[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/18/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/18/96 [23:15] +lt

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/18/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/18/96 [23:15] ok to continue [23:15] sure [23:15] what direct evidence do youhave that the NT writers copied pagan sources? [23:15] empirical data please [23:16] The very nature of ancient scriptures makes direct evidence impossible. Since you aren't persuaded byu hte similarity with Pagan stories I'm not sure how to proceed... [23:17] Judith (spinner@dial025.skypoint.net) joined #apologetics. [23:17] chappy, what are the dates of the sources you are citing? Mithras for example, what are the dates of the manuscripts? [23:17] hullo judith [23:17] hello.. [23:17] You demand empirical data because you know it is impossible to provide and therefore win hte argument [23:18] just seeing what's going on here.. [23:18] chappy do I? [23:18] Loki (lrj91331@Bayou.UH.EDU) joined #apologetics. [23:18] moo. [23:18] That is my perception (I suppose I should have added that) [23:18] chappy I know your arument. I have read Bousett before. he os the man who came up with the theoryoriginally. Have your ead him? [23:18] Judith (spinner@dial025.skypoint.net) left #apologetics. [23:18] No [23:18] chappy, would you demand anything less than hard data? [23:19] I would hope not [23:19] So, do you know the dates of the Mithras Manuscripts? [23:19] The same could be said of the bible (which is exactly my point) [23:19] yes or nowill suffice [23:19] So, do you know the dates of the Mithras Manuscripts? [23:19] No and I don't believe I quoted them [23:19] oh, would you like me to tell you? [23:20] Sure if you believe it is relevant [23:20] starkle (starkle@access-one.com) joined #apologetics. [23:20] Loki (lrj91331@Bayou.UH.EDU) left #apologetics. [23:20] chappy what is your source for this information? [23:20] Which information? [23:20] Shrapnell (royc@netcom14.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [23:20] chappy the earliest manusctipt for the Mithras Cult is about 150 AD. POST CHRISTIAN. Scratch Mithras dependence [23:20] XUStudent (097556@XAVIER.XU.EDU) joined #apologetics. [23:20] chappy your theory [23:21] chappy what is your source of information? [23:21] JLeighton (JLeighton@www-20-215.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [23:21] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [23:21] hi [23:21] My source of info has been reading literature based on Greek, Roman, and other mythologies [23:21] hullo [23:22] hi JL [23:22] MacBinary (ircle@dial196160.wbm.ca) joined #apologetics. [23:22] Hi Ac [23:22] chappy thats nice. I did not ask for a biblography, I ask for names. [23:22] hullo xu [23:22] hullo Macbinary [23:22] hi [23:23] Acolyte Seems like it is better to go to the sources rather than what people have said about them. [23:23] chappy what sources are you usiing? [23:23] Acolyte, do you deny that Pagans had stories about virgin births,and healings etc? [23:23] xu unles of course the theories proposed byt he sources are unreliavble and outdated. [23:23] Chappy I asked A question I believe. Please answer it and I will answer yours in turn. [23:23] chappy after all, that is only fair [23:23] chappy what are your sources? [23:24] Acolyte I thought Chappy was saying he was reading the stories himself rather than having somebody else read them and tell about them [23:24] Chappy what scholarly sources can you cite for me? [23:24] xu, I amonly asking, but he denied that to be the case [23:24] Chappy> My source of info has been reading literature based on Greek, Roman, [23:24] +and other mythologies [23:24] I told you I wasn't a biblical scholar, I don't have original manuscripts lying around in my basement [23:25] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) joined #apologetics. [23:25] hi zen [23:25] Hi Zen [23:25] hey max, XU [23:25] er [23:25] mac [23:25] chappy ok, well you must have been reading somethng, what did you read this in? [23:25] what are you guys taling about [23:25] ^-__-^ (irc@pslip210b.egr-ri.ids.net) joined #apologetics. [23:25] err talking [23:25] MacBinary Pagan origions in the Bible [23:25] good question mac [23:26] I can't remember offhand, I read constantly. The info I'm alluding to was read about 10 years ago [23:26] Have you ever read/heard anything by Joseph Campbell? [23:26] chappy IC, so I am just supposed to dump my whole paradigm on the authority of some bk you read ten yours ago that I don't know of? [23:26] Xu yes. [23:26] baimei (baimei@ joined #apologetics. [23:26] hey bai [23:26] JLeighton (JLeighton@www-20-215.