---

[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/8/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/8/96 [22:16] Orwell_ (blair@199.218.197.247) joined #apologetics. [22:23] davefont (davefontz@pipe9.h1.usa.pipeline.com) joined #apologetics. [22:23] Greetings. [22:23] Hello Orwell! [22:23] Are you the only live one? [22:23] Yessir. [22:24] Was there a recent split...my last server was empty. [22:26] lag [22:26] OK. [22:26] I have no idea, just got on myself. [22:27] Do you visit often? [22:27] Sometimes. [22:28] Christian? [22:28] No generally, since most tend to coagulate on #bible instead of here...for reasons I cannot fathom. [22:28] Nope. [22:28] Opposed? [22:29] Not especially. [22:29] What brings you here then? [22:30] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [22:30] Opposed to irrational ideas being named rational, perhaps. [22:30] The bot said that not me! [22:31] Are you into philosophy, science, etc.?? [22:31] Yes, a bit. [22:31] and actually, the makers of the bot said that, not the bot ;) [22:32] Can you be specific about irrational ideas named rational? [22:33] Theism, in particular. [22:34] Rational ideas have evidence to support them in reality. [22:34] Any sort of a deity would transcend reality. [22:35] Well, you may be suprised to find that although I am a Christian apologist, I do not give much credence to the so-called rational proofs. [22:35] Kant did a nice job with them. [22:35] Not particularly surprised... [22:36] I'm sure you've been down the ontological, teleological, etc. road? [22:37] I've heard it all before. [22:37] Do you supose that a-theism is rational? [22:37] But my main point is that theism supposes that there is both a natural and supernatural existence. [22:37] And belief in a supernatural has no basis in reality. [22:38] dave: Yes, I suppose so. [22:38] Well if we concede that there is only natural existence, what does that say about life, meaning, purpose, etc? [22:39] davefont: It follows that as an atheist I believe there is no "purpose" to existence. [22:40] At least not an objective one. [22:40] are you a nihlist? [22:40] sp? [22:40] I myself may have reason to live, but that has little to do with other objects in the universe. [22:40] I would not consider myself a nihilist, no. [22:42] Where does the capacity to discern rationalism and have reason to live come from?...it is not strictly natural is it? [22:42] Sure it is. [22:42] Explain? [22:43] "Reason" is another one of evolution's experiments. [22:43] To increase survival. [22:43] Does evolution then have a purpose? [22:43] No. [22:44] I was personifying. [22:44] to increase survival? [22:44] I should have said. "Reason" is another variation in the genotype. [22:44] It appears to be adaptive. [22:45] Thus far. [22:45] Considering our species still exists. [22:45] When you say Theism is irrational, what criteria do you use to make that assesment? [22:46] I's just a bloated frontal lobe. [22:46] er It;s. [22:47] I already said that, so I'll repeat. Rational beliefs have basis in reality. There is no basis for the supernatural in reality. Therefore, theism is not rational. [22:48] But how do you make these assements...where did you receive the axiom "rational beliefs have basis in reality" for example? [22:48] Hmm. [22:48] Oxford, I believe. Do you have another definition? [22:50] What I am asking is "how do you assess reality confidently" if there is no purpose to existence? [22:50] What does a purpose have to do with reality? [22:50] Poor wording, I know? [22:50] Do you employ axioms such as cause/effect? [22:51] You mean, one event causes another? [22:51] yes [22:51] Of course. [22:51] How do you know that these are so? [22:51] But only in a physical sense. [22:52] I do not really KNOW anything (Ecc 8:17). Through the sensory transfer of symbolic data, I think I know things. [22:53] I can only assume that my data is correct. [22:53] And then I must look for more. [22:54] So in an objective sense atheism is void of knowledge and purpose? [22:54] No. [22:55] In a certain light, perhaps. [22:55] But you said earlier that it contained no objective purpose and just recently that you don't really KNOW anything. [22:55] SAy I have a picture of tree. [22:55] ok [22:55] A tree in Ulan Bator. [22:55] I will never be able to see that tree "for real" [22:55] but I can still know things about it via the picture, the symbolic representation. [22:56] I never came in contact with the tree. [22:56] Yet I conceptualize it. [22:56] Some of my ideas regarding it may be true, and others false. [22:57] The only way we acquire any knowledge regarding anything is through symbolic exchange. [22:57] Is symbolic knowledge "real" knowledge? No. [22:57] Is it worthwhile? I think so. [22:58] but you have no way to know that there is really a tree in Ulan Bator. [22:58] davefont: Exactly. [22:58] You have no confidence at all that your symbolic knowledge of it corresponds in anyway to reality. [22:58] davefont: If I like, [22:58] I might try to find more data. [22:59] I may even visit Ulan Bator and find the tree. [22:59] But sensory input is still