[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/14/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/14/96 [02:35] C

[ref001]


#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/14/96
#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/14/96

[02:35] Cthuligoo (someone@pm16.cwo.com) joined #apologetics.
[02:35]  Elysium, :) very much so
[02:35]  brb
[02:35]  but, I enjoy mocking god with friends 
so what the heck.
[02:36]  Elysium, I don't enjoy intolerance
[02:36]  elysium ... some people are huggable 
and others... well.....
[02:36]  Elysium no racism either
[02:36]  Acolyte: which ones?
[02:36]  Acolyte: So you'll kick anyone who 
is too effective in crushing your weak arguements?
[02:36]  QED if you email me I will give u a 
list, I have a number of books on the topic, but since 
I am at work right now, I can't give it to you off 
hand
[02:36]  Actually I had a personal revelation 
from god that told me that he doesn't exist.
[02:37]  Cthuligoo your funny
[02:37] wasme (pperswain@204.112.108.135) joined #apologetics.
[02:37]  Cthulioo no I don't care for intolerance 
is all
[02:37]  Elysium, be tolerant and u can stay
[02:37] Gabriel (skept@h-add.ekx.infi.net) joined #apologetics.
[02:37]  Praise the Lord
[02:37]  Gab greetings
[02:37]  acolyte:  I'm thinking about going 
to Korea for a yr after I finish my undergrad.  Take 
courses there.  It would be an awesome experience (in 
more ways than one I'm sure you can imagine)  *big 
huge grin* 
[02:37]  Briase the Lard.  I'm tolerant as hell
[02:37]  Acolyte: How do you define intolerant?
[02:37]  I take it all
[02:37] QingWa (frog@firefly.prairienet.org) left irc: 
Leaving
[02:37]  Hell, I think religion is cute and 
believer are interesting.  like pets and such.
[02:37]  Elysium be more respectful of positions 
other than yours
[02:38]  Elysioum second warning
[02:38]  **** God is dead.  Neitzsche 1900 
     Nietzsche is dead.  GOD 1996 *****
[02:38]  Elysium: Acolyte may enjoy your inane 
bantering, but I do not.
[02:38]  one for the trouble, two for da bass
[02:38]  Profg enjoy is much to strong a word, 
more like deplore
[02:38] Mode change '+o ProfG ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[02:38]  Elysium, be cool dude
[02:38]  Acolyte: How do you define intolerant?
[02:38] Action: ProfG does not like to op
[02:38]  Cthuligoo Elysium is a denotative example
[02:38]  CT... remarks to inflame, insult and 
incite
[02:38]  I want your definition.
[02:39] QingWa (frog@firefly.prairienet.org) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:39]  well, i'm not quite intolerant.  Though 
I dont make any bones about beliitling my opponents 
position
[02:39]  re ching
[02:39]  onevoice: You mean like saying that 
your god doesn't exist?
[02:39]  Acolyte doesn't make any bones about 
it either, just so long as the opponent is atheistic.
[02:39]  Hi there all
[02:39]  Cthuligoo making remarks taken as disrespectful 
and rhetorically charged in order to insult a personal 
position of others
[02:39]  Elysium I happily kick theists as well
[02:39]  brb
[02:39]  Theists don't exist acolyte.
[02:39]  Elysium I am a Theist
[02:40]  Acolyte: Then you dont exist.
[02:40]  Acolyte: If I said that Jesus, if 
he existed at all, was just a man and nothing more, 
wouldn't that incite you?
[02:40]  CT.  YOu do not know "my" god so how 
do you know if he exists or not?  If you mean "God does 
not exist".  great.  although the subject is quite worn 
and no 

atheist has EVER one the debate.
[02:40]  QED: Athanasius, Tertullian, Eusebius
[02:40] Elysium!clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU kicked 
by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: No More Intolerance 
please
[02:40] Elysium (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:40] Action: Elysium snickers.
[02:40]  Chtuligoo no
[02:40]  rational theism, now that's an oxymoron.
[02:40]  "incite"? LOL
[02:40] Mode change '-o ProfG ' by ProfG!wgreen01@fiudial30.fiu.edu
[02:40]  sorta like a square circle.
[02:41]  ProfG: how would you interpret Matt: 24 
concerning the dramatic language involved in Christ's 
return. Has that already occurred, is the passage future, 
or is it temporally mixed?
[02:41]  The transcendental argument:  If god 
doesn't exist, then how come he does?
[02:41]  Elysium, funny a nihilist taling about 
contradictions, now I have seen everything
[02:41]  Elysium that is not the TA
[02:41]  profg:  I just sent you my biography. 
 Just let me know if you want me to and anything.  
I will be developing pictures soon so I will be able 
to send you a picture of me.  Can't gaurantee that 
it will be only of me.  :)
[02:41]  acolyte: Who's a nihilist?
[02:41]  Elysium I am almost done with my responmse 
to you BTW
[02:41]  elysium:  You
[02:41] Mode change '+b *!*clayton@*SEAS.UPENN.EDU 
' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[02:41]  wasn't me
[02:41]  who did dat?
[02:42]  creation kewl  :-)
[02:42]  I have had enough
[02:42] Mode change '-b elysium!*@* ' by Acolyte!st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com
[02:42]  CT and Ely ... your "intent" is "worn 
on your sleeve" so to speak.   YOu seek to teach not 
learn... ands when you are the student... that is not 
a good plac

e to be. ;)
[02:42]  onevoice: Did I ask you?
[02:42] Elysium!clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU kicked 
by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: sputtering nonsense 
and not being rational
[02:42]  Chtulingo I don't have a problem with 
arguments or disagreement, just idiots
[02:43]  profg your call
[02:43]  Acolyte: Then you must be at odds 
with the majority of Christianity.
[02:43]  Ct, did I answer you?   
[02:43]  cthinlingoo why?
[02:43]  Acolyte: he does not engage in rational 
discourse, he goes.
[02:43]  profg ok
[02:44]  chtulingo, why do you say  that I must 
be at odds with most of Christianity?
[02:44]  acolyte:  I went to the library on 
friday and checked out 10 books.  I think 3 by Swinburne, 
3 by Craig, 2 by Morris, 1 by Bahnsen, and 1 volume 
of a ten volume set on Creationist works in the 20th 
century.
[02:44] SuePeace (suepeace@Venus.mcs.com) joined #apologetics.
[02:44]  heya
[02:44]  creatioN GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[02:44]  hullo suepeace
[02:44] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics.
[02:44] Action: Acolyte pats creation on the head
[02:44]  Acolyte: Sorry, I thought it was 
obvious. Christians are, for the most part, idiots.
[02:44]  hi all
[02:44]  hehehe
[02:44]  Cthuligoo they are? why?
[02:45]  cthuligoo:  huh?
[02:45]  Cthuligoo and whatis your paradigm?
[02:45]  Cthuligoo must be hangin' around the 
wrong crowd
[02:45]  hi all
[02:45]  Acolyte:  right now, I'm rereading 
Morris's book "OUr Idea of God"
[02:45]  what's the subject tonite err.... this 
morning?
[02:45]  cthinligoo what numerically do you 
think is the majority of Christianity made up of?
[02:45]  Cthuligoo hasn't read much has he?
[02:45]  hi kiki
[02:45]  Creation again?
[02:45]  Acolyte: My paradigm is that of no 
belief without proof.
[02:46]  acolyte:  yeah, I read it in September.
[02:46]  Cthulingo, ah so you hold to Flew's 
axiom then?
[02:46]  ProfG: I haven't?
[02:46]  Acolyte: heard of Ray Comfort?
[02:46]  profg yes
[02:46]  classical apologist, but VERY funny
[02:46]  cthulingo define proof please
[02:46]  Aco: Flew's axiom?
[02:46]  cthulingo mistake number 1
[02:46]  I put up his web site last week
[02:46]  what's the subject here?
[02:46]  cthuling perhaps you can explain some 
of your ideas to me
[02:47]  Does it relate to Godel's Theorem?
[02:47] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics.
[02:47]  cya later
[02:47]  Aco: Direct sensory experience or 
extrapolation of direct experience.
[02:47] SuePeace (suepeace@Venus.mcs.com) left #apologetics.
[02:47] QingWa (frog@firefly.prairienet.org) left #apologetics.
[02:47]  cthulingo, how about rational proofs?
[02:47]  Aco: check out http://metanet.net/comfort 
when you get the chance
[02:47]  cthulingo do all ideas come form the 
sense expereince then?
[02:48]  Profg, Revelation was written by John 
the Apostle.  "I John, your brother and companion in 
suffering ... was on the island of Patmos."  This exile 
was under Domitian who ruled from 81-96ad.  9

4ad is the accepted date by most contemp scholars for 
the writing of Rev.
[02:48]  Aco: I got one of his bumper stickers
[02:48]  Acolyte: Rationality not based on 
physical evidence is just mental masturbation.
[02:48]  profg web crawler still down, will 
be up next week tho
[02:48] Action: creation wonders if that position has 
direct sensory experience or extrapolation of direct 
experience to back it up, hhmmmmm
[02:48]  onevoice that is not true, many scholars 
disagree
[02:48]  onevoice: no, there is great disagreement 
over that.
[02:48] wasme (pperswain@204.112.108.135) left #apologetics.
[02:48]  onevoice and much proof to the contrary
[02:48] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics.
[02:48]  cthulingo ok then it is mental masturbation, 
how does that make it wrong?
[02:48]  re kiki
[02:48]  Cthulingo do all ideas come from sense 
experewince?
[02:49]  I have copies of ALL of the early 
church fathers through the year 200ad.  It is my profession 
and hobby :)
[02:49]  creation nicely put
[02:49]  Acolyte: It's neither right nor wrong, 
but you'll go blind eventually.