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [23:27] hi [23:27] He explains some pagan myths and their connections to Biblical myths pretty well. [23:27] Xu and Mircea Eliade refutes him pretty well too. [23:27] Has anybody noticed that they decided to stop talking about things in #Bible. All they want you to do is quote verses and say "hi" or "bye" to each other? [23:27] Acolyte Saying what? [23:27] Xu a freind of mine just finished abk on Cambell. Youshould pick it up. [23:28] Acolyte: I can see you are preferring to have my arguments undermined by the fact that you have more knowledge of dates than I do. Do you deny that other religiions had very similar stories? [23:28] who is campbell? [23:28] xu for one, cambell relies on extremly late dates for his thesis to work. [23:28] chappy no I do not. [23:28] MacBinary He studied different myths. [23:28] <^-__-^> Mac, Joeseph Campbell, a mythos specialist of sorts [23:28] Acolyte such as... [23:28] either chappy is very quiet or he is /msging [23:28] chappy, would you dump your worldview based on flimsy evidence that you are giving me now? [23:29] oh [23:29] <^-__-^> Christian traditions borrowed heavily from Zoroasterism [23:29] xu late dates for the Gospels. [23:29] Then why have you wasted the last fifteen miinutes asking me to dredge up the dates of texts I read years ago [23:29] anybody here read Rorty? [23:29] Acolyte when does he date them? [23:29] zx second centruy AD. FAR far too late [23:29] Acolyte: people don't dump beliefs- that is the nature of faith [23:29] mac me [23:30] <^-__-^> yes [23:30] chappy wann a bet? [23:30] chappy so youwant me to be a christian but not believe xianity? harldy [23:30] <^-__-^> Mac, Richard Rorty? [23:30] Acolyte is that when he dates the latest one? I have heard dates of John going as far as 100-110 AD [23:30] yep [23:30] I have his _Philo and the Mirror of Nature_ [23:30] xu by whom? [23:30] xu how about Rev? [23:30] starkle (starkle@access-one.com) left #apologetics. [23:31] Acolyte Rev I date around 95 AD. [23:31] acolyte: you asked for evidence that they read the krishna myths--- the bible itself is the evidence [23:31] Acolyte by most people that study these thigns [23:31] xu and I have read Rev about 64 AD. [23:31] <^-__-^> excellent book--you can do no better in getting an overview of current philo of language, very frequently assighned [23:31] baimei that assumes you theory is right. give me empirical data. A quote from the Talmud perhaps [23:31] Acolyte But there are clear references to Domition and the Temple being destroyed. [23:32] Acolyte: If the stories of virgin birth in the bible are true, are they also true for other texts which you have undoubtedly read which predate the bible? [23:32] Xu that is debateable. [23:32] I am interested in what he has to say about foundationalism [23:32] chappy no [23:32] <^-__-^> how so? [23:32] Why not? [23:32] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip05.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [23:32] Acolyte So I am supposed to not believe Campbell because you do not believe the dates he gives to the Gospels which are what most people say about them. [23:32] whether he agrees with the classical formulation - or if not - why [23:32] Hi pascoe...I hope you do not mind us discussing Bible [23:33] what makes the christian myth true and the others just myths---only your belief [23:33] XUStudent: the purpose here is to challenge the Bible. [23:33] baimei define "true" [23:33] xu never said that but that no textual critic dates the NT outside of 100 AD. [23:34] pascoe In what way? I thought we were talking about the meaning of certain parts of the Bible. That is where this discussion has been going. [23:34] <^-__-^> mac, the great thing about that book is that he faithfully represents the philos of several important diff philosophers, accross the spectrum [23:34] anyone can site Campbell or some other scholar's late dating. what they cannot do is site factual evidence of late dating. [23:34] Acolyte If "no contextual critic" does it...how did Campell do it? He seems to be one. [23:34] XUStudent: it looks as tho the challenges against the Bible continue. [23:34] hmm - I will have to read this one closely then :) [23:34] Acolyte: if the NT was written around 100 AD, or even 10 AD does this not indicate that there is potential for vast distortion of truth? [23:34] pascoe I have not seen one so far. [23:34] xu he is not a textual critic. [23:35] Acolyte then what is he? [23:35] XUStudent: see Chappy and baimei above. [23:35] chappy possible, so? its possible that green aliens are watching us too. So [23:35] XU religion studies and mythology. [23:35] Campbell is a humanist with lots of oppinions. 