[ref001]


#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/18/96
#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/18/96

[00:07] Cyboman (jb1018@dial77.pacificcoast.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[00:07] Cyboman (jb1018@dial77.pacificcoast.net) left 
#apologetics.
[00:13] RedGiant (nebulae@www-40-36.gnn.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[00:13] RedGiant (nebulae@www-40-36.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[00:18] QED (pch1@okc-sip170.ionet.net) joined #apologetics.
[00:18] QED (pch1@okc-sip170.ionet.net) left #apologetics.
[00:32] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[00:32] jharrell (James@user-168-121-94-110.dialup.mindspring.com) 
left #apologetics.
[00:38] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[00:41] bethb (bethb@freenet.grfn.org) joined #apologetics.
[00:42] bethb (bethb@freenet.grfn.org) left #apologetics.
[01:14] bjr (bjr@www-32-189.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics.
[01:14] bjr (bjr@www-32-189.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[01:16] QED (pch1@osip97.ionet.net) joined #apologetics.
[01:16]  anyone here?
[01:18] QED (pch1@osip97.ionet.net) left #apologetics.
[01:38] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[01:38] QED (pch1@osip97.ionet.net) joined #apologetics.
[01:38] QED (pch1@osip97.ionet.net) left #apologetics.
[01:41] Wayne1 (Wayne@slip28.dtx.net) joined #Apologetics.
[01:41] Wayne1 (Wayne@slip28.dtx.net) left #Apologetics.
[01:42] Pergolesi (jb@phx-ip-234.netzone.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[01:43] QED (pch1@osip97.ionet.net) joined #apologetics.
[01:43]  hello QED
[01:44]  hello Pergolesi
[01:44]  Interesting nick
[01:44]  are you on the pacific coast?
[01:44]  thanks
[01:44]  I stole it
[01:44]  no. Not anymore. 
[01:45]  oh, too bad...saw your username
[01:45]  Ex-angeleno.  You're the 1st person to 
EVER pick up on that. Very perceptive.
[01:46]  sometime California here
[01:46]  Californian
[01:46]  where?
[01:46]  lived in Azusa, Newport Beach, Santa 
Cruz
[01:48]  how about yourself?
[01:49]  is your nick short for quod erat 
demonstrandum?
[01:49]  LaMirada among other places
[01:49]  Biola?
[01:49]  YEs.  You are on top of things.
[01:49]  Yes. For a while
[01:49]  had a lot a friends there...went 
to APU myself
[01:49]  You know people there?
[01:50]  It's been a long time since I was there.
[01:50]  when?
[01:50]  I left in 1988. Biola that is.
[01:50]  I started in 1988
[01:51]  MOved back and forth all over the country 
including So Cal, VA, GA, etc.
[01:51]  But I love Irvine and Newport/Balboa Island
[01:51]  I am tired of moving, but may be 
doing it again soon...to Pasadena
[01:52]  LAguna, Dana Pt., etc.
[01:52]  Santa Cruz was my fav
[01:52]  played a lot of ball @ Laguna and 
Capo
[01:52]  LIved for a very short time in Balboa/ 
Newport
[01:52]  me too, 45th and Balboa
[01:53]  Now I come out every now and then but I 
don;t stay long
[01:54]  I'm not a big So Cal fan, like No 
Cal better
[01:54]  Are you a regular @ Apologetics?
[01:54]  ZDId you say you started at APU or Biola 
in '88?  I also like No. CA better. I wonder if there 
is anyone who has actually lived in CA who doesn't?
[01:55]  Not a regular i apolog. Was here the other 
night and got into a discussion with someone and was 
looking for them again.
[01:56] BleuAngel (imix@cnc134044.concentric.net) joined 
#Apologetics.
[01:56]  started APU in 1988, knew people 
@ Biola in 1987
[01:56]  hello BleuAngel
[01:56]  hi
[01:56]  gotta go. Nice talking to you, Pergo, see 
ya'.
[01:57]  see ya Q
[01:57] QED (pch1@osip97.ionet.net) left #apologetics.
[01:57] BleuAngel (imix@cnc134044.concentric.net) left 
#Apologetics.
[01:57] Action: Pergolesi sings "Alone again..."
[01:57]  haha...hello bots
[02:10]  lagged bot :(
[02:10]  bot should find new server ProfG
[02:10] Attempting connection to Boston.MA.US.undernet.org:6667
[02:10] Successful connection to Boston.MA.US.undernet.org
[02:10] ApoloBot joined #Apologetics.
[02:10] Mode change '+o ApoloBot ' by W!cservice@undernet.org
[02:11] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[02:15] BioMike (BioMike@www-43-28.gnn.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[02:15]  hey
[02:15]  heloooooo?
[02:15] BioMike (BioMike@www-43-28.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[02:19] Pergolesi (jb@phx-ip-153.netzone.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[02:33] NavyChuck (~chuck@198.77.18.107) joined #apologetics.
[02:35] mlp (pace@park_22s.citynet.net) joined #apologetics.
[02:35] NavyChuck (~chuck@198.77.18.107) left #apologetics.
[02:35]  hello what is this channel about?
[02:35] mlp (pace@park_22s.citynet.net) left #apologetics.
[02:38] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[02:40] asdf (sadf@GN-199-44-235-33.gulfnet.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[02:40]  hello asdf
[02:40] asdf (sadf@GN-199-44-235-33.gulfnet.com) left 
#Apologetics.
[02:42] dmc (blairej@143.207.68.12) joined #apologetics.
[02:42] dmc (blairej@143.207.68.12) left #apologetics.
[02:53] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:53] Mode change '+o creation ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[02:53]  hello creation
[02:55] bigbob (RHennigar@www-28-50.gnn.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[02:55] bigbob (RHennigar@www-28-50.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[02:55]  hello bigbob
[03:08] Pergolesi (jb@phx-ip-153.netzone.com) left 
#Apologetics.
[03:21] Pergolesi (jb@phx-ip-153.netzone.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[03:21] Pergolesi (jb@phx-ip-153.netzone.com) left 
#Apologetics.
[03:32] Pergolesi (jb@phx-ip-153.netzone.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[03:32] Pergolesi (jb@phx-ip-153.netzone.com) left 
#Apologetics.
[03:38] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[03:44] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) left irc: 
Leaving
[03:55] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[03:55] Nomos (Alethia@kuts11p07.cc.ukans.edu) joined 
#Apologetics.
[03:56]  hi creation
[03:56]  here?
[03:56]  hello nomos
[03:56]  how are you?
[03:57]  brb
[03:57] Nomos (Alethia@kuts11p07.cc.ukans.edu) left 
#Apologetics.
[04:10] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) left irc: 
Leaving
[04:18] Tictac (Scigora@www-49-221.gnn.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[04:19]  I'm looking for former members of Maranatha 
Campus Ministries.  Do you know any?
[04:27] Pergolesi (jb@phx-ip-153.netzone.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[04:28]  hello Tictac
[04:28]  cool nick
[04:29] Pergolesi (jb@phx-ip-153.netzone.com) left 
#Apologetics.
[04:38] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[04:40] Tictac (Scigora@www-49-221.gnn.com) left #Apologetics.
[04:47] skyhook (serenity@slip117.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[04:47] skyhook (serenity@slip117.UCS.ORST.EDU) left 
#apologetics.
[05:23] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[05:23] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left #apologetics.
[05:38] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[05:41] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[05:58] Esther (n.p.ashle@193.63.206.148) joined #Apologetics.
[05:58]  hello
[05:58]  hi Esther
[05:59]  finally I've made contact with someone 
out there
[06:00] Esther (n.p.ashle@193.63.206.148) left irc: 
Read error to Esther[193.63.206.148]: Connection reset 
by peer
[04:37] --- Loading eggdrop v0.9o (Sat May 18 1996)
[04:37] === ApoloBot: channel #Apologetics, 252 users.
[04:37] Attempting connection to Tampa.FL.US.undernet.org:6667
[04:37] Successful connection to Tampa.FL.US.undernet.org
[04:37] ApoloBot joined #Apologetics.
[04:37] Mode change '+o ApoloBot ' by W!cservice@undernet.org
[04:38]  'sup?
[04:38]  I was about to ask you the same :)
[04:38] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[04:38]  just got here... couldn't sleep  :(
[04:38]  I'm up late, you're up early !?!
[04:39]  heh
[04:39]  I saw you come on...yer on my notify 
list...scary, huh?  
