[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/18/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/18/96 [19:51] The
[ref001]
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/18/96
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/18/96
[19:51] TheMOM` (rhpowell@199.183.196.177) joined #apologetics.
[19:52] hiya mama
[19:52] Prooooooooooof!
[19:52] hey...
[19:52] gotta coupla questions
[19:52] umm, ok
[19:52] I'll try
[19:52] okay...
[19:52] where the heck are the prophets?
[19:52] i mean...
[19:52] back in the Old Testament.....
[19:53] God practically gave his "day-timer"
to the old prophets...you know...like elijah, jeremiah,etc...
[19:53] why don't we have anything like that
today?
[19:53] is the body of Christ that stupid?
[19:53] "day-timer"?
[19:53] ?
[19:53] you know....
[19:54] He was very very specific......i don't
see that in the body now-a-days...
[19:54] well
[19:55] what did you have in mind?
[19:55] are there any left?
[19:55] Hey, sorry...alive again.
[19:55] what i mean i guess....
[19:55] the office of prophet still exists, certainly
- in the NT way
[19:55] is ...
[19:55] re Milhous
[19:55] uh huh..
[19:55] what is the NT way?
[19:55] Action: ProfG will brb, Jordan needs help going
poopy
[19:56] okay..
[19:56] John ze Baptizer? My guess.
[19:56] Action: TheMOM` waits...
[19:56] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) joined #apologetics.
[19:56] hmmm...
[19:56] Paul? 'Nother guess.
[19:56] interesting Milhous...
[19:56] greetings all
[19:56] Peter? Third..
[19:56] but my question was...
[19:56] re
[19:56] HI, deanr
[19:56] "where the heck are all the prof\
[19:56] er..prophets now-a-days?
[19:56] the prof is here
[19:56] oh
[19:57] yeah, yeah yeah i know...ya smart alec
[19:57] Hey, the ATF blew up the last one...
:-I
[19:57] LOL
[19:57] "prophet" literally means "proclaimer", specifically
of the word of God
[19:57] but seriously...
[19:57] hmmm....okay....
[19:57] there were many prophets in the OT, most
of whom were never mentioned by name
[19:58] we know the big names
[19:58] but there were hundreds more
[19:58] i agree....but can you name a few true
prophets in this age?
[19:58] I could name some, sure
[19:58] please do...
[19:58] Randall Terry, for one
[19:58] Randall Terry?
[19:58] absolutely
[19:59] hmmmm....
[19:59] never knew him as a prophet..
[19:59] Now, at the risk of sounding ignorant,
who is Randall Terry?
[19:59] he has proclaimed the word of God faithfully,
esp. in relation to God's heart for aborted children
and the judgment on the nation
[19:59] The guy behind the "operation rescue"
for abortion clinics
[19:59] Milhous: head of Operation Rescue
[20:00] Ah.
[20:00] okay, i will give you that one.....
[20:00] read ANY of his books or articles, or
even better, hear him speak
[20:00] he operates in the office of prophet
[20:00] Action: TheMOM` has heard him speak
[20:00] "prophet"? Sounds like common sense to
me, and I'm an agnostic, even...
[20:00] heh
[20:00] you are not an agnostic, Milhous
[20:01] Hm? "Positive atheist", if you like...
[20:01] "Doubting Thomas", perhaps.
[20:01] "positive atheist"? isn't that like an
oxy-moron or something?
[20:01] :)
[20:01] Petrovich (petrovich@perseus.digital-rain.com)
joined #apologetics.
[20:02] hello...
[20:02] Thomas had to see the nail marks. So
do I. In my nature.
[20:02] a "postitive" atheist would be one who
claims (posits) that there is NO god
[20:02] hello Petrovich :)
[20:02] hi petro
[20:02] Strasvuitye, Petrovich
[20:02] speeking biblically milhous, or just
off the top of your head?
[20:02] okay Prof....Terry Randall.....any
others?
[20:02] and anyone claiming agnosticism is a
hypocrite
[20:03] hypocrite?
