[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/11/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/11/96 [00:18] B

[ref001]


#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 4/11/96
#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 4/11/96

[00:18] BoonDock (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics.
[00:19] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[00:19]  hi
[00:20]  hey.
[00:20]  there...Im out of #Bible.
[00:20]  k
[00:20]  I wrote you Email.
[00:20] monster (internut@ppp5.enter.net) joined #Apologetics.
[00:20]  hi monster
[00:20]  monster.....
[00:21]  scary.
[00:21] Action: BoonDock screams
[00:21]  Know Ideal what this room is but caught 
my eye
[00:21]  :)
[00:21]  monster...defence of Christian theism.
[00:22] Action: monster makes a mean snarl and coughs, 
hacking up a hairball
[00:22]  rooms like this soom to catch the 
eyes of people with nicks like yours...I dont know 
what it is.
[00:23]  seem..
[00:23]  Not my real nick, changed it to harrass 
people in the KKK room.  Don't want them to know my 
real nick
[00:23]  :)
[00:23]  ;)
[00:23]  let me guess
[00:23]  preston?
[00:23]  jjejeje
[00:23]  erm
[00:23] Action: BoonDock laffs in spanish
[00:23]  yes
[00:23]  KKK room....now theres a place to 
go for some fun, eh?
[00:24]  only if ur in the mood for a lynching, 
ur own
[00:24]  :)
[00:24]  yeah...I bet they can lay iit on as 
thick as anyone.
[00:24]  wacko's.
[00:25]  agreed
[00:25] Nick change: monster -> Prestonrp
[00:25]  :)
[00:25]  Its heartening to know that there 
are subcultures of people in this world that society 
considers wackier than christians.
[00:26]  no offense, many lump them together
[00:26]  Not that credibility has any real 
virtue when it comes to metaphysics......
[00:26]  then they dont understand either :)
[00:26]  this is true
[00:27]  Prest....none taken. A closer look 
will straighten that blunder out in anyone that is 
genuinely concerned...
[00:27]  Ahhhh what a day.
[00:28]  Preston...so (given the name and nature 
of this fine channel you find yourself in) what are 
your thoughts on God and Christianity?
[00:29]  i gotta 1 sec ping...I know the lag 
aint me.....SPEAK people!!!!! I feel soooooo alone!!!!
[00:29] Action: BoonDock laffs
[00:29]  :-)
[00:29]  Wheres W bot to give me ops?
[00:30]  I do not general think of God and 
Christianity in the same thought.  Christianity is 
a religion, which is a organization of man's to put 
into effect beliefs.  
[00:30]  Boon is always there....comfort in 
my time of trial....
[00:30]  Preston...go on.
[00:31]  ...and yet it is a system of belief 
that is about God if it is about anything...
[00:31]  Organized religion in and of itsself 
is only a conduit to God and only for some of us.  
Religion is not spirituality and it is spirituality 
that lead to a personal relationship with God
[00:31]  Preston...interesting.
[00:32]  This is true but it is not God's 
religion but man.  God is nondenominational.
[00:32]  My friend, you've given me a great 
deal to disagree with!!  :-)
[00:33]  Preston...to KNOW god is nondenominational 
is to know *positive* knowledge about God. The next 
question is, how do *you* know this info about God?
[00:33]  What is the source?
[00:33]  Organized religion, is a set of guidelines 
for belief, trying to dictate one belief system and 
one way of relationship to God.  You can't dictate 
nor organize an one on one relationship, it is personal, 
it is spiritual
[00:34] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[00:35]  God is my source, I feel in my soul. 
 How could God have a religious preference when gave 
us so many to choose from
[00:35]  heh.
[00:35]  Preston...your beliefs about god beg 
a number of questions...because they assume so many 
commonly believed characteristics ...
[00:35]  He didnt give us so many to choose 
from.
[00:35]  Preston...I can think of many cogent 
answers. Want to hear one or two?
[00:36]  Many religions, are u kidden.  There 
are hundreds
[00:36]  go ahead, always open to new thoughts
[00:39]  Pret...well, one is that He in fact 
*didn't* give us any but one. It is plausable that, 
in our makeup, there exists a passion to answer the 
questions of origins, both of the world and of man. 
It is ossible that those origins, co

upled with the one revealed religion, coupled with 
the logical necessity of a first cause or designer, 
Created all the other religions. In other words, they 
were all of natural origin whereas only one was divine.
[00:40]  simply put....
[00:40] GARockey (garockey@slip1.nashville.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[00:40]  hi gar
[00:41]  What's the topic?
[00:41]  boon is like a box of chocolates...sweet, 
nutty, good when frozen, full of carbohydrates, melts 
when you heat her....errr...the analogy kinda breaks 
down at this point.....
[00:42]  :-)
[00:42]  Gar...Christianiyt in a pluralistic 
society.
[00:42]  O.k I follow and disagree.  When 
I said God gave us many religions I meant we have a 
choice of many( christianity being but one).  All of 
these religions, including christianity were made by 
man, not God.  God created spiritual

ity.
[00:43]  Prestonrp -- may I assume, then, that 
you reject any concept of divine revelation?
[00:43]  Define it for me.
[00:44]  The Bible, for example.  The concept 
that God delivers specific messages to his creation.
[00:45]  Prest...but how do you know god intended 
just a general *spirituality*? Direct personal revelation 
wont cut it. If so, how are you SURE? how is it that 
other sincere type people get different ideas? What 
about the appearent fact

 that culture plays a large role in determining what 
people consider personal revelatory knowledge about 
the nature of God?
[00:45]  I am going to jump off this limb 
I climb out on.  I really don't believe the Bible was 
a direct gift from God.  
[00:46]  I only used it as an example -- do 
you believe that God has not spoken to His creation?
[00:46]  culture plays a big role in what 
religion feels is appropriate in the relationship to 
God
[00:46]  That wasn't my question -- Has God 
spoken?
[00:47]  I was answering Cassidy, sorry
[00:47]  oops!
[00:47]  Prest....thats ok. Honesty is respected 
by me. I do disagree and believe there are cogent and 
necessary reasons to believe in ONE revelation of hios 
character (like the Bible) in order to also believe 
in truth, free-will, univer

sals, ethics, the mind, etc.
[00:47]  :)
[00:47]  I don't believe the Bible is the 
direct word of God,
[00:48]  Prestonrp -- but do you believe that 
God has spoken, and if so, where?
[00:49]  Prest...just adress your answers...we'll 
try not to overburden you.
[00:49]  I am not saying that there are not 
some spiritual truths that can be held by all that 
seek a path to God, but religion is still not the only 
path to God.  MY path will difer from urs, urs from 
Boons, Boons from Gar and on and o

