[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/25/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/25/96 [19:12] Aco
[ref001]
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/25/96
apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/25/96
[19:12] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined
#APOLOGETICS.
[19:48] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[19:48] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) left
#apologetics.
[19:50] Spud (anon@van-as-05c08.direct.ca) joined #Apologetics.
[19:50] Acolyte.
[19:51] brb
[19:52] spud brb
[19:52] Woof.
[19:52] ;)
[19:53] ok
[19:53] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[19:53] If it is an agrred upon axiom itis
still assumed. Secondly agreement does not make it
true
[19:53] pascoe.
[19:53] hi.
[19:54] Indeed; but that's my point - it is *not*
assumed to be true in any absolute sense; it is simply
agreed upon as a basis for forming a meaningful framework
of communications.
[19:54] RedCloud (meil@meil.interlog.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:54] spud if A/=~A has no basis in reality
how does it relate to reality in any meaningful sense?
[19:54] what is this?
[19:54] why is everyone following me?
[19:54] Acolyte: hey, you invited me. 8)
[19:54] pascoe U I know
[19:55] it is nice to know and be known. 8)
[19:55] Acolyte: The same way mathematics as a
whole does; it is occasionally useful for describing
certain aspects of reality, while remaining independant
of that reality.
[19:55] spud ok, so a tree can be a rock and
a tree at the same time? that does not seem merely
formal to me, it seems more synthetic.
[19:55] spud, if you are a naturalist there
is nothing independeant of nature for all IS nature.
[19:55] spud are you an atheist?
[19:56] psud logic is not merely analytical
but synthetic as well
[19:56] Ac: No, I'm saying that if we can agree
to use the label "tree" to describe a 4-legged furred
animal, then as long as we do so, it remains a "tree".
However, t
he term "tree" is merely a handy descriptive label, having
no actual effect upon the thing labeled.
[19:56] Ac: I am an atheist, in the "without theism",
rather than "against theism" sense.
[19:57] spud fine,lets say I agree, the term
T is a lable, can T be X in the same sense time and
relationship?
[19:57] No
[19:57] Spud: so you begin with equivocation
on the existence of God? 8(
[19:57] psud reality is rational, if not, youwould
never know it wasn't befause youwould not know anything
[19:58] Spud the technical term is called Weak
Atheism
[19:58] Can T be X? Certainly - as long as they
are not mutually exclusive, as defined in our system
of communications.
[19:58] Indeed. Oops... brb...
[19:58] Spud Can T ve X in S, T, R? No
[19:58] Spud ever seen a qurater/nonquarter?
No. Not possible
[19:58] weak atheists = agnostics or fense riders.
8(
[19:59] I mean fence. 8)
[20:01] lag
[20:01] RedCloud (meil@meil.interlog.com) left #apologetics.
[20:01] weak atheism is like weak pregnancy.
8)
[20:02] CTCP PING: 572809468 ORC from pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu)
to #apologetics
[20:05] Acolyte: who first used the term atheist?
[20:05] pascoe greeks
[20:06] Acolyte: in what context?
[20:06] pascoe against socrates
[20:06] called him an atheist
[20:06] he denied the cities Gods
[20:06] Acolyte: so the context is denial of
a god.
[20:06] pascoe originally yes
[20:07] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line4.cis.yale.edu)
joined #apologetics.
[20:07] Acolyte: if all one can say is 'I have
no comment on God' then how can he call himself an
atheist?
[20:07] Mode change '+o Alcuin ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[20:07] hi Alcuin.
[20:07] pascoe that is not weak atheism tho
[20:07] Hi pascoe
[20:08] Acolyte: I don't find the concept of
the term weak atheism very suitable at all. its just
an attempt at association with a term without dealing
with the implications of that term by those who claim
it.
[20:08] brb
[20:09] spud, eh
[20:10] pascoe2 (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu)
joined #apologetics.
[20:11] ]] rom 15 6
[20:11] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu) left
irc: Read error to pascoe[xslip31.csrv.uidaho.edu]:
Connection reset by peer
[20:11] Nick change: pascoe2 -> pascoe
[20:11] pascoe I am on a call brb
[20:11] logos5 (pasc8891@hidden.cs.uidaho.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[20:11] Hey, pascoe2, here's a verse for ya
[20:11] Acolyte: ok.
[20:11] ;)
[20:13] So, pascoe, have you fallen in with
the Credenda Agenda crowd?
[20:13] Alcuin: hahaha. 8)
[20:14] Alcuin: fallen isn't the word. 8)
[20:14] :)
[20:14] Alcuin: what do you think of it?
[20:14] It's interesting and entertaining.
[20:14] Alcuin: I agree. 8)
[20:14] alcuin, what do you think of Credenda
Agenda?
[20:15] Acolyte: It's interesting and entertaining.
[20:15] Not particularly deep, nor complex--but
not trying to be.
[20:15] Action: pascoe is actually surprised that CA
gets the exposure it does. It comes from a very small
group here in Moscow.
[20:16] Sorry...
[20:16] Douglas Wilson, Douglas Jones, ... ,
[20:16] Doug Wilson is the teaching elder at
CEF, he gave a good message today from Heb.
[20:16] Pascoe: So-called "weak atheism" is nothing
more than not choosing to believe in deities; what
are the implications of this?
[20:17] Acolyte: you were entertaining the notion,
as I recall, of explaining your view of material infallability
and formal infallability....
[20:17] primetime (tdoane@muselab-gw.runet.edu) joined
#apologetics.
[20:17] Spud: the implications are that weak
atheists are riding the fence or simply don't know.
[20:17] greetings, primetime
[20:17] hello Alcuin. How are you tonight?
[20:18] Spud: if they don't know they are more
properly called agnostic. if they are riding the fence,
they should get off it.
[20:18] Well, we obviously don't know that a deity
exists, or we wouldn't be in the position we're in.
And it is simply not possible to know that a deity
doesn't exist, so what would you prefer as an alternative?
[20:18] Spud: so you are claiming to be agnostic?
[20:19] Pascoe: Depends. If you look again at
the derivation, an agnostic has traditionally taken
the view that gods are by nature unknowable. The atheist
suggests that gods _may_ be knowable, but remain as
yet unknown.
[20:19] spud: It does not follow from "the position
we're in" that "we don't know that a deity exists"--those
propositions can be [and should be] construed as consist
ent.
[20:19] Spud: but you are in fact saying that
god is unknowable.
[20:19] primetime (tdoane@muselab-gw.runet.edu) left
#apologetics.
[20:19] Spud: the atheist claims that there
is no god.
[20:19] And either way, since you seem (by implication)
to suggest that agnostics are also fence-riders, which
side of the fence should they come down on with neither
evidence nor reason to adfopt either side?
[20:19] spud what are the preconditions of
epistemology, metaphysics and Ethics?
[20:20] pascoe: I'm an atheist and I make no such
claim, so don't tell me what I believe or claim.
[20:20] Spud don't get so uppidy
[20:20] Spud: what *do* you believe and claim,
since some of us [me] came in after the discussion
had begun....
[20:20] No, I'm saying gods are unknown. I haven't
met any, but they may be out there - I have no solid
evidence either way.
[20:20] Spud: so you want to associate with
the term atheist but you are in no way expected to
answer for the claims that atheism makes?
[20:21] spud what are the preconditions of
epistemology, metaphysics and Ethics?
[20:21] Spud: if you do not know if God exists,
you are agnostic.
[20:21] Spud: do you believe in logic, science,
and morality?
[20:21] Alcuin: I am an atheist - not an antitheist.
I lack belief in deities, but am open to the possibility
that they may exist; I simply require some tangible
evidence before I'll accept the claim.
[20:22] pascoe remeber a few days ago, and
what I told you about Flew?
[20:22] Pascoe: I'm not a "strong atheist" - those
guys are as lacking in rational foundation for their
beliefs as is the theist who maintains that some god
exists, but without any rationa; basis for the
claim.
[20:22] Spud, have you read Antony Flew?
[20:22] Acolyte: Damned if I know; I'm just a
lowly programmer.
[20:22] Spud: an antitheist would be against
god. an atheist is one who says there is no god.
you say you do not know therefore you are agnostic.
[20:23] Spud: There are several definitions
of "atheist"--some deny theism, some are agnostic with
respect to theism--and that agnosticism may take two
forms: "might someday know," and "will never know."
[20:23] Acolyte: sorry, I don't remember Flew.
8(
[20:23] spud that is apparent
[20:23] Spud do you think that all beliefs
have to have grounds to be held as rational?
[20:23] Spud: Now in the eyes of some, all these
flavors amount to a denial of the existence of God,
flat out.
[20:23] pascoe rememebr now?
[20:23] Acolyte: 8)
[20:23] pascoe: You're confusing strong atheism,
weak atheism and agnosticism. There ain't no such
animal as an agnostic, properly speaking, since even
they have - or lack - a belief in deities.