[20:03] ProfG: Sorry. I meant more along the
lines of "positive" being "not negative", meaning I don't
believe in God, but do not negate the possibility.
[20:03] Action: TheMOM` is lost now
[20:03] profg: Hypocrite??
[20:03] profg... not truly a hypocrite, but
maybe backboneless...
[20:04] milhous... I agree with the statement
on atheism
[20:04] Mil: absolutely. as John Frame has said,
a true agnostic would go to church half the time
[20:04] :-)
[20:04] yikes! a dog just ran across my screen
[20:04] agnostics *claim* that one cannot be
sure of whether God exists, yet live as if He doesn't
[20:04] ah..thank you for clearing that one
up for me Prof
[20:05] They have priorities like an atheist's
priorities; they end up implicitly seeing the world
from what has to be called an atheist perspective,
even though they may call themselves "agnostic"
[20:05] ah....but aren't most "atheists" agnostics
in reality?
[20:05] yes, and agnostics live like atheists...
circular, huh?
[20:05] they just don't know
[20:05] prof... I guess anyone who is not
truly religious ends up veiwing the world from the
perspective of an atheist though... including many
who claim to be religious
[20:06] hmmmm...
[20:06] what does "veiwing the world from the
perspective of an atheist" mean?
[20:06] there is the prob Petro..."religious"
[20:06] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left #apologetics.
[20:07] prof... the perspective of an atheist
is one in which the rationale is the replacement for
a theism... Bertrand Russell for example... his perspective
is truly the perp
[20:07] Prof: well, i would gather that viewing
the world from the perspective of an atheist means
that one would look at the world and think..."gee, hasn't
man done great"? or something like that?
[20:07] Petrovich (petrovich@perseus.digital-rain.com)
left irc: Read error to Petrovich[perseus.digital-rain.com]:
EOF from client
[20:08] "his perspective is truly the perp"?
oh boy...i am outta my league here...
[20:08] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.249) left irc:
Ping timeout for Milhous[199.218.197.249]
[20:08] but the atheist worldview, or paradigm,
only leads to absurdity
[20:08] cheeze, where'd they go?
[20:08] i dunno
[20:08] so...how are ya?
[20:08] *&%&$*&((()
[20:08] dagnabbit
[20:08] ok, you?
[20:09] pretty good....did nancy tell you how
my job is somewhat miserable lately?
[20:09] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu:
The Atheist Worldview Leads Only to Absurdity and Nihilism
[20:09] nope
[20:09] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.247) joined #apologetics.
[20:09] re Mil
[20:09] Hiya Mil :)
[20:09] Siri- (iris@prism.com) joined #apologetics.
[20:09] hi siri
[20:09] Hi ProfG
[20:10] Sorry...timedout, I guess...
[20:10] lost Petro too
[20:10] What's this 're' bit I see?
[20:10] re = re hi
[20:10] means "re-hello" on IRC
[20:10] hi again
[20:10] Siri- (iris@prism.com) left #apologetics.
[20:10] Buh.
[20:10] 3 months, and didn't catch on. Oh well.
[20:11] hey! you learned something new....
[20:11] JSL (JLeighton@www-18-198.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[20:11] JSL :-)
[20:11] hi prof
[20:12] so what is up tonight/
[20:12] Milhous: did you catch the topic?
[20:12] it is what I said when you pinged out
[20:12] Hmmm...what was it?
[20:12] Oh.,
[20:12] I see it.
[20:13] WHat the heck does that mean?
[20:13] The Atheist Worldview Leads Only to Absurdity
and Nihilism
[20:13] well, it's like this, Mil...
[20:13] Perhaps human existence is absurd.
[20:13] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp1.snni.com) joined #apologetics.
[20:13] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( ProfG ))))))))))
[20:13] i know a few absurd humans....
[20:13] under the non-theistic worldview, Unbeliever
has to believe that qualities turn into their opposites,
contradictions can be inspired, and we can't know anything
of ancient history
[20:13] I am an absurd human.