[02:49] Lets-Go (jsdfl;daj@user82.empirenet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:49] Lets-Go!jsdfl;daj@user82.empirenet.com kicked 
by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: bogus username
[02:49]  Aco: the bumper sticker reads, "NATIONAL 
ATHEIST'S DAY: APRIL 1"
[02:49]  there is disagreement over what?  
Who banished JOhn?????????
[02:49]  once, I have rtead 40+ volumes of patristics 
and I can tell you you are in error
[02:49]  profg:  hehehehehe  that is great!
[02:49]  onevoice which banishment
[02:49]  anyone speaka english?
[02:49]  kiki yes
[02:50]  creation: it has the quote from psalms 
below it
[02:50]  HILARIOUS
[02:50]  cthulingo do all ideas come from sense 
experience? yes or no?
[02:50]  Yes.
[02:50]  kiki:  An nyong ha seh yo!
[02:50]  prof, great bumper sticker.
[02:50]  cthulingo IC, well then I think you 
have some serious epistemological problems
[02:50]  I think it must be said that the date is 
at least debatable.
[02:50]  onevoice: available at http://metanet.net/comfort 
  :-)
[02:50]  WED thats fair
[02:50]  prof, what is?
[02:51]  agreed, QED
[02:51]  profg does North have a web page?
[02:51]  Aco: Name an idea that does not come 
from sensory experience that has any relation to our 
world.
[02:51] Action: QED thinks we are back to Hume/Kant.
[02:51]  onevoice: the bumper sticker
[02:51]  along with books, tracts, etc.
[02:51]  Cthulingo Logic
[02:51]  cthulingo Law of Contradiciton
[02:51]  acolyte:  Oh, I forgot, I got a book 
by Hume, "dialogue..."
[02:51]  ACK Attack!!
[02:51]  QED more like Van Til
[02:51]  Acolyte.. the banishments of John 
the Apostle were ONLY done by one Emporer
[02:51]  creation good
[02:51]  Aco: State that law, please.
[02:51]  onevoice: NERO
[02:51]  onevoice not all the fathers agree 
on that point
[02:52]  Cpace, time,
[02:52] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics.
[02:52]  cthulingo are you not familair with 
that law?
[02:52]  Aco: Can you state it?
[02:52]  Well, I'm outta here.  I'm going to 
go read and then go to bed.
[02:52]  onevoice: you have web access?
[02:52]  qed very true, not to mention the principle 
of induction
[02:52]  Nero did not banish John.   What document 
did you read that in?  It was Domitian
[02:52]  cthulingo yes I can
[02:52]  Aco: Please do so.
[02:52]  onevoice, I read it in many documents, 
Nero was the beast
[02:53]  cthuling but I asked initially are 
you or are you not familair with it?
[02:53] }{obbes (none@194.182.201.90) left #apologetics.
[02:53]  cthulingo yes or no?
[02:53]  acolyte:  I read a little of the logs. 
 They are very interesting.  
[02:53]  creation which loggs? here?
[02:53]  acolyte:  yeah
[02:53]  onevoice: http://jf.org/jflocal.htm  
-  "The Beast of Revelation Identified"
[02:53]  acolyte:  they are fun to read :)
[02:53]  profg kewl
[02:53]  Aco: If you are going to quote so-called 
Laws and not state them, then fuck you.
[02:53] Cthuligoo (someone@pm16.cwo.com) left #apologetics.
=========================================================
[04:34] Action: Krosis thinks Jesus is a great loral 
figure..  mostly..
[04:34]  Keswick theology?
[04:34]  loral = moral
[04:34]  jhamilton, the whole higher life theology, 
finney etc
[04:34]  Objectivist:  See Ayn Rand's fiction 
books, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged"....
[04:34]  krosis that better
[04:34]  Krosis:  is that why they killed Him 
on a cross?  for being such a moral figure?
[04:34]  Sorry, Acolyte...haven't read much 
pure theology....
[04:34]  jhamilton, may I ask you some personal 
quesitons?
[04:34]  can you just give me a nutshell definition?
[04:34]  go ahead, but I have the right not 
to answer.....
[04:35]  jhamilton no problem, Jesus does not 
require it
[04:35]  Hang on, kiki....
[04:35]  jhamilton why did u leave Objectivism?
[04:35]  no pascoe..  for being a dissenter.. 
 an upsetter  <-- not a word but oh well.  he interfered 
with the way the jewish priests wanted things taught.
[04:35]  Because Objectivism set a standard 
that you couldn't measure up to, and you were evil 
if you didn't measure up to it.
[04:35]  Jhamilton which standard was that?
[04:36] kiki (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics.
[04:36]  krosis so you think that the Gospels 
are somewhat historically reliable as to the acts of 
jesus?
[04:36]  Hang on, Acolyte...
[04:36]  jh okie
[04:36]  Krosis:  yes, that's mostly what He 
did along with great miracles.  but you prefer to focus 
on His moral character instead?  ok.