n
[00:50]  Has God spoken, no.
[00:51]  If God has not spoken, then how may 
we know him?  After all, he has not revealed himself 
if he has not spoken...
[00:51]  Or perhaps yes, but not in the absolutes 
that people seem to need to find truth.  I believe 
God speaks daily in our lives, individually and as 
a collective whole.  Sometimes the messages are subtle, 
sometimes screamed
[00:52]  How do we know when it's God, and 
when it
[00:52]  Everything is God
[00:53]  (and when it's) our own desire, or 
some lively and convincing speaker?
[00:53]  My desire to do evil to my neighbor 
is God?!
[00:53] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com) 
left irc: Ping timeout for Cassidy_[mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com]
[00:53] BoonDock (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics.
[00:54]  Looks like everyone is leaving!
[00:54]  It is an aspect of God.  I do not 
subscribe to the notion that the negative and positive 
aspects of God are separate.  They are not in us and 
we are created in the image of God(spiritually speaking)
[00:55]  Then we are not responsible for our 
actions?
[00:55]  Hope it wasn't sometI didnt' say 
that
[00:55]  I mean, I did not say that
[00:55] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[00:55]  sorry....Im back.
[00:55]  But aren't you suggesting that when 
you say that "everything is God" ?
[00:56]  Hey Cassidy, where'd u go
[00:56]  Prest...did you get a chance to answer?
[00:56]  answer what Cassidy
[00:56]  my server pinged me off.
[00:56]  prest...hold on, I'll retype it.
[00:57]  Does God exist in a particular way 
independant of our beliefs about him...or is He himself 
a creation of our mind?
[00:58]  Great question Cassidy_
[00:58]  Gar...its NOT original...thats for 
sure!! ;)
[00:59]  O.k.  you know where the bible states 
that man is made in the image of God.  I believe that 
God is made in the image of man.  God is constant and 
never changing but our perception of God changes constantly
[00:59]  But it sure clears up how people think 
about God once the answer is given.
[00:59]  Preston...interesting.....
[00:59]  Prestonrp -- may way conclude from 
that that man predates God?
[01:00]  Is it not possible that one of the 
historical perceptions of this constant and neverchanging 
God is close or even right on about who God *actually* 
is?
[01:01]   Is it even *possible*??
[01:01]  no.  I am not saying that God does 
not exist outside the mind of God.  But that the true 
nature of God is so complex that we must specify what 
God is in our own minds to make sense of everything. 
 And from time to time this def

inition of God will change with the times even though 
the nature of God is stagnant
[01:02]  That no is to Gar
[01:02]  and that is outside the mind of Man
[01:03] BoonDock (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics.
[01:03]  welcome back boon
[01:03]  If definitions will always change, 
then will there every be a "correct" view of God?
[01:03]  thanks
[01:03]  Prest...can we know any "propositional" 
knowledge about God? Even if they be true about what 
they assirt but incomplete?
[01:03]  cassidy is charismatic and ppl glock 
to him
[01:04]  glock?
[01:04]  re boon!!
[01:04]  glock?
[01:04]  I see a Hegelian view of God developing 
here..............
[01:05]  boon is TRULY the modern-day campfire.........
[01:05]  Gar.  Man is not wise enough in his 
soul to ever fully know the true meaning of God.  God 
is complex and vast, encompassing both good and bad 
in a balance that is beyond our comprehesion but we 
will constantly redefine God is t

he best way that suits us and our times
[01:06] JSG (JSG@www-19-30.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics.
[01:07]  I didn't say "fully" know God.  I simply 
propose that you cannot have potentially opposing views 
of God and have both be "right".  I suppose a better 
phrasi

ng would be, is it possible to believe something wrong 
about God?
[01:07]  Anyone here?
[01:07]  Yes!
[01:07] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[01:07]  Prest...I will let you and Gar continue 
on your string....but I would very much like to hear 
about the origin of this knowledge of God....why his 
*complexity* doesn't also negate YOUR knowledge of 
Him..and why Christianity speci

fically doesn't speak truely of Him.
[01:09]  Cassidy_: Hasn't God revealed Himself to 
us through creation and through the Bible?
[01:09]  JSG..thats my belief.
[01:09]  Guys I'm beat.  Its 1 am here and 
I got The origin of knowledge is purely my opinions. 
 That is what all beliefs in God are, in the end.  
If Christianity talks true to u and allows u a one 
on one with God, than that is ur truth

