetics. [18:02] hi pascoe 8) hi lugen :) [18:03] hey blueberry [18:03] lugen: Right. So what we have left are only the species that don't have features that would make them extinct. [18:03] hello berryblue. 8) [18:04] Unbelievr: extinct species have had the same features when they went extinct as they had when they were successful. [18:04] lugen: There's no need for a conscious creator to go around making only things that can survive. If things that can't survive appeared, they'd die off all by themselves. [18:04] *yawn*...boring,pointless discussion [18:04] Unbelievr: passenger pigeons come to mind. [18:04] Unbelievr: but that doesn't prevent the universe from being as it is. The existence of bananas is contingent upon the universe, not the other way around.... The universe could be different, and there still be a universe to observe [18:04] later all [18:04] pascoe: Uh huh. But did their ecosystems? [18:04] Melkor: you started it. 8) [18:05] Melkor (Morgoth@Cz.globalx.net) left #apologetics. [18:05] Unbelievr: ex nihilo nihilus [18:05] Unbelievr: you said features of the species, not the ecosystem. [18:05] But wouldn't the intentionality, as you call it, necessarily exist outside the finite universe? [18:05] lugen: That's right! But if the universe were different, creatures that couldn't exist in it would *still* die off. [18:06] fatjac: we don't have much evidence to draw that conclusion. but it works well in the finite universe. [18:06] pascoe: The pigeons didn't change, but their environment did. It was suddenly full of human beings with guns. [18:07] Unbelievr: so the features of the species don't always have anything to do with their success. [18:07] pascoe: You right, I didn't mention environment before. But mentioning it now doesn't hurt my argumant. [18:07] pascoe:Must there not be an infinite? [18:07] Unbelievr: ok. 8) [18:07] pascoe: Yes they do. Passenger pigeons that happened to have bulletproof feathers would have survived ;-) [18:07] Unbelievr: so where did the universe come from?? [18:07] fatjac: no, there must not not be an infinite. 8) [18:08] Unbelievr: but they were very successful without bulletproof feathers once. [18:08] lugen: I don't know. But unlike you, I don't respond to a lack of knowledge by accepting something on faith ;-) [18:08] pascoe:How then do you account for existence? [18:09] pascoe: Yeah. Until the gun-toting humans came. It's *both* the features of the species and their environment. [18:09] Unbelievr: you were willing to accept the dictionary definition of 'exist' by faith a bit ago. [18:09] Unbelievr: however we've already determined that all knowledge is based on faith [18:09] pascoe: YOU cal it 'faith'. I don't. [18:09] Unbelievr: thanks for clarifying that. 8) [18:09] fatjac: I believe in an infinite God who created. [18:10] lugen: No we haven't. I've never accepted pascoe's definition. [18:10] Unbelievr: that's right. because it is the same method you are accusing us of. [18:10] pascoe:Didn't you a while back say there was no need for an infinite?? [18:10] Unbelievr: how do you define knowlede? Faith? [18:10] pascoe: So what's your response to my criticism of your definition of faith? [18:11] Unbelievr: to deny that you are using the same processes of faith in evidence is absurd since you have already demonstrated faith by appealing to earth and sun and dictionaries. [18:11] pascoe: no, there must not not be an infinite. 8 [18:11] fatjac: no. I said there was not need for not having an infinite which was your question. You asked your question in the negative and I responded with a double negative. [18:11] pascoe: So what's your response to my criticism of your definition of faith? [18:12] lugen: I define knowledge as that which we have learned. [18:12] Unbelievr: that is not knowledge [18:12] pascoe:Ok, double negative. [18:12] Unbelievr: its arbitrary because even your definition is made thru faith. you assert that the presence of evidence excludes faith. [18:12] Unbelievr: knowledge is that which can be proven, how about that as a definition? [18:13] lugen:How proven? Are we talking about degrees of certitude? [18:14] pascoe: Your definition of faith is meaningless because it requires any conclusion NOT derived by faith to be based