[20:13] Ned :-)
[20:14] mithrandi (afn32275@slip05.unf.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[20:14] hi mith
[20:14] ProfG: So? We can choose to believe
that we know. What, really, does it matter?
[20:14] HI ALL!!!!!!!.....Good to see you.
:)
[20:14] Hail Gandalf Stormcrow.
[20:14] Mil: you can choose absurdity and nonsensical
beliefs if you wish. Me, I prefer real life.
[20:14] hello everyone...
[20:14] hi Mith
[20:14] Action: mithrandi is flattered
[20:15] Mil: well, it depends on what you believe
that you know! If you believe that it is okay to kill
little kids...well, i guess then your beliefs *would*
matter
[20:15] profg: You choose what you believe
is real life :)
[20:15] what precisely is going on in here?
[20:15] TheMOM`: To everyone else, yes.
[20:15] mith: chit-chat
[20:15] Mil: and you examine it to see if it
IS real, or if it leads to absurdity
[20:15] mith: apologetics
[20:15] ahhh...i see :
[20:15] profg: Reality is absurd. That's why
we have a sense of humor.
[20:15] Greek "apologia", defense
[20:16] apologetics = defense of the faith
[20:16] what is reality Mil?
[20:16] thanx profg, but i knew the definition
:)
[20:16] Milhous: we have a sense of humor so
we can put up with ppl that say that reality is absurd
:-)
[20:16] JSL: Who cares?
[20:16] :-)
[20:17] if you say it is absurd you must know what
it is
[20:17] Action: mithrandi knows what reality is
[20:17] hey mith....are you a gator?
[20:17] good Mith, then tell us what it is
[20:17] JSL: Do you know why you do everything
you do?
[20:17] Action: TheMOM` looks to mithrandi to find
out what reality is....
[20:17] yes....how'd you guess the afn give
me away?
[20:17] Mil: the unexamined life is not worth
living. If you simply say "I believe this way and I
will not examine my beliefs" then you must accept that
you are living in hypocrisy and are not worth much
to listen to
[20:18] reality is whatever it is perceived
to be by whoever is perceiving it :)
[20:18] mith: yuppers....i am a seminole fan
tho....'scool tho...i won't mess with ya ;-)
[20:18] mith: incorrect
[20:18] profg: Duh. Of course I re-examine
my beliefs. That's why I'm here, instead of on #atheism
[20:18] reality is what is, isn't it Mith?
[20:18] perception does not equal reality
[20:18] profg: And I have determined that the
only person who can convince me of God's existence
is God Himself.
[20:19] Prof: then what does reality equal?
[20:19] JSL: If you like.
[20:19] Mil: BINGO!!!!!
[20:19] mil: I applaud your efforts in the direction
of self-examination. However, simply saying "Who cares"
to questions of reality leaves much to be desired....
[20:19] gotta go
[20:19] mithrandi (afn32275@slip05.unf.edu) left #apologetics.
[20:19] by Mith
[20:19] ProfG: It's an unanswerable question.
[20:19] nonsense
[20:19] profg: From my current viewpoint.
[20:19] Mil: that is the point!!! It is not
MY job (nor Prof's) to convince you of God's existance....only
He can do that.....
[20:19] brb
[20:20] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp1.snni.com) left #apologetics.
[20:20] that I agree with, Mil
[20:20] Well, then, God, I'm waiting.
[20:20] from your current viewpoint, you CANNOT
be convince of the existence of God... which is why
you must make a paradigm shift in order to BE convinced
[20:20] for what Mil, he has given enough evidence
of his existance
[20:21] I was not convinced of God's existence
until I came to believe in God's existence
[20:21] one's presuppositions determine one's
beliefs
[20:21] what evidence of his existance are you
prepared to accept Mil?
[20:21] profg: Oh, I'd say I could be convinced
of a god...wine flowing out of my tap, Jesus Christ
appearing in my living room...standard miracles.
[20:21] In fact, anything supernatural would
suffice.
[20:21] anything?
[20:22] TheMOM` (rhpowell@199.183.196.177) left #apologetics.