 and is to be respected
[01:10]  Cassidy_: I guess I'm confused on the discussion.
[01:10]  Unless Christianity is actually right, 
and knowledge of God ISN'T based on our opinion...
[01:10]  Prestonrp -- blessings in your search, 
and good night.
[01:11] Action: BoonDock wonders if she has the wrong 
cd in
[01:11]  JSG...Pres believes certain things 
about God and I wanted to know why and from where did 
he learn those beliefs.
[01:11] BoonDock (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics.
[01:11]  Christianity is opinion, just real 
old opinion.  Doesn't make it more or less right than 
any other
[01:11]  Cassidy_: Thanks for filling me in.  
[01:11] Journey (blehre19@dial309.skypoint.net) joined 
#Apologetics.
[01:12]  That's your opinion... ;)
[01:12]  Pres...I wish you could stay. Im positive 
I could convince you (if you were willing) that that 
is a perposterous position to hold.
[01:12]  True.  Truth is transitory, based 
on perception.
[01:12]  Prestonrp: Why do you think Christianity 
is purely opinion?  What do you mean?  Do you believe 
Jesus when he claimed to be God?
[01:13]  I wish I could convice my car loan 
people of your perception of truth!
[01:13]  I don't know, I wasn't walking with 
Jesus when he made that claim.  Slept in that day
[01:13]  GAR...:-)
[01:13]  Truths shifts everyday.  It's like 
sand beneath ur feet
[01:14]  Prestonrp: I assume you didn't see first-hand 
many things that you believe are true.  Do you think 
Jesus is God?
[01:14]  How do you lay a foundation for anything 
that you do?
[01:14]  Prest....thats an impossible epistemic 
position to defend.
[01:14]  As for ur car loan, if society suddenly 
decided money had no value, the truth would be u would 
owe no money
[01:15]  Truth is based on perception.  What 
we held as fact once may not be fact now
[01:15]  Prestonrp -- there would also be nothing 
making it "my car" anymore, since I didn't "pay" for it. 
 The difficulty remains.
[01:16]  Unother shifting of Truth
[01:16]  Prest...then it's not truth.
[01:16]  Perception merely perceives truth, 
not creates it
[01:16]  Let me do some history.
[01:17] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) 
left #apologetics.
[01:17]  In the early 1900's Black people 
were considered inferior many.  It was held(Note held) 
as truth.  It is not our truth today
[01:18]  That is what I aurgue, truth shifts 
with our perceptions
[01:19]  Prest...you're commiting an equivication 
falacy. I disagree with your definitions of both truth 
and perception.
[01:19]  That didn't make it true then, and 
false now.  It has always been false - it just takes 
time to see.  Believing that the world was flat didn't 
make that "truth".
[01:19]  Prest...but how do you know that what 
you perceive is ever true?
[01:20] JSG (JSG@www-19-30.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[01:20]  Truth is transitory, what I believe 
is true today may not be true for me tomorrow, this 
is growth it is what we do as humans beings.  As we 
change, so is what is true for us
[01:21]  I would believe all things are true... 
from the perspective of the creator of that perception
[01:21]  Well, I am out of time... Later everyone!
[01:21] GARockey (garockey@slip1.nashville.com) left 
#apologetics.
[01:22]  u are the creator, somewhat, of ur 
own perceptions.  Society, family, friends all have 
a say in what u believe is true
[01:22] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com) 
left irc: Off to sing with the stars!
===============================================================
[08:45] Epesh (joeo@fts4p13-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[08:45]  Wow, there *is* an apologetics channel.
[08:46]  heh
[08:46]  u b funny Epesh
[08:46]  Vic: one of the ops here also goes to 
Harvard
[08:46]  Alcuin is his nick
[08:46]  I'll tell Scott.
[08:48]  funny? Why so?
[08:50]  I dunno, Epesh, just your nature I guess
[08:50]  oops, forgot, there can be no such thing 
as a "nature" in an atheist paradigm
[08:50]  :-)
[08:50]  Profg: au contraire! there's little else.
[08:51]  how can there be universals in a naturalistic 
paradigm where there can only be locals?
[08:51]  So is anyone interested in apologetics 
here?
[08:51]  doh
[08:52] Action: Epesh is glad to see that this channel 
is around, since he lobbied for it - hard - a few months 
ago but got no response.
[08:52]  I don't think there are only locals.
[08:52]  Besides, my paradigm is objective, not 
"naturalistic," unless we're having a confusion of terms
[08:53]  I know you don't think so, but the question 
is *how* they can exist in your paradigm?
[08:53]  you "lobbied" for it?
[08:53]  ProfG: yes.
[08:53]  How can they <- what? - exist in my paradigm?
[08:54]  universals
[08:55]  Hey prof, I need to leave...can I get 
your email address?
[08:55]  Explain the term "universals."
[08:56]  Vic: wgreen01@solix.fiu.edu
[08:57]  also available from the #apologetics 
home page
[08:57]  http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[08:57]  Epesh: I digress. Back to the concept 
of having a "nature". Could you explain to me what you 
mean by that?
[08:58]  Nature=existence.
[08:58]  Bye guys...thanks.
[09:00] VicN (vn@ttyr9.tyrell.net) left irc: 
[09:00]  c u Vic
[09:00]  really?
[09:01]  that is confusing though
[09:01] papa2two (papa2two@copy.cat.rrnet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[09:02]  papa  :-)
[09:02]  Morning!
[09:03]  Epesh: what do you mean when you say 
that you have a certain "nature"?
[09:03]  does it mean you have a certain "existence"?
[09:03]  that is confusing
[09:04]  Is it? Only if you decide to make it 
confusing.
[09:04]  It means I exist as a primary.
[09:06] harriet (AKalish@www-18-131.gnn.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[09:06] harriet (AKalish@www-18-131.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[09:07]  Epesh: can you give me an example of 
a "nature" which you posess?
[09:08]  I exist; I have brown hair; I have hazel 
eyes; I breathe air.
[09:09]  brb
[09:10]  BTW, ProfG: The burden of proof is NOT 
on the challenger. the burden of proof is on the one 
who makes the positive assertion.
[09:10] Action: Epesh is flipping through the apologetics 
page...
[09:11]  sorry, I'm working in other windows at 
the same time
[09:11]  Sokay.
[09:14]  Also: Are you aware of how irritating 
it can be watching that world spin around?
[09:15]  yes, that's why it's there
[09:16]  :-)
[09:16]  No doubt. :)
[09:16]  BTW, Epesh: the "burden of proof" is on 
the one who asserts that his/her worldview can account 
for reason and logic *at all*
[09:17]  So you think that reason and logic are 
not natural, that they don't exist outside of a religious 
purview?
[09:19]  Wow, that's ONE way to undercut a viewpoint... 
of course, then you undercut your own as well.
[09:19]  no, you misunderstand
[09:19]  Okay. Enlighten me.
[09:19]  reason and logic are not possible within 
an atheistic paradigm
[09:20]  Oh, darn... looks like MCU is down or 
not responding.
[09:20]  Okay. How do you come to this conclusion?
[09:20]  funny, I'm getting into MCU
[09:21]  I'm not. What's the address you're giving 
it?
[09:21]  http://mcu.edu
[09:22]  well, like everything else on the 'net, 
if you can't get in now, try in a few minutes  :-)
[09:23]  Well, it contacted... now it's waiting 
for a reply.
[09:24]  Epesh, browse the logs for a bit... I 
have to get some work done, but I'll bbl. 
[09:24]  The logs may help you understand what 
I was saying
[09:24] Dana_ (dananova@ppp24.snni.com) joined #apologetics.
[09:24]  i'm back.
[09:24]  But we'll definitely talk later
[09:24]  Okay.
[09:24]  gotta jet now
[09:24] Mode change '+o Dana_ ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[09:24] Mode change '-o ProfG ' by ProfG!greenew@SL5.elink.net
[09:24] Action: Dana_ (((((((((( ProfG ))))))))))
[09:24] Action: Dana_ (((((((((( papa2two ))))))))))
[09:25]  Dana  :-)
[09:25]  I'm leaving, Dana
[09:25]  whats up Prof?
[09:25]  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
[09:25]  you gotta stay!!!!!!!!!!
[09:25]  wanna explain to Epesh why logic and 
reason are not possible in an atheist paradigm?  :-)
[09:25]  sure :)
[09:25] Action: Epesh waits for this.
[09:26]  Prof....you gonna be back later?
[09:26]  yes
[09:26]  Epesh......so you are an atheist..?
[09:26]  kool
[09:26]  In fact, I'll hang here virtually, but 
I'm working
[09:27]  Epesh....what athiest texts have you 
read??...Logic texts?
[09:28]  I haven't read "Let's be an atheist" texts. 

[09:29]  lol...well.....thats not quit what I 
had in mind....but ok, ...have you read any epistomolgy 
texts?
[09:29]  Yes, some. Primarily objectivist texts.
[09:30]  really.....thats facinating
[09:30]  I've apparently thought so.
[09:31]  ok......well.....I guess the issue is, 
(im new to this argument)......How can you justify 
using Logic within your paradigm?
[09:31]  due to the nature of the paradigm itself
[09:31]  Logic; The science that investigates 
the principles governing correct or reliable inference......
[09:31]  the system or principles of reasoning 
applicable to any branch of knowledge or study......
[09:31]  a particular method of reasoning or argumentation.
[09:31]  Logic is the study of right reason or 
valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal 
and informal......Not everything is subject to logic, 
Only truth claims are subject to logic. Logic is descpriptive, 
not prescriptive. In ot

her words....
[09:31]  Logic states the way we reason correctly.
[09:32]  There are four laws of logic, these laws 
are undeniable, to refute logic, you would have to 
USE logic.
[09:32]  1st Law, The law of non-contradiction, 
A is not non A.
[09:32]  No Two contradictory statements can be 
true at the same time and in the same sense.
[09:32]  Dana: ProfG brought this up, BTW, and 
he left it about where you started.
[09:32]  2nd Law, The law of Identity, A is A. 
This law states that something is itself.
[09:32]  Okay.
[09:32]  3rd Law, The law of excluded middle, 
either A or non A. This law excludes any middle alternative 
between alternatives.
[09:32]  3rd Law, The law of excluded middle, 
either A or non A. This law excludes any middle alternative 
between alternatives.
[09:33]  4th Law, The law of Rational inference, 
A=B, B=C, C=A. This law allows inferences to be reached 
from a series of premises to a conclusion.
[09:33]  Okay.
[09:33]  agree so far?
[09:33]  Yes, although you don't need FOUR laws 
of logic to state what you have.
[09:33]  true....but I do it for the benefit of 
all
[09:33]  Okay.
[09:34] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[09:35]  at any rate.....the atheistic paradigm 
states that all is matter in motion.....Correct??...that 
all is nature?
[09:36]  I don't know about that. We don't know 
enough to state that "all is matter in motion." A concept, 
for instance, isn't "matter," and we haven't and can't 
verify