symbolic. [22:59] So I never really "know" there is a tree. [23:00] But the symbolic knowledge is usable. [23:00] do we agree on that? [23:00] Yes. We agree that nothing can be known, except via symbolism. [23:00] Which is only the putting of ideas into ones mind. [23:01] So how do you have confidence that your sybolic knowledge is rational? [23:02] I must. [23:02] In order to survive. [23:02] Humans are not completely free-willed, no matter what anyone says. [23:03] If we cannot know anything in reality without sybolism, then your critique that Theism is irrational can be said of any proposed truth? [23:03] Hmm. [23:03] Proposed truth, perhaps [23:03] Why must you survive? [23:03] But not proposed falsehood. [23:04] I evolved from amolecule that had only one purpose: to replicate. [23:04] How do you discern proposed truth from proposed falsehood without TRUE knowledge of reality? [23:05] In order for my genotype to survive, my phenotype must survive at least long enough to reproduce. [23:05] davefont: Back to the picture. [23:05] davefont: Someone says it's not an oak, it's really a maple. [23:05] Orwell: How do you know you evolved from amolecule...and how would you every know it had that purpose? [23:06] Sorry, go on. [23:06] davefont: Using my symbolic picture, we can ascertain that it is not a maple at all, but definitely an oak. [23:06] excuse me. [23:06] leave out the definitely an oak. [23:07] just not a maple. [23:07] because its leaves and seeds are wrong. [23:09] How do I know I evolved from a molecule? Because there is a surfeit of evidence to support the idea, and it has not been falsified [23:09] If you just said something, I did not see it...my client hung. [23:10] but is it falsifiable? [23:10] Correct. [23:11] Futhermore...what is the surfeit of evidence? [23:11] Very difficult to prove false, probably about as difficult as "The sun produces light." [23:11] But falsifiable. [23:11] OK where do you want to begin? [23:11] Chemistry, biology, archaeology, or physics. [23:11] ? [23:12] archaeology. [23:12] Just a few branches that support it... [23:13] any transitional fossles? [23:13] Fossil record indicates a definite pattern of older life forms being simpler and newer lifeforms being complex. [23:13] davefont: Yup. Lots. [23:13] davefont: Every fossil is transitional. [23:13] that's news to me...explain? [23:13] ? [23:13] Do you have web access? [23:13] yes [23:14] Have you seen the talk.origins page? [23:14] no [23:14] OK...I'll give you the address in a bit. [23:14] do you have it now? [23:14] All forms are transitional, because evolution is simply the change in genotype of a population over successive generations. [23:15] Yes, let me look at my bookmark file...brb. [23:16] Lona (Doer@sl10.pstbbs.com) joined #apologetics. [23:16] But how do you account for radical leaps in the fossil chain? [23:16] Hello Lona. [23:16] here it is: http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs.html [23:16] hello [23:17] wings^ (LPH9@www-22-78.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [23:17] davefont: Combination of vastly incomplete fossil history and relatively rapid rates of genetic change., [23:17] Hi wings. [23:17] hey... [23:17] hello, lona, wings. [23:18] Hi orwell_ [23:18] DryData (teledata@lspt-66ppp58.epix.net) joined #apologetics. [23:18] what's the topic?? [23:19] But does it not seem odd that we have records from species to species but not in between? [23:19] I'm sorry wrong channel. [23:19] There is no bloody in between. [23:19] We are debating the named topic: Orwell contends that Theism is irrational. [23:19] well I was looking for VicN or Professor G [23:19] DryData (teledata@lspt-66ppp58.epix.net) left #apologetics. [23:19] Nick change: Orwell_ -> Orwell [23:19] Lona: haven't seen them. [23:19] Lona (Doer@sl10.pstbbs.com) left #apologetics. [23:20] no inbetween...how does one species become another? [23:20] Genetic change. [23:20] Read the faqs at http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs.html [23:21] wings^ (LPH9@www-22-78.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [23:22] Perhaps, I should do that to learn better where you are coming from. It is not making sense to me. [23:22] I know. [23:23] This may mark a nice spot to end the discussion...I need to get going soon...will I see you again sooon? [23:23] If it made sense to you, you'd believe it. Perhaps not atheism, but theism and evolution are not incompatible. [23:23] do you visit #atheism often? [23:23] Perhaps. I'm on quite a bit... [23:23] No. [23:23] #philosophy at times. [23:24] I used to frewuent #bible, but another user at mys site apparently had a falling in with the, [23:24] er them [23:24] and frequent [23:24] and my [23:25] Well, thanks for the stimuli for my subjective analysis! [23:25] my site was banned too! [23:25] I'll see ya soon!...Have a good night. [23:25] See you later...thanks for the chat. [23:26] davefont (davefontz@pipe9.h1.usa.pipeline.com) left #apologetics.Original file name:log_5_8_96.txt [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_5_8_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank