[ref001]


apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 3/10/96
apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 3/10/96

[19:10] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip25.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[19:21] RAS2 (Homer@www-25-110.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics.
[19:21] RAS2 (Homer@www-25-110.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[19:24]  hello
[19:25]  pascoe, are you a christian?
[19:25]  yes.
[19:31] RAS2 (Homer@www-25-110.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:32]  hello ras2
[19:32]  yeah REV
[19:32]  so there is no higher power as far as 
you are concerned
[19:33] RAS2 (Homer@www-25-110.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[19:38]  Pascoe, why are you a christian?
[19:38]  Rev_Ely:  because I acknowledge my Creator 
and my accountability to Him for my sin.  I realize 
that I am hopeless in my sin without the work of Christ.
[19:39]  pascoe: How'd you realize that?
[19:40]  Rev_Ely:  God revealed it to me thru 
His Creation, His Son, and His Word and His Spirit.
[19:40]  How did you learn of his son and his 
spirit?
[19:41]  I'm interested because I used to be 
a christian.
[19:41]  Rev_Ely:  thru creation, the Word and 
the Spirit at work in my heart to convict me of my 
sin.
[19:41]  How did you know it was his spirit 
at work in your heart?
[19:42]  Rev_Ely:  because the conviction of 
sin was accurate.
[19:42]  pascoe: where did you learn about sin?
[19:43]  Rev_Ely:  I was aware of my sin in my 
heart.  as is everyone.
[19:43]  Rev_Ely:  we all possess the knowledge 
of good and evil.
[19:43]  pascoe: How did you learn that we all 
possess knowledge of good and evil?
[19:44]  Rev_Ely:  I have observed it in laws 
man has made, I observe it in my own life and I observe 
it in the Word.
[19:45]  pascoe: How did you conclude that we 
have a knowledge of good and evil by observing laws?
[19:46]  pascoe: Some countries allow multiple 
wives, some multiple husbands, some allow prostution, 
others forbid it.  some allow murder in many instances, 
other only in a few.
[19:47]  Rev_Ely:  man's laws acknowledge that 
man has dignity.  they acknowledge that stealing is 
wrong and lying and murder and rape, etc.
[19:47] Cleo (salam@pppc11.erols.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:47]  pascoe: But the laws aren't consist. 
 Lying isn't strictly forbidden, theft and murder are 
often excused.
[19:47]  Rev_Ely:  I haven't said that man's 
laws are not corrupted.  I am saying that man's laws 
demonstrate that man has knowledge of good and evil.
[19:48]  Rev_Ely:  I haven't said that man's 
laws are not corrupted.  I am saying that man's laws 
demonstrate that man has knowledge of good and evil.
[19:48]  pascoe: Ahh, ok.  I think I understand 
it.  If laws represent the fact that men have knowledge 
of good and evil, do changing laws represent the idea 
that good and evil are subject to man's authority?
[19:49]  Rev_Ely:  also, I have not stated that 
man's laws are the only evidence of the knowledge of 
good and evil in man.
[19:49]  Rev_Ely:  absoultely not.  man does 
not define good and evil.
[19:49] RAS1 (Homer@www-34-161.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:49]  I dont really see how one concludes 
that the presence of laws shows that all men have knowledge 
of good and evil.  Laws are created and can be manipulated, 
as history has shown.
[19:49]  Rev_Ely:  God defines right and wrong 
because He has authority to and it is He that will 
judge us.
[19:49]  re ras
[19:50]  pascoe: why do you believe that god 
has authority to define right and wrong?
[19:50]  Rev_Ely: 
[19:50]  Rev_Ely:  because God is the one that 
created us and is also the one that will judge us by 
His own law and not ours.
[19:50]  Rev_Ely:  that gives Him the authority.
[19:50]  pascoe: Judges can give birth to children. 
 Does that mean they have the authority to determine 
what is right and wrong for them?
[19:51]  I can create and destroy computer programs. 
 Does that mean I can say that it's right for my program 
to steal money?
[19:51]  Rev_Ely:  God has established lower 
authorities in the form of parents and civic magistrate. 
 God is the one who delegates authority tho.
[19:52]  pascoe: Why do you believe that god 
delegates authority?
[19:52]  Rev_Ely:  that is like asking if it 
is ok to let a gun kill someone.  silly question.
[19:53]  pascoe: You said that god created us 
and will judge us; this is why he has authority.  Creation 
and judgement are necessary for authority apparently. 
 If that is all, then a consistent application of that 
reasoning will allow me 

to use a computer program t
[19:53]  Rev_Ely:  God delegated authority to 
parents so they could teach their children properly 
to do what is lawful.  God established civic authority 
to execute punishment on earth until the final judgement.
[19:53]  o do whatever I think is right/wrong. 
 Same for judges and their children.
[19:53]  If creation and judgement do not give 
me the authority to use my programs as I see fit, then 
why do creation and judgement give god authority to 
create right and wrong?
[19:54]  Rev_Ely:  are you saying you can give 
a creation of yours more authority than you have yourself? 
 that is silly.
[19:55]  pascoe: I'm not giving programs authority 
by determining what is right and wrong for them.  Unless 
you are saying that god gives us the authority to determine 
right and wrong by determining what is right and wrong?
[19:55]  Rev_Ely:  Because God created you and 
will judge you, He has authority over you.  if you 
create something yourself, you do not get authority 
over God, that is silly.
[19:55] RAS1 (Homer@www-34-161.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[19:56]  pascoe: I'm not asking for authority 
over god.  You said that god has authority over me 
because a) he created me and b) he will judge me.  
I applied that reasoning to myself.
[19:56]  Rev_Ely:  if you create an organization 
or company, you have authority over it.  but you don't 
have authority over God because you will always be 
a creature in relation to Him.
[19:56] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca4-07.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[19:56]  pascoe: I can create and judge my creations; 
do I therefore have authority to determine what is 
right and wrong for them?
[19:57]  pascoe: If creation and judgment are 
the basis upon which authority is derived, then that 
which I create and judge are under my authority.
[19:57]  pascoe: if I have that authority, then 
I can determine what is right and wrong for them, according 
to your reasoning.
[19:58]  pascoe: God a) creates and b) judges 
which yield c) authority.  On the basis of c) he can 
determine what is right and wrong for his objects.
[19:58]  pascoe: I a) create and b) judge which 
yield c) authority.  on the basis of C) I can determine 
what is right and wrong for my objects.
[19:58]  Rev_Ely:  once again, your jurisdiction 
is always under the authority of God.  You cannot give 
yourself authority which you do not possess, nor can 
you give authority to a creation of yours that you 
do not possess.
[19:59]  pascoe: Where does giving out authority 
come into the picture?  You said possession of authority 
was determined by a) creation and b) judgment.  On 
that basis I can determine what is right/wrong for 
my created objects that I judg

e.
[19:59]  Rev_Ely:  how can you define right and 
wrong for your creation when you don't possess that 
authority from the one you are accountable to?
[20:00]  Rev_Ely:  a parent cannot give his son 
the authority to speed on the road since the parent 
has not been given that authority by the one over him.