[20:22] Mil: what would you say if I proved to
you that NOT believing in the existence of God meant
that one would have to believe EVERYTHING that happens
is a miracle?
[20:22] I've seen those verses twice in 15
minutes :)
[20:22] Mil :-)
[20:23] JSL (JLeighton@www-18-198.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[20:23] Bull. Miracles are supernatural. God
is supernatural. Without God, miracles are impossible.
[20:23] Mil: shall I explain, or do you wish
to ignore and dismiss out of hand?
[20:23] :-)
[20:23] Go ahead.
[20:24] On the unbeliever's approach to the world,
by which he thinks that everything that happens has
a natural explanation - "everything that happens is
random" - which means that everything that happe
ns is *unpredictable*
[20:24] This means that *everything* is without
an explanation!
[20:24] In science, we assume the uniformity
of nature - the way things will be in the future will
resemble the way things were in the past
[20:25] All language assumes uniformity as well
[20:25] We don't worry about whether the English
words which were spoken to us today will mean the same
thing tomorrow; we just assume we know the meanings
of the words
[20:25] Where does God come in?
[20:25] hang on, you'll see what I mean
[20:25] You couldn't have language if you didn't
have that kind of predictability
[20:25] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line10.cis.yale.edu)
joined #apologetics.
[20:26] If we couldn't learn from the past and
project into the future, then we couldn't learn; we
couldn't control our environment
[20:26] Alcuin :-)
[20:26] Greetings, earth people
[20:26] It won't do a scientist *any* good to
do all this research for years and years, and finally
think he understands chemical interactions or whatever
it may be, if it turns out tomorrow that it may all
be changed;
[20:26] the game may be completely different
- all different rules, all different relationships
- we couldn't function that way!
[20:27] But...may I break in?
[20:27] None of have the temptation to think
that when we burn ourselves at the stove that that
was a one-time experience; we all tend to think that
that's a universal type of thing - I can count on that
tomorrow too...
[20:27] Languages DO change, and so does science.
[20:27] Action: Alcuin tosses a coin in the air...
it flies up and to the left, out of sight...
[20:27] yes, but my point is coming here...
[20:27] You don't walk up to the stove the next
day and think, "Well, I wonder if *this* will be the
thrill of a lifetime!" and put your hand out there
[20:27] In the unbelieving approach to reality,
there's no reason why you *shouldn't* do that, because
the unbeliever cannot *tell* you why the future should
be like the past; on the unbeliever's approach, the
future is random
[20:28] If *anything* can happen, then tomorrow,
putting your hand on that flame might not hurt, and
all that we've learned about science previously may
not be applicable, and the way that we've learned language
and how we've used it in th
e past ma
[20:28] Not random.
[20:28] may be utterly inapplicable, etc. etc.
[20:28] why would the future not be random in
the atheistic paradigm, Mil?
[20:28] Bound by observable natural laws. Remote
chance that something else may occur, but very very
small.
[20:28] Action: Alcuin notes that though languages
change and scientific models are displaced, such changes
presuppose a profound metaphysical continuity in experience....
[20:29] So small to be dismissible.
[20:29] or able?
[20:29] "observable natural laws"? what the heck
are those, in an atheistic paradigm?
[20:29] Milhous: Have you ever actually *seen*
an "observable natural law" ?
[20:29] oh well
[20:29] The fact is, if tomorrow it turns out
that nature is uniform with what we've learned in the
past - THAT'S A MIRACLE!!!
[20:29] I drop my mouse. It falls.
[20:29] You can't *expect* it - there's no predictability,
so if it happens to work out that way, "WOW! What an
astonishing thing!"
[20:29] I try it again, and again.
[20:29] Milhous: How many possible instances
of mouse-dropping are there in space/time?
[20:30] which is what a miracle IS
[20:30] Eventually, I will expect that it will
always fall.
[20:30] It may not.
[20:30] In so expecting, you will be unwarranted....
[20:30] you have no reason to believe that, Mil
[20:30] Alcuin: Past experience.
[20:30] You still haven't brought God into
it.
[20:31] |