 that everything that IS material is in motion.
[09:36]  More like "all is natural."
[09:37]  ok...good enough
[09:37]  What's more, I don't subscribe to an 
"atheist paradigm" like you would to a magazine.
[09:37]  ok....please explain
[09:37]  I don't read a book and say, "Gee, it's 
in this book. I think I'll just accept it and preach 
atheism on the street."
[09:38]  When you speak of an atheist paradigm, 
that's all well and good, but it may not address MY 
paradigm.
[09:38]  ok......good...I am asking for your belief
[09:38]  ??
[09:40]  Okay. Existence exists; without this, 
no reasoning can have any effect, since reasoning is 
consideration of reality.
[09:40]  Everything is itself.
[09:41]  Epesh: prove that without using circular 
argumentation
[09:41]  3) humans are (in general!) conscious 
and have the ability to reason and think.
[09:41]  sorry, just peeked in
[09:41]  Prove which, profg?
[09:41]  Epesh....interesting....how do you justify 
using the inductive method??....That is question begging
[09:42]  Dana: How do I justify what using the 
inductive method?
[09:42]  yoor argument is kinda like...."its true 
casue its true"...not really a cogent position
[09:42]  Dana: these are axiomatic; denying reality 
is to make a cognitive statement about reality, implying 
that it does in fact exist.
[09:42]  epesh...you know what an inductive method 
of reasoning is?
[09:43]  denying that a thing is itself is to 
assume that A<>A.
[09:43]  thats not the issue
[09:43]  denying that men are conscious is a joke; 
denial requires a conscious denier.
[09:43]  hmmm.....your missing the point
[09:43]  Dana: i do, but tell me your view of 
it. I think these things are pretty obvious and they're 
the backbone of my thought.
[09:44]  ok...when you statedOkay. Existence exists; 
without this, no reasoning can    have any effect, 
since reasoning is consideration of reality.
[09:45]  thats circular.....in form......however........
[09:45]  So how do you prove that a triangle has 
three sides without referring to the definition of 
a triangle?
[09:46]  your assuming that reasoning is well 
within the athiestic paradigm
[09:46]  hehehehehee......hold on there Mr speed 
typer
[09:46]  Once again, the "atheistic paradigm" is 
something I'm not aware of. I'm aware of MY paradigm.
[09:47]  well....I am addressing your view of 
it
[09:47]  Okay. How do you decide that reason is 
not within my paradigm?
[09:48]  Epesh
[09:48]  ok.......because you have assumed that 
Logic is a properly basic belief, when in fact it is 
not,....It is not within Nature as you have defined,....
[09:48]  Dana: do tell.
[09:48]  how do you know that "reality" is real?
[09:49]  May I butt in?
[09:49]  Oh, brother. So what you're sayingis 
that I'm floating in a fantasy-land of my own - or 
another's - making? In that case, it doens't matter 
WHAT I believe, since I'm another's creation and toy.
[09:49]  papa: Sure.
[09:50]  Dana: How is logic not applicable in 
the nature I've defined?
[09:50]  Epesh: no, what we are saying is that 
your are engaging in self-deception. But we mean it 
in a nice way.  :-)
[09:50]  Indeed. Illustrate my deception, if you 
would; I'm interested, or I'd have come in here saying 
'You're all liars and fools," which I don't believe 
I've done.
[09:51]  Epesh, where do you believe the laws 
of logic come from?
[09:51]  and we appreciate it, Epesh  :-)
[09:51]  papa: I think they're obvious. 
[09:51]  Are they material or immaterial?
[09:51]  You have assumed Logic, Logic is immaterial....Just 
as God is NON-matterial.......how do you justify believeing/using 
something that is NON materialistic...and not within 
nature...the question is...where do we get reason....and 
why

 do we reason...do you not believe in Naturalsitc beliefs?
[09:52]  Why are they obvious?
[09:52]  A concept is not "real" in terms of being 
something you can grasp. Certainly you've run across 
THAT idea before. That doesn't mean that the concept 
is valid or invalid; it does mean that the conc

ept exists.
[09:53]  In this case, logic is a valid set of 
concepts in that it's applicable to reality.
[09:53]  papa: Because we breathe.
[09:54]  Are the laws of logic changable or 
immutable?
[09:55]  Am I lagging?
[09:56]  Epesh......you still have assumed the 
USE of logic, why should you use Logic in a view that 
states there is nothingbut nature?
[09:56] Epesh (joeo@fts4p13-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left 
irc: Ping timeout for Epesh[fts4p13-bfs.scri.fsu.edu]
[09:56]  aaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!!
[09:57]  That's why Epesh wasn't answering.
[09:57]  brb
[10:01] Lannie (LAE@www-17-193.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics.
[10:01]  Hello Lannie
[10:01]  greetings from atlanta, papa!
[10:02]  Atlanta.  Please tell me you are not 
a Braves fan!
[10:02]  :)
[10:02]  what do you expect???
[10:02]  back
[10:02]  Hi Lannie
[10:02]  da braves are not doing so well now....
[10:02]  I guess I can forgive you... :)
[10:03]  hi dana!
[10:03]  Lannie...you an atheist?
[10:03]  my goodness, no! why do you ask?
[10:03]  hehehheee
[10:03]  are all braves fans atheists???
[10:04] Action: Dana_ is practicing athiest arguments
[10:04]  No, just their owner!
[10:04]  true!
[10:04]  I don't understand how anyone could 
be an atheist...
[10:04]  Dana, what could we have done better 
with Epesh?
[10:04]  learn the argument
[10:04]  there is no logic to their arguments..
[10:04]  LOL
[10:05]  True...  
[10:05]  I am lost most of the time
[10:05]  I hate that....
[10:05]  May I make a suggestion?
[10:05]  I know some of it...
[10:05]  then some I dont
[10:05]  Please
[10:05]  any help I will HUMBLY take
[10:05]  Ask more questions and lecture less...
[10:06]  are either of you fans of the Christian 
Research Institute?
[10:06]  ok
[10:06]  I am
[10:06]  The more you know about someone's 
specific positions, the better.
[10:06]  CRI headquarters is 20 mins away
[10:06]  CRI?  Tell me more.
[10:06]  wow! have you ever been there?
[10:06]  Papa....anything else?
[10:07]  That's the main thing...  I couldn't 
tell for sure what Epesh's views were yet...
[10:07]  Nope...I know a few people that work 
there
[10:08]  CRI is thought by many to be the #1 
apologetics society in the US, if not the world. Hank 
Hanegraff, current president, hosts a radio show called 
the Bible Answer Man, which is wonderful.
[10:08]  If you let them ask questions, you 
can start to point out errors in their thinking as 
they show up...
[10:09]  answer that is
[10:09]  Ok... I've heard of the Bible answer 
man.
[10:09]  I studied under Craig Hawkins
[10:10] Epesh (joeo@fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[10:10]  Hi, all. Sorry about that.. my server 
decided to have a fit.
[10:10]  Epesh!  You made it back!
[10:10] Action: Dana_ (((((((((( Epesh ))))))))))
[10:10]  It took a while, but yes.
[10:11]  I was asking if you thought the laws 
of logic were changable or not...
[10:11]  papa: no, or else they wouldn't be laws.
[10:14]  Epesh....can you tell me what YOUR view 
of NON material things is?
[10:15]  Dana: Without more information on exactly 
WHICH nonmaterial things you're referring to, it's 
kind of hard; however, I'll try.
[10:15]  Caveat emptor, though; Don't apply this 
generally. I think that nonmaterial "things" exist, like 
concepts, or ideas.
[10:16] papa (papa2two@copy.cat.rrnet.com) joined #apologetics.
[10:16]  hehehe, I see myself!
[10:17]  Ok....so how do you justify belief in 
NON materialsitic things??...such as Logic?
[10:17]  Hi, papa. Did you see my response?
[10:17]  No, I'm sorry.
[10:17]   Epesh....can you tell me what YOUR 
view of NON material   things is? Dana: Without 
more information on exactly WHICH    nonmaterial things 
you're referring to, it's kind of hard;    however, 
I'll try.<