[20:24] Spud do you think that all beliefs
have to have grounds to be held as rational?
[20:24] Acolyte: your sarcasm is beautiful.
[20:24] Spud do you think that all beliefs
have to have grounds to be held as rational?
[20:24] Spud do you think that all beliefs
have to have grounds to be held as rational?
[20:24] Spud do you think that all beliefs
have to have grounds to be held as rational?
[20:24] aluin I love you man.
[20:24] Spud: It sounds like you have a willingness
to be persuaded rationally if such persuasion is possible.
[20:24] Acolyte: Having fun with your macros?
Anyhow, I would have to suggest that yes, they do.
[20:24] Alcuin: Bingo.
[20:25] spud ok, well I think that there are
problems with that principle, would you be willing
to help me illustrate and perhaps solve them?
[20:25] Spud: I'm willing to try to show you,
from inside a theistic frame of reference, why some
of us here think that there's good reason to believe
in God.
[20:25] Action: Acolyte hands Alcuin a dark Beer
[20:25] *POP!*, tschhhhhh, quaff quaff
[20:26] glorp glorp glorp glorp glorp
[20:26] alcuin done like a True Reformed Philosopher
[20:26] Ahhhhhhh.
[20:26] Ac: Certainly. However, let's never lose
sight of the difference between things which are believed,
and things which are claimed to have observable impact
upon the universe. Since God is constantly claimed
to be in both categories
, it strikes me as more valuable to seek instances
of the latter.
[20:26] Action: Acolyte cracks out his Pipe
[20:26] spud perhaps, but lets examine this
principle of yours
[20:26] Spud: atheism is a classification based
on a claim about God. I haven't met an atheist of
any variety that is willing to make reponsible defenses
of their claim. they simple want to be left alone
is generally the response.
[20:26] Alcuin: Shoot. How about starting first
with the reason for accepting that *any* deity, let
alone a specific one, exists.
[20:27] spud for the sake of convienience I
will call the principle "Any Belief _______ needs grounds
in order to be held as rational." Principle F.
[20:27] Pascoe: Then go talk to some strong atheists
- who claim gods don't exist. Don't bother with us
weak atheists who simply lack belief in deities - since
we make no claims one way or the other, we have nothing
to defend.
[20:28] Ac: with you so far.
[20:28] Spud: I'll defer to Acolyte for the
time being, since it wouldn't be good to have two threads
spinning at once. OK? I'm eager to speak with you,
however. Acolyte and I may or may not agree on details.
[20:28] Alc: Sure thing.
[20:28] Spud: what you are saying is that weak
atheism makes absolutely no claim and is therefore
beyond responsibility to any claim. 8(
[20:28] Alcuin, everyone is entittled to my
opinion. ;)
[20:28] spud ok, now lets take Principle F
and plug it someonewhere
[20:28] spud so, it would read as follows
[20:29] Acolyte: On the other hand, I'm willing
to gab on, ad infinitum, if you care to take a breather,
Acolyte ;)
[20:29] Acolyte needs better macros. 8)
[20:29] pascoe: Since we don't claim thta God
exists, and don't claim that God doesn't exist, what
claim we you suggest we are making? About all we have
to offer is this: the evidence for deities is not sufficient
to warrant our (individua
l) beliefs in deities.
[20:29] "Any belief __Principle F__ needs grounds
in order to be held as rational."
[20:29] Spud do you see the problem or no?
[20:30] Action: Alcuin passes out a leaflet reading:
[20:30] Egads: Are you going to goedelize it into
infinity? ;)
[20:30] Alcuin you talk? naw
[20:30] Spud: how can you possibly classify
yourself as atheist if you don't even make any claims
one way or the other?
[20:30] spud, do you see the problem or no?
[20:30] "Does Principle F itself need grounds
in order...."
[20:30] pascoe: Simple: because I lack - am without
- prefix 'a' - any beliefs in deities, which is to
say, theism.
[20:30] spud, do you see the problem or no?
[20:31] "Does the Principle that Principle F
itself need grounds need grounds?"
[20:31] Ac: You want to get into infinite regress.
Fine, dandy, what's your point?
[20:31] Spud the point is that your epitemic
principle is self referrentially absurd.
[20:31] spud it is self refuting
[20:31] "Does the Principle that the Principle
that Principle F itself need grounds need grounds need
grounds..."
[20:31] Chemy1 (gt6186a@fitten185.residence.gatech.edu)
joined #Apologetics.