[20:00]  pascoe: You said that authority was 
possessed on the basis of a)creation and b) judgment. 
 God apparently has this authority because he a)created 
us and b) will judge us.
[20:00]  You can determine right and wrong for 
whatever you create.....however, if you determine something 
to be right and God does not agree with you, then you 
are wrong (you have made a wrong determination)  
[20:01]  pascoe: I apparently have this authority 
because i a) create and b) will judge.
[20:01]  Rev_Ely:  yes, God has authority over 
you for those reasons.  it does not follow that you 
have any such authority over right and wrong.
[20:01]  pascoe: so either authority to determine 
right and wrong is unrelated to whether or not a person 
creates and judges or I have the authority to determine 
right and wrong for my objects.
[20:01]  Rev_Ely:  your analogy fails because 
 1) you are not God and 2) you have no such authority 
granted to you by God.
[20:02]  Yes pascoe, I agree
[20:02]  pascoe: So then what you said earlier 
was wrong.  god determines what is right and wrong 
not only because he creates and judges but because 
he is god?
[20:02]  Rev_Ely:  you assume that authority 
is isolated, but authority exists in jurisdictions 
and you are always under jurisdiction and your creations 
are as well.
[20:03]  pascoe: You didn't say that earlier. 
 Why do you believe that god has authority?
[20:03]  Rev_Ely:  God is the highest authority. 
 He has not granted you authority to define right and 
wrong beneath yourself.
[20:03]  pascoe: gotcha, why do you believe 
that god has authority?
[20:04]  God possess authority over you because 
He created you and will judge you.  In God's authority 
He has not granted you authority to define right and 
wrong.
[20:04]  pascoe: Ok, you said god's authority 
over me is based on the fact that a) he created me 
and b) he will judge me.
[20:04]  pascoe: Therefore, authority over an 
object is granted to the one who a) created it and 
b) will judge it.
[20:04]  Rev_Ely:  yes.  God has used His authority 
to limit your authority.
[20:05]  pascoe: How does this limitation effect 
my ability to determine right and wrong for the objects 
I create?
[20:06]  Rev_Ely:  you have authority over some 
things you create or build, but your authority is limited 
in jurisdiction.
[20:06]  pascoe: If my authority is limited 
even over objects I create and judge, then god's authority 
is limited over objects he creates and judges.
[20:06]  Rev_Ely:  you want to say that you possess 
*ALL* authority since you can create or build.  but 
you fail to see that you cannot give yourself authority 
you do not possess.
[20:06]  pascoe: Actually, I just want to say 
whatever I've been saying:)
[20:07]  Rev_Ely:  no, because God has not had 
His authority limited by someone higher than Himself 
as you have.
[20:07]  pascoe: Apparently the ability to determine 
right and wrong have very little to do with creation/judgment. 
 If the necessary consequence of creation/judgement 
is authority, and this authority can determine right 
and wrong, then I

 have that authority over 
[20:07]  my created/judged objects.
[20:08]  Rev_Ely:  I have given you some reasons 
why God has authority.  There are also reasons why 
you have limited authority and his is not limited.
[20:08]  pascoe: if creation and judgment do 
not necessarily entail authority, then the fact that 
god created/judges us does not necessarily entail his 
authority.
[20:09]  Rev_Ely:  no.  once again.  The reasons 
for God's accountability over us is because He is our 
Creator and our Judge.  the reason His authority is 
not limited and yours is is because you are under Him 
and He is under no one.
[20:09]  pascoe: so then I must ask you again, 
why do you believe that god has authority, since creation 
and judgment apparently dont necessitate authority?
[20:10]  If accountability is the result of 
creation and judgment, then accountability is necessarily 
granted to all who create and judge.
[20:11]  If accountability is not necessarily 
related to creation and judgment, then why do you believe 
god possess accountability over us?
[20:11] pascoe2 (pasc8891@xslip10.csrv.uidaho.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:11]  Unless the one granting authority is not 
accountable to anyone above himself 
[20:11]  Rev_Ely:  let's take an example since 
you still seem to be confused.
[20:11]  Cleo: That's an ad hoc assumption. 
 It's fine to add it, but it means the original statement 
was wrong.
[20:11]  No it does not
[20:11]  pascoe: analogies can get hairy, let's 
just try applying your reasoning directly.
[20:12]  creation + judgement = authority.  
Authority -> determination of right/wrong for created/judged 
objects.
[20:12]  If creation + judgment do not = authority, 
then there is no reason to believe that god has authority 
*because* he created and will judge us.
[20:12]  suppose that a Police Chief give his 
policemen the authority to speed in cases of emergency. 
 does this mean that a Police Chief can give them authority 
to abuse children?
[20:12]  Where does the accountablility end?  With 
God....he is final authoruty over all because He was 
never created
[20:13] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip25.csrv.uidaho.edu) left 
irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip25.csrv.uidaho.edu]
[20:13] Nick change: pascoe2 -> pascoe
[20:13]  if creation + judgment do = authority, 
then I have the authority to determine right and wrong 
for my creations.
[20:13]  So which one is it pascoe?  creation 
+ judgment = authority or creation + judgment != authority?
[20:13]  Rev_Ely:  if you have not been given 
authority to determine right and wrong then your authority 
is limited for everything you create or judge.
[20:13]  Your determinations have to match those 
already laid down by God
[20:14]  Rev_Ely:  if you want to be unreasonable, 
how can I stop you?
[20:14] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca4-07.ix.netcom.com) 
left irc: Ping timeout for karen-1[lbx-ca4-07.ix.netcom.com]
[20:14]  pascoe: But you didn't say authority 
to determine right and wrong was given, you said it 
was the result of having been created and being judged.
[20:14]  Rev_Ely:  yes.
[20:14]  pascoe: If authority must be given, 
then god must have been given it from supergod.
[20:14]  pascoe: If authority is the necessary 
consequence of creation + judgment then I have authority 
to determine right/wrong for that which I create.
[20:14]  ???????????  Not so...............
[20:14]  Rev_Ely:  You asked how God has authority. 
 I gave the reasons.  you ran off and assumed that 
those reasons give anyone unlimited authority.  that 
is silly.
[20:15]  Rev_Ely:  I have never granted you the 
reason to assume that if you follow the reasons I gave 
that you will have unlimited authority.
[20:15]  pascoe: No, I applied your reasoning 
to show you why it doesn't work.  Creation + judgment 
= authority according to your statement.  But you are 
now saying that creation + judgment != authority, creation 
+ judgement + being given

 authority = authority.
[20:15]  pascoe: Which one is it?
[20:16]  Rev_Ely:  creation + judgement = authority 
         creation + judgement != unlimited authority.
[20:16]  pascoe: I'm not asking about unlimited 
authority.
[20:16]  Rev_Ely:  you are misapplying my information 
beyond your own question.
[20:16]  pascoe: let's revise it.  creation 
+ judgment = authority to determine right and wrong. 
 Would you agree with this?
[20:16]  Rev_Ely:  yes because you want to assert 
that your authority is not limited.