8) [23:35] pascoe He asked a question...never said anything about it not being true. [23:35] er, was. [23:35] XUStudent: ok, that's fine in #apolgetics. [23:36] he is no longer a humanist? [23:36] MacBinary: he's dead. [23:36] oh [23:36] Shrapnell (royc@netcom14.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [23:36] oops [23:36] Acolyte That is very broad...in what way does he do it? How does he tie it in with Bibnle is what I am asking. [23:36] pascoe Of course! We do more than say "hi" and "bye" to each other :) [23:36] anyone here read anything by Patrick Grim? [23:37] <^-__-^> JC was also an anti semite--which ought to caste aspersions on his thoughts vis a vis Judaism [23:37] xu clarify please [23:37] Acolyte: you seem to use facts very conveniently, you only acknowledge them in support of your argument. All others are ridiculed [23:37] Chappy: have you actually sited any facts yet? [23:38] chappy I ridicule what are not facts. very simple [23:38] Acolyte Well...he obviously knows his Bible in terms of other myths...so he knows at least a part of Biblical criticism. So why not classify him as somebody who knows what he is talking about? [23:38] I don't believe anyone has- just speculation and theory and speculation about the accuracy of theories read...:) [23:38] ZenLagMan (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) joined #apologetics. [23:38] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [23:38] Hi ZenLagMan [23:39] xu part of? I know part of Textual Crit, His soucres are dated. that is the problem. [23:39] XUStudent: Campbell attempted to marry all ancient stories. Unfortunately, he could only do so by ignoring their obvious exclusive differences. [23:39] CTCP PING: 824704707 from ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) to #apologetics [23:39] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) left irc: changing servers [23:39] how do account for the similarities between the names and lives of krishna and christ? [23:39] Nick change: ZenLagMan -> ZenRookie [23:39] MacBinary (ircle@dial196160.wbm.ca) left #apologetics. [23:39] pascoe he does so because of his Jungian assumptions, not the data. [23:39] baimia what simialarities in the names? [23:39] Acolyte: "his sources are dated" have you any idea how silly that sounds when we are criticising a 200 year old book? [23:40] chappy do you have any hard empirical data or just speculation? [23:40] Acolyte they are dated only because you have said they are from what I have seen. [23:40] 2000 year old book. [23:40] book(s). 8) [23:40] soory missed a zero [23:40] pascoe :) [23:40] chappy I mean his sources for his arguments for the dates of the bks of the NT. Do you know how sill you sound saying that? It shows too much. [23:41] Chappy: it would serve your argument better if you sited some facts which were independent of Campbells beliefs and opinions. [23:41] krishna was called krishna zeus and krishna jeseus, you dont see any connection? [23:41] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial42.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics. [23:41] chappy, for example Cambell relies on Bultmann and others, who's dates have been severely criticised but post Bultmanians and non Bultmanian scholars for the past 30 yrs. They are disrepute largly [23:41] Acolyte most people believe the Gospels to be written between 60-100 AD [23:41] hey profg [23:41] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) left #apologetics. [23:41] hello ProfG. 8) [23:41] hiya :-) [23:41] Acolyte: you said earlier that you doubted the veracity of the bible. why do you defend it with such vigour then? [23:41] xu well did you read time magazie recently? [23:41] krishna= king jeseus or zeus=god [23:41] Hi profg [23:42] I saw there were a bunch of ppl here via the WWW interface :-) [23:42] Chappy No I said I am skeptical. I did not say I doubted the veracity of the Bible. [23:42] ProfG: does it automatically alert you? 8) [23:42] Acolyte which one? They have a lot of Bible things in there :) [23:42] pascoe: nah, gotta go to the #apologetics web page [23:42] Skeptical = doubt? [23:42] ProfG: bummer. 