Epesh> Caveat emptor, though; Don't apply this generally. 
I    think that nonmaterial "things" exist, like concepts, 
or 
[10:17]  I don't believe in them the same way 
that I believe that a pen is sitting on my desk.
[10:17]  papa: no, or else they wouldn't be laws.
[10:18]  dana: those things don't exist in terms 
of material form.
[10:18]  However, that's not saying that the concepts 
don't exist.
[10:19] papa2two (papa2two@copy.cat.rrnet.com) got 
netsplit.
[10:19]  There we go...  The lag is dead now!
[10:19] Nick change: papa -> papa2two
[10:20]  how do they exist?.....and whay causes 
them to exist(speaking of Logic)
[10:20] Action: Epesh thinks that "Rational Theism" is 
either an oxymoron or it's an un-necessary repetition... 
but nobody says "rationality" = "theism." :)
[10:20]  whay=why
[10:20]  Dana: They don't exist in such a way 
that you can pick them up or anything like that. Neither 
do numbers, for that matter, yet both exist as ideas 
and concepts.
[10:20]  Ok, so you believe in unchanging laws...
[10:21]  Do you accept these unchanging laws 
purely on the basis of observation?
[10:23] Epesh (joeo@fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left 
irc: Ping timeout for Epesh[fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu]
[10:23]  Now epesh is lagging...
[10:24]  hmmmmmmm
[10:24]  And gone!
[10:24]  gotta runb
[10:24]  this might be a toughy
[10:24] ProfG (greenew@SL5.elink.net) left irc: READ 
ERROR: ****** $@^%^&%#$
[10:24]  God bless
[10:24]  ??
[10:24]  Can you see where I am trying to go?
[10:24]  Man....Epish can tpye
[10:24]  type
[10:24]  yip...a lil
[10:25] papa2two (papa2two@copy.cat.rrnet.com) got 
lost in the net-split.
[10:25]  thats intimidating.......
[10:25]  What's intimidating?
[10:25]  he smokes the answers....not that they 
are sound...but he types fast!
[10:26]  I see.  
[10:26]  My next question, depending on Epesh'reponse 
is how can you by observation know that something is 
unchangable?
[10:27]  mmmmm
[10:27]  ok...what if I say yes?
[10:27]  where would you go?
[10:27]  You can know that it hasn't changed 
while you were looking, but have no way of knowing 
that it won't in the future.
[10:28]  You are accepting by faith that logical 
laws exist as a absolute, non-material thing...
[10:28]  true
[10:29]  It is imperitive to find out the nature 
of Epesh's masterialistic views... 
[10:29] Epesh (joeo@fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[10:29]  materialistic even
[10:29]  re all. Sheesh!
[10:29]  Hey welcome back again!
[10:29]  Epsih...lol....re..again
[10:29]  ooppss..Epesh
[10:29]  So, do you accept these unchangable 
laws purely on observation?
[10:30]  That's okay. I figured out who you were 
talking to.
[10:30]  papa: A percept is either valid or invalid; 
I think the "laws of logic" are valid.
[10:30]  How do you know they are valid?
[10:31]  Or is it merely your "best guess" that 
they are valid?
[10:32] YOHANN (YOHANN@204.89.255.37) joined #Apologetics.
[10:32]  Epesh?
[10:32]  Hi yohann
[10:33]  good morning from tis side of the world.
[10:33]  Hi Yohawn
[10:33]  Good morning to you too.
[10:33]  hi everybody
[10:33]  what does apologetics mean if you excuse 
me asking?
[10:34] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[10:34]  Apologetics is the rational defense 
of Christianity...
[10:34]  Apologetics;( from the greek word, apologia), 
The word apologia means.....
[10:34]  A defense or justification of one's beliefs, 
attitudes, or actions.
[10:34]  An Apologetic is the branch of theology 
that defends the claims of Christianity.
[10:34]  An apologist is a person who defends 
an idea, faith, cause, or institution.
[10:35]  Epesh are you there?
[10:35]  does it come from the root apologize??
[10:35]  brb.....in 5 mins
[10:35]  does it come from the same root  as 
apologize??
[10:35]  No.  It is from the greek apologia
[10:35]  hold on.. work
[10:35]  no Yohann
[10:36]  I see
[10:36]  Although it may be the same root come 
to think of it...
[10:36]  Ok...
[10:36]  if we all are trying t justify our beliefs 
aren't we all apologists??
[10:36]  if we all are trying to justify our 
beliefs aren't we all apologists??
[10:36]  Well, in a way...
[10:37]  But too many ppl just go through life 
without ever really thinking about what they believe, 
let alone trying to defend it.
[10:37]  papa: I can either doubt myself and stop 
living or I can assume that identity is what it is, 
exiistence exists, etc.
[10:38]  yohann's right, but normally the term 
refers to "christian apologetics."
[10:38]  I see, Epesh...
[10:38]  and if we are all apologists so there 
is'nt a diffrence between being one a not being one.
[10:38]  So basically, you have a hope that 
logic holds, but can never be certain?
[10:38]  yohann: Most people don't bother defending 
what they think.
[10:39]  Right Epesh.
[10:39]  papa: I tell you what; I say that I am 
what I am, and that's logic. I'm CERTAIN of that. I'm 
also aware that I'm conscious. That's logic.
[10:39]  Kant you to say that that we can't hold 
any certainty
[10:39]  Kant was a fool who should have died 
immediately after saying that, if he believed it.
[10:39]  epesh how do you know you are
[10:40] aurifex (aurifex@www-31-199.gnn.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[10:40]  there is nothing knew under the sun 
epesh,but thought
[10:40]  Yohann: By the ability to observe, I 
establish consciousness
[10:40]  yohann: according to koholeth, not even 
that
[10:40]  That is fine Epesh, but does this 
mean your knowledge is limited exclusively to what 
you can observe/ experience for yourself?
[10:40]  how do you know you observe?
[10:41]  hold on... 
[10:41]  yohann: percepts either are or they're 
not
[10:41]  why can't i t be some evil gennie deciving 
you into believing your certainty
[10:41]  Am I correct in saying that you are 
not a materialist then?
[10:42]  if this is possible then no certainty 
is possible
[10:42]  not at all
[10:42]  I meant Epesh, but that's ok...  :)
[10:42]  I'm in search of the path of Truth
[10:42]  papa: I'm a rational being.
[10:43]  I think that existence exists, things 
are what they are, and man is conscious. 
[10:43]  how do you know you reason
[10:43]  Yohann: The ability to question whether 
I reason indicates my ability to do so. :)
[10:44]  how does man know he is conciuos it 
like a frog believing he is the king of the universe
[10:44]  So do you try to find reasons why 
we exist and things are, or do you stop the inquiry 
there?
[10:44]  yohann: Once again, the ability to question 
consciousness indicates consciousness.
[10:44]  I try to investigate the way things are. 
I see no "over-riding purpose" in any individual's life.
[10:45]  but how do you know that the answer 
to your questions is concoiusness
[10:45]  Yohann: I'll give you a hint about Truth: 
if you assume that reality isn't real, you'll never 
find it
[10:45] Nick change: Dana_ -> NedFlndrs
[10:45]  Yohann: never mind. if you're that much 
of a Kantian, then there's nothing I can do for you; 
you've already discarded reason.
[10:46]  I think reallity is real ,but our perception 
of it is not.
[10:46]  lol
[10:46]  Yohann: same thing. Why do YOU eat, then?
[10:46]  and i am not a Kantian, I just respect 
some of his views
[10:46]  I don't. Kant was an idiot.
[10:47]  Epesh, what other "non-material" things 
would you admit exist?
[10:47]  have you read critique of pure reason
[10:47]  Besides laws of logic...
[10:47]  yohann: I'm aware of it.
[10:47] aurifex (aurifex@www-31-199.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[10:47]  papa: I think we define "existence" differently.
[10:47]  did you read it
[10:48]  Perhaps...
[10:48]  No, I haven't. I don't need to read the 
twaddle of a fool who says that we can't know things 
definitely.
[10:48]  Kant had no absolute reason to breathe; 
after all, it might have been his error in perceiving 
things that he thought he needed air. Or food. 
[10:48]  human thought has evolved from Decartes 
to Kant it has been an evolving process.
[10:49]  If that's "evolution" then we might as 
well give up the human race as lost.
[10:49]  it seems that we believe in things that 
are more convinient to us rather than believing in 
truth
[10:50]  yohann: So show me "truth" if our perceptions 
aren't to be trusted; by what other means have we to 
discover "truth?"
[10:50]  Is truth relative or absolute, Epesh?
[10:50] nebulae (DJonnalag@www-30-234.gnn.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[10:50]  Decartes had the certainty of saying 
 I Think therefore i am. But it is not a certainty 
a thats where you are confused
[10:50]  There are absolute truths.
[10:51]  We agree on that...
[10:51]  How do you justify absolute truth 
on an atheistic worldview?
[10:51]  yohann: What's not a certainty?
[10:51]  I KNOW that there is an absolute truth
[10:51]  papa: existence. if it exists, it exists.
[10:51]  Yohann: how? You might be mistaken.
[10:52]  After all, it might be convenient for 
you to believe that there are absolute truths; reality/whatever 
might not concur.
[10:52]  Epesh, but you must start by assuming 
that existance exists...  You do, but Yohann does not...
[10:52]  Bye bye, "absolute truth."
[10:52]  papa: You think that existence doesn't 
exist?
[10:52]  Yohann: So why do you look for absolute 
truth, if it's a possibility that nothing is real?
[10:53] Action: Epesh thinks this is getting stupider 
and stupider by the minute.
[10:53]  sorry I'm back
[10:54]  Epesh.....the  help him see your 
point :)
[10:54]  No, existance exists, but we have 
no logical proof...  It all depends on definitions, 
which are accepted by faith...
[10:54]  hi u all
[10:54]  Hi sieb
[10:54]  NedFlndrs: I've already said quite enough 
to him. My point's already proven.
[10:54]  papa: If that's the case, why eat?
[10:54]  Epesh...I didnt say prove...I said 
help
[10:55]  Because I start by accepting that 
there is reality and absolute truth, just like you 
do...
[10:55]  Ned: I've already helped him. He's already 
admitted existence exists, whether he admits THAT or 
not; he's already given us his idea that there are 
absolute truths, by stating absolutes.
[10:56]  papa: And if you think that there's a 
possibility - not reliant on ACCEPTANCE - that there 
is NOT reality, then you've jumped off the edge already.
[10:56]  True.....I would add that even if 
he stated |"there are no Absolute"...he thus has doen 
so in the truth affirmative
[10:56]  we'll we have to do the best we can 
in this world even if there are no certainties we must 
overcome the rules of the herd. and defend what deep 
inside ourselves whatever it might be we believe the 
truth is and act accordingly for 

the benefit of all.
[10:56]  Not true...  Our only proof of definitions 
/ presuppositions, is trial by fire.
[10:57]  papa: And I think reality has been tried 
by fire. :)
[10:57]  Yohann: That's too bad, man.
[10:57]  Yes, but what is the nature of reality.
[10:57]  what's bad my brother
[10:57]  papa: Once again, we go back to percepts. 
If you think you're hungry, do you doubt it?
[10:58]  I'm not your brother.
[10:58]  Of course, you don't KNOW that, but... 

[10:58]  Is reality materialistic, or is there 
something beyond our ability to perceive it?
[10:58]  Don't KNOW what??
[10:59]  The Nature of reality?
[10:59]  I thought in christianity we believe 
that we are all brothers under god's command.
[11:00]  umm...that would be God...not god
[11:00]  lol
[11:00]  That is the real question...  Not 
whether reality exists, but what is its nature.
[11:00]  If reality exists, but I don't perceive 
it correctl;y, are my perceptions reality??
[11:01]  If I fell hungry right after a big 
supper, is it because I am really hungry and in need 
opf food, or is it something else?
[11:01] Samekh (joeo@fts4p12-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined 
#Apologetics.
[11:01] Epesh (joeo@fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left 
irc: Ping timeout for Epesh[fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu]
[11:01]  I think I'm just going to not bother 
trying to download from mcu any more.
[11:01] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp24.snni.com) left #apologetics.
[11:02] Nick change: Samekh -> Epesh
[11:02]  Bummer again!
[11:02]  Epesh?
[11:02]  Yes?
[11:02]  Where did we lose you?
[11:03]  Yohann had just said something about 
"my brother."
[11:03]  OK....
[11:03]  Don't KNOW what??
[11:03] nebulae (DJonnalag@www-30-234.gnn.com) left 
irc: Read error to nebulae[www-30-234.gnn.com]: No 
route to host
[11:03]  The Nature of reality?
[11:03]  That is the real question...  Not 
whether reality exists, but what is its nature.
[11:04]  If reality exists, but I don't perceive 
it correctl;y, are my perceptions reality??
[11:04]  I believe that
[11:04]  papa: Is that to me? -- ah. So! We go 
back to the validity of perception.
[11:04]  Is reality materialistic, or is there 
something beyond our ability to perceive it?
[11:04]  If I fell hungry right after a big 
supper, is it because I am really hungry and in need 
opf food, or is it something else?
[11:04]  papa: if your perceptions are not with 
reality then you'll notice discrepancies in your reality.
[11:04]  There are my comments after you left...
[11:04]  Correct.
[11:05]  our sense are inperfect so anything 
that comes through them is like it's origin and therefore 
subject to doubt
[11:05]  So even then your percepts will clue 
you in to their own invalidity.
[11:05]  And if such a thing as absolute truth 
exists, shouldn't we want to find it?
[11:05]  Yohann: in that case we resort to "reason" 
and apply our minds and consciousness to validating 
what we perceive.
[11:05]  that i think is the human goal papa2
[11:06]  Right YOHANN...
[11:06] Action: Epesh sighs... why?
[11:06]  in hinduism it is said that reason is 
not of the body but of our eternal soul
[11:07]  Butbrbr phone
[11:07]  or maybe through reson we can percieve 
the evelasting and unchanging quallity of our absolute 
self
[11:07]  This *IS* a waste of time. (sigh)
[11:07]  or maybe through reason we can percieve 
the everlasting and unchanging quallity of our absolute 
self
[11:08]  what the matter epesh my words frighten 
you
[11:08]  Not at all. It's twaddle. My 9-month 
old son makes just about as much sense... although 
he can't speak english yet.
[11:09] Action: Epesh 's son doesn't doubt his percepts, 
either
[11:09]  what' unreasonable about hinduism's 
filosofy
[11:09]  is not reason a natural outgrowth of 
the human mind's desire to sense the order of the universe?
[11:09]  that a good question lannie
[11:09]  The idea that reality isn't what we think 
it is; the idea that there's some absolute truth out 
there, even though we can't say ANYTHING absolutely... 