[20:16]  pascoe: actually, I'm not interested 
in asserting unlimited authority.
[20:16]  Rev_Ely:  if that is your new question 
the answer is no.
[20:17]  pascoe: then god does not have authority 
to determine right and wrong because he can create 
and judge.
[20:17]  creation + judgment != authority to 
define right and wrong.
[20:17]  if creation + judgment != authority 
to define right and wrong, how does god get the authority 
to define it?
[20:17]  Rev_Ely:  wrong again.  you misapply 
the information of your question.
[20:17]  You said god defines what is right 
and wrong because he created us and judges us.  that 
is creation + judgement = authority to determine right/wrong.
[20:18]  Now you are saying that creation + 
judgment != authority to define right and wrong.  which 
one is it?
[20:18]  God gets all authority over us since 
there is no authority higher than Himself.  We get 
authority if we create and judge but not authority 
to define right and wrong because we are under God's 
authority.
[20:19]  Rev_Ely:  authority exists in a heirarchy 
and you misapply your own questions if you ignore that 
fact.
[20:19]  pascoe: so god can determine right 
and wrong because he has all authority?
[20:19]  Rev_Ely:  no.
[20:19]  pascoe: Then why is god able to define 
right and wrong?
[20:20]  Rev_Ely:  God can define right and wrong 
because He has authority *and* there is no authority 
higher than Him which has limited His authority.
[20:20]  Rev_Ely:  you have authority over what 
you create and judge but you do not have authority 
to define right and wrong just as a Police Chief has 
authority but does not define right and wrong.
[20:20]  pascoe; ahhh, now you see the error 
in your earlier statement.  You said god's authority 
to determine right and wrong came from him having created 
us and judging us.  Now it's having created us, will 
judge us, and no one higher u

p.
[20:21]  Rev_Ely:  how is it an error to answer 
your original question?  you have changed your question 
since.
[20:21]  pascoe: No, I asked you why do you 
believe that god has authority to define right and 
wrong.
[20:21]  pascoe: You said because he created 
us and will judge us.  In fact you said it a few times.
[20:22]  pascoe: Now you are sayin git's because 
he created us, will judge us, and no one else has higher 
authority.
[20:22]  Rev_Ely:  you did not ask how God had 
His authority to define right and wrong.  You asked 
how God had His authority over us.
[20:22]  Rev_Ely:  later you narrowed your question 
to the issue of right and wrong defining.
[20:22]  pascoe: i never asked you why god has 
authority over us,  I asked about right and wrong.
[20:22]  Rev_Ely:  nope.
[20:23]  Rev_Ely:  you made no such specific 
question.
[20:23]  ack, this darn thing's buffer is too 
small.
[20:23]  :))
[20:23]  Rev_Ely:  do you have any more questions 
about the nature of God's authority?
[20:23]  You began by making statements about 
laws.
[20:23]  Rev_Ely:  yes.
[20:24]  Rev_Ely:  you asked about God's authority.
[20:24]  You said one of the reasons you believe 
in god was that you saw evidence of him in man's laws.
[20:24]  Rev_Ely:  the evidence of knowledge 
of right and wrong.
[20:24]  that lead to me asking why do man's 
laws lead you to believe what you do about god.
[20:24] TACK (ANTjbshee@www-32-3.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics.
[20:24]  Then you moved on to knowledge of right 
and wrong.
[20:24]  hi, everyone, what r u talking about, 
here
[20:24]  You said you observed that man has 
knowledge of right and wrong.
[20:25]  Rev_Ely:  fine, but you never asked 
about God's authority to define right and wrong.  you 
only asked about how God has authority.
[20:25]  Rev . . . are u a "reverend"?
[20:25]  that is where we moved into the discussion 
of god's authority to define right and wrong.
[20:25] TACK (ANTjbshee@www-32-3.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[20:25]  TACK:  Rev_Ely is arguing over what 
question he asked.
[20:25]  Rev_Ely:  yes, I agree you changed your 
question after you understood what you wanted to know. 
 8)
[20:25]  pascoe: No, you need to be more humble 
and accept the fact that your original answer was incomplete. 
 It isn't a big deal.
[20:26]  Rev_Ely:  my answer was as complete 
as your question.  8)
[20:26]  pascoe: no, actually your answer, which 
you answered quite a few times, was incomplete.  Even 
if I began the discussion asking about god's authority, 
which I did not, we've been talking about right and 
wrong for quite a while.  a

nd your answer, which you 
[20:26]  Rev_Ely:  you accused me of making some 
logical error because I didn't answer the question 
you thought you asked.
[20:26]  stated many times, was that god's authority 
to determine right and wrong come from creation + judgment.
[20:27] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal07-05.ppp.iadfw.net) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:27]  I believe in fact, that is why you 
placed an asterisk around and.
[20:27]  Rev_Ely:  I never granted that God's 
authority to define right and wrong came from creation 
and judgement alone.  that was your mistake, not mine.
[20:27]  since you had been answering the question 
of god's authority to make right and wrong with only 
creation + judgment, you felt a  need to specify the 
new addition; being highest up in the hierarchy.
[20:27]  Rev_Ely:  yes, after you went astray, 
I reeled you in.  8)
[20:28]  Rev_Ely:  anyway.  do you have any more 
questions?
[20:28]  pascoe: I asked you several times what 
god's authority to judge right and wrong came from. 
 Even used equations.  Face it bub, you goofed.
[20:28] Action: Rev_Ely chuckles.
[20:28]  It's ok, even the best of christians 
on here goof when pressed.  ASk acolyte.
[20:28]  Rev_Ely:  is this how you normally debate?
[20:28]  Pascoe: Yep.
[20:28] dime (cziemba@moose.uvm.edu) joined #apologetics.
[20:28]  re dime
[20:28]  hey achimoth
[20:29]  the bible channel sent me here
[20:29]  Rev_Ely:  wow, its a strange tactic. 
 win by building straw men out of responses to general 
questions.  8)
[20:29]  who is christian here?
[20:29]  pascoe: No, it isn't a contest that 
I'm trying to win.  I just like to let you know when 
you've goofed.
[20:29] mXPx (band@dialin7.mwtech.com) joined #apologetics.
[20:29] mXPx (band@dialin7.mwtech.com) left #apologetics.
[20:30]  pascoe: Next time when someone asks 
you about right and wrong, you'll remember to tack 
on the later-added hierarchy bit.
[20:30] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca8-05.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:30]  Youch!  That was BAD!
[20:30]  hey karen#1
[20:30]  #bible was going nuts
[20:30]  Hi dime
[20:30]  Rev_Ely:  next time you have a question 
about who has authority to define right and wrong, 
please ask it.  8)
[20:30]  I agree, bible sent me here
[20:31]  what are the rules here?
[20:31]  Dime - after you left someone started 
a multi screen flood of coming and going.
[20:31] Cleo (salam@pppc11.erols.com) left irc: Ping 
timeout for Cleo[pppc11.erols.com]
[20:31]  pascoe: That's exactly what I asked. 