8) [23:42] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [23:42] baimei so? It does nt take a brain to think things up. How do you account for Unicorns INJapan and Uninorns in Ireland? Easy idea to think up [23:43] xu the one on the Bible. [23:43] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics. [23:43] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org [23:43] xu there is a text they found from Mark dated about 50 AD [23:43] Acolyte: interesting, how was it dated? [23:43] Acolyte Who dated it? [23:43] chappy no, Skeptical= NON-gullible. [23:44] xu a number of scholars. I don't have the article with me but youcan look it up if you like since it was only a few months ago. (BTW I don't take TIME Magazine to be Conservative) [23:44] thats the problem they didnt make it up for themselves, they copied the whole story [23:45] Yet you think stories written 2000 years ago about virgin births and raising the dead are worth defending? I would define that as gullible [23:45] baimei: what is the earliest date for krishna stories? [23:45] baimei give me some hard empirical evidence please other than similar accounts. [23:45] baimei did the Jews of the Times accuse them of that? No. [23:45] Acolyte a lot depends on the dating. I will have to check it out. [23:45] Chappy perhaps, but where is your evidence? [23:45] between 500 - 1000 bc [23:46] xy fine, but most scholars date MK about 50-60 AD presently [23:46] Well...I am going to #philosophy now. I will talk to you later [23:46] Chappy: it is interesting how you can continue to make assertions about the authenticity of the Bible without siting any factual evidence. [23:46] The evidence is that these happenings have never been replicated [23:46] bai that is a date, not empirical data [23:46] chappy has the begining of the universe been replicated? [23:46] Acolyte Wait...I was thinking Matthew...that is when I date Mark. [23:46] baimei: the prophesies concerning Christ were well known by that time. [23:46] chappy is ANY historical event repeatable? [23:46] aco: give empirical data proving the bible [23:47] baimei prove what about the bible? [23:47] baimei: it would be more probable that the krishna followers copied from the OT prophesy. [23:47] pascoe that is possible too [23:47] baimei: give empirical data proving krishna. [23:47] pascoe the argument can be argued both ways. ;) [23:47] The workings of god ought to be replicable [23:47] chappy they are - by God [23:47] chappy so you know how GOD OUGHT to work? how do you know that? [23:47] Acolyte: the OT prophesy is older than the krishna stories according to baimei. [23:47] chappy how do you know things about what God OUGHT to do? [23:48] XUStudent (097556@XAVIER.XU.EDU) left #apologetics. [23:48] chappy does God talk to you or something? [23:48] pascoe: you cant prove him, he was a myth, like the bible stories [23:48] Acolyte I only know what is convincing. God is not convincing me that he exists... [23:48] baimei: so you don't even stand behind the evidence you are using to refute the Bible? interesting. [23:48] there is proof that he was worshipped in india bc [23:48] ok, gotta go to bed, God bless all [23:48] chappy perhaps you are not ment to be convinced. [23:49] baimei what proof? [23:49] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [23:49] I guess you'd have to blame god for that wouldn't you [23:49] Chappy: God may not be convincing to you, but that doesn't change God's existence. Neither does it support your assertions against the authenticity of Scripture. [23:49] c u l8r [23:49] baimei for a refutaion of your thoery please Read Paul Meir, A Marginal Jew, ANchor Books [23:49] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial42.fiu.edu) left irc: Leaving [23:49] sculptures showing slaughter of the innocents and others of his stories [23:49] chappy what is convincing is realative to ones paradigm. [23:49] chappy what is your paradigm? [23:50] Scripture is claimed to be a work of god, if I don't believe in god, then it is natural to doubt the veracity of scripture [23:50] beimei also read reymond Brown, The Birht of the Messiah [23:50] texts like the Bh----Gita (cant remember the spelling) [23:50] chappy fine, what is your paradigm? [23:50] Acolyte: i am agnostic [23:50] chappy define [23:50] what kind of agnostic? [23:51] I don't believe god exists but cannot prove that he does not. [23:51] chappy so is that a justified or unjustified belief about God not existing? [23:51] I can argue however that he is not a kind or benevolent god [23:51] channy so you think God is not Good? [23:52] yes [23:52] chappy so is that a justified or unjustified belief about God not existing? [23:52] pascoe2 (pasc8891@xslip30.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [23:52] justified (according to my paradigm) [23:52] Smitty1 (mwandrey@ joined #apologetics. [23:52] baimei (baimei@ left #apologetics. [23:52] chappy so let me see if I understand you ok? [23:52] Smitty1 (mwandrey@ left #apologetics. [23:52] please do [23:53] Chappy: your faith looks similar to mine, so how can you attack mine? 8) [23:53] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip05.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip05.csrv.uidaho.edu] [23:53] chappy you have belief G. Belief G has no proof for it, but you believe belief G none the less. Correct? [23:53] Nick change: pascoe2 -> pascoe [23:53] No [23:53] ok please explain. [23:54] Chappy do you have proof for your unbelief in God? [23:54] I don't believe god exists but cannot prove that he does not. [23:54] that IS what you said, correct? [23:54] I have belief G which states that in the absence of proof of other beliefs I will not choose one to live my life by [23:54] Chappy: there is a difference between saying 'the Bible is borrowed myth' and 'I have faith that the Bible is borrowed myth'. [23:55] pascoe yess and... [23:55] chappy so it is just evidence that you have not experienced yet that you suspend belief in certain things on? [23:55] Chappy: which are you asserting now? [23:56] pascoe no [23:56] chappy so it is just evidence that you have not experienced yet that you suspend belief in certain things on? [23:56] Acolyte : could you reword that I'm not clear about what you are trying to saay [23:57] No, I believe in logical argument as well as experiential [23:57] chappy basically you are saying that any belief X should have grounds before it is rationally held or believed. Accurate or not accruate? [23:57] yes [23:57] Chappy: do you suspend belief in any and all claims that have no proof? [23:57] ok let me ask you something if I may [23:57] ? [23:58] pascoe of course, I am a scientist that is my job [23:58] chappy you hold that principle to be true or false principle? [23:58] Chappy: do you believe that George Washington existed or are you suspending belief at this point? [23:59] chappy you hold that principle to be true or false principle? [23:59] I do not doubt that Washington or Jesus existed, I just don't believe Jesus has anything to do with god [23:59] Aco: which principle? [23:59] Chappy: so you don't consistently require proof as you asserted a moment ago? [00:00] chappy the principle that:Any Belief should have grounds before it is held or believed as rational. Is that a true or false principle? [00:00] You never asked about what proof I hold for the existance of washington or jesus [00:00] Aco: I believe that to be true [00:01] chappy ok. [00:01] chappy why? [00:01] Chappy: you indicated that you could not believe without proof, but you appear to do so with Washington and Jesus. minor point. 8) [00:01] chappy lets call that principle F ok? [00:01] To do otherwise is to base reality on faith which has no rational grounds [00:02] F it is [00:02] perhaps, perhaps not. [00:02] ok [00:02] so Prin F, lets examine its rationality for a second [00:02] examining [00:02] chappy lets take Prin F and do a little rational experiment ok? [00:02] sounds fun [00:02] Now principle F states the following: [00:03] "Belief ______ needs to have grounds before it is believed or held as rational." [00:03] correct? [00:03] correct- I see where you are going with this [00:03] chappy you do? where am I going with this? please tell me [00:04] Acolyte: grounds <--> evidence? [00:04] pascoe yes, partially, rational argument, physical data, etc [00:04] ok. [00:04] pascoe make sense? [00:04] I believe you are going to demonstrate how it is impossible to believe anything under this paradigm [00:04] Acolyte: I understand the question. [00:04] chappy perhaps, how so? [00:05] The grounds have to be believed etc. etc. [00:05] chappy no, not at all [00:05] okay let's go [00:05] chappy let me show you where I am going with this, ok? [00:06] "Belief ______ needs to have grounds before it is believed or held as rational." [00:06] Now that is Prin F. [00:06] yup [00:06] lets do this [00:06] "Belief _Prin F__ needs to have grounds before it is believed or held as rational." [00:06] Apply the rpinciple to itself [00:06] what happens? [00:06] it is self referentially absurd [00:07] it cannit pass its OWN requirement [00:07] I don't believe that is the case [00:07] please show me how then. [00:07] If the belief is in error it is a conservative error as opposed to faith [00:08] chappy, please define faith [00:08] Chappy: a simple yes/no question first.... do you exercise faith? [00:08] Let's try another experiment shall we [00:08] jonathan (greg.shepp@sailor.igs.net) joined #apologetics. [00:08] chappy, please define faith [00:08] chappy, please define faith [00:09] faith = believing in something which cannot be proven logically or empirically [00:09] chappy do you think that is my meaning tothe word? [00:09] I don't know what you think, I presumed tthat it was [00:10] chappy no your presumption is wrong [00:10] Chappy: is it conservative to make presumptions? 8) [00:10] jonathan (greg.shepp@sailor.igs.net) left #apologetics. [00:10] chappy NO christian Theologian or the Christian Church has NEVER used that definition of Faith. [00:11] pascoe: if I don't make presumptions about language then this could be very tedious [00:11] chappy should I tell you what the term "faith" means in a Xian context? [00:11] sure [00:12] Faith-Trusting a Person to do what they say they will. PErsonal Trust. (It has nothing to do with propositinal beliefs ) [00:12] chappy I trust my Mom. That is based on true propositions about my mom that I know. [00:12] Philo (user@ joined #apologetics. [00:12] hence my faith in her is based on true propositins [00:13] you trust your mom because past experience has supported that propostition [00:13] chappy so my faith in God is based on propositions that I hold as knowledge. [00:13] Do you believe god is good? [00:13] chappy, no trust is what I do. It is part of my voliution. [00:13] don't change the subject [00:13] one thing at a time [00:14] I would disagree [00:14] I believe THAT there is a God. That is based on reason and Evidence. But that is not faith [00:14] it is not personal Trust [00:14] Philo (user@ left #apologetics. [00:14] fine, but I am not using YOUR defintions am I? [00:14] okay we agree to disagree on the meaning of faith [00:14] I believe IN God, which is my personal Faith in him. [00:15] chappy no, do not apply a defintion of a word that I reject to my paradigm. [00:15] Do you believe god is good? [00:15] yes or no [00:16] chappyyes I do, but you WERE going to show me how my example was in error were you not? [00:16] are you are are you not? yes or no? [00:17] I could do that but I don't think it is as relevant as the experiment I would like to try [00:17] "Belief _Prin F__ needs to have grounds before it is believed or held as rational." [00:17] please show Prin F is not referentially absurd. [00:18] justify your epistemology [00:19] I would change principle F to leading your life according to principle Y without evidence of Y being true is absurd [00:19] karen (agri1@ix-man-nh1-08.ix.netcom.com) joined #APOLOGETICS. [00:19] chappy [00:19] hi i missed you [00:19] chappy ok, fine, what is the evidence for Prin F tho? [00:19] my girlfriend got a new computer today [00:20] karen I believe I don't know you [00:20] are you sure [00:20] Chappy: insert Prin F in where you have Y and it still has self-referencial problems. [00:20] what does that mean [00:20] Chappy, what is the evidence for prin F? [00:20] karen (agri1@ix-man-nh1-08.ix.netcom.com) left #APOLOGETICS. [00:21] I changed principle F remember [00:21] Chappy, you said ANY belief needs to have grounds. What are the grounds for prin F? [00:21] "leading your life according to _Prin. F_ without evidence of _Prin. f_ being true is absurd. [00:21] fine, you changed it, so what? How does that justify prin F? [00:21] pascoe thank you [00:22] Prin. F = "leading your life according to _Prin. F_ without evidence of _Prin. F_ being true is absurd." [00:22] The grounds are that exerting energy on principle Y is absurd in the absence of rational or empiricl evidence [00:23] chappy perhaps so, what are the grounds for prin F? [00:23] chappy BTW that is only if Prin F is true, which we have not found out yet. [00:23] Principle F is self explanatory [00:23] chappy how do you know that Prin F is true if you have NO grounds for it? [00:23] Prin. F = "exerting energy on _Prin. F_ is absurd in the absence of rational or empirical evidence." [00:24] chappy sure it is SELF explanatory, but is it self contradictory IS THE QUESTION [00:24] Acolyte: that is a tautology? [00:24] If F is not true what are the consequences? [00:24] chappy moral relativism is self explanatory as well. Dose not solve its problem of being self refuting. [00:24] chappy I did not ask about that did I? [00:24] Chappy: the consequences are that you have used principle F as a guiding principle. [00:25] chappy what are your grounds for believing Prin F? [00:25] pascoe no not a tuatology [00:25] If F is not true than beliefs are exempt from logic or proof [00:25] chappy perhaps,perhaps not but that does not justify prin F. [00:26] chappy I can think of other ways to justify beleifs other than Prin F. [00:26] Chappy but what are your grounds for prin F? [00:26] I am sure you can [00:26] Chappy: the point is that you start with the unproven presupposition that Prin. F is true. [00:26] chappy you AGREED THAT ALL beliefs require grounds. [00:26] chappy Prin F is a belief,. what is the ground for prin F? [00:26] yes i did [00:27] chappy Prin F is a belief,. what is the ground for prin F? [00:27] it is simple logic [00:27] my ground for principle F is that the absence of F would eliminate logic from the formation of principles [00:27] IF prin F is a subset of the catagory B and all be require property G and prin B lacks property G, then it cannot be inthat set of G rational beleifs. Simple ven diagram will show you that. [00:28] chappy can I show you how that is wrong? [00:28] chappy can I show you how that is wrong? [00:28] not really [00:28] Chappy: is logic something to be desired in your view? or do you also presuppose logic to be a valid principle? [00:28] can I at least try? [00:29] pascoe: we can go back up hte logic trail to oblivion without getting to a single point [00:29] can I at least try? [00:30] chappy can I at least show you how I think it is wrong? [00:30] Chappy: the point is that you cannot escape presuppositions even tho you claim to be doing so. [00:30] Only if you answer my questions first, I believe I'm entitle to make my point [00:30] pascoe correct [00:30] chappy ok go for it [00:30] Is god good? [00:30] chappy yup [00:30] Did he create the universe? [00:30] yes [00:31] is he omniscient? [00:31] Chappy: I presuppose God to be good and the Creator. the evidence confirms it. [00:31] yes [00:31] and omnipotent? [00:31] define [00:31] all powerful [00:31] define more [00:31] as I understand those terms, yes. [00:32] does god have the power to alter anything he wishes [00:32] no [00:32] Chappy God can do anything that is not logically impossible and that is not contrary to his moral character. [00:32] Chappy: God binds Himself by His own Word and promises. [00:32] So you believe god as a catalyst for the creation and is now "hands off" [00:32] Chappy: no. [00:32] chappy no, scroll up [00:32] Chappy God can do anything that is not logically impossible and that is not contrary to his moral character. [00:33] okay [00:33] Chappy See St Augustine 4th century AD [00:33] so god is not good [00:33] Chappy No, God is Goodness [00:33] Chappy God cannot make square circles for example, logically impossible to do. [00:33] if god created the universe then he created evil... [00:34] chappy define evil [00:34] chappy what is evil? [00:35] Chappy: define evil apart from God. 8) [00:35] evil is commonly referred to as bad, harmful, [00:35] what is bad? [00:35] Chappy: what is harmful? 8) [00:35] is fornication evil? [00:35] is pride evil? [00:36] Bad is impaling babies on bayonettes [00:36] Why is that Bad? [00:36] The baby and it [00:36] soops [00:36] why is it bad to kill babies? [00:37] the baby and it's mother probably aren't pleased [00:37] Chappy: is displeasure bad? [00:37] So? is being unpleased evil? [00:37] I believe bayonnetting babies is evil, do you? [00:37] Chappy: quick, find a presupposition. [00:37] chappy rape, murder, etc is all perfectly natural. Its partof nature. Its nature's way [00:38] god's way? [00:38] chappy, if I were in your paradigm no I would not. [00:38] Chappy: is there a definition of evil that applies outside your