[04:39]  lol
[04:40]  I've been watching #bible...not much 
bible discussion...as usual :(
[04:40]  sad, huh?
[04:40]  think I'll pop over
[04:41] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial79.fiu.edu) left #apologetics.
[04:51] Erick3 (user@usr1ip9.azstarnet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[04:51] Erick3 (user@usr1ip9.azstarnet.com) left #apologetics.
[05:06] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[05:06] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[05:06] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[05:06]  geez
[05:06]  hey dean
[05:06]  hello
=========================================================
[05:28]  Acolyte, I think it's all speculation. 
Obviously you can read the prophets and make of them 
what you will. I've just finished a thorough reading 
of Second Isaiah and I think he was referring to Yitshak 
Rabin, so go figure.
[05:28]  raymot 2nd isaiah, thats funny
[05:28]  Second Isaiah?
[05:28] Action: ProfG flips through
[05:28]  hmmmmmmm
[05:28] Action: brentf is still pan-millenial...it 
will all pan out in the end :)
[05:28]  profg literay liberal theory on the 
origin of Isaiah
[05:28]  acolyte:  Do you remember Ockhamism 
and Molinism in relation to God's knowledge?
[05:28]  Isaiah 40-55
[05:29]  raymot thats funy
[05:29]  raymot, why do you think it was 2nd 
isaiah?
[05:29] Action: ProfG steps out to faqset ApoloBot
[05:29]  the second Isaiah wrote Isaiah 40-55. 
He was contemporary with the Exile, not the original 
8th C BC prophet who wrote 1-39
[05:30]  profg, we think that Revelationn is 
LITERAL. "question- are the 144,000 jews all males preists?" 
answer-oh no, that ius symbolic of the jews." go figure
[05:30]  Raymot how do u know that to be the 
case?
[05:30]  Acolyte: someone told him so!
[05:30]  ;->
[05:30]  Acolyte, it's my belief. I don't pretend 
to know it for "gospel"
[05:31]  raymot do you pretend to know it as 
"history"?
[05:31]  raymot's properly basic belief :)
[05:31]  creation, hahahah, hardly
[05:31]  Acolyte, I read unbiassed Religious 
historians. Jewish *gasp* and atheistic *double gasp*, 
who read the Bible in the context in which it was written
[05:31]  unbiased LOL LOL
[05:31]  Raymot, I see, so they have no presuppositons 
about the world?
[05:32]  Raymot Iread mostly non-xian scholarshiop 
as well, so?
[05:32]  Acolyte, the presupposition, in this 
case, is that Isaiah wrote for his time not for 500 
years hence
[05:32]  raymot therea re non-xian schoalrs 
and Jews who flatly reject the dual source theory for 
Isaiah
[05:32]  Raymot fine, but are the scholars u 
refer to lacking in assumptions?
[05:32]  Acolyte, then you know which ones I 
believe
[05:32]  raymot or do they have assumptions?
[05:33]  raymot plz address my question
[05:33]  Acolyte, not at all. We all make assumptions
[05:33]  raymot, so they do have abias then?
[05:33] Action: ProfG thought they were "unbiassed Religious 
historians"
[05:33]  raymot, what is the difference between 
a bais and a presupposition?
[05:33]  BIAS EVEN
[05:35]  raymot u there?
[05:35]  raymot, what is the difference between 
a bais and a presupposition?
[05:35]  Acolyte, a bias is easily identified 
as being parochial. (eg. a christian says, Isaiah is 
about Christ). An assumption is more general, eg. that 
a person writes about what he knows. that people cannot 
predict the future, etc.

[05:36]  Raymot, ic, so u think that ppl cannot 
predict the future?
[05:36]  Raymot if the xians assuption that 
Christ is messiah and christ says it is talking abotu 
him,then would it not make sense to think so?
[05:36]  Acolyte, not in the sense that Isaiah 
predicted jesus 500 years thence, no.
[05:36]  Raymot why not?
[05:37] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[05:37]  Acolyte, I've never seen it happen in 
a way that satisfies me.
[05:37]  raymot fine, but do you judge what 
is possible by your personal expereince?
[05:37]  raymot 50 yrs ago no one ver went to 
the moon, was it possible to do so?
[05:37]  raymot obviously so
[05:37]  so that does not seem like a reliabel 
guide
[05:37]  its called the fallacy of anecdotal 
evidence btw
[05:37]  Acolyte, who doesn't
[05:38]  raymot I don't
[05:38]  Acolyte, very well, but you're pulling 
me into a position that I don't take. (What's new)
[05:38]  raymot, do you judge what is possible 
based on your individual experience or based on evidence 
and reason?
[05:38]  Raymot:  Are you aware that Abraham 
was told that his descendents would be slaves in Egypt 
for 400 years...long before it happened...and exactly 
as it did happen?
[05:38]  Raymot, then plz explain to me how 
you know what is or is NOT possible?
[05:39]  brentff, I'm sure he wasn't
[05:39]  .
[05:39]  Raymot, then plz explain to me how 
you know what is or is NOT possible?
[05:40]  Raymot, then plz explain to me how 
you know what is or is NOT possible?
[05:40] Action: Acolyte waits for an explanation
[05:40]  ho hum
[05:40]  Acolyte, I'm not trying to pontificate 
here. I know my knowledge is limited by my being human. 
The point I was making is that the prophets, such as 
Isaiah, had ample justification to say what they did, 
without postulating thast th

ey were talking about jesus
[05:40] Action: Acolyte sings the jeopardy theme song
[05:40]  raymot fine, but that was not my question
[05:41]  pontificate? wow.  good word
[05:41]  raymot my quesiton was, how do you 
know what is, or is not possible?
[05:41] Action: creation gets his dictionary.
[05:41]  creation from pointif, meaning bishop
[05:41]  creation to speak authoritatively
[05:41]  Acolyte, if you stopped repeating yourself 
to give me time to answer ...  Remember that patience 
is a virtue ..
[05:41]  raymot ok I will wait
[05:41]  raymot, so is education
[05:42] Action: Acolyte waits
[05:42] Action: Acolyte sings the jeopardy theme song
[05:42]  pontificate: To be pompous or dogmatic
[05:42]  Acolyte, so is humility
[05:42]  ho hum
[05:42]  raymot, so is faith
[05:42]  Acolyte, so is science, reason
[05:42]  Acolyte: I did the teaching at church 
tonight, broadcast live over Internet radio
[05:43]  profg kewl what on?
[05:43]  raymot I am still waiting for an answer
[05:43]  apologetics, what else?
[05:43]  profg hehehe
[05:43]  "The Reasonableness of the Christian Faith"
[05:43]  subtitle:
[05:43]  profg did u read the logs ?
[05:43] isa (nobody@grimm.hsk.fh-sbg.ac.at) joined 
#apologetics.
[05:43]  "Mama didn't raise no fool"
[05:43]  profg did u read the channel logs?
[05:43]  hello
[05:43]  Acolyte not all of them
[05:43]  hiya isa
[05:43]  hullo isa
[05:43]  brent, I guess you have evidence of 
when Abraham lived?
[05:43]  profg did u get to my convo with Krosis 
yet?
[05:44]  raymot I am still waiting
[05:44]  raymot I am still waiting
[05:44] isa (nobody@grimm.hsk.fh-sbg.ac.at) left #apologetics.
[05:44]  Acolyte, I've forgotten the question 
in all this noise and pressure. Would you like to pose 
it again, and give me time to answer?
[05:44]  Acolyte no
[05:44]  PRofg the Lord blessed it, it was providential
[05:44]  Raymot:  Abraham obviously was alive 
before his descendents were slaves in Egypt.
[05:44]  Raymot ok
[05:44]  Acolyte, then wait :)
[05:45]  Raymot the question was, how do you 
know what is or is not possible? (in referrence to 
your question about prediciton of the future being 
not possible)
[05:45] Action: Acolyte waits some more
[05:45]  profg it was a few days ago
[05:45]  profg u will enjoy it
[05:45]  Acolyte, shit you can't even sit there 
without a comment can you
[05:45]  hang on
[05:45]  raymot ok
[05:46]  profg hows the arm buddy?
[05:46]  Acolyte:  YOur convo with Krosis is 
on #apologetics?
[05:46]  creation yes
[05:46]  creation can u rea the logs?
[05:46]  aco:  yes
[05:46]  creation then indulge by all means
[05:46]  Acolyte: its getting better
[05:46]  Acolyte: I am one month or so behind 
on posting the logs
[05:46]  profg I will have the church pray for 
you
[05:46]  will get it this weekend
[05:47]  thanks  :-)
[05:47]  profg no biggie, u will enjoy it tho
[05:47]  Acolyte, I accept that it is *possible* 
that Isaiah might have been able to predict the future. 
my point is that there is no reason to assume that 
he did when there is sufficient historical evidence 
to fully explain what he was sa

ying in relation to his own times. 
[05:47]  profg have u called the elders yet?
[05:47]  Acolyte: I work at the church, remember? 
Elders all day...
[05:47]  heh
[05:47]  raymot, ok  so predictine the futre 
is possible? yes or no?
[05:47]  they came to the hospital right after 
it happened and layed hands on me
[05:48]  raymot so you were wrong? predicting 
the future i possible? is that what u mean to say?
[05:48]  profg good
[05:48]  Acolyte, I believe it isn't. But I keep 
an open mind
[05:48]  raymot is that a justified beleif or 
an unjustified beleif?
[05:49] FlyDieGuy (guy@pool007.Max2.New-Orleans.LA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) 
joined #apologetics.
[05:49]  Acolyte, it is justified in the sense 
that I am not convinced that I've seen anyone predict 
the future, and in most cases, I can explain the anomalies. 

[05:49]  Raymot:  What is your explanation of 
Gen 15:12-16 if it is not prophecy...an accurate prediction 
of the future of Abraham and his descendents?
[05:49]  Raymot fine, so do you have evidence 
to justify that beleif or no?
[05:50]  raymot the absence of evidence is not 
evidence of absence, classical appeal to ignorance 
fallacy btw
[05:50]  raymot the absence of evidence to so 
confirm a counter position btw
[05:50]  Raymot fine, so do you have evidence 
to justify that beleif or no?
[05:50]  Acolyte, I gave you evidence. 1) I've 
looked and not seen it. 2) I've been able to explain 
apparent instances of it with rational explanations
[05:50]  Raynmot not seeing it, does not mean 
it is not posisble, just that u have not seen it
[05:51]  Acolyte, I agree!
[05:51]  raymot ok, so you have not seen it, 
big deal, so what evidence do you have for that beleif?
[05:51]  It is neither possible nor necessary 
to DISprove theism.
[05:51]  Raymot:  What is your explanation of 
Gen 15:12-16 if it is not prophecy...an accurate prediction 
of the future of Abraham and his descendents?
[05:52]  Absence of evidence for theism is 
sufficient.
[05:52]  Acolyte, my evidence is largely negative. 
It's based on demolishing the arguments, such as yours, 
that such a thing exists.
[05:52]  raymot, anyhow, you agree that prediction 
is possible
[05:52]  raymot appeal to ignorance, dmolishing 
communism does nto make capitolism true
[05:52]  FDG: theism is proven by the impossibility 
of the contrary
[05:52]  Acolyte, I agreed I couldn't prove it 
wasn't
[05:52]  raymot what evidence is there that 
there were 2 Isaiahs?
[05:53]  Considering that theism is contrary 
to general observations, it must be assumed to be false 
until evidence is offered to support it.
[05:53]  rpofg did u hear about the new textual 
discoveries?
[05:53]  FDG: why do we need to rely on evidence?
[05:53]  fly HAHAHHAHAHHA
[05:53]  Aco: ?
[05:53]  Acolyte, the first talks about pre-exile 
events, the Second about post- or peri-exile events
[05:53]  creation sound familair? presumption 
of atheism
[05:53]  to be rational, prof
[05:53]  raymot so?
[05:54]  raymot perhaps he predicted it, the 
writter seems to think so.
[05:54]  profg they found a portion of Number, 
about 600 BC
[05:54]  FDG: why do we need to be rational?
[05:54]  Fly:   ummm, you are about to be squashed 
by rationale.
[05:54]  I understood that to be the premise 
of this discussion.
[05:54]  Acolyte when I answer a question of 
yours, it is not for you to say "SO?" I have no idea 
why you are asking. You must supply the "so?" factor 
yourself!
[05:54]  creation did you see the Flewian presumption?
[05:55]  Acolyte;  sure does :)
[05:55]  Acolyte:  Yep.
[05:55]  raymot when I say so, I mean that it 
proves nothing
[05:55]  the topic says "rational" theism
[05:55]  FDG: yes, it is, but the question is, 
WHY (apart from theistic presuppositions) SHOULD we 
be rational?
[05:55]  raymot that can be explaine din more 
than one way, just because he mentions post exilic 
events does not mean that there were too authors
[05:55]  Engaging in argumentation and debate 
assumes that we should make up our minds on the basis 
of rational evidence and reasoning
[05:55]  profg anykind of rationality is theistic. 
;)
[05:55]  Why should we? Why shouldn't we just 
believe whatever people will pay me the most to believe? 
In other words, why should we be rational rather than 
economical in what we believe?
[05:55]  Acolyte: amen
[05:56]  Acolyte, when you ask me a question, 
and I answer--why do you preume I'm trying to prove 
something?
[05:56]  raymot you are making a claim, it is 
the usual meaning in this type of discussion.
[05:56]  fly:   Do all beliefs need empirical 
evidence in order to be rational?
[05:56]  creation bless u my child
[05:56]  prof, your 'economical' solution 
would be a 'rational' choice in itself.
[05:56]  profg btw, I pop the quesiton next 
saturday
[05:57]  that is the essence of my point
[05:57]  FDG: let me see if I am understanding 
you correctly... are you saying that I have an "obligation" 
to accept beliefs based on the *evidence*?
[05:57]  fly:  Well, do they?
[05:57]  fly assuming there is reason to be 
rational WITH
[05:57]  Aco: kewl!
[05:57]  without being rational, any position 
is inherently meaningless
[05:57]  Acolyte:  Is that rational...popping 
the question?  
[05:57]  Acolyte, I disagree. I mentioned the 
second Isaiah. And you postulated that there was only 
one. Surely, you have made the claim?
[05:57]  profg I pick up the ring on sat
[05:57]  brentf yes, god is on his throne.
[05:57]  congrats Aco  :-)
[05:57]  fly:  Do all beliefs need empirical 
evidence in order to be rationAL?
[05:57]  raymot, sure, all physical evidence 
points to one author
[05:58]  FDG: are you saying that we have an "obligation" 
to accept beliefs based on the *evidence*?
[05:58]  Acolyte, well, let me do some research, 
and I'll get back to you on this one
[05:58]  prof, you only owe yourself that 
obligation
[05:58]  fly:  care to answer my question?
[05:58]  FDG: is that what you are saying, yes 
or no?
[05:58]  FDG: are you saying that we have an "obligation" 
to accept beliefs based on the *evidence*?
[05:59]  raymot btw, check out Oswald T. Allis, 
The Unity of Isiah, no liberal scholar has ever answered 
his criticism of the Multi source theory with Isaiah
[05:59]  creation:sounds like a semantic trap, 
but essentially yes
[05:59]  Acolyte, yes I'll look for it in the 
spirit of pusuit of the truth, which, as you know, 
I am devoted to :)
[05:59]  FDG: yes or no?
[05:59]  FDG: are you saying that we have an "obligation" 
to accept beliefs based on the *evidence*
[06:00]  ?
[06:00]  raymot fair enough
[06:00]  fly:  Does the belief that "all beliefs 
need empirical evidence in order to be rational" have 
empirical evidence to support it?
[06:00] Action: ProfG wonders if FDG will ever answer 
him
[06:00]  prof:I already said that there is 
nobody to be obligated TO, except yourself, so believe 
what you want.
[06:01]  gotta go dudes. Seeyas!
[06:01] Raymot (rmottare@ts0511.powerup.com.au) left 
#apologetics.
[06:01]  FDG: fine. do YOU have an "obligation" 
to accept beliefs based on the *evidence*?
[06:01]  prof:no
[06:01]  profg what is obligation if it is only 
a chemcial process?
[06:01]  it is in my best interest, so I do 
it
[06:01]  profg obligation is only what nature 
determines one to do.
[06:01]  fly:  Do ALL beliefs, SOME beliefs, 
or NO beliefs at all need evidence in order to be rational 
beliefs?
[06:02]  I am not 'obligated'
[06:02]  profg any epistemic state is matter 
in motion.
[06:02]  "FlyDieGuy: Considering that theism is 
contrary to general observations, it must be assumed 
to be false until evidence is offered to support it."
[06:02]  fly, do all beleifs require empircal 
evidence in orer to be held as rational?