on 'perfect evidence'. Perfect evidence is IMPOSSIBLE, so your definition is meaningless. Now please respond to this criticism. [18:14] fatjac: proven implies perfect certainty, not a degree thereof. Either you can, or cannot prove something. If you can prove it, then you have knowledge, if you cannot, then you don't. [18:15] lugen:That sounds a little too much to me. [18:15] fatjac: that is a fairly well defined concept [18:15] lugen: That's not a bad definition, so long as the term 'proven' is used in the scientific sense, where lack of 'perfect evidence' is considered acceptable. [18:15] lugen:What do you know with perfect certainty? [18:16] lugen: So is the scientific definition. [18:16] Unbelievr: I'll accept that, and prove that there is no such thing as "knowledge" based on that definition. [18:16] lugen: Go for it. [18:16] fatjac: nothing [18:17] Unbelievr: what is the means of proving anything? [18:17] Unbelievr: my response is that since you don't have perfect evidence you are using faith. you demonstrate it repeatedly. [18:17] fatjac: I believe that faith is a valid means to knowledge, but not all knowledge is in agreement with reality and truth. [18:17] lugen:So you're saying knowledge is not possible? [18:17] fatjac: Nobody knows anything with perfect certainty, which is why it's goofy to define faith as 'that which you believe without perfect certainty'. [18:18] fatjac: I can support that claim very well [18:18] pascoe: That is not a response to my criticism of your definition. [18:18] Unbelievr: care to answer my question? [18:18] Unbelievr: what is the means of proving anything? [18:19] lugen: Oh sorry, missed the question. Here goes... [18:19] Unbelievr: my response is that your fear of admitting faith makes it impossible for you to accept my definition because you would have to admit you use faith. [18:19] Unbelievr: but you are unable to show how the definition fails. [18:19] pascoe:You said" but not all knowledge is in agreement with reality and truth. [18:20] Unbelievr: does everything require evidence before it can be believed? [18:20] fatjac: yes. [18:20] pascoe:Isn't knowledge the possesion of reality and truth? [18:21] lugen: In science, a theory is considered proven when it fits all of the available evidence better than any competing theory. It is understood that a proven theory may be overturned later, since perfect evidence is impossible. [18:21] Unbelievr: logic perhaps? [18:21] fatjac: evolutionists have collected a great body of knowledge for a false conclusion. [18:21] pascoe:Then wasn't your statement a contradiction? [18:21] fatjac: I don't make knowledge synonymous with truth and reality. [18:21] pascoe: It fails because it doesn't mean anything. If all conclusions require faith, then faith is meaningless. It has no function. [18:22] Unbelievr: would you agree that the means of proof is through the use of "logic"?? [18:22] Unbelievr: faith is a means of accepting propositions into a set of knowledge. [18:22] pascoe: It's possible to believe something without evidence, but unwise. [18:23] Unbelievr: why do you believe its unwise? [18:23] lugen: Yes. Why? [18:23] pascoe:the knowledge the evolutionists collected does not prevent them from possibly drawing an incorrect conclusion. This is not to say the knowledge was false. [18:23] Unbelievr: how do you know that logic is realiable? [18:23] fatjac: it is not to say the knowledge is true either. [18:23] reliable that is [18:24] pascoe:That's where we part I guess. To me knowledge=truth. [18:24] fatjac: knowledge is simply a set of propositions that we accept as a basis for our reasoning. [18:25] pascoe: No it isn't. Faith means belief without conclusive evidence. If you accept something into a set of knowledge without having conclusive evidence to support it, you taint that set of knowledge with mere SPECULATION. Sp eculation cannot be called knowledge. [18:25] pascoe:CAn you give me an illustration of knowledge not being true? [18:25] fatjac: does something become knowledge before or after you accept it? [18:25] lugen: It's only as reliable as the premises you use it on. Why? [18:25] fatjac: the knowledge of the ancient Greeks is not the same as our knowledge today, but I don't say that had no knowledge. [18:25] Unbelievr: how would you go about proving that logic is reliable? [18:26] pascoe:Ok, but that's not knowledge to me. I see why the Jesuits say "First define your terms"> [18:26] fatjac: Sure. over 400 PhDs were offered for work done on the Java man skull which turned out to be a forgery. [18:27] pascoe:Knowledge exists whether or not I am aware of it. [18:27] pascoe: The ancient Greeks had faith that Zeus existed. Do you think it's fair, then, to say they KNEW Zeus existed? [18:27] Pascoe:I know nothing about making A bombs, but they exist. [18:27] fatjac: yes, and so does reality and truth, but that does not mean that knowledge = truth. [18:28] Unbelievr: how would you go about proving that logic is reliable? [18:28] lugen: By using it, and examining the results. Is this another attept to lure me off into the depths of philosophical mumbo-jumbo? [18:28] Unbelievr: it is fair to say that they had a body of knowledge about Zeus. they were knowledgable about Zeus. [18:28] pascoe:What's your point? PHd's are not infallible? [18:28] doogie (doogie@ppp-24.wspice.com) joined #apologetics. [18:28] I'm going to have to go soon, guys. 3 minute warning. [18:28] fatjac: are you saying that 400 PhDs did not have knowledge about Java man? [18:28] Unbelievr: No, pointing out that logic is always assumed, or believed, and cannot be vindicated without appeal to logic itself. [18:28] pascoe:I think we've got a semantic problem. [18:29] pascoe: But they didn't 'know that Zeus existed' - because Zeus DIDN'T exist. They were WRONG. [18:29] pascoe:No, only that i guess they drew the wrong conclusions. [18:29] Unbelievr: exactly. I never said all knowledge agrees with reality. [18:30] fatjac: so knowledge is not the same as reality? [18:30] pascoe:See...all true knowledge agrees with reality. [18:30] Poimen (tashley@erc.cat.syr.EDU) joined #Apologetics. [18:30] Unbelievr: seeing that you are short on time, I'll wrap this up quickley [18:30] pascoe: Okay. Well, this is where our definitions are at an impasse. I can't agree with calling belief in something that doesn't exist 'knowledge'. [18:30] Unbelievr (jeff@206.138.221.19) left irc: Leaving [18:30] fatjac: sure, by definition all true knowledge agrees with reality, but not all knowledge is true. 8) [18:30] pascoe:Can I say true knowledge must agree with reality? [18:31] pascoe:Aha, a little progress! [18:31] Unbelievr: if logic is assumed, or believed, and logic is the only means of proving something, to the point that we can call something knowledge, that means that all knowledge is reducible to faith. Ergo, all knowledge = faith. [18:31] fatjac: sure, but I would say you have divided the class of knowledge into two sets. true knowledge and untrue knowledge. [18:32] lugen: faith is a method of arriving at knowledge. 8) [18:32] pascoe: if the knowledge is not true, it is false, and therefore constitutes a "myth", not knowledge. :) [18:33] berryblue (blueberry@Canth.HACKS.Arizona.EDU) left irc: have to tear myself away.... [18:33] knowledge is not formal proof. knowledge is not observation. knowledge is not faith. but those are examples of ways of arriving at knowledge. [18:33] pascoe:I think you made that necessary, but I can work with it if you can. [18:33] pascoe: the product cannot be greater than the foundation upon which it is built [18:33] Poimen (tashley@erc.cat.syr.EDU) left #Apologetics. [18:33] lugen: is all science true? does science = truth? [18:33] pascoe: you're implying a kind of synergy, which is non-sequitur [18:34] science is a method, not a body or knowledge, or a body of truth. [18:34] pascoe:But here we are back at square one: How do we know if knowledge is true knowledge? [18:34] science is a process [18:34] lugen: That isn't what "scientists" would normally have you to believe. ;^) [18:34] lugen: I am saying that the term knowledge is what a set of propositions that we reason from. that set can include truth and error. [18:34] lugen: faith is also a method, just like science. 8) [18:35] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics. [18:35] Science is the study of the laws of the material universe. [18:35] pascoe: but the product cannot exceed it's constituents [18:35] hi all [18:35] fatjac: we have at least three methods of accepting new propositions as knowledge. faith, formal proof, and observation. [18:35] doogie: but that is what it is, none the less [18:35] lugen: You can [believe you] have the knowledge that bananas are blue, but that's obviously not true. [18:35] a method [18:36] Faith=trust [18:36] doogie: then you do not have knowledge, you have error. Knowledge is not error [18:36] pascoe:I'm with you. Go! [18:36] lugen: would you say that all science is true? or does science include both truth and error? [18:36] lugen: Of course it's error, but it's still knowledge in the mind of the person who believes it. An evolutionist's "knowledge" is that evolution is true. A creationist's "kn owledge" is that creation is true. [18:37] pascoe: science is a method, from which we derive conclusions. Nothing more. It is not tantamount to truth. [18:37] knowledge is simply a set of propositions that we reason from. to have knowledge does not mean you have truth. [18:37] science is a means, not an end [18:38] faith is a means, not an end. [18:38] Knowledge is built from faith, and therefore is believed, not known with certainty [18:38] ergo knowledge ~= knowledge [18:38] knowledge = faith [18:39] lugen: Bananas are yellow. Is that faith? [18:39] doogie:Can't buy that definition of knowledge. You can say the moon is blue, and I can say it's red. The objective truth is we're both wrong. [18:39] doogie: that is a statement about what appears [18:39] fatjac: Uhm, I think that's what I'm saying. [18:39] doogie: what is yellow? [18:39] doogie:New bananas are green, old bananas are brown. SO? [18:40] doogie:Semantics again. [18:40] green bananas, by doogie's definition, are not bananas :) [18:40] same with the brown ones [18:40] :) [18:41] Oh, for crying out loud. I didn't say that. Nice strawman. [18:41] ROTFLOL [18:41] lugen:Why can't you say knowledge is built from trial and error? [18:41] if God reveals a proposition to us and asks us to have faith in it. Has God given us knowledge? [18:41] fatjac: because knowledge doesn't exist, it's not a thing [18:42] fatjac: trial and error can lead to knowledge, but not necessarily truth. [18:42] lugen:Are you saying nothing exists but things? [18:42] Things appear, no way of telling that they exist :) [18:42] I believe that if God reveals something to me, I have been given knowledge. I use this knowledge to reason from. [18:42] ripe bananas are yellow???? [18:43] pascoe: non-sequitur [18:43] kiki: sigh. [18:43] pascoe: you're still treating knowledge as a thing, which it is not. [18:43] Does God reveal knowledge to mankind? [18:44] pascoe:How can you possibly doubt something you believe Gad revealed? That would be insane. [18:44] lugen: Things can only be tangible objects? [18:44] lugen: propositions are logical things. knowledge is a set of propositions. [18:44] doogie: I've not stated that [18:44] fatjac: I don't doubt it, but I don't deny that it is knowledge either. [18:45] lugen: "You're still treating knowledge as a thing, which it is not." If it's not a thing, what is it? [18:45] a proposition is a complete sentence, not knowledge. [18:45] lugen: what is knowledge then? [18:45] doogie: If it is a thing, then where is it? [18:45] pascoe:I don't agree with your defintion of knowledge but I'm starting to understand what you mean. [18:46] knowledge is a set of propositions that we base our reasoning on. [18:46] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) got netsplit. [18:46] lugen: So things can only be tangible objects? [18:47] fatjac: I'm sure that there is more than one way to make all these terms fit together. I just happen to like this way. 8) [18:47] pascoe: knowledge is faith, faith is a process, therefore knowledge is a process (hypokaminon from the Greek a la Aristotle) [18:47] or alethia [18:47] lugen:Why does something need space to exist? [18:47] can someone be knowledgable about God and not believe Him. [18:47] A proposition is a proposal. "Complete sentence," a paragraph, a page, a novel, whatever. It's still a thing. A set of propositions (like a doctrine one may hold) is what one perceives to be knowledge. Knowledge is not necessarily truth. [18:48] So to shorten in, I would agree that knowledge is, to a degree, faith. [18:48] Where is the spatial local of knowledge? [18:48] a unicorn is a thing. [18:49] Roamin (jbrewer1@slip24.dialup.ua.edu) joined #apologetics. [18:49] but I dunno where it is. 8) [18:49] lugen: Trees are things. Air is a thing. Grass is a thing. One-eyed huffalumps are things. Knowledge is a thing. [18:49] Where is the spatial local of love? Is love not a thing? [18:49] Roamin (jbrewer1@slip24.dialup.ua.edu) left #apologetics. [18:49] lugen: faith is how I arrive at the knowledge I use to reason with. [18:50] souls are not tangilble, neither are spirits [18:50] lugen: Correct! So? [18:50] pascoe:Tis ok, I just have to adjust. [18:50] lugen: God's Word is a source of knowledge. The Bible is a spacial local of knowledge. 8) [18:51] Hmmmm. [18:51] *mull* [18:51] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) returned to #apologetics. [18:51] doogie: I used love as an example a bit ago. 8) [18:51] brb (phone) [18:51] yeah i know, did you know we are alone now, everyone else left.. [18:51] <- scrolls back. [18:52] lugen:An illustration of a syllogism in which both the major and minor premises are false. How can the conclusion be true? [18:52] lugen:I'm an old guy. What the hell does spatial local mean? [18:52] there is such a thing as false science and also false knowledge. [18:52] someone can be wrong and quite knowledgable at the same time. [18:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.FIU.EDU: The Home of Rational Theism [18:53] fatjac: It's place of physical existence. [18:53] and in the same subject. [18:53] pascoe: Such as the highly elaborate evolution theory that makes some scientists *appear* quite knowledgable. ;^) [18:54] well, I gotta go now. 8) [18:54] bye doogie. 8) [18:54] lugen Cut me some slack, I'm an old guy. [18:54] See you, pascoe. [18:54] Action: doogie needs food. [18:54] What the hell is a spatial local? [18:54] fatjac: lugen is asking for the coordinates on the map. 8) [18:54] fatjac: It's place of physical existence. Should be spelled "spatial locale." [18:55] doogie: exactly. I wouldn't say that evolutionists are not knowledgable, they are just wrong. [18:55] there is some truth to evolution... [18:55] Action: doogie nods to pascoe. [18:55] pascoe:Does he mean the point in space that piece of matter occupies? [18:56] pascoe:NO SHIT! [18:56] fatjac: you got it. [18:56] there is evolution in species that exist to this day, as environment changes, mutations and adaptation [18:56] pascoe:I agree. [18:56] kiki: Diversification and natural selection, yes. But man did not come from amoebas, nor did vertebrates arise from invertebrates, etc. It jes' don'na happen, cap'n. [18:57] doogie:Wouldn't my definition apply then? [18:57] doogie, i didn't say anything about man......calm down [18:57] pascoe (Pascoe@vrb.com) left irc: bye. 8) [18:57] kiki: Cite an example of a species evolving today. [18:57] Hey pascoe, you're not suggesting that the bible is our only source of knowledge? [18:58] kiki: Diversification and natural selection, yes. But monkeys did not come from amoebas, nor did vertebrates arise from invertebrates, etc. It jes' don'na happen, cap'n. [18:58] kiki: Better? [18:58] fatjac: I don't think I ever saw your definition in the first place. I came in late. [18:58] Finally got throught my thick head. [18:59] doogie:Why not?? [19:00] fatjac: Why not what? [19:00] doogie, do you believe the earth was made in 6 24hr days? [19:00] kiki: Yes. [19:01] doogie:forget it, ancient history. [19:01] Action: doogie shrugs. [19:01] doogie can you prove that? [19:02] doogie can you prove that? [19:02] kiki: No. Can you prove George Washington existed? [19:02] doogie:Isn't the big hullabaloo between the evolutionists and the creationists over the possible evolvement of man? [19:03] doogie, be serious, why do you believe that the earth was created in 6, 24hr days? [19:03] fatjac: The big hullabaloo between them is over the ideas of "life from nonlife" and "life from God," basically. [19:03] kiki: Because God says so. [19:03] kiki: And I am being serious. Can you prove George Washington existed? [19:04] doogie:We sound like a comic routine. Why not what what? [19:04] CTCP PING: AmIRC 580327268 204590 from doogie (doogie@ppp-24.wspice.com) to #apologetics [19:04] doogie, what do you mean because God says so? [19:05] kiki: I mean, very simply, "God says so." What part of that don't you understand? [19:05] doogie:From my point of view, with all the certainty needed. [19:06] Action: doogie is lagged. [19:06] doogie, when you state something you believe, usually a reference is given, like printed or something....where do you get your information you base your beliefs on.... [19:06] kiki: Genesis 1. [19:06] doogie:If you believe that everything in the bible is literally true we're in for a long night. [19:07] the word day can mean 24 hours or a longer period of time.. [19:07] kiki: Nope. The word used means, quite simply, a day. Reading the verses leaves no room for interpretation other than that of normal days. "And the day and the night were the day." [19:08] you need to look up the original greek on "day".....it does leave room for it [19:08] fatjac: Jesus seemed to have no problem believing in the literality of the Bible. I trust Him. [19:08] kiki: Hmm, no, it doesn't. [19:08] kiki:I see no conflict with evolution since I believe what makes man different from the animals is his spiritual soul. A spirit has no parts and therefore must be a unique creation of God. [19:09] jesus spoke in parables quite often, the truth hidden, not always openly and literally [19:09] doogie:Don't be putting words in the Good Lord's mouth. [19:10] doogie, fatjac is not putting words in God's mouth [19:10] he is simply stating his beliefs [19:11] doogie:Remember the bible, at least the New Testament, didn't exist at the time of Jesus. [19:11] doogie you need to find a book by a physicist named Don Stoner... [19:12] kiki:Why would doogie believe Don what's his name over God? [19:12] there was the records of the children of Israel (old testamen) in the temple then [19:13] kiki:huh? [19:13] Oh, granted. [19:13] fatjac, i don't know if he would or not, it's just interesting reading, he's a christian who happens to be a scientist [19:14] is this the whisper channel? [19:14] kiki:ok, gotcha. [19:14] i came across his book on the internet [19:14] kiki:And the subject? [19:15] power.net/users/aia/newlook/NLCHPTR5.htm#top [19:15] A New Look At An Old Earth [19:15] was the title of the book [19:16] kiki:A book or pamphlet... how big/ [19:16] it was both the evolutionist views and the young earth creationalist views [19:16] the whole book was on the web site [19:16] Action: lugen is back [19:16] 5000k of 3 megs? [19:16] of=or [19:16] i don't know what size [19:17] HI lugen! [19:17] kiki:You downloade it? [19:17] no i just read it on the web site [19:17] oh. [19:18] took some notes, i want to get it later, i couldn [19:18] couldn't download it that night [19:18] could I get a refresh on those questions?? [19:18] Jubilant (griff@dialup15.nmia.com) joined #apologetics. [19:18] So doogie, are you a fundamentalist?? [19:18] Lugen, are you still on from earlier? [19:19] brb [19:19] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics. [19:19] Jubilant is a fundamentalist. Isn't everybody? [19:19] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics. [19:19] My server is screwed up. Got to cold boot. brb [19:19] doogie: knowledge does not have to a tangilble existant, as a thing, but, we treat it as an entity, or interpret it that way. [19:19] Don't you follow the fundamentals of whatever world-viewe you subscribe to? [19:20] Hello? [19:21] there was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the old testament, was that a tanagible thing? [19:21] Jubilant: yes, it is still me [19:21] :-) [19:21] Action: Jubilant thinks Lugen is tenacious! [19:21] :-) [19:22] there was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the old testament, was [19:22] that a tanagible thing? [19:22] Jubilant: just a guy with too much time on my hands :) [19:22] hello? [19:22] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: Leaving [19:22] I will be back later tonight after church. [19:23] Hmm... I didn't mean to run him off... :-( [19:23] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics. [19:23] Bye all! [19:23] Jubilant (griff@dialup15.nmia.com) left irc: [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_22_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