 Are you actually insisting that a discussion that 
started with your statement about man's knowledge of 
right and wrong, wasn't about right and wrong?
[20:31] Cleo_1 (salam@206.161.73.11) joined #apologetics.
[20:31]  pascoe:  That's a pretty big stretch, 
even for a theist.
[20:31]  crazy
[20:32]  dime: waht's crazy
[20:32] Action: Rev_Ely chuckles again.  All this wiggling 
and we haven't even gotten to existence of god questions.
[20:32]  Dime - mostly the rules are to be courteous.
[20:32]  Rev_Ely:  you asked how God had authority. 
 I gave you two reasons which you quickly built into 
a straw man.  Then you proceeded to ask how God had 
authority to define right and wrong.
[20:32]  karen: and dont say anything against 
the bible.
[20:32]  oh just the bible channel tonight
[20:32]  God is the Creator, hence he does 
as he wills, its well within his rights
[20:32]  I disagree with some things in the bible
[20:32]  Rev - You mean we can't challenge the 
Bible here?
[20:32]  pascoe: And you responded by saying, 
"God has that authority because he created us and will 
judge us."
[20:32]  karen: WEll, ackie pooh isn't around 
so it wont matter.
[20:32]  I thought that was the reason this 
channel was created.
[20:33]  pascoe: haven't you had enough yet? 
 You've been pounded once, coming back for more already?
[20:33]  yeah they told me at bible i could say 
what i wanted here?????
[20:33]  Who?  Acolyte ?  I've seen him deal 
with that subject quite competently.
[20:33]  not on #bible, it's fairly lame there 
anyone.
[20:33]  dime: you can as far as I am concerned
[20:33]  Rev_Ely:  yes, God has authority for 
those reasons.  We have authority for those reasons 
also, but you tried to assert that we then have authority 
to define right and wrong which is a straw man.
[20:33]  anyway rather.
[20:34]  cleo are you Christian?
[20:34]  dime: yes
[20:34]  Rev_Ely:  you need to understand that 
authority works in a heirarchy.
[20:34]  dime: you?
[20:34]  I'm going shopping I think.  Probably 
better than net hopping.
[20:34]  bye all.
[20:34]  Oh well I'm not 
[20:34]  dime: yes, if you wish to ask questionsa 
regarding the Bible asak them
[20:34] karen-1 (ajanssen@lbx-ca8-05.ix.netcom.com) 
left #apologetics.
[20:34]  Rev_Ely:  we cannot give or take authority 
we aren't given from the one over us.
[20:34]  Bye karen
[20:34]  pascoe: This is pretty silly.  The 
basis upon which you claim that god can determine right 
and wrong is because he has authority.  That is the 
part of equation you agreed to.  Creation + judgement 
= authority.  Authority -> de

fine what is right and wrong.
[20:35]  Actually I'm a really confused person, 
I'm not sure what I believe in
[20:35]  pascoe: You then added a factor to 
the equation, creation + judgment + no one higher up 
in the hierarchy = Authority.  authority -> define what 
is right and wrong.
[20:35]  i wouldn't say I was Athiest
[20:35]  Rev_Ely:  wrong again.  you are back 
to your original question.
[20:35]  pascoe: In any case, Authority being 
the general term, your reasoning still doesn't apply.
[20:35]  Rev_Ely:  you are asking two different 
questions and mixing the answers to build a straw man.
[20:35]  dime: an agnostic?
[20:35]  pascoe: Let's assume that my original 
question was about authority, even though it came from 
you stating that man has aknowledge of right and wrong.
[20:36]  Rev_Ely:  I added a factor you the equation 
when you added a factor to your question.
[20:36]  please define that. sorry i'm igonorant
[20:36]  agnostic: isnt sure either way whether 
god exist or not
[20:36]  dime: atheist does not believe in God, 
an agnostic has not made up his mind as to whether 
God exists or not
[20:36]  pascoe: I kept asking the same question 
over pascoe, how many times is it necessary to transmit 
the same equation before you finally added the hierarchy 
 bit?
[20:36]  theist: knows god exits
[20:37]  Rev_Ely:  being a judge over man is 
not the same as defining right and wrong.
[20:37]  dime: an agnostic has not ruled it out
[20:37]  atheist: knows god doesnt exist
[20:37]  yep thats me
[20:37]  pascoe: That's all well and good, but 
you're still squirming.  I presented the same question, 
the same equation, at least twice.  And your reply 
was the same.
[20:37]  Achimoth: Cannot KNOW that God does 
not exist, or KNOW that He does
[20:37]  Rev_Ely:  I added the heirarchy bit 
when you started adding to your question to build straw 
men.
[20:37]  pascoe: by the end, you added on, emphasizing 
the addition with the conjunction, hierarchy.
[20:38]  Rev_Ely:  yes, I can only answer what 
you ask.  8)
[20:38]  rev: its really quite simple, God 
created us, hence his will is paramount. Regardless 
of the relative values men put on right and wrong, 
only the Will of the Creaotr has precedence.
[20:38]  pascoe: blah.  How exactly does creation 
+ judgment = authority.  Authority -> define right and 
wrong.  equation not ask about the authority to define 
right and wrong?
[20:38]  I was raised catholic and I saw so much 
hypocrisy, it just got to me.
[20:38]  dime: I was raised catholic also
[20:39]  Rev_Ely:  you are once again confusing 
authority with unlimited authority.  please be reasonable.
[20:39]  Cleo 1 are you still a catholic?
[20:39]  Rev_Ely:  you did not ask how God has 
unlimited authority.
[20:39]  pascoe: You brought that up before, 
and how did I qualify the statement about authority/
[20:39]  dime: no
[20:39]  pascoe: I said, "I am not interested 
in unlimited authority, just the authority to define 
right and wrong."
[20:39]  Rev_Ely:  you qualified it by adding 
(the authority to define right and wrong).
[20:39] Nick change: Cleo_1 -> Cleo
[20:39]  to which you replied the same thing 
you'd been saying all along.  god's authority came 
from him creating us and judging us.
[20:40]  dime: no, I am non-denominational now
[20:40]  unlimited authorty gives one the authority 
to dtermine right and wrong
[20:40]  Cleo, what made you change
[20:40]  Which is why you *still* failed to 
answer the question.  You then, after seeing the equation 
in for the 4th time realized that you needed to add 
the hierarchy bit to save it from a complete application.
[20:40]  Rev: pascoe said no such thing, he said 
that God's authority is because no one created God
[20:41]  Therefore His authority is unlimited
[20:41]  I then asked you if you remember grade 
school where you were taught not to define words using 
the word.
[20:41]  Achimoth:  right.  Rev_Ely asked a general 
question about God's authority.  then He immediately 
took the answer to build a straw man to say that man 
can have unlimited authority.
[20:41]  Whereas yours and mine are not
[20:41]  A question you did not answer.
[20:41]  not only did he create, he maintains
[20:41] dime (cziemba@moose.uvm.edu) left #apologetics.
[20:41]  Rev_Ely:  are you confused by my answers 
or by your questions?
[20:41]  pascoe: Where's this unlimited bit 
cmoing from?  I told you much earlier I wasn't asking 
about unlimited authority.
[20:41]  Rev_Ely:  what part of my answers do 
you need for input on?
[20:42]  pascoe: Neither.  I am confused as 
to why you wont admit that you changed your answer 
about 3 equations down from the question?
[20:42]  when it is by ones will that the universe 
is in existence AND stays in existence, his will is 
that which has final authority in his creations frame 
of reference
[20:42]  Rev_Ely:  I admit I changed my answer 
when you changed your question.
[20:42]  My objection to your answer was simple. 
 If creation + judgement = authority.  and Authority 
-> define right/wrong, then mankind can define right 
and wrong for it's created objects.
[20:42]  unlimited authority includes authority 
over determination of right and wrong
[20:43]  You said, no, that's wrong and said 
that man's authority is not unlimited.
[20:43]  Rev_Ely:  I can't grant you any points 
for changing your questions and then accusing me of 
answering them wrong.  but I don't see where you disagree 
with my answers now.
[20:43]  rev: man does not create, only modify
[20:43]  So I re-iterated that I wasn't after 
unlimited authority.
[20:43]  Mankind cannot judge right from wrong 
outside of the authority given to man by God, who created 
man
[20:43]  To which you replied that mankind can 
not determine right and wrong because god has not given 
him that authority.
[20:43]  creation is something from nothing
[20:43]  Since God was not created, only He can 
determine what is right/wrong absolutely
[20:44]  Rev_Ely:  you will have to win your 
points fairly.  if you want to say that I have a logical 
error then please point it out.
[20:44]  Which necessitated yet another transmission 
of the same equation I began with.
[20:44]  pascoe: if Creation + judgment = authority, 
and authority -> define right/wrong (the same equation 
i've been printing the whole time), then mankind has 
authority to determine right and wrong over his objects.
[20:44]  wrong
[20:44]  man does not create
[20:45]  Wrong
[20:45]  he modifies that which was already 
created
[20:45]  pascoe: You disagree with the conclusion, 
which was an application of your former reasoning. 
 Which is why you added creation + judgement + no one 
else up in the hierarchy = authority and authority 
-> define right/wrong.
[20:45]  Rev_Ely:  I have never agreed to that 
straw man argument.  how can you accuse me of logical 
error if I never accepted your mishandling of my responses?
[20:45]  Man's 'creations' cannot be given parameters 
that God has not already defined 
[20:45]  pascoe: My question has remained the 
same throughout.  Only your answer has changed.
[20:45]  pascoe: You answered questions about 
unlimited authority that I did not ask.
[20:46]  rev: wrong, you continue to build 
a straw man with the mans creation arguement
[20:46]  Man does not create
[20:46]  Rev_Ely:  no, you asked how God had 
authority.  you did not ask how one has the authority 
to define right and wrong.  those are two different 
questions.
[20:46]  Creation is something from nothing
[20:47]  pascoe: I find it difficult to believe 
that you insist that I asked how god had authority 
(and did not ask how he has authority to define right 
and wrong) when this discussion came from your position 
about man's knowledge of righ

t and wrong.
[20:47]  Rev_Ely:  if you think you have won 
something I guess I can't help that.  But you fail 
to show any logical error on my part so far.
[20:47] Action: Cleo agree pascoe
[20:47]  pascoe: i agree
[20:47]  even your analogy about the police 
chief not being able to define right and wrong indicates 
that you understood the question, but gav the wrong 
answer.
[20:48]  Rev_Ely:  are you admitting that you 
did not ask the question you meant to ask?
[20:48]  why would you present an analogy about 
a police chief not being able to define right and wrong 
unless my question was about right and wrong?
[20:48] Action: Cleo thinks the Rev cannot admit defeat
[20:48]  pascoe: You know good and well that 
I asked about authority to define right and wrong.
[20:49]  rev: what you are saying is: "If you 
cannot give me the answer I am looking for, you are 
not answering me correctly"
[20:49]  Both your analogies, and your subsequent 
addition indicate that you understood that my question 
was about authority to define right and wrong.
[20:49]  Rev_Ely:  no, you still misunderstand. 
   if I ask how a Police Chief has authority, that 
is a different question than how does He have authority 
to drive faster than the speed limit.  the two answers 
are different.
[20:49]  pascoe: Your analogy was that a police 
chief can break the speed limit in an emergency but 
can not let his kids do it whenever they want to.
[20:49]  what this is is a discussion and comparision 
of relatives and absolutes
[20:50]  pascoe: Letting his kids do it being 
defining right and wrong.  Why was that there if I 
didn't ask about right and wrong?
[20:50]  the Police Chief has authority because 
he was hired by elected officials to do a job.  He 
has authority to speed because he may need to chase 
a criminal.  two different answers.
[20:50]  pascoe: what exactly were you trying 
to establish with that analogy if not in response to 
a question about right and wrong?
[20:50] Peavey (pveretto@ftc-co1-10.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:50]  pascoe: That wasn't your analogy; you 
specifically stated that because the police chief could 
speed when he needed to but could not let his children 
speed whenever they wanted to
[20:51]  pascoe: indicates quite clearly that 
you understood that my inquiry was about authority 
to define right and wrong.
[20:51]  Rev_Ely:  again,  you have not shown 
any logical error in my responses.  therefore why should 
I grant you any victory?
[20:51]  Want and need are 2 different things, 
are they not???
[20:51]  pascoe: Could you please repeat your 
police chief analogy exactly?
[20:52] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca12-22.ix.netcom.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:52]  Rev_Ely:  I have used two Police Chief 
analogies now, which one do you want?  (see you have 
to be more specific sometimes)
[20:52]  hey pasc.
[20:52]  pascoe: The one you used originally. 
 
[20:52]  hello Cassidy_.  8)
[20:52]  pascoe: I trust that as a christian 
you will not alter it.
[20:52]  Rev_Ely:  that analogy was after you 
asked about God's authority to define right and wrong.
[20:52] Peavey (pveretto@ftc-co1-10.ix.netcom.com) 
left #apologetics.
[20:53]  pascoe: Which is what I asked all along. 
 Yet you *still* did not come up with the additional 
hierarchy bit until some time later.
[20:53]  what are you guys talking about?
[20:53]  Rev_Ely:  so if you intend to show that 
it was related to the question of authority to define 
right and wrong then I admit it, because you had changed 
your question by that point.
[20:53]  pascoe: I believe you have proven my 
point by your squirming in analogies and your reluctance 
to repeat your original analogy.
[20:54]  pascoe: Your analogy came early on 
in our discussion pas, my question had been the same.
[20:54]  Rev_Ely:  really?  are you going to 
win victory now because I haven't repeated my analogy 
yet?
[20:54]  Rev_Ely:  no, your question had already 
changed.
[20:54]  pascoe: I believe you even used a child 
parent analogy before that trying to get the same point.
[20:54]  In fact, do you remember my computer 
program analogy?
[20:54]  I'll stop back later. see ya.
[20:55] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[20:55]  Rev_Ely:  yes, my point with the child 
parent analogy was to show you that there is a heirarchy 
of authority.