[11:10]  but we can only have faith and courage
[11:10]  Why? Faith is a dependence on absolutes.
[11:11]  because we are not GOD and we can't 
know everything
[11:11]  does not order exist in the universe 
aside and apart from our ability to reason it?
[11:11]  Lannie: yes, it does. therefore, "existence 
exists."
[11:11]  yes lannie we independent , of reallity 
not reallity on us.
[11:12]  are our minds finite?
[11:12]  Yohann: We're independent of reality? 
You really think that?
[11:12]  hey epesh you should defenetly read 
meditations by Decartes. You have a very similiar tone.
[11:13] Action: Epesh sighs... you're using a "real" 
method of communication.
[11:13]  Everything you DO is real. Otherwise 
you'd be unreal, nonexistent.
[11:14]  my question again: is our mind finite?
[11:14]  epesh i think that GOD gave us our free 
will wich is our only possesion. and we can use it 
according to the rules of the eternal law or not it's 
our choice
[11:14]  Ah! So there's an "eternal law." What is 
it?
[11:14]  Lannie: Depends on what you mean. Yes, 
I think we're finite.
[11:14]  I'm back...  Epesh, you sound like 
a theist in so many ways...
[11:14]  it is in us all to find out
[11:14]  No offense...
[11:14]  papa: no offense taken.
[11:15]  our mind like our body dies, lannie 
therefore it is finite
[11:15]  yohann: ah. So is it different for each 
person?
[11:15]  Yohann, if "absolute truth" is merely 
inside each of us, then it is not absolute...
[11:16]  we all percieve reallity in a difrent 
way though reallity is unchanging.and one.
[11:16]  Absolute truth must exist indepent 
of the individual to remain absolute.
[11:16]  we are certainly finite in terms of 
our bodies giving out. but is our mind capable of knowing 
and compehending every facet of the universe?
[11:16]  Ok, but unless we perceive it correctly, 
we do not perceive truth...
[11:16]  Lannie: Chances are, no. 
[11:17]  papa2 we should do the best we can to 
reach the higher platform of understanding
[11:17]  so now we have established there are 
areas of the universe outside of our understanding?
[11:17]  lannie: No, we haven't.
[11:18]  But what tools do we have apart from 
the logic and reason we have been given to reach a 
"higher understanding?"
[11:18]  Epesh: did you not say the human mind 
is not capable of knowing and comprehending evry facet 
of the universe?
[11:19]  Epesh, absolute truth is outside of 
our understanding.  If we fail to look for it or perceive 
it incorrectly, it remains absolute and true despite 
our lack of understanding.
[11:19]  I guess those are the only tools that 
humans have and not animals therefore we should use 
them with responsability
[11:19]  Lannie: Ah. I thought you meant in total. 
No, I don't think there's a facet of the Universe which 
cannot be known.
[11:19]  papa: in that case, it's undefined and 
unreal.
[11:19]  what about its creation?
[11:19]  Unreal != truth; not truth, then.
[11:19]  and not let our bodily cravings get 
in the way of our path to truth
[11:19]  No.  I don't think so.
[11:20]  Lannie: eventually we may discover the 
nature of the universe's creation, as well.
[11:20]  papa2??
[11:20]  Yohann: Why don't you see if absolute 
starvation - if there is such a thing - leads you to 
"truth," then.
[11:20]  Epesh: so you do acknowledge the universe 
was created?
[11:20]  Something unreal cannot be truth. If 
it can't be validated, it's not truth.
[11:20]  What Yohann?
[11:21]  I think anything that makes us trancend 
our commmon view of reallity is a door to perception 
of truth
[11:21]  Lannie: No. I acknowledge the universe 
is existent. When I refer to "creation" I'm referring 
to whatever you choose to call the "big bang" or any 
of a number o

f plausible alternatives. I don't know the nature of 
the universe's youth, or even if it HAS a youth. But 
I think that eventually we'll be able to say.
[11:22]  papa2 do you ever trancend?
[11:22]  papa2 did you ever trancend?
[11:22]  yohann: in that case, the individual 
cannot know truth; therefore it's outside of reality; 
unreal.
[11:22] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #Apologetics.
[11:22] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org
[11:22]  Yohann, no.
[11:23]  Epesh: but in order for anything to 
exist, must not is first have been created?
[11:23]  If I understrand your last statements 
then, you equate truth with whatever is not "common 
reality?"
[11:23]  Lannie: No.
[11:23]  Lannie you're thinking of a "first cause." 
Not necessary or even valid.
[11:23]  Epesh, that is very non-materialistic 
of you...
[11:23]  papa: what?
[11:24] Action: Epesh isn't even aware of what you 
mean by calling him a "materialist." I've been trying 
to figure it out ever since you guys started calling 
me one.
[11:24]  Sorry, I misunderstood your comment... 
Ignor it...
[11:24]  Epesh: can you give me an example? 
[11:25]  Sorry, materialist is teh basic position 
of MOST athiests...  Nothing exists apart from the 
material world.
[11:25]  we are born and led to believe in certain 
reallities until, our mind is placed in an altered 
state of reallity we are able to see with a third eye 
in comparison what reallity is about that is the origin 
of trancendence
[11:25]  papa: I started off clarifying that. 
An atheist who believes that is an idiot; ideas, for 
instance, aren't material.
[11:25] Action: Epesh thinks third eyes belong in freak 
shows
[11:26]  I see.
[11:26]  Lannie: for instance, YOU are not created; 
you're a combination of various materials produced 
by various events in certain sequences. You aren't 
created from nothing.
[11:26]  So why don't you accept the possibility 
of God?
[11:26]  papa: If someone could prove to me that 
he exists, I'd accept him.
[11:27]  I would argue that your reliance on 
absolutes presupposes the existence of the Christian 
God...
[11:27]  epesh the third eye is just a metaphor 
to explain, what we see beyond duallity
[11:27]  papa: And I'd say the exact opposite.
[11:27]  Yohann: I don't even see duality.
[11:28]  There can be no transcendant law without 
a transcendant law giver, basically.
[11:28]  you just don't know it but anything 
that changes is duallity
[11:28]  Ah. the "necessary being."
[11:28]  there is a trancent creator
[11:28]  Otherwise, laws of logic become mere 
conventions that seem to work, but we can never be 
sure they are absolutely true...
[11:29] Action: Epesh sighs
[11:29]  You guys insist on denying reality, don't 
you?
[11:29]  epesh do you believe your soul is eternal
[11:29]  epesh do you believe your soul is eternal?
[11:29]  This is insane. I'll be around later, 
but I've had all of this I can stomach.
[11:29]  We can argue that laws of logic exist 
in the abstract, but if we are basing that purely on 
our observations, we can never KNOW for sure that they 
are the "right" laws of logic.
[11:30]  Yohann: I don't believe man HAS a "soul." 
Not in the religious meaning.
[11:30]  Just a bunch of electro-chemical reactions?
[11:30]  papa: If I stumble on a stone, what reason 
do I have for not believing the stone exists?
[11:30] DJonnalag (DJonnalag@www-44-93.gnn.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[11:30]  do you believe in the origin of choice 
and desicion beyond mind
[11:30]  A stone is a material object, but 
a law is not...
[11:30]  Yohann: I don't know what you mean by 
those terms.
[11:30] Nick change: DJonnalag -> nebulae
[11:30]  papa: But a law determines that the stone 
EXISTS.
[11:31]  if we had no mind would we be?
[11:31]  Not man
[11:31]  So?
[11:31]  yohann: I'm not even going to bother 
with you any more.
[11:31]  papa: "so?" Geez. 
[11:32]  I mean what is your point?
[11:32]  I don't follow what you are getting 
at.  It wasn't meant as an insult.
[11:32]  Look: If I trip on a stone, does the 
stone exist? Does it HAVE to exist?
[11:32]  what the matter epesh you have no logical 
expositions to contradict me
[11:33]  Because you are not operating within 
logical bounds Yohann...
[11:33]  Yohann: You're not even making sense; 
you start off denying absolutes exist and you've spoken 
in vague absolutes ever since. get a grip.
[11:33]  Yes, the stone has to exist.  But 
a stone is not a law...
[11:33]  Yohann: In fact, just to make my life 
easier, I'm going to break a rule; you're /ignored.
[11:34] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[11:34]  But there is an axiom of existence that 
says that the stone has properties, including material 
existence.
[11:34]  Ok...
[11:34]  in its own plane of logical existence 
reffering to the stone
[11:35]  neb: what?
[11:35]  seconding u epesh
[11:35]  Ah.
[11:36]  The exists apart from my perception 
of it.  I may perceive it as I am tripping over it 
as a log or a box or a clum,p of dirt.  My perception 
of what it is does not change its reality though.
[11:36]  The stone exists, that is...
[11:37]  papa: This will come as a surprise, no 
doubt, but that's exactly what I've been saying. It 
has the proprties of a stone; your percepts make no 
difference to it.
[11:37]  its in ones owns logical perspective 
how we look at things - and existances..
[11:37]  If you think it's a clump of dirt, fine; 
it won't behave like one. And it won't act like a log, 
either.
[11:37]  It will act exactly like a stone.
[11:37]  Right.  But the point is that our 
perceptions fail quite often...
[11:37]  in its own plane of reasoning
[11:38]  Walk into any courtroom in the land 
and watch a trial...
[11:38] skyler (anon@blc55.blc.scbe.on.ca) joined #Apologetics.
[11:38]  papa: However, reality always works as 
it should; if we choose to continue with errors in 
perception, it's our fault for not correcting the perception.
[11:38]  yes
[11:38]  20 witnesses who all saw the same 
event will tell 20 different stories of what happened...
[11:38]  or how we percive
[11:38]  And the whole point of a court of law 
is to determine WHAT happened, in reality, independent 
of perception.
[11:39]  in what plane of reasoning
[11:39]  But percepts make up how we tell what 
happened.
[11:39] skyler (anon@blc55.blc.scbe.on.ca) left #Apologetics.
[11:39]  Thus, how can we know that laws of 
logic or any other law exists based solely on human 
perceptions?
[11:39]  the 20 percived in their own planes 
of reasoning
[11:39]  papa: Already addressed that.
[11:40]  jonathan livingstone seagull
[11:40]  Richard... Thomas? Bach! That's it. Bach 
was a Kantian.
[11:41]  he didn't even have the guts to admit 
it.
[11:41]  do we ever ponder to reason in different 
planes 
[11:42]  boils down to our own limits to understanding- 
or limitations not to explore
[11:42]  Epesh, If all we have to go by is 
our percpotions, we can never claim to have correct 
knowledge.  It is always just a "best guess."
[11:43]  So if you think you can never be correct, 
absolutely, why are you a Christian?
[11:43]  I don't think that way, because my 
world view provides a logical explanation of how certainty 
can be achieved.
[11:44]  Ah, yes.
[11:44]  Certainty is possible because there 
is an absolute standard setter who has revealed the 
absolutes to us.
[11:44]  I never denied that absolutes exist, 
I said that we can't ever percieve them in an absolute 
way therefore call them certainties, we should remain 
open to views of truth and may form our view of it 
in our best possible way only kno

wing how imperfect we are, will open the doors to knowledge 
,with patience reason and COMPASSION. Bye guys it was 
great talking to you   
[11:44]  being a christan is a belief that one 
belives would be his thread to understanding the cosmos
[11:45]  Of course. How silly of me to forget.
[11:45]  nice summation yohann
[11:45] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line13.cis.yale.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[11:45]  Anyway, guys, I'll see you later. Maybe.
[11:45] YOHANN (YOHANN@204.89.255.37) left #Apologetics.
[11:45]  I agree with you that there are absolutes 
and that truth can be found.
[11:45] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line13.cis.yale.edu) 
left #apologetics.
[11:46]  I just don't see how absolutes can 
be found with any certainty without God.
[11:46]  Only "best guesses."
[11:46]  Understand?
[11:46]  papa: That means you rely on a revelation, 
an experience. Doesn't work; I'll chat later.
[11:46] Epesh (joeo@fts4p12-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left 
#Apologetics.
[11:47]  Truth can be found anywhere ! question 
is how do we percive it 
[11:48]  like the 20 witnesses all belived that 
they were telling the truth
[11:48]  Some would say they each in fact told 
the objective truth, but that cannot logically be the 
case.
[11:49]  Lannie, still here?
[11:50]  noe there is the defination of truth; 
rational truth, objective truth, logical truth what 
not..
[11:52]  maybe each one came to a rational conclusin 
how they justified there own ends  to the understanding 
of being a witness which they labled it as truth
[11:52]  Truth is truth.  "Types" of truth are 
merelt our ways of showing things to be true or not 
true.
[11:52]  mere even
[11:53]  nice chatting with u papa! got to go 
later********
[11:53]  Bye!
[11:53] nebulae (DJonnalag@www-44-93.gnn.com) left 
#Apologetics.
[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_4_11_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../