[20:31] sdfgfsdgdfgsdfgssdfgsdfg
[20:31] sdfgdfgsdfgfddfgs
[20:31] dfgsdfgdfgdfgdfgs
[20:31] spud it cannot satisfy its own criteria
[20:31] dfgsdfgsdfgsdfgdfgs
[20:31] dfgsgfddfgdfgsdfgdfgfgds
[20:31] dfgdfgdfgssdfgsdfgfgsd
[20:31] dfgsdfgsgdfsdfgdfgdfgs
[20:31] sdfg
[20:31] sdfg
[20:31] dfgs
[20:31] dfgs
[20:31] dfg
[20:32] sdfg
[20:32] Spud: I think you are the one who enters
into infinite regression when you arbitrarily demand
that all beliefs be grounded in evidence.
[20:32] Chemy1!gt6186a@fitten185.residence.gatech.edu
kicked by Alcuin!kingtutor@remote4-line4.cis.yale.edu:
Alcuin
[20:32] Mode change '+b *!*@fitten185.residence.gatech.edu
' by Alcuin!kingtutor@remote4-line4.cis.yale.edu
[20:32] Al: Care to show me *any* approach to
anything which can't be demonstrated absurd in one
manner or another?
[20:32] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[20:32] Spud: Yes, I do care to. However, Acolyte
has the mic.
[20:32] spud it cannot satisfy its own criteria
[20:33] spud do you have a way out of this
dielemna or do you not see the problem?
[20:33] Al: Sorry, that should have been aimed
at Ac. ;)
[20:33] ok
[20:33] spud, are we discussin ANY approach
or this one?
[20:33] spud this one.
[20:34] spud please justify yor aproach
[20:34] Ac: Oh, I see the problem; I simply don't
see that _any_ formal system, regardless of its base
foundations, can be both complete and consistent.
In this case, the application of infinite regress exposes
a flaw in this one; big deal
. Got a better approach?
[20:34] Goedel.
[20:34] spud are you trying to imply that since
any view can be seen as absurd that we should just
take yours? and that it does not matter? that it is
arbitrary?
[20:34] Spud yes
[20:35] Spud, ever read Augustine? wait, forget
that
[20:35] credo et intellagam
[20:35] Action: Alcuin stands near the bar, quietly
stirring his Schloesser Alt
[20:35] Ac: Yes, you have a better one? One that
is complete and self-consistent, makes absolutely no
contradtions whatsoever? Well I suppose "I'll believe
anything" would fall into that category; what'
s your answer?
[20:35] alcuin you of age my friend?
[20:35] Acolyte: old enough to know better,
and then some.
[20:36] Ac: No, I'm not a big fan of most philosophy
- having listened to far too many philosophers confuse
themselves endlessly.
[20:36] spud, I a know enough of Godel not
to fall into that verbal trap thank you very much
[20:36] Action: Alcuin notes that Spud is asking good
questions and has a healthy scepticism regarding philosophical
rabbit-chasing.
[20:36] spud thats funny...yeha right...anyhow
[20:36] Ac: So what *is* this wonderful system
that meets all these requirements?
[20:36] Action: Alcuin hands Acolyte an umlaut
[20:36] "You dropped this"
[20:37] spud why not modify the principle F?
[20:37] alcuin umlaut?
[20:37] Spud: if you say you are atheist, then
you are making a claim about the existence of God based
on the meaning of greek and the historical origin of
the word. it is obvious that you do not want to deal
with the implications of th
at association, but this is the pattern I find amoung
atheists in general. 8(
[20:37] Funny? What's funny? You should hang
out at some of the coffee shops here in town. All
sorts of students - and occasionalyl professors - of
philosophy.
[20:37] Go"del
[20:37] ][XQUS (mondar@cs4-14.sun.ptd.net) joined #apologetics.
[20:37] Spud, all we have to do is say that
SOME beleifs require grounds in order to be held as
rational.
[20:37] pascoe: Ok. I'm without belief in deities.
There's my claim. Happy now?
[20:37] Spud: Vancouver?
[20:37] Hi, ][xqus
[20:38] Al: Yup.
[20:38] <][XQUS> hello all
[20:38] Spud: that's more consistent. 8)
the question then becomes, why?
[20:38] pascoe: and that leads us to the conversation
that has already begun...
[20:38] Ac: So far so good - now, let's nail down
exactly which sort of belief falls into that category.
Does the belief "some beliefs require evidence" fall
into that category?
[20:39] Alcuin: true, I guess we are past that
already, but I like to tidy up loose ends. 8)
[20:39] spud sure, why not
[20:39] pascoe: Why do I lack belief? Simple:
I've never seen evidence which warrants beleif.
[20:39] spud if you never start a race you
can never finish it
[20:39] Ac: Ok, so that belief requires evidence.
Got any evidence for it?
[20:39] Spud: what are your criteria for acceptable
evidence?
[20:39] Action: Alcuin stands by the bar, twirling
evidence on his keychain
[20:39] spudm sure, the impossibility of the
opposite
[20:40] Spud: do you believe that George Washington
existed?
[20:40] '"The Impossibility of the Opposite" for
a limited time now at your Buick dealer...'
[20:40] Pascoe: First, a mechanism from which
predictions may be drawn. Second, physical evidence
consistent with that mechanism, and none contradictory
to it. Third, that the mechanism be less complex than
alternative mechanisms.
[20:41] Ac: Okay, for the nonce, let's go with
that.
[20:41] Spud: what is an example of a mechanism
from which predictions may be drawn?
[20:41] spud, we assume some beliefs as basic
and that are neceesary to rationality, Liek the intelligability
of reality, self existence, etc
[20:42] spud anything that is a necessary PREcondition
to rationality
[20:42] Spud: what is the mechanism that allows
you to believe that George Washington existed?
[20:42] brb-got a call
[20:43] Spud: would you care to engage the issue
from a different angle, with me?
[20:43] Alcuin: hey, wait your turn. 8)
[20:43] pascoe: Oh, take for example Newtonian
mechanics. One prediction which can be drawn from
that is that if you travel at velocity X for time Y,
you'll travel a distance X * Y. You can perform the
experiment and determine for yoursel
f whether the mechanism is at least close to what is
observed in reality.
[20:43] Ac: Okay.
[20:43] Spud: are you saying you require a
repeatable mechanism for all of your beliefs?
[20:44] Ac: Which is one reason I laugh at these
self-styled philosophers. Sure, questions such as
"Do you know X exists" may not be answerable in an absolute
sense; but only they would spend days, weeks
, worrying about it.
[20:44] As long as you don't perform the experiment
[a] near a black hole, or [b] with electrons....:)
[20:44] Nick change: Alcuin -> ALcuin
[20:44] Spud: if your standard is repeatability
then that would preclude your belief in history?
[20:44] Spud: This is ALcuin, not AColyte :)
[20:44] Al: Shoot.
[20:45] pascoe: Nope, because if you look at the
class of incidents which make up history, most of them
_are_ repeatable.
[20:45] Ok. Spud, as I understand it, you are
"so far" not convinced of the existence of God [however
defined]; you are willing to be shown; and you are
interested in the paradigm of scientific method
as a means of demonstration.
[20:45] Spud: can you use George Washington
as an example?
[20:45] Spud: then use Plato and Muhammad.
[20:46] Are we together so far?
[20:46] pascoe: Sure. Met many people. Some
of them were generals, some were politicians. What's
your question?
[20:46] AL: Works for me.
[20:46] Spud: my question is why do you believe
any of this as historical fact?
[20:46] Spud: it seems to fail your mechanism
of repeatability.
[20:47] Spud: Your claim is that you do not
know God, and have no evidence of God's existence.
My claim is that you do know God [though you do not
realize|acknowledge that you know God], and that I
can prove this to you.
[20:47] pascoe: Nope. Try again.
[20:47] AL: Shoot.
[20:47] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca2-02.ix.netcom.com)
joined #apologetics.
[20:47] Spud: how can you use your mechanism
to show the existence of George Washington?
[20:47] Spud: Now, I take it that you have some
notion of science, some notion of logic, and some notion
of morality.
[20:47] hey.
[20:47] ciao, Cassidy_
[20:48] hellohellohello
[20:48] Spud: what you appear to be doing is
setting up false criteria for what is acceptable evidence
while you use no such criteria in the rest of your
beliefs.
[20:49] pascoe: The claim that a person existed
at some point in history is mundane; it requires mundane
levels of evidence. Leadnig armies or being polititcian
is hardly unusual. Add to the mundane nature of the
claims the body of eviden
ce from seaparate sources, and it is entirely reasonable
to conclude that there is little reason to suppose
that the whole thing was a colossal and complex hoax.
[20:49] With respect to science, you take for
granted several things: you assume continuity in empirical
experience, you assume causation, you assume that future
contingencies will somehow relate to past events.
Scientific method may be
characterized in this way across the board.
[20:49] Action: ALcuin pauses to let these ideas settle
with Spud.
[20:49] |