[20:55]  hello Acolyte.  8)
[20:55]  bye Cassidy_.  8)
[20:55]  You replied, "that's like saying it's 
ok to use guns to do whatever you want."
[20:55]  Hullo
[20:55] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[20:55]  Aco...long time...
[20:55]  pascoe: No, you didn't say that at 
the time.  Goodness, all the evidence is stacking up 
against you.
[20:55]  cassidy for what?
[20:55] Action: Rev_Ely offers the right fist of fellowship 
to ackie pooh.
[20:55]  Rev_Ely:  If you want to win some points, 
show me how I have responded in error.
[20:55]  He had to explian the heireraarchy because 
you automatically assumed that man's authority was 
unlimited over his 'creations' (over right and wrong)
[20:55] Rev_Ely!clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU kicked 
by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: be nice
[20:55] Nick change: Cassidy_ -> Cassidy
[20:55]  Acolyte.... heya
[20:55] Rev_Ely (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[20:55] Action: Rev_Ely grins.
[20:56]  hey Achimoth
[20:56]  But that was not true because man is subject 
to God's authoruty
[20:56]  Rev_Ely:  do you have a bad record on 
this channel already?
[20:56]  From the beginning, I used the analogy 
about computer programs and using them to do whatever 
I wanted to.
[20:56]  pascoe from day one
[20:56]  pascoe: determining right from wrong.
[20:56]  Aco...oh aco...
[20:56]  Rev you have no ethical system, what 
are you talking about?
[20:56]  Of course I do.  Acolyte is unable 
to make his point via reason so, in traditional christian 
fashion, he relies on force.
[20:56]  Acolyte: you have no ethical system, 
what are you questioning?
[20:56]  Acolyte:  oh.  8)  Rev_Ely is trying 
to claim victory by saying that I didn't answer his 
question correctly altho he changed his question midstream.
[20:56]  Ely You're a nihilist, what reason?
[20:57]  Acolyte, in addition to other sins, 
appears unable to control his temper.
[20:57]  I see no force, just obstinance on your 
part 
[20:57]  acolyte: You're a theist, what reason?
[20:57]  Ely arrogance is a sin too ;)
[20:57]  Acolyte: But I'm no christian.
[20:57]  Rev...you ARE a nasty one, eh?
[20:57]  Not exactly something to brag about, eh 
rev???
[20:57]  Rev_Ely:  If you want to win some points, 
show me how I have responded in error.
[20:57]  Ely Transendental. of course you're 
a naturalist so there is no metaphysical transendetal 
that makes logic possible
[20:58]  Rev_Ely:  you have to work for your 
points in this channel.  8)
[20:58]  Don't have to be a 'christian' to treat 
others with respect
[20:58]  Ely you're a Nihilist, what are you 
complaingin about
[20:58]  Cleo consistently you do
[20:58]  acolyte: There is no god to make an 
absolutely transcendental concept *actually* existent.
[20:58]  Acolyte: You're a theist, what are 
you complaining about?
[20:58]  Acolyte: apply all of your questions 
to your smoke screen deity.
[20:58]  Acolyte: yes, I can agree witht he consistent 
part
[20:58]  Ely how do you know there is no God 
since there is no way to verify determined chemical 
reactions?
[20:58]  Ely I do and he answers them all
[20:59]  acolyte: How do you verify that god's 
nature is rational?
[20:59]  Ely logic
[20:59]  Rational by who's standards?????????
[20:59]  Cleo...thats not the point I dont think.....is 
you belief that your good treatment to others is valueable?
[20:59]  Acolyte: now now, logic stems from 
god's nature according to you.  Wont do to use it to 
verify something else from god's nature.
[20:59]  Cleo Law of contradiction, do you disagree 
with it?
[20:59]  hahahah cassidy
[20:59]  Ely it will if he is the source of 
all by definition
[21:00]  Acolyte: How do you verify his being 
the source of all definition?
[21:00]  Cleo...hehehoho
[21:00]  Rev_Ely:  what are you using to say 
that Acolyte is not logical?
[21:00]  Ely I did not say that I said BY definition
[21:00]  Ely Nihilists can make no rational 
claim
[21:00] asdfjkl (jdmc@irv-ca5-14.ix.netcom.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:01] Action: Acolyte thinks Ely shold chat with 
Alcuin
[21:01]  Acolyte: Sure I can.  I just set up 
an axiom like you do.  You are saying by definition; 
chemical reactions are verified by definition.  that's 
what a chemical reaction is.
[21:01] Action: Cleo thinks acolyte means Alcourt
[21:01]  Cleo NO I mean Alcuin, NOT Alcourt
[21:01]  In fact, my axioms are much neater 
than yours; you dont actually disprove my axioms, you 
just put them a step back.
[21:01]  Oh.....Alcourt is another though
[21:01]  Ely what are exioms in you system? 
determinec chemicals, still nihilism
[21:01]  You place them in god's nature; i say 
god's nature is a myth and place them on their own.
[21:02]  Acolyte: the law of identity is an 
axiom.
[21:02]  Ely al your ideas are myths
[21:02]  Acolyte: The law of contradiction is 
an axiom.
[21:02]  Ely how do you know?
[21:02]  Ely they are chemicals
[21:02]  Acolyte: Your ideas entail mine silly. 
 How do you know that god's nature is logical?
[21:02]  Ely they are results of chemicals
[21:02] asdfjkl (jdmc@irv-ca5-14.ix.netcom.com) left 
#apologetics.
[21:02]  Acolyte: They are the result of ad 
hoc assertion on your part.
[21:02]  Ely how do you know there is logic 
to begin with to even ask the question?
[21:02]  Ely logic is ad hoc on your part
[21:02]  BRB
[21:03]  Acolyte: You claim "God's nature is 
rational" then when I ask how you know that, you reply 
that it's by definition.
[21:03]  Acolyte: I claim that rationality *is* 
(a claim you are not disputing btw), and reply that 
it is by definition.
[21:03]  Acolyte: Ever hear of occam's razor? 
 Just trim the fat.
[21:03]  Rev_Ely:  no.  he said 'logic'.   please 
be fair and quote him correctly.
[21:03]  Ely I am disupting the very thing
[21:03]  Acolyte: And I dispute the myth you 
wrap the thing up in.
[21:03]  Ely that is not Occams razor BTW, and 
Occam thought Atheism was BS
[21:04]  ely ever actually READ Occam? I have
[21:04]  Ely what is logic in yor system?
[21:04]  Acolyte: I'm not making reference to 
occam's theistic beliefs.
[21:04]  Acolyte: What is god's nature in your 
system?
[21:04]  Ely does the law of contradiciton always 
apply in the physical world? yes or no?
[21:04]  Ely I am tho
[21:04]  Acolyte: Does the law of contradiction 
always apply?
[21:04]  Ely thatis what I am asking you
[21:05]  Acolyte: 2 theories offering the same 
information; one has an added little ditty called god. 
 Razor blades engaged.
[21:05]  Ely what is logic in your system but 
chemical reactions?
[21:05]  Ah but they do not offer the same information
[21:05]  Acolyte: what is god's nature in your 
system but ad hoc assertions?
[21:05]  have you never read Van Til? it is 
NOT the same information
[21:05] Gyro (gyro@sac4-69.calweb.com) joined #Apologetics.
[21:05]  Ely how can the sources of all be ad 
hoc?
[21:05]  Acolyte: They do.  You say logic is 
because it is in god's nature.  i say logic *is*, and 
dispense with mythical natures.
[21:05]  Acolyte: Because you have no way of 
verifying it.
[21:05]  Ely what is logic then???
[21:06]  Acolyte: What is god's nature?
[21:06]  ah but I do
[21:06]  Ely clarify
[21:06]  Acolyte: The minute you answer what 
god's nature is, i'll answer what logic is.
[21:06]  what is logic?
[21:06]  Acolyte: What is god's nature/
[21:06]  whatd o you mean?
[21:06]  what is it?
[21:06]  Is that something one can order over 
the phone?
[21:06]  Can you bump into god's nature?
[21:06]  it is a non-material essence or substance
[21:06]  no
[21:06]  it is non-spatial
[21:06]  god's nature is *non-material essense*. 
 what does that mean?
[21:07]  How do we verify this?
[21:07]  ely oh I am sorry you don't know the 
classical definitions?
[21:07]  gee what a shame
[21:07]  Logic is the conceptual representation 
of fundamental structures in the universe.
[21:07]  take a philo class
[21:07]  Acolyte: ARguments from authority wont 
do.  
[21:07]  how do you know that?
[21:07]  Acolyte: how do you know that god's 
nature is non-material essence?
[21:07]  oh so you won't employ science?
[21:07] Gyro (gyro@sac4-69.calweb.com) left #Apologetics.
[21:07]  or have you performed the experimetns 
yourself?
[21:07]  gues not
[21:07]  Acolyte: take a philo class.
[21:07]  argumentum ad vericundium
[21:07]  I have
[21:08]  many
[21:08]  I know by many ways
[21:08]  Acolyte: In response to your question 
about how do you know that: Oh I am sorry you dont 
know the classical definitions.
[21:08]  1. if God were material, you'd have 
pantheism which is illogical
[21:08] Action: Rev_Ely chuckles.
[21:08]  I didn't ask you about god, I asked 
you about god's nature.
[21:08]  Ely how do you know that logic applies?
[21:08]  Ely define concepts?
[21:08]  You said it was non-material essence.
[21:08]  Ely define concepts?
[21:08]  Acolyte: Define non-material essence.
[21:09]  A non-spatial non-coperal thing
[21:09]  hows that?
[21:09]  define a concept?
[21:09]  Acolyte: Your question is absurd because 
it is asking for the definition of something outside 
of the context of definition.
[21:09]  what are concepts?
[21:09]  circular argument
[21:09]  There can be no verification of logic; 
events *are*.
[21:09]  circular argument
[21:09]  what are concepts?
[21:10]  Acolyte: Is it any more circular than 
non-material essence?
[21:10]  Acolyte: what is non-material essence?
[21:10]  sure
[21:10]  alreadya nswered that one
[21:10]  what are concepts?
[21:10]  what are concepts?
[21:10]  what are concepts?
[21:10]  what are concepts?
[21:10]  what are concepts?
[21:10]  what are concepts?
[21:10]  what are concepts?
[21:10]  answer the question
[21:10]  Acolyte: No, you answered what god's 
nature is.  Unless you are saying that god's nature 
is non-material essence and non-material essence is 
god's nature.  which is an exercise in circularity.
[21:10]  what are concepts?
[21:10]  bio-chemical reactions?
[21:10]  What is non-material essence?
[21:10]  What is non-material essence?
[21:10]  What is non-material essence?
[21:10]  What is non-material essence?
[21:10]  What is non-material essence?
[21:10]  answer the question.
[21:10]  a non-spatial non-coperal thing
[21:10]  did that already
[21:11]  what are concepts?
[21:11]  Acolyte: that's gibberish acolyte.
[21:11]  answer the querstion
[21:11]  what are concepts?
[21:11]  If it's non-material its obviously 
non-spatial, I didn't ask you for a synonym for non-material 
essence.
[21:11]  what are concepts?
[21:11]  Answer the question: what is non-material 
essence?
[21:11] The_Jew (lorinhoc@Port44.Hurugudu.McRCIM.McGill.EDU) 
joined #apologetics.
[21:12]  Rev_Ely:  this is probably how you generally 
debate, but its obvious that you can't win any points 
this way.
[21:12]  What's going on, guys?
[21:12]  bye ely, concepts are nothing but chemical 
reactions, they work sure,but there is no logic in 
them, they are functions of a machine that may or may 
not be logical. You have no way of verification. Logic 
does not comport with phys

icalism. Read some 
[21:12]  You claim that it is circular to accept 
logic as axiomatic.  How is it any less circular to 
accept god's nature as logical (an axiom).
[21:12]  physiclaists such as churchland
[21:12]  I did not say that
[21:12]  God is the antithesis of logic and 
uniformity.
[21:12]  I said your argument for it was cricular
[21:13]  Ely how so?
[21:13]  Only in a universe in which a diety 
can suspend the laws of nature at will is knowledge 
impossible.
[21:13]  Acolyte: How is logic defined?
[21:13]  You my friend are the one without an 
epistemology.
[21:13]  Ely when did we say that?
[21:13]  Ely God does not suspend laws of nature 
ever
[21:13]  Your belief undermines the ability 
of man to *know* anything.  Rand said it well when 
she did.
[21:13]  Ely God does not suspend laws of nature 
ever
[21:13]  I bid you fair well, we will meet on 
mor neutral ground.
[21:13]  Ely God does not suspend laws of nature 
ever
[21:13]  DUH
[21:13] Rev_Ely (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) left 
#apologetics.
[21:13]  there is no neutral ground-Van Til
[21:14] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left 
#apologetics.
[21:14] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:14] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu
[21:14]  Acolyte: If God never suspends laws 
of nature, then how did life begin? Creationists argue 
it is against the laws of thermodyanimcs for living 
matter to come from non-living matter.
[21:14]  The Jew-natural law=divine habits
[21:15]  Acolyte: Are you assuming that natural 
law = laws of nature?
[21:15]  the jew the "laws" of nature are not 
absolute, they perhaps do not always apply
[21:15]  No natural law=divine habits
[21:16]  God has a usua; way he governs the 
cosmos
[21:16]  usual even
[21:16]  divine habits=natural laws
[21:16]  Acolyte: But you said God does not 
suspend the laws of nature. And yet, you say they do 
not have to follow specific patterns? I am confused...
[21:16]  BTW I am not a creationists in the 
strict sense
[21:16]  did I say that? where?
[21:16]  cut and patse where I said that?
[21:17] _Rich (bell310@dialup0.manhattan.thirdwave.net) 
joined #Apologetics.