[06:02]  it MUST be assumed... *OBLIGATION* my 
friend
[06:03]  "MUST" = "IS OBLIGED TO"
[06:03]  more precisely , "must (in order to 
be rational) be assumed..."
[06:03]  profg general observation in what paradigm? 
in an atheistic one? well BFD, any non-atheisitic system 
would seem contrary in that paradigm a priori, hence 
the quesiton is case sensitive, or context relative, 
and also quesiton negg

ing
[06:03]  and even question begging!
[06:03]  ;->
[06:03]  beg beg beg
[06:04] Dylan-1 (yea@eve-wa1-01.ix.netcom.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[06:04] Dylan-1 (yea@eve-wa1-01.ix.netcom.com) left 
#apologetics.
[06:04]  Fly do all beleifs require evidence 
in order to be held as rational? yes or no?
[06:04]  ok, "must [BE OBLIGATED TO] (in order 
to be rational) be assumed..."
[06:04]  I do not suggest that I can disprove 
theism
[06:05]  fly, why do you presume atheism?
[06:05] Action: ProfG notes that FDG is awfully evasive 
to answering questions
[06:05]  fly you reek of Flew btw
[06:05]  I simply carry on in an atheistic 
manner, confident that I am serving my best interests.
[06:05]  Fly but are you best intrests true?
[06:05]  fly are you atheistic manners true?
[06:05]  I base this decision on a rational 
evaluation of the available evidence.
[06:05]  how do you know that your confidence 
is well-founded
[06:05]  ?
[06:06]  fly why do you presume atheism?
[06:06]  to proceed otherwise would be foolish.
[06:06]  fly why?
[06:06]  fly why is it foolish to believe something 
without evidence?
[06:06]  "I base this decision on a rational evaluation 
of the available evidence" - WHY should you base your 
decision on that, given your atheistic worldview?
[06:06]  because there is nothing to suggest 
theism is true, I assume it is untrue.
[06:07]  fly please address my question
[06:07]  fly why is it foolish to believe something 
without evidence?
[06:07]  I am equally confident there are 
no people on pluto, although I am unable to disprove 
that as well.
[06:07]  fly ok, bu please answer my question
[06:07]  fly why is it foolish to believe something 
without evidence?
[06:08]  because such beliefs cause you to 
act unwisely
[06:08]  fly, perhaps, does the bel;eif of ppl 
on Antaries system cause me to do something follish?> 
not necessarily
[06:08]  fly non sequiter
[06:08]  does not necessarily follow
[06:08]  if I go to a faith healer, I may 
die from my illness rather than being cured by science
[06:08]  fly do all beleifs require evidence 
in order to be held as rational?
[06:09] Action: Acolyte does the Plantinga dance 
[06:09]  LOL
[06:09]  lol
[06:09]  fly do all beleifs require evidence 
in order to be held as rational?
[06:09]  fly do all beleifs require evidence 
in order to be held as rational?
[06:09]  fly plz address my question
[06:10]  yes or no
[06:10]  its a real simple quesiton
[06:10]  it is ither true or false
[06:10]  your question is suspect, but i'll 
bite:yes.
[06:10]  yes or no
[06:10]  fly ok
[06:10]  so, that is the criteria for your beleifs 
then? it must have evidence for you to believe it and 
hold it as rational, correct?
[06:11]  fly so your criteria, correct me if 
I am wrong would look somethign like this....
[06:11]  how, exactly, do you define 'evidence' 
?
[06:11]  evidence=empirical verification
[06:11]  fly so your criteria, correct me if 
I am wrong would look somethign like this....
[06:11]  then the answer is no
[06:11]  ic
[06:11]  why no?
[06:12]  a belief can be rational without 
absolute proof
[06:12]  so some beleifs do not require empirical 
verification inorder to be rational?
[06:12]  inductive reasoning is perfectly 
valid in many cases
[06:12]  Fly did I say absolute empirical evidence? 
or just empirical evidence?
[06:12]  ok
[06:13]  fly I did not say in the absolute sense, 
I just said empirical verification, which being empirical 
which would necessarily entai l induction
[06:13]  so the answer is still yes?
[06:13]  sure
[06:13]  ok
[06:13]  no lets formulate this criteria of 
yours
[06:13]  and see how it works
[06:13]  and see how well it may work
[06:13]  ok?
[06:13]  sound fair?
[06:13]  sure
[06:14]  ok
[06:14]  Well it seems to me that it owuld look 
something liek this....
[06:14]  I should warn you to save you trouble 
if this is some silly semantic argument...I have seen 
them all and they don't interest me.
[06:14]  Proposition X=Any beleif _______ requires 
evidence in order for one to hold it as a ratrional 
beleif
[06:14]  no its not silly at all
[06:14]  would you agree with that formulation?
[06:15]  sure
[06:15]  Proposition X=Any beleif _______ requires 
evidence in order for one to hold it as a ratrional 
beleif
[06:15]  ok
[06:15]  lets test it
[06:15]  heh
[06:15]  Any bellief in Cats requires evidence 
in order for one to hold it as rational.
[06:15]  that seems reasonable
[06:15]  right?
[06:16]  lets try another
[06:16]  I think I am understanding you Fly
[06:16]  let me see
[06:16]  hmmm
[06:16]  Any beleif in martians requires evidence 
in order for one to hold it as a rational beleif
[06:16]  that seems to work
[06:16]  hhhm
[06:17]  lol
[06:17]  skip the sarcasm and get to it
[06:17]  fly does that seem to be how you mean 
to use it? that you merely lack beleif inthings that 
you don't have evidence for and hence don't hold them 
as beleifs since to do so would be irrational?
[06:17]  I am not being sarcastic btw
[06:17]  fly is that what u mean?
[06:17]  i see
[06:17]  hmmmm
[06:17]  or do you mean something else?
[06:17]  do you see what?
[06:18]  I just want to make sure that I am 
understanding your position correctly
[06:18]  that is close
[06:18]  is that a correct representation fo 
it?
[06:18]  ok what am I missing?
[06:18]  how close is close?
[06:18]  what am I missing?
[06:18]  i lack belief in things which are 
inconsistent with beliefs I do have evidence for
[06:18]  fly ok
[06:18]  but that would be X2
[06:18]  lets call this X1
[06:18] tomtil (doregon@wave.oregoncoast.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[06:18]  for now
[06:18]  so long as they do not carry their 
own evidence
[06:19]  ok?
[06:19]  ok
[06:19]  lets call this X1, and the other X2, 
we can discuss X2 later, lets just go with X1 for now, 
ok?
[06:19]  sound fair?
[06:19]  ?
[06:19]  please restate x1
[06:19]  ok
[06:20]  X1=Any beleif in ______ requires evidence 
in order for one to hold it as a rational beleif.
[06:20]  true
[06:20]  is that a fair representaiton of your 
position?
[06:20]  ?
[06:21]  is that a fair representaiton of your 
position?
[06:21]  fly?
[06:21]  I said, 'true'...that meant yes.
[06:21]  ok
[06:22]  well then I have a problem it seems
[06:22]  let me illustrate it for u
[06:22]  if I do this...
[06:22]  brb
[06:22]  phone call
[06:22]  hold on a second
[06:23]  Hi I would say that is false because 
there are foundational beliefs ,that is beliefs or 
opropositions that are either self evident or incorrigible 
that can be held without a need for a set of propositions 
to prove them....Belief i

n God is o properly
[06:23]  ok
[06:23]  tomil hold on a secnd
[06:24]  tomil silence please
[06:24]  just for a minute
[06:24]  good, tom... but let Aco finish so we 
can see FDG's response...
[06:24]  :-)
[06:24]  basic as demonstrated by Dr Plantinga 
of Notre Dame eventhough it does not fall in the category 
of foundational a clasicly held
[06:24]  TOTMILL HOLD ON A SECOND
[06:24]  hang on, buddy  :-)
[06:24]  fluy here is my problem
[06:25]  sorry I thought this was a group discussion
[06:25]  it is, but Aco is in the middle of showing 
fly something...
[06:25]  Any beleif in ___X1____ requires evidence 
in order to be held as rational.
[06:25]  just hang on  :-)
[06:25]  Any beleif in ___X1____ requires evidence 
in order to be held as rational.
[06:25]  Any beleif in ___X1____ requires evidence 
in order to be held as rational.
[06:25]  Fly do you see the problem?
[06:25]  correct
[06:25]  that repeat key is stuck again, Aco  
;->
[06:25]  not a problem
[06:25] Action: ProfG sees a prob
[06:25]  fly ok, but do you see what I am geeting 
at?
[06:26]  clearly
[06:26]  fly what do you think I am getting 
at?
[06:26]  I have observed the effect of adhering 
to X1
[06:26]  and the effect of not doing so
[06:26]  I'm on a brake from work and I have 
to go...I'll see you some other time.
[06:26]  fly fine, but
[06:26]  I have weighed it on these merits
[06:26]  fly but what is the problem that I 
have pointed out?
[06:27]  this is my evidence
[06:27]  fly thats nice, we can discuss that 
in a few minutes but I wish to make sure that we are 
both seeing the same thing
[06:27]  fly whatis the problem that I see witrh 
X1?
[06:27]  you are suggesting that it is irrational 
to believe that rationalism is necessary without evidence 
to suggest that is so.
[06:28]  Fly nope
[06:28]  fly not at all
[06:28]  fly, I am a rationalists btw
[06:28]  Take care guys...see you later
[06:28]  fly but that is not my point
[06:28]  please proceed
[06:28]  fly perhaps I should come clean and 
point out the problem as I see it
[06:28]  c u tom
[06:28] tomtil (doregon@wave.oregoncoast.com) left 
irc: tomtil
[06:28]  well the propsotion is self defeating
[06:29]  it is self defeating
[06:29]  sure it may work with other propositions, 
but not with itself
[06:29]  hence as it is stated it is false
[06:29]  self referrentially absurd
[06:29]  hence, this implies something else
[06:29]  tho
[06:29]  we can salvage it
[06:30]  we can say that .....
[06:30]  Beleifs that are in the catagory of 
beleifs that require evidence in order to be held as 
rational, require evidence in order to be held as rational
[06:31]  This shows that there is another catagory 
of beleifs that are rational but do no require evidence 
in order to be held as rational
[06:32]  so, my quesiton to u is this, since 
not all rational beleifs require rational evidence 
in order to be held as such, why is theism a beleif 
that requires evidence rather than not?
[06:32]  Why is theism not a belief that is 
rational but does not need evidence in order to be 
so?
[06:32]  seems likek the burden of proof is 
on you to show that Theism is a beleif that requires 
evidence in order to be held as rational, hence a presumption 
of Theism.
[06:33]  I disagree with your analysis, but 
will acept your criticism of X1 for argument's sake.
[06:33]  Fly well I have another example
[06:33]  not only is X1 self defeating
[06:33]  fly:  geee, thanks
[06:33]  theism requires proof because it 
suggests a physical reality
[06:33]  Fly u mean positive existence claims?
[06:34]  Fly so does Atheism
[06:34]  does atheism require proof now?
[06:34] JimHirst4 (JimHirst4u@www-36-160.gnn.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[06:34]  if not why not?
[06:34]  fly not only is X1 self defeating, 
it makes logic impossible
[06:35]  for if X1 is formulated with Logic 
as the variable it excludes logic
[06:35]  for example
[06:35] JimHirst4 (JimHirst4u@www-36-160.gnn.com) left 
#apologetics.
[06:35]  X1= Any beleif in Logic requires evidence 
in order to be held as rational.
[06:35] Action: ProfG heads to bed for 1 hour  :(
[06:35]  Not possible
[06:35]  certain basic assumptions are susceptible 
to trick criticisms like yours because they are based 
on an artificial framework to make them usable.
[06:35]  God bless all
[06:35]  fly, ah so some beleifs do not require 
evidence in order to be held as raitonal?
[06:35]  profg I love u man
[06:35]  G'Nite ProfG :)
[06:36]  lol
[06:36]  don't chew him up and spit him out TOO 
much, Aco   ;->
[06:36]  profg I mean it
[06:36]  'nite
[06:36]  or morning
[06:36]  I know   :-)
[06:36]  profg read the log
[06:36] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial79.fiu.edu) left irc: 
Leaving
[06:36]  not at all, aco
[06:36]  fly, not at all what? clarify
[06:37] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[06:39]  fly, not at all what? clarify
[06:39]  fly, ah so some beleifs do not require 
evidence in order to be held as raitonal?
[06:39]  it is merely that such statements 
are vulnerable to semantic attacks because they are 
such basic concepts that they are hard to define.
[06:39]  fly, fine, but could any evidence ever 
be given for logic?
[06:39]  yes or no?
[06:39]  yes
[06:39]  fly u will notice that my argument 
does not rest on definitions but the form
[06:39]  we employ it, it works; we don't, 
we fail...evidence enough
[06:39]  fly,  so please give me some
[06:39]  circular argument, u used logic to 
prove logic
[06:39]  question begging
[06:39]  classic example
[06:39]  How do you know the Bible is True? 
Ansewer-The Bible says so! aand it works!
[06:39]  btw utility does not equal truth value
[06:39]  yes it does
[06:39]  Nuclear bombs work, does not make them 
true
[06:40]  it proves they exist
[06:40]  utility refers only to function, not 
to truth value
[06:40]  ask the Japanese 
[06:40]  fly, give me some evidence for logic. 
I am still waiting
[06:40]  a theory which works is shown to 
be true
[06:40]  fly assuming pragmatism
[06:41]  fly what if pragmatism does not work?
[06:41]  then it is false
[06:41]  self defeating system
[06:41]  chuck pragamatism
[06:41]  next
[06:41]  hehehe
[06:41]  fly plz give me some evidence for logic 
without an appeal to logic
[06:41]  give me a non-circular argument for 
logic
[06:41]  if u can
[06:42] Action: Acolyte wonders why Atheists are committed 
to Positivism, since it has been dead for about 60 
yrs????????????
[06:42]  I doubt it is possible to offer any 
argument for anything without an appeal to logic
[06:42]  fly very true
[06:42]  so logic is assumed
[06:43]  it is not proven
[06:43]  it is something by which you reason 
FROM, not to
[06:43]  here's a news flash
[06:43]  God is Logic
[06:44]  then your theism is meaningless
[06:44]  I accept your deity
[06:44]  so what?
[06:44]  I will go to church and work math 
problems
[06:44]  no theism is noit meaningless
[06:44]  it is Meaningful
[06:44]  it is the basis for meaning
[06:45]  it is the basis for Metaphysics and 
Epistemology
[06:45]  I am not new to such discussions.
[06:45]  they always conclude the same way
[06:45]  look, I am just trying to show that 
an appeal to positivism is fatal to your paradigm
[06:45]  think what u like
[06:45]  I offered u a chance to see things 
in a different light, guess not eh
[06:46]  you can either reduce theism to a 
meaningless abstract which cannot be assailed because 
it states nothing, or you can be illogical...
[06:46]  fly X1 is self defeating
[06:46]  your choice
[06:46]  Fly, if God is the basis for rationality, 
how is that meaningless abstract since I use meaning 
and logic with every breath that I use to speak?
[06:46]  more like Transendece and Immenance 
at the same time
[06:47]  ok then, what do you suggest we do 
about it?
[06:47]  God is above the world and In the world
[06:47]  fly u mean atheists?
[06:47]  I suggest you argue better
[06:47]  if god is logic, then how does god 
want us to behave?
[06:47]  fly logically wouldn't be a bad start
[06:48]  the point is, theism is only meaningful 
if god has some active role in our lives
[06:48]  god is a basic beleif like logic. 
[06:48]  fly I would say making speach posisble 
and meaningful has alot to do with everyday life
[06:48]  wouldn
[06:48]  t
[06:48]  u?
[06:48]  if he is just a set of rules for 
reasoning, then why should we worship him?
[06:49]  He is not a set of rules, he is those 
Rules in essenced
[06:49]  He is not a set of rules, he is those 
Rules in essence
[06:49]  they are his thoughts, God's essence 
is pure Logic
[06:49]  so what?
[06:49]  so only irrational acts are sins?
[06:49]  god is the sum total of all perfections, 
he is a basic and necessary being who is ontologically, 
ethically and epistemologically perfect
[06:50]  fly sin is irrational
[06:51]  do you believe god has a consciousness?
[06:51]  has or is?
[06:51]  an awareness and a will?
[06:51]  he is sentient
[06:51]  yes
[06:51]  god is personal
[06:51]  Pure logis is
[06:51]  eternal ideas have an eternal thinker 
to think them. hence a personal being
[06:51]  truth is an eternal idea
[06:52]  then he must have beliefs as well. 
opinions(which would be correct by definition) and 
intentions.
[06:52]  fly sure, God has knowledge
[06:52]  then why would he act so impersonally
[06:52]  fly, God knows things by his very nature, 
bit by education or observance
[06:52]  Fly what is impersonal about his acts?
[06:53]  bit=not
[06:53] Action: creation thinks this is familiar.  
Must be something he just read :)
[06:53]  cration yes, Morris stuffage
[06:53] Cannibal (philcs@slip61.vianet.net.au) joined 
#apologetics.
[06:53]  oh great
[06:53]  here comes cannibal to spoil my fun
[06:53]  :<
[06:53] Action: Acolyte is sad
[06:54] Action: Acolyte debates on kicking Cannibal
[06:54]  Acolyte, you can kick me if you like
[06:54]  :/
[06:54]  :|
[06:54]  :\
[06:54]  hehehehehe
[06:54]  hhhMMMM
[06:54] Action: Acolyte waits
[06:54]  he sets a system of rules, or rather 
IS a system of rules; but he doesn't interact with 
anyone or anything beyond this set, predictable rule-keeping.
[06:54]  fly the rules are his thoughts
[06:54]  he's just an impartial referee
[06:55]  fly oh interacts with humanity in mediate 
and immediate ways
[06:55]  shouldn't an all-powerful being offer 
a little coaching to his players as well?
[06:55]  ack
[06:56]  Acolyte, is your fun so easily spoiled?
[06:56] Action: creation wonders what is meant by all-powerful
[06:56]  cannibal, isolation is preferable
[06:56]  creation oh man, you would toture me 
with Morris stuff tonight wouldn't u.
[06:56]  Acolyte, what is it that you think 
I will spoil for you?
[06:56]  Acolyte:  You know me all too well 
:)
[06:57]  cannibal if you have to ask you wouldn't 
understand
[06:57]  if a belief is to be meaningful, 
it needs to impact on your behavior.
[06:57]  cannibal it comes with a barthian expereince 
with the word
[06:57]  creation, have you done any formal 
studies in biology?
[06:57]  fly, God sure does
[06:57]  cannibal I believe he has
[06:57]  Cannibal:  formal studies?
[06:57]  if I accept god as logic, then it 
changes nothing
[06:57]  Acolyte, are you a Barthian?
[06:58]  cannibal what do u think?
[06:58]  fly think on it more
[06:58]  flyu it changes everything
[06:58]  I can logically commit murder
[06:58]  logically evade the police
[06:58]  fly Godsur ebut God says it is immoral 
to do so
[06:58]  Acolyte, I think that some of your 
stated opinions are fundamentalist, while others are 
not.
[06:58]  logically burn down a church
[06:58]  so what?
[06:58]  cannibal holding to a patristic view 
is not fundamentalist
[06:59]  fly hardly
[06:59]  acolyte, he never said it was immoral
[06:59]  fly are immoral actions logical?
[06:59]  Fly sur ehe did
[06:59]  Cannibal:  Yes, I have formally studied 
biology.  I'm a biology major for 4 yurs.
[06:59]  yrs even
[06:59]  Acolyte, that is a matter of opinion.
[06:59]  cannibal what do u think my opinion 
is?
[06:59]  logic (god) suggest that the bible 
is not the word of god
[06:59]  fly hardly
[07:00]  hmm
[07:00]  there we go
[07:00]  god says the bible is a blasphemy 
to god
[07:00]  fly he does? where?
[07:00]  Acolyte, you have stated your opinion. 
I am pointing out that patristic position(s) can correspond 
with fundamentalism without ceasing to be patristic.
[07:00]  god=logic=god
[07:00]  Fly the God of the Bible =the God of 
Logic
[07:01]  why should the bible have any relevance?
[07:01]  cannibal just doing some Clarkina Apologetics 
presently with a positivist
[07:01]  it's just a book
[07:01]  fly, it is?
[07:01]  I can write a book...I am not god
[07:01]  cannibal clarkian even
[07:01]  nor were the men who wrote the bible
[07:01]  fly they were not? how do you know 
?
[07:02]  fly, you bore me
[07:02]  fly you were done a half an hour ago
[07:02]  logic suggests that the book was 
not written by the rules of logic themselves, but by 
men...therefore, god wants me to believe that the bible 
is not his book
[07:03]  fly run along and find some fundy to 
bother
[07:03]  fly how does logic suggest that?
[07:03]  we have many books
[07:03]  fly thats nice
[07:03]  and the books were big
[07:03]  and the books were small
[07:03]  all the ones whose authors are known 
were written by men
[07:03]  they were nice books
[07:04]  fly now that the pre-school lesson 
is over
[07:04] Cannibal (philcs@slip61.vianet.net.au) got 
netsplit.
[07:04]  fly how does logic suggest that?
[07:04]  fly how does logic suggest that the 
bible was not written with the rules of logic?
[07:04]  it is silly to think that this particular 
book was written by god just because it says it was
[07:05]  ok, perhaps it is silly, how does silly 
equal not logical?
[07:05]  the bible refers to illogical events
[07:05]  it is logical to believe these references 
are false
[07:05]  I never said it was to be used as evidence 
what it claism for itself, you set up a straw man
[07:05]  fly name one
[07:05]  name an "illogical event"
[07:06]  every time "god spoke to 'x'"
[07:06]  fly, yeah so? how is that illogical?
[07:06]  every miracle
[07:06] Cannibal (philcs@slip61.vianet.net.au) returned 
to #apologetics.
[07:06]  logic does not seak to anyone
[07:06]  speak, that is
[07:06]  fly, uhmm, if logic is a person he 
does
[07:07]  it is illogical to believe that logic 
is a person, that is my point
[07:07]  why?
[07:07]  prove it
[07:07] JWS (schmidt@156.26.157.12) joined #apologetics.
[07:08]  creation, what do you understand to 
be the mechanism(s) of biological evolution proposed 
by Darwin, and those proposed by neodarwinsist?
[07:08]  fly have u visited our web page?
[07:08]  you mean prove you wrong, don't you?
[07:08]  i have not visited it
[07:08]  fly prove your assertion true
[07:08]  URL?
[07:08]  fly well I need to get back to work, 
but why not visit it
[07:09]  Cannibal:  Darwin--habits and natural 
selection; neodarwinists--mutations and natural selection
[07:09]  http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[07:09]  http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[07:09]  thanks
[07:09]  if this is representative of the 
arguments available, no point in going there
[07:09]  jws I am sure you will find it helpful
[07:09]  creation, do you think natural selection 
is random?
[07:09]  fly it is representaive of a select 
few
[07:10] Action: creation feels Dawkins coming on
[07:10]  fly he be open minded for a change, 
god might even be possible
[07:10]  creation yup
[07:10]  creation Cannibal has an altar to dawkins 
in his house. really, he does!
[07:10]  acolyte:  hehehe
[07:10]  creation, are you familiar with Dawkin's 
works?
[07:10]  Cannibal: little
[07:10]  there is no way around the basic 
fact that god does not make himself known
[07:11]  if he does not, then who cares if 
he's real or not?
[07:11]  creation, it may be valuable for you 
to read some of them. I would recommend The selfish 
gene.
[07:11]  until he gives me an interest in 
believing in him, why should I?
[07:11]  Cannibal:  thanks.  It doesn't get 
him out of his problems.
[07:12]  fly, what could it hurt to look?
[07:12]  The Selfish Gene is a really good 
one
[07:12]  look where?
[07:12]  cannibal I recommended dawkins work 
to Creation
[07:12]  fly on the web page
[07:12]  cannibal have you read Johnson's rplies?
[07:12]  Acolyte:  I have one :)
[07:12]  creation, for a decent explanation 
of neodarwinian views on biological evolution try The 
Blind Watchmaker.
[07:12]  creation bless u my child
[07:12]  Cannibal:  have it
[07:13]  cannibal been there, done that
[07:13]  creation, have you read it?
[07:13]  no logical argument can change reality
[07:13]  Cannibal:  some
[07:13]  Fly no logical arguments demonstrate 
reality
[07:13]  it is excluded a priori
[07:13]  online Darwin + evolution at http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/
[07:13]  creation, try finishing it.
[07:13]  anyhow kiddies I gotta go
[07:13]  like trying to prove to me I do not 
exist
[07:13]  Cannibal:  I will when I have gtime.
[07:13]  cannibal have you read Johnson's rplies?
[07:13]  Acolyte, no.
[07:13]  Cannibal:  I have 10 books in front 
of it :)
[07:14]  cannibal you might wish to
[07:14]  Acolyte, what is it called, and who 
is Johnson?
[07:14]  Cannibal:  "Creator or Blind Watchmaker" 
by Phillip E. Johnson.
[07:14]  creaton thank u
[07:15]  creation, who is Philip E Johnson?
[07:15] FlyDieGuy!guy@pool007.Max2.New-Orleans.LA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET 
kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: go find 
some fundy to bug
[07:15]  cannibal he wrote Dawrin on Trial
[07:16]  Johnson is a (hold yer nose) lawyer
[07:16]  Acolyte, that still leaves me wondering 
who he is ... is he a minister of religion? or some 
other thing?
[07:16]  Cannibal:  Phillip E. Johnson--Law 
Professor at the University of California at Berkeley. 
 He specializes in logic of arguments.  He has writtne 
"Darwin on Trial" and "Reason

 in the Balance"
[07:16]  JWS-not all lawyers are bad, just like 
there are some good scientists ;)
[07:17]  acolyte:  :)
[07:17]  cannibla u know BERKELY, that liberal 
school in california
[07:17] FlyDieGuy (guy@pool007.Max2.New-Orleans.LA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) 
joined #apologetics.
[07:17]  cannibal where openhiemer taught Physics
[07:17]  creation, why do you think a lawyer 
is likely to have sufficient knowledge of biology to 
deal in detail with a subject like biological evolution?
[07:17]  fly go to #bible ok?
[07:18]  Cannibal: Gee, why would a law professor 
who specailizes in logic of argumetns want to evaluate 
arguments?
[07:18]  cannibal why do you think scientists 
are likely to have sufficent knowledge of Nt textual 
criticism or Theology? or philosophy?
[07:18]  creation, what a scandal!
[07:18]  you people are typical...you love 
to spin artistic arguments but you are afraid to deal 
with simple questions...
[07:18]  fly u were done a long time ago
[07:18]  only a weak position is afraid of 
simplicity.
[07:19]  fly:  heheheh  Go play with your dolly.
[07:19]  ltr lamers
[07:19]  gee, I am just quacking in my boots
[07:19]  Canni: check out Johnson for yerself at: 
   http://id-www.ucsb.edu/test/fscf/LIBRARY/JOHNSON/home.html
[07:19] FlyDieGuy (guy@pool007.Max2.New-Orleans.LA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) 
left #apologetics.
[07:19]  jws, well ar eyou just the little URL 
bug
[07:19]  :)
[07:19]  creaiton dolly, nice touch
[07:19]  creation, the material presented by 
dawkins is not simply an exercise in logic (though 
logic is certainly important in his discussion) it 
is primarily based on specific data (evidence) from 
which conclusions are drawn.
[07:20]  cannibal if illogical arguments are 
use din evaluating the data, what good are the conslusions 
drawn from it?
[07:20]  Acolyte, to evaluate the logic of 
the position it is necessary to know the evidence too.
[07:21]  Acolyte, if Johnson is not familiar 
with the evidence then he is likely to make mistakes 
in his analysis. especially if he limits himself to 
the evidence presented in the book.
[07:21]  cannibal, sure but that is not what 
I asked, I did NOT ask about having knowledge of the 
evidence but the conclusions drawn from illogical arguments 
in the methodology
[07:21]  Johnson is just a mouth piece for creationists......he 
knows no science: Quote "One thing that everyone acknowledges 
is that living organisms are enormously complex-far 
more so than, say, a computer or an airplane. 

That such complex entities came into existence simply 
by chance is clearly less credible than that they were 
designed and constructed by a creator."
[07:21]  cannibal, same goes for atheists doing 
Nt Criticism 
[07:22]  Acolyte, some atheists have good knowledge 
og NT.
[07:22]  JWS perhaps, that is context relative
[07:22]  cannibal most do not
[07:22]  cannibal and those that do, I find 
to be wanting in most respects metehologically speaking
[07:22]  cannibal why not read the response 
for youself?
[07:22]  Acolyte, that may be so, but that 
does not vitiate my statement.
[07:23]  cannibla, no perhaps not, but if that 
is all thatis left to it, why would I need to?
[07:23]  Cannibal:  You are asking me to educate 
myself and read Dawkins, how come you haven't read 
the responses to him?  Kinda biased don't you think?
[07:23]  JWS, if the quote from Johnson is 
in fact accurate, then your po9int is well made.
[07:24]  the quote is off Johnson's own Web page
[07:24]  creation, I have read a number of 
"creationists" books, I do have some knowledge of the 
position.
[07:24]  cannibal yeah, dismiss the whole book 
based on one passage, thats intelligent
[07:24]  Cannibal: I didn't say "creationist" 
books.  I said "Johnson"
[07:25]  cannibal creation is getting his degree 
in immunology, I think he is well suited to decipher 
the issue
[07:25]  Acolyte, that is a poor piece of logic 
:) I did not dismiss the book.
[07:25]  creation touche
[07:25]  cannibal, sorry, equivocation on your 
part
[07:25]  Acolyte, misconstruction on yours 
:)
[07:25]  cannibal so you still loose
[07:25]  It's not a book, just an article. 
 I have it here in front of me :)
[07:26]  creation, do you have it in electronic 
form?
[07:26]  cannibla besides I am not a "creationist", 
the debate is not substantial to me either way
[07:26]  Acolyte, I know.
[07:26]  Acolyte, makes me wonder why you are 
contributing to it then :)
[07:26]  cannibal have you read Tennants Critique 
of atheistic responses to the Teleological argument? 
BTW he anticipated Dawkins by some distance of time
[07:27]  Johnson is totally out of touch with reality: 
here is a real chucklehead statement: "Even college 
professors have been forbidden to express their doubts 
about Darwinian evolution in the classroom"
[07:27]  Cannibal, me? contribute to your education? 
never ;)
[07:27]  JWs why is that false?
[07:27]  Acolyte, I thought not ;)
[07:27]  brb
[07:27]  cannibal:  No, not in electronic form. 
 But, I have copies if you would like me to send you 
one.
[07:27]  I am a university biology Prof....
[07:27]  cannibal  u think? wow
[07:28]  JWS:   great, glad to hear it
[07:28]  JWS, well, I know one that confided 
in me, just that point, yrs ago
[07:28]  creation, pity - electronic form is 
so convenient.
[07:28]  when I teach Darwin I point out his weaknesses 
all the time
[07:29]  JWS is it posible that there are some 
profs who have been forbidden to express their dowbts 
about it?
[07:29]  Cannibal:  Snail mail isn't that bad.
[07:29]  forbidden by who?
[07:29]  jws thats nice, but perhaps, now maybe 
I am going out on a limb here, but maybe, perhaps YOU 
ARE NOT those profs?
[07:29]  JWS:  Ever point out Darwin's Doubt 
?
[07:29]  JWS, why not write Johnson and ask 
him?
[07:29]  creaiton hehehe
[07:29]  creation, snail mail requires an address. 
I do not give out my address on the net.
[07:29]  cannibal chicken ;)
[07:30]  Acolyte, sensible precaution.
[07:30]  chickens are cannibalistic
[07:30]  Cannibal: I'll tell youwhat?  How 
about I give you my email address and you can email 
me your address.  Or, better yet.  messages it to me 
privately .
[07:30]  cannibal hey watch out, i  might be 
the Unabomber!!!
[07:30]  Acolyte, I have received sufficient 
hate mail from Xians to know better then to give an 
address out on the net :)
[07:30]  cannibal get serious
[07:31]  anyhow, i need to get off
[07:31]  Acolyte, I am serious.
[07:31]  cannibal grow up ok? geez
[07:31] Action: Acolyte hands cannibal an enema
[07:31]  here, use this
[07:31]  Acolyte, :) you are getting predictable 
:)
[07:32]  cannibal, hey that means I am scientific 
huh?
[07:32]  hehehe
[07:32] Action: JWS hands Cani a bullet-proof vest........(more 
useful for confronting Christians)
[07:32]  Acolyte, no ... bnoring perhaps ;)
[07:32]  cannibal,  u are so easy to play
[07:32]  JWS, just wait till we take over ;)
[07:32]  Acoloyte: Inevitable
[07:32]  JWs no more mr nice guy
[07:32]  Acolyte, you should know better than 
to play a person.
[07:33]  cannibal, you leave me  no choice
[07:33]  Acolyte, is your sin genetic then?
[07:33]  cannibal your obstinancy makes it the 
only recourse
[07:33]  cannibal what sin?
[07:33]  Acolyte, like I said you are predictable 
:)
[07:33]  JWS:  I'm a student in biochemistry. 
 I ahve yet for anyone (professors too) to give me 
any valid expanation of how abiogenesis occured.
[07:34]  creation: why not change fields before 
you hurt yourself?
[07:34]  creation, biological evolution is 
not the same as abiogenesis.
[07:34]  creation the magic scientists said 
POOF! and there it was!
[07:34]  JWS:  nice come back "professor"
[07:34]  Well, good night all...this has been 
entertaining...enlightening, even...not that I have 
changed any positions...but I do have a better understanding 
of a certain argument...gonna have to chew on "God = 
Logic" for a while :)
[07:35]  brentf, ok
[07:35]  JWs fight nice liitel boy
[07:35]  cannibal: Cant get biological evolution 
without chemical evolution.
[07:36] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx18-12.teleport.com) left 
irc: God bless you
[07:36]  cannibal perhaps you would be so kind 
so as to explain how abiogensis occured?
[07:36]  creation: only a fool would expect a teacher 
to give "a valid explaination of the origin of life"
[07:36]  JWS does that mean that you don't know 
ho life came about?
[07:36]  creation, that is not the point. creationism 
posits a young earth, no evolution forming new "kinds" 
etc ... all that is contradicted by many disciplines 
in science.
[07:36]  cannibal thats nice, answer his question
[07:36]  Aco: nobody knows the details
[07:37] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[07:37]  JWs u know everybody?
[07:37]  Acolyte, I do not know the mechanism 
... I do not think the mechanisms are known at this 
time.
[07:37]  Cannibal so you don't know then?
[07:37]  Aco: as u know, all that counts in science 
is what is published
[07:37]  Ok, let me pose the senario.
[07:37]  Acolyte, that is what I typed.
[07:37]  The atmosphere was reducing right?
[07:37]  JWs that nice, but u did not say whatis 
published, you said no body
[07:38]  cannibal, so why do u assume it was 
by abiogenesis?
[07:38]  Aco: split words all u like, it does no 
good
[07:38]  Acolyte, I make no such assumption.
[07:38]  JWs its called being precise, as a 
scientists u should know how imporant that is
[07:38]  cannibal so did abiogensis occur?
[07:39]  JWs take some philosophy, they will 
teach u how to think
[07:39]  Aco: why not try to get me to count the 
prcise number of angels on your pin head?
[07:39]  Acolyte, "scientific creationism" does 
not require that I make such an assumption in order 
to show the scientific errors in their position.
[07:39]  Tell me, how do you get chemical evolution 
when you can't preserve your reducing atmosphere?  
Your methane would be polymerized into  oil which would 
cover the globe 1-10 m thick (simple organic chemistry), 
your ammonia would be

 photodestroyed into H2 and 
[07:39]  JWS they are not on pinheads, they 
prefer Church spires
[07:39]  Cannibal I am a theisitci Evolutionist
[07:39]  Acolyte, In answer to your question 
- I do not know.
[07:39]  N2, and whatever is left over would 
be absorbed into the oceans because of its high solubility.
[07:40]  Cannibal I am a  theistic evolutionist, 
I am no asking as a creationist
[07:40]  Acolyte, I am inclined to believe 
that it did.
[07:40]  cannibal why? base don what evidence?
[07:40]  Acolyte, my previous points were addressed 
to creation, who is a "creationists"
[07:40]  cannibla I asked three times if you 
recall
[07:41]  Acolyte, it is a belief, based on 
scant evidence ... it does fit in with my knowledge 
of other matters so I am using it as a working hypothesis.
[07:41]  cannibal fine, what scant evidence 
then?
[07:41]  hmmmm, doesn't seem like you can get 
amino acids with out your reducing atmosphere.  You 
can't even start (snicker)
[07:41]  creation quesiton
[07:42]  Acolyte, it is not worth going into 
:)
[07:42]  creation what is an amino acid to the 
9th configuration?
[07:42]  cannibal so the truth is not worth 
getting into?
[07:42]  Acolyte, since you accept evolution 
I did not get into it with you.
[07:43]  well, thanks for turning me on to Johnson......I 
think I will use his stuff next time I teach evolution......
[07:43]  Acolyte: in the 9th configuration?
[07:43]  creation, what university are you 
studying biology at?
[07:43]  acolyte: I don't know.  I suspect 
it is still an amino acid. :)
[07:44]  Cannibal:  University of Illinois 
at Urbana/Champaign
[07:44]  but do amino acids have a soul?
[07:44]  JWS:  Do amino acids = life?
[07:44]  no
[07:44]  JWS: Ok then
[07:44]  JWS, interesting ... I take it that 
you are asking at what point LIFE exists :)
[07:45]  some religions see "life" in everything
[07:45] Action: creation has to sleep
[07:45]  Acolyte, do you believe that God gives 
a baby a soul at some time?
[07:45]  JWs chemicals are not about things
[07:45]  cannibal I am a traducianist
[07:46]  Acolyte, is a soul material?
[07:46]  hey Dean: good luck in school
[07:46]  cannibal no
[07:46]  cannibal define material
[07:46]  JWS:  Thank you
[07:46]  Acolyte, where does it come from?
[07:46]  cannibal the parents
[07:46]  cannibal don't u know what Traducianism 
is?
[07:46] JWS (schmidt@156.26.157.12) left #apologetics.
[07:46]  Acolyte, then God has no direct role 
in the making of a babies soul?
[07:47] Action: Acolyte exclaims "Geez do I have to 
educate u atheists about EVERYTHING? SHEESH!" ;)
[07:47]  Acolyte, actually I do :)
[07:47]  cannibal mediately yes, immediately 
no
[07:47]  Acolyte, so souls are non-physical 
entities?
[07:48]  cannibal define material
[07:48]  Acolyte, things without mass or energy 
in the normal physical sense :)
[07:48]  cannibal does physical=material?
[07:48]  Acolyte, for the purposes of my first 
question yes.
[07:49]  cannibal then how does physical explain 
material if they mean the same thing?
[07:49]  Acolyte, don't let the semantics of 
a word prevent you from forming an answer.
[07:49]  cannibal define material, physical
[07:49]  cannibal I didn't
[07:49]  I did answer
[07:49]  but I want ur definition
[07:49]  or don't u know  what material means?
[07:50]  I wonder
[07:50]  Acolyte, you regard the soul as a 
non-physical entity
[07:50]  cannibal define physical and I will 
know what u mean
[07:50] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) left irc: 
have to sleep
[07:50]  Acolyte, a thing that can be measured 
using energy ot mass detection methods :)
[07:50]  ot=or
[07:51]  cannibal does not mass/enegery=material/physical?
[07:51]  Acolyte, you don't have to be pedantic 
with me. I know what I mean and so do you :)
[07:51] Faithful2 (mjfookes@wh5003.wave.co.nz) joined 
#Apologetics.
[07:51]  kinda circular defintion, u just used 
equivocal words to explain nothing
[07:51]  cannibal I do?
[07:51]  perhaps I am not an atomist
[07:51]  perhaps I am a Platonist
[07:52]  how about Heraclitus for a little flare?
[07:52]  Acolyte, if you genuinely don't know 
then I'll be on my way
[07:52]  cannibal I know what u mean
[07:52]  but u don't
[07:52]  anyuhow
[07:52]  yes souls are not things that have 
parts
[07:52]  Acolyte, bye
[07:52]  they lack location
[07:52]  they are simple objects
[07:52]  they have no mass
[07:52]  take up no space
[07:53]  Acolyte, they lack mass, volume, location, 
perhaps even existence in time too.
[07:53]  cannibal they exist in time but are 
not contingent on time for existence
[07:53]  Acolyte, maybe we should speculate 
on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin :)
[07:53]  cannibal or how man piltdown men we 
can find ;)
[07:54]  caraicature works both ways
[07:54]  Acolyte, :):):)
[07:54]  question
[07:54]  do u have the blind watchmaker software 
program?
[07:54]  Acolyte, why do you believe that souls 
exist?
[07:55]  Acolyte, no
[07:55]  cannibal, God says so, seems reasonable, 
evidence against materialism etc
[07:55]  Acolyte, where does God say it?
[07:55]  cannibal in the bible
[07:55]  br
[07:55]  brb
[07:56] Cannibal (philcs@slip61.vianet.net.au) 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_5_18_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../