[04:36]  somewhat being the key word...
[04:37]  jh I am Anglican btw
[04:37]  pascoe..  why would I focus on his alleged 
miracles?  I am an atheist after all ;)
[04:37]  krosis what criteria do u use to differentiate 
fact from fiction in the gospel recoreds?
[04:38]  pascoe yeah, why focus on history? 
;)
[04:38]  acolyte: common sense mostly..
[04:38]  krosis whose common sense?
[04:38]  mine
[04:38]  Krosis:  why would you focus on Jesus' 
moral character if His open confrontation of the Jews 
of His day and His great miracles dominate His history?
[04:38]   krosis whatis the criteria? could 
you specifically spell it out for me?
[04:38]  Jh u there?
[04:39]  Jhamilton are you still there?
[04:39]  his miracles dominate his history but 
so do interventions of the Greek gods in the Illiad.. 
 do accept those?  the trogan war *did* happen.. it's 
historical..
[04:39]  Yes, still there.  I never like to 
think about my Objectivist days, still too bitter about 
them...it was the repression or supression of any feeling 
that clashed with what an ideal Objectivist was supposed 
to feel.....
[04:40]  Jhamilton I understand
[04:40]  Krosis- that sassuming that all reports 
of miralces are ficticious
[04:40]  Acolyte..  if a human being like me 
can't turn water into wine..  then i don't axpect that 
any other human being can.
[04:40]  koris how do you support that assumption?
[04:40]  That no sexual impulse, longing for 
spontanaiety, momentary irritation could compare with 
the belief that reason should guide all our acts and 
emotions....
[04:40]  Krosis:  that sounds like a faith claim 
to me.
[04:41]  Krosis could you invent the A-Bomb? 
not likely
[04:41]  pascoe..  who said I don't use faith? 
 have I ever said that?
[04:41]  Krosis:  good for you.
[04:41]  jhamilton, man, do I have something 
for you my freind
[04:41]  ?
[04:41]  krosis r miracles possible
[04:41]  jhamilton your heart needs peace
[04:41]  reasoned faith vs blind faith..
[04:41]  Acolyte  not IMO..  no
[04:42]  krosis Blind  irrtaionality VS Faith
[04:42]  krosis why are miracles not possible?
[04:42]  Yes, I'm still bitter toward the 
Objectivists...I've not ever really forgiven them...perhaps 
it has been a stumbling block in my walk with God.....
[04:42]  owp owp owp...   don't start mudsling 
now acolyte  ;)
[04:42]  krosis I am not
[04:42]  define "miracle"
[04:42]  krosis why are mircales not possible, 
oh, u don't know what they are?
[04:43]  krosis I thought since you said they 
were not possible that u would know what was not possible.
[04:43]  I want to know what your defintion is..
[04:43]  Watch out, krosis...Acolyte is not 
going to define "miracle"!  (laughs)
[04:43]  Krosis a work of God, lets start with 
that
[04:43]  Then everything is a miracle.
[04:43]  bingo!  that's why I don't believe miracles 
are possible..  i don't believe in god
[04:43]  Krosis a work of God immediately,
[04:44]  Krosis,  ic, so your assumption of 
the impossibility of miracles rests on your rejection 
of theism? correct?
[04:44]  rejection thru reasoned faith..  yes.
[04:44] cochese (the@janus2-10.usask.ca) joined #apologetics.
[04:44]  Jhamilton I think some xian mystics 
miught help your soul
[04:45]  krosis ok, so, that means that if there 
were to be a God an if there were to be a miracles, 
you would miss it because of your assumtpions, no matter 
how much evidence
[04:45]  I've been getting into xian mysticism 
more...the Church of God is a charismatic church, which 
is partly mystic...the Gospel of Thomas is also a "mystic" 
document, although I can't say if it i

s valid or not.....
[04:45]  no..  if there were evidence that god 
existed..  i would believe.
[04:45]  krosis you would always interept the 
evidence of a miracles as a non-miracles no matter 
what
[05:12]  I hold a belief to be rational if I 
have experienced it or if I *can* experience it.  Bungee 
jumping I've heard is exciting..  I believe this.. 
but I haven't experienced it. You will I'm sure say 
I *can* experience god..  I tried 

when I was younger..  
[05:12]  damn
[05:12]  that was for you acolyte ;)
[05:12]  krosis, that is not what I am asking
[05:13]  Krosis, do all beleifs require evidence 
in order to be held as rational?
[05:13]  notice the qualifiyer ALL
[05:13]  Is a rational proof of the existence 
of God possible?
[05:13]  jhamilton I think so
[05:13]  jh depends on how u deinfe proof
[05:13]  define even
[05:13]  jha u will have to excuse me, I am 
dyslexic
[05:13]  yes  and ALL tends to be an unfair qualifier.
[05:14]  Krosis , well is it all or some?
[05:14]  Krosis it seems it is either all or 
some, which?
[05:14]  every belief is different.
[05:14]  krosis ok, then do all beleifs or some 
beleifs require eveidence to be held as rational?
[05:14]  Proof:  Something that draws conclusions 
using mathematical rules of logic based on dependent 
axioms (JH was a mathematician)...like the proof of 
the Pythagorean Theorem....
[05:14]  jh that is one notion of proof
[05:15]  either way...  you walk away thinking 
victory is your's...  correct?
[05:15]  krosis maybe, maybe not, but is my 
victory the point, or truth?
[05:15]  It's the notion I believe many people 
think of when they hear, "proof"....
[05:15]  acolyte..  you tell me ;)
[05:15]  jhamilton mor elike 19th century idea 
of proof
[05:15]  krosis truth is mor eimportant, if 
you find something true, then we bothj win
[05:16]  krosis which do u think it is?
[05:16]  fine.. we've cleared that up..
[05:16]  krosis all or some?
[05:16]  Hey, I can't help it if the populace 
doesn't read the latest books on theological proof....
[05:16]  jh more like philosophy of evidence
[05:16]  I'll have to say all then.  
[05:16]  krosis well lets examine it
[05:16]  Krosis the axiom or criteria would 
read something liek this....
[05:16]  Or are we dragging Wittgenstein or 
Derrida into the argument...?
[05:16]  jhamilton maybe wittgenstein, not derrida 
tho
[05:17]  krosis All beleifs require groudns 
or evidence in order to be held as rational.
[05:17]  yes.
[05:17]  Krosis lets call that Proposition P
[05:17]  ok? 
[05:17]  ok
[05:17]  sound fair?
[05:17]  fine
[05:18]  ok, now, lets put a specific beleif 
in there to see how it works
[05:18]  for example
[05:18]  ______ needs to have evidence or rounds 
in order to be held as rational."
[05:18]  well use a variable, X
[05:18]  ok
[05:18]  ___X____ needs to have evidence or 
greounds in order to be held as rational.
[05:19]  for example
[05:19]  Belief in ___Clouds__ needs to have 
evidence or grounds in order to be held as rational
[05:19]  agreed?
[05:19]  yes
[05:19]  its just an example
[05:19]  thiss seems to work pretty well, as 
I think you agree
[05:20]  I do
[05:20]  is this in essence what you mean about 
beleif in God? that you have not any groudns or evidence 
for his existence?
[05:20]  a lack of beleif?
[05:20] Action: Krosis has no grounds or evidence for 
gods existance.
[05:20]  ok
[05:21]  then I think there is a problem  here
[05:21]  let me explain
[05:21]  we have proposition P
[05:21]  we have shown how it works
[05:21]  but
[05:21]  lets go back to X
[05:21]  the variable
[05:21]  we can ptu anything as that variable 
X
[05:21]  cats
[05:21]  dogs
[05:21]  etc
[05:21]  right
[05:21]  any proposition or term can go in for 
X
[05:21]  yes...
[05:22]  here's the rub tho
[05:22]  Lets look at X again
[05:22]  in propsotion P
[05:22]  Beleief in ___X___ requires evidence 
or grounds in order to be held as rational.
[05:22]  Now, lets place Proposition P for X
[05:22]  so the proposition reads like this....
[05:23]  Beleif in __Proposition P__ needs evidence 
or grounds in order toi be held as rational.
[05:23]  but what evidence is given for prop 
P?
[05:23]  what grounds?
[05:23]  none
[05:23]  the principle is self defeating
[05:23]  hence the qualifyer ALL or SOME
[05:23]  restate proposition P
[05:24]  do u see my point?
[05:24]  not yet..
[05:24]  restate proposition P
[05:24]  ok
[05:24]  Proposition P=Belief in __X___ needs 
evidence or grounds in order to be held as rational.
[05:24]  ok..
[05:24]  Hold on, Acolyte...you're getting 
into a problem from the language of the mathematics 
of the definion of sets...let me bring up Russell's 
definition, there is always a problem when you use 
a proposition to test it's own validit

y....
[05:24]  now put proposition P in for X
[05:25]  Jhamilton, hold on a minute
[05:25]  Krosis, the principle cannot satisfy 
its own criteria, it is self stultifying
[05:25]  Krosis and hence illogical
[05:25]  krosis UNLESS
[05:25]  JHamilton:  I think the point is that 
it is a fallacy to argue against presuppositions using 
proposition P since it can only be taken presuppositionally 
itself.
[05:26]  Pascoe, the point is that any principle 
thatis self defeating is false
[05:26]  pascoe proposition P is self defeating, 
and hence false
[05:27]  Krosis, do you see the problem as I 
raise it or no?
[05:27] Action: JHamilton is going back to his math 
books...
[05:27]  it just creates an infinity of of self 
defeating principles..
[05:27]  -of
[05:27]  Jhamiltn inconssitent terms are not 
logical in math, nor in language, nor in any field
[05:28]  Krosis not really
[05:28]  Krosis the principle can be salvaged 
tho
[05:28]  let me calrify plz
[05:29] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[05:29]  krosis if you say SOME Beleifs require 
evidence or grounds in order to be held as rational, 
then, it is obvious that some do not, which allows 
for the principle to be consistent and not self defeating
[05:29]  Krosis then we have 2 catagories
[05:29]  thus salvaging your belief in god.
[05:29]  krosis some beleifs that DO require 
evidence or grounds and those that do not
[05:29]  Krosis it is A WAY, not the only way
[05:29]  but
[05:29]  it does something else
[05:29]  it shifts the burden of proof
[05:29]  which is what I was attempting to say 
earlier..
[05:30]  krosis hold on a sec
[05:30]  I'll tell you this..  the burden of 
proof will never be thrust on to an atheist to disprove 
god.
[05:30]  if what I have said is true, you need 
to show that God is a beleif that requires evidence 
or grounds befoe you say that there is no evidence 
for him and hence your alck of beleif since only SOME 
beleifs require evidence, not all,

 lackof evidnece is not a 
[05:30]  mark of irrationality
[05:31]  Krosis I just did
[05:31]  the burden of proof lies with the postive 
claimant of an assertion.
[05:31]  Krosis:  until atheism disproves God, 
atheism will remain a faith claim.
[05:31]  Krosis, do all beleifs require evidence? 
no
[05:31]  krosis why does beleif in God need 
evidence to be held as rational?
[05:31]  assuming what you want to prove..  that's 
all you've done.
[05:31]  krosis have I done so?
[05:32]  yes
[05:32]  Krosis:  but that's what you have done 
by saying all beliefs need evidence.
[05:32] Action: JHamilton is still here, mapping out 
set theory...be back.
[05:32]  krosis I have only shown that not all 
beleifs require evidence to be held as raitonal, now 
you prove to mne that God is a beleif that requires 
evidence
[05:32]  pascoe right
[05:32]  pascoe that's what I have done by allowing 
acolyte to force me into stating something he wanted 
me to say.
[05:32]  Krosis, do you deny what u agreed to 
earlier?
[05:32]  Krosis:  you are free to show his error 
in logic if you want.
[05:33]  Krosis if I have made an error in reasonaing 
plz show me where
[05:33]  krosis is dead wrong.  that's what you 
want to here isn't it?
[05:33]  I think I've found the problem....
[05:34]  Krosis:  just inconsistent.  8)
[05:34]  Krosi we have 2 catagories, A and B, 
A are beleifs that require evidence and B are ebeleifs 
that do not require evidence to be held as raitonal, 
which does God fall into and why?
[05:34]  no comment to you on that pascoe
[05:34]  Krosi, no I want u to at least understand 
it thru my eyes is all, not necessarily agree
[05:34]  jh do you recall logical positivism?
[05:35]  Does the existence of two categories 
called A and B fall into category A or Category B....
[05:35]  Krosis:  it is inconsistent to say ALL 
beliefs require evidence if that statement itself has 
no evidence.
[05:35]  Jh deinfe A2 and B2
[05:35]  pascoe corect
[05:35]  jh what does set A2 and B2 entail?
[05:36]  Krosis, allI would like to acomplish 
is for youto see it how I do, not necessarily agree 
with me
[05:36]  Krosis do u see it how I do or was 
I not clear in some way?
[05:36]  Does it require evidence or grounds 
to create categories A and B or does it not?
[05:36]  I see what you are saying acolyte.. 
 
[05:36]  Krosis:  however you could say that 
the statement P requires no evidence, but that would 
make the statement wrong.  8)
[05:37]  8) <--    stop being smug pascoe.. 
 please?
[05:37]  jh no, they are constructs of aepistemology 
and as such are pre-evidence and pre-experience
[05:37]  Krosis:  its my trademark.
[05:37]  Krosis thats all I ask
[05:37]  I know...
[05:37]  Krosis si that cool?
[05:37]  Then The existence of Categories 
A and B do not require proof?  That A+B is a member 
of B?
[05:37]  it's cool..   but not over yet acolyte 
 
[05:38]  jh, not physical proof, since these 
are criteria that are for the jdueging of expereince, 
how could you use expereince to judge them?
[05:38]  krosis ok, do you wish to make some 
counter point?
[05:38]  not yet..
[05:38]  krosis or think on it further?
[05:38]  ok thats  fine
[05:38]  JHamilton:  {a} does not equal a    
  and   {b} does not equal b
[05:38]  Be wary of any argument in set mathematics 
or anywhere else that have classes as members of themselves...some 
wild contradictions can result...that's why I think 
the proposition P argument is dubious, or suspect, 
cause I've bee

n fooled before....
[05:39]  Jh, are you familair with logical positivism?
[05:39]  Not the philosophy.
[05:39] Action: Krosis formally acknowledges that you 
have caught me on something here..  something that 
I haven't looked at in this way..
[05:39]  that doesn't mean I'm beat though ;)
[05:39]  krosis, I am only asking for ppl to 
see things like I do, O I may see things as they do, 
thats fair
[05:39]  krosis by no means, I would not expect 
you to be beaten that easily
[05:40]  O=so
[05:40]  Krosis I would expecdt u to fight more
[05:40]  Krosis I would expecyt u to be tought 
minded about it
[05:40]  tough even
[05:40]  I will..  but i need to think it out 
etc..
[05:40]  and I am..
[05:40]  Krosis I wish more xians were like 
u
[05:40]  Any argument which has a class as 
a member of itself or uses itself to question its own 
validity is kind of suspect.....
[05:41]  like me in what way?
[05:41]  JHamilton:  I see your concern but I 
don't think it helps in this case.
[05:41]  jhamilton at times, but if a proposition 
is inconsistent with itself, how couldit be true?
[05:41]  jahmilton the laws of logic are embeded 
with the necessity of consistency
[05:41]  Krosis, one more thing
[05:42]  You have to define that **mathematically** 
... it may not be true or it may not be false, it may 
be unsolvable.....
[05:42]  Krosis, this will cause you to see 
christian evidences in a new light as well
[05:42]  JHamilton:  if {a} is the set of beliefs 
that don't require evidence and {b} is the set that 
do, then 'belief in the existence of {a} and {b}' is 
in {a}.  that should be no problem.
[05:42]  jha excluded middle it is either true 
or false or meaningless
[05:42]  jha but it is not both
[05:43]  Krosis do u see how I shifted the burden 
of proof?
[05:43]  Krosis I attacked your assumptions, 
not your arguments
[05:43]  krosis I undermined the epistemology, 
not the data, since the former determines the meaing 
of the latter
[05:44]  not yet...  I'll think about it and 
let you know next time we speak..    I'm not afraid 
to admit that I need some back up.
[05:44]  Krosi me neither
[05:44]  Krosis thats kewl
[05:44]  Krosis see I am not a total asshole 
;)
[05:44]  do you all mind if I post this line 
of debate on the debate list?  not a logfile..  just 
the argument in general..  I'd like to see what they 
have to say about this.
[05:45]  krosis sure
[05:45]  go for it
[05:45]  Where is the debate list, BTW?
[05:45]  ok.
[05:45]  Uhhh...  it's one of the tamu.edu lists 
i think..  I rarely post.. I just read so I don't pay 
much attn as to where its been coming from.
[05:46]  Krosis:  would you agree that many Christian 
arguments are logical given a certain set of Christian 
presuppositions?
[05:46]  pascoe  yes
[05:46]  I would be interested in the reponse 
to it.
[05:46]  Krosis, it is generally called Reformed 
Epistemology
[05:46]  Krosis there are essays by some of 
its proponants on the  Apologetic web page if youcare 
to read further
[05:46]  acolyte  URL?
[05:46]  Is that where the proposition P argument 
comes from ?  ;)
[05:46]  krosis hold on
[05:47]  http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[05:47]  krosis check under Alcuin adn Humes 
links
[05:47]  dig around, there is alot of stuf o 
nit
[05:47]  on it even
[05:47]  Krosis:  I would agree that some atheistic 
arguments are logical given atheistic assumptions. 
 however, I disagree with atheistic presuppositions.
[05:47]  hmmmm  this url looks familiar ;)
==========================================================
[20:57] Neuro (sami@user1.channel1.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:35] Dark (goonies1@alb-ny6-48.ix.netcom.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:35] Dark (goonies1@alb-ny6-48.ix.netcom.com) left 
#apologetics.
[21:41] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp22.snni.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:41]   @#evolution???????
[21:41]  heheheheeeeee
[21:42] ^Sioux (chance@ppp24.snni.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:42]  interesting
[21:42]  Hi sue
[21:43] <^Sioux> hola :)
[21:43]  Evolution is cool ;)
[21:43]  Neuro??
[21:43]  Evolution is an epistomological red 
herring
[21:43]  you defend evolution?
[21:43]  No, evolution is a scientific theory.
[21:43]  can you define evolution?
[21:44]  Evolution talk about accumulating changes 
in populations.
[21:44]  so what...
[21:44]  So, you asked.
[21:44]  who would want to debate something 
as genral as that?
[21:44]  general
[21:45]  You want to slay your favorite straw 
man instead?
[21:45]  BUT...
[21:45]  I would ask.....
[21:45]  Straw man argument; A straw man argument 
is when the person distorts, delutes, exagerates your 
view of the issue and tears that view down instead 
of the view you actually hold.
[21:45]  ...
[21:45]  what do you mean by accumulating 
changes
[21:45]  ?
[21:46]  Populations of organisms change...and 
new species can evolve.
[21:46]  LOL
[21:46]  really?
[21:47]  hmmm
[21:47]  Really. It's not hot news, Darwin made 
that argument 150 years ago.
[21:47]  so...I would imagine that you have 
fossil records that show ALL the veriable stages in 
that process?
[21:48]  Darwin admitted his own flaw
[21:48]  What falw was that?
[21:48]  "the fatal Flaw of the LACK of evidence 
in the fossil records"
[21:48]  see...
[21:48]  Darwin knew very little about some things. 
 Nobody knew anything about genes in those days.
[21:49] blazex (blazex@www-32-136.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:49]  the question is not do some species 
evolve....
[21:49]  hello, al
[21:49]  Oh. Fossil records is just one piece 
in the puzzle.
[21:49]  And since speciation has been wittnessed 
by scientists that's not an issue, either.
[21:49]  ah, evolution. the imperfect theory
[21:49]  the question is....do species change 
to new species. Do fish turn into dogs...dogs into 
Humans?...etc
[21:50]  no
[21:50]  Yes they do, as has been demonstrated 
and observed.
[21:50]  question.  is everyone here basically 
darwinist?
[21:50]  and....is there evidence to support 
this claim
[21:50]  Rea;;y?..
[21:50] <^Sioux> fish into dogs?
[21:50]  Are you saying you don't know that speciation 
has been observed in this century? Now it's my turn 
to laugh.
[21:51]  so you have documentation to support 
the metamorphasis?
[21:51]  that a man....was once a fish?
[21:51]  okay, if natural selection dictates 
that a change in the environment leads to a change 
in species...
[21:51]  then why, in the case of primates, did 
only some become hominids
[21:52]  :)
[21:52]  there are NO fossil records to show 
metamorphasis.
[21:52]  maybe there was a lottery.  first twenty 
apes become austrolopithicines
[21:52]  LOL
[21:52]  Not everything eveolves always the way 
YOU would want it.
[21:52] <^Sioux> haha!
[21:53]  well...thats not a scientific attitude
[21:53]  okay
[21:53]  i just dont understand how such a sweeping 
theory as darwinism can be so chaotically arbitrary
[21:54] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[21:54]  see...the theory is true if you start 
with the presuposition that its true......you beg the 
question.
[21:54]  Petititio Principii; The fallacy 
of begging the question.
[21:54]  This fallacy Starts with a pressuposition 
that has reasserted the conclusion of an argument in 
the premise.
[21:54]  So, the argument itself is circular 
in the sense that it is set up so there is no other 
conclusion.
[21:54]  What's not a scientific attitude?
[21:54]  True Blazex
[21:54]  thank you.
[21:55]  ....the problem is that you see stasis 
in the fossil records...not change.
[21:55]  basically...NO evidence.
[21:55]  You see change, that's what transitionla 
fossils represent. But obviously not every organims 
that ever lived was fossilized.
[21:55]  But even then, you can't dispute observed 
speciation.
[21:55]  there may ne Macro evolution..in 
the sense that we have mass jumps in fossils...
[21:56]  but if the gene pool was sufficient 
for species survival, ther must be SOME fossil evidence
[21:56]  But you dont have any to show the 
actually changes.
[21:56]  Nope,.....NONE
[21:56]  Petititio Principii; The fallacy 
of begging the question.
[21:56]  This fallacy Starts with a pressuposition 
that has reasserted the conclusion of an argument in 
the premise.
[21:56]  So, the argument itself is circular 
in the sense that it is set up so there is no other 
conclusion.
[21:56]  for instance, the mising link... there 
had to be a large population of the so called link, 
for it to have continued the species.   why can no 
one find it
[21:56]  None? That's absurd. Some lines of fossils 
are well-known...slow change, species transforming. 
This is all elementary.
[21:57]  You make dandy comments but it seems 
your biology background may be lacking.
[21:57]  N....well....It may be elementary 
fiction...it is not fact.
[21:58]  Unless you are purposefully avoiding 
things like observed speciation in front of our eyes.
[21:58]  who me? if so, its true, my background 
is lacking. im not challenging, im honestly curious
[21:58]  neuro...please give me an example
[21:59]   observed    speciation 
[21:59]  Nah..you'll start weaseling out of the 
argument unless we state some base rules first.
[21:59]  neuro...please give me an example
[21:59]  What is a new species?
[22:00]  heheheee
[22:00]  thats the trick....you play with 
catagories
[22:00]  neuro...please give me an example
[22:00]  Now...a pretty common definition is that 
two organisms are of the same species when they can 
produce fertile offspring. Do we agree?
[22:00]   observed    speciation 
[22:00] Action: NedFlndrs will grant him for sake of 
argument
[22:00]  If they cannot produce fertile offspring 
they are different species.
[22:00]  so?
[22:01]  HUH?
[22:01]  sorry...
[22:01]  So if I can show how one species has 
split into two I have showed that speciation occurs..and 
you can't dispute that.
[22:01]  I gotta go eat.....Sue hammer him 
for me/.........
[22:01]  LOL
[22:01]  I will be back in a bit
[22:01]  Hammer me? You're funny.
[22:01]  :)
[22:01]  thanks
[22:01] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp22.snni.com) left irc: 
I cant, He can, I think I'll let him.  :)
[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_14_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../