[21:17]  Acolyte: I do not have cut & paste in 
mIRC. You said: "Ely God does not suspend laws of nature 
ever"
[21:17]  God does govern the cosmos in a usual 
way, but not always. Hence his direct unmediated workings 
are called "miracles" at times
[21:17]  sure he does not
[21:17]  the laws of nature do not always apply 
tho
[21:17]  they are high probabilities is all
[21:18]  Acolyte: Woah...you're being very inconsistent 
here.
[21:18]  you can NEVER verify a law of nature
[21:18]  how so?
[21:18] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip10.csrv.uidaho.edu) left 
irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip10.csrv.uidaho.edu]
[21:18]  Acolyte: Are you speaking of the "laws 
of nature" as being the probabilities?
[21:18]  Acolyte: Sort of quantum mechanically 
speaking?
[21:18] _Rich (bell310@dialup0.manhattan.thirdwave.net) 
left #Apologetics.
[21:18]  the Jew why are you worried about consistency?
[21:18]  brb
[21:20]  ok
[21:20]  back
[21:20]  the jew why is a nihilist like youworrying 
about consistency?
[21:21]  "You can't verify a law of nature?" There 
go my lab courses. (You can't PROVE a law of nature. 
Verification is possible, else all of physics is down 
the toilet(
[21:21]  I mean verification in a universal 
sense
[21:21]  you cannot verify them as being universals, 
hence they are probabilities
[21:22]  Acolyte: I'm not STRICTLY a nihilist...
[21:22]  if they are not always the case then 
things can occur outside their perview
[21:22]  thejew sure you are
[21:22]  you are not just consistent with it 
yet
[21:22]  that is my job presently
[21:22]  to make you aware of your nihilism
[21:22]  Acolyte: Nope...I think the brain (or 
any system) can efficiently code and store data...
[21:23]  ok sure, something can be efficient, 
how does that make it true?
[21:23]  how does utility =truth?
[21:23]  Acolyte: If it's voltage or chemical 
stuff, data is data.
[21:23]  fine, but it is determined data
[21:23]  how do you know the data accurately 
represents a thing?
[21:23]  Acolyte: Data is information...
[21:23]  Acolyte: I don't know what "determined" 
means.
[21:23]  you don;'t
[21:24]  ok, what governs nature?
[21:24]  we have been over this before btw
[21:24]  Acolyte: Woah. Are we going to get 
into a discussion over whether a horse is a horse because 
it has a property of "horseness", or because it's just 
a name we give the attributes...
[21:24]  nope
[21:24]  what we talked about b4
[21:24]  naturalism=nihilism, which you conceeded 
previously to me
[21:25]  I "conceded" because I really didn't 
have the ammunition to fight you before. Still don't 
have it completely, but I want very clear definition 
of terms this time...
[21:25]  ok
[21:25]  what would you like me to define?
[21:25]  Acolyte: Truth, for starters.
[21:26]  ok truth is that which obtains, is 
consisten, coherrent and comports and corresponds to 
reality
[21:26]  hows that?
[21:26]  not nec in that ordert tho
[21:26]  Acolyte: Not too crazy about it. In 
logic, there are things that are true which may not 
have anything to do with reality. They are defined 
as true.
[21:26]  I think that those are properties of 
true propositions
[21:26]  sure tautologies
[21:27] Nihilist (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:27]  Acolyte: Remember, logic does not necessary 
conform to reality.
[21:27] Action: Nihilist grins
[21:27]  but is mental concepts part of reality 
or no?
[21:27] Nihilist (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) left 
#apologetics.
[21:27]  oh it does not?
[21:27]  so a tree can be a non-tree at the 
same time?
[21:27]  hardly
[21:27]  Acolyte: Wasn't it proven (don't remember 
by whom) that an abstract system may not necessarily 
correspond with reality?
[21:27]  if reality is non-logical how did you 
get the idea of logic?
[21:27]  Acolyte: I can define wonderful systems 
of geometry that don't correspond to anything....
[21:28]  sure they do
[21:28]  are they mental or no?
[21:28]  do they exist as mental or no?
[21:28]  then they exist
[21:28]  Acolyte: I can't envision a vector 
in 4-space. Does that make them non-mental?
[21:28]  now, the question is, what is mental
[21:28]  Acolyte: If nobody can envision a 4-dimensional 
vector, does it not exist?
[21:29] Nihilist (clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[21:29] Action: Nihilist pats acolyte on the fanny.
[21:29]  Nihilist emergent evolution will not 
get you out of the problem
[21:29] Action: Nihilist wonders when ackie pooh will 
tell him what non-material essence is.
[21:29] Nihilist!clayton@BLUE.SEAS.UPENN.EDU kicked 
by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: bye
[21:30]  Acolyte: I believe that "thoughts" do 
exist, they are part of reality. As are concepts..
[21:30]  in your paradigm you don't know
[21:30]  what are concepts?
[21:30]  define them
[21:30]  where are they?
[21:30]  where is their location?
[21:30]  what is their mass?
[21:30]  what space to they take up?
[21:31]  Acolyte: I "conceded" last time that 
the universe was only made up of energy and mass...
[21:31]  Acolyte: That was too hasty of me...
[21:31]  ok do you hold that now?
[21:31]  you're right it was
[21:31]  :)
[21:31]  are you a dualist yet?
[21:31]  ;)
[21:31]  Acolyte: NO! Not a dualist!!!
[21:31]  not yet eh, ok
[21:31]  now what is the cosmos made up of now?
[21:31]  Acolyte: I believe that subject/object 
material/spiritual split is purely a Western thing...
[21:32]  perhaps
[21:32]  [erhaps npt
[21:32]  Acolyte: There's no reason to necessarily 
split up reality in that way.
[21:32]  but
[21:32]  maybe
[21:32]  but
[21:32]  now what is the cosmos made up of now?
[21:32]  now what is the cosmos made up of now?
[21:32]  Acolyte: That is a weakness in your 
argument...You're arguing only against the "material" 
only part in a material/spiritual duality.
[21:32]  still m and E?
[21:32] Cleo (salam@206.161.73.11) left #apologetics.
[21:32]  are you a materialist?
[21:32]  or no?
[21:32]  Acolyte: m and E are human inventions...
[21:32]  oh IC
[21:33]  Acolyte: Not a materialist in the sense 
that you mean it...
[21:33]  sp matter and energy would not exist 
before us?
[21:33]  and how do I mean it?
[21:33]  BRB
[21:33]  Acolyte: Matter and energy are human 
definitions used to explain reality in terms we can 
envision.
[21:35] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit.
[21:36] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics.
[21:36] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org
[21:37] WordWalkr (joe_webgat@port35.webgate.net) joined 
#Apologetics.
[21:38] WordWalkr (joe_webgat@port35.webgate.net) left 
#Apologetics.
[21:38]  the jew I have dinner to eat so I will 
not be back on for a while
[21:39]  I guess I'll speak to you another time. 
I think we're on to something on this dualism thing. 
And I want to pursue what I mean by matter and energy 
not existing...
[21:39]  sure thing
[21:39]  I enjoy our convos
[21:39]  :)
[21:39] The_Jew (lorinhoc@Port44.Hurugudu.McRCIM.McGill.EDU) 
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_3_10_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../