mind? [00:38] chappy what I think is evil in my worldview and what you think evil is in YOUR worldview are TWO TOTALLY different things. [00:38] do you believe I adhere to moral relativism? [00:38] chappy defne evil [00:39] chapy I believe you are an ethical Nihilist waiting to happen. [00:39] chappy why is killing evil? its natural is it not? [00:39] Chappy: your definition of evil appears to be based squarely on your individual opinion. which in turn could be based on what you had for breakfast. [00:39] killing babies is not natural, it goes against the replication of your species [00:40] Chappy: are unnatural things evil? [00:40] Chappy mother cats eat their babies at times, perfectly natural. Its part of antur. It just happans [00:40] pascoe is anythig in nature UNnatural? (hint-NO) [00:40] male chimps kill and eat offspring within their own clans. [00:40] Acolyte: 8) [00:40] So god kills babies and that's okay [00:40] Chappy: apparently killing is not always evil. [00:41] chappy if nature is everything,nothing that happens in nature is unnatural. [00:41] Chappy: perhaps the definition of evil needs to be more specific. [00:41] Chappy sure, why is anyone killing babies wrong? [00:42] Okay a scenario: a soldier enters yhour home, rapes your wife and slowly kills your child by slow dissection- god made this happen- you are okay with this? [00:42] chappy first YOU have to show that ethics are even POSSIBLE inyour paradigm for youto even MAKE the accusation [00:42] chappy, perhaps you do not yet see the problem. [00:42] chappy, lets do Philosophical Theology 101 here ok [00:42] chappy God is perfect, premise 1. [00:43] Chappy hence it follows that anything God does is right and good [00:43] since premise 1 says he is perfect [00:43] hence if God kills person A then it is right for him to do so. [00:43] since he is perfect. [00:43] Sounds like a real healthy circular argument to me [00:44] Chappy: and yours isn't? 8) [00:44] its called A divine Command Ethic. YOu are about 3000 yrs behind, start catching up [00:44] chappy, if premise 1 is true, how does the restnot follow? [00:44] Chappy: Acolyte is logically correct, you just disagree with premise 1. [00:44] premise 1 is a premise and therefore not necessarily true [00:45] chappy show how premise 1 is false [00:45] chapy the argument may be unsound, but it is DEFINATELY valid. Show how it is unsound please [00:45] Mildman (Meliority@www-32-154.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [00:45] Mildman (Meliority@www-32-154.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [00:46] Premise 1 is unsound in tha t it presupposes that god is perfect [00:46] Blix (blixxed@general5.ASU.EDU) joined #apologetics. [00:46] hi gang [00:46] long time no type [00:46] It is like me saying "yellow is yellow" hard to argue there [00:46] shema (lewis7@aus-tx7-08.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [00:46] Ah, there are bots here now eh? I haven't been here for a while. [00:47] CTCP PING: 824708818 from Blix (blixxed@general5.ASU.EDU) to #apologetics [00:47] chappy, well the Christian Conception of God is sum total of all perfections, If you wish to argue a non-perfect diety you can find a different religionist to argue with I suppose [00:47] Action: Blix enters stage right. [00:47] shema (lewis7@aus-tx7-08.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [00:47] Papin (MHANNAH@bos1b.delphi.com) joined #apologetics. [00:47] You'll find that a lot of the truths we cling to are based upon certain points of view. [00:47] Chapy our source for our theology is the Bible. It teaches that God is perfect. Hence premise 1 holds for us since it is OUR conceptin of God. [00:47] Your argument is airtight then- God is perfect, therefore god is unquestionable [00:48] chappy ok, so please tell me what evil is [00:48] chappy is anything in nature evil? [00:48] Acolyte: the answer is based upon certain points of view. [00:48] I believe I described a scenario which I considered evil and you considered perfect [00:48] chappy if I raped your wife (assuming you are married male and straight) and killed your kids, would that be an evil act? [00:49] chappy no, Imerely pointed out that one could not accuse God of evil. [00:49] Yes and your god would think it is perfect [00:49] CTCP PING: 824708955 from Blix (blixxed@general5.ASU.EDU) to #apologetics [00:49] Hello? [00:49] chappy no, God would not think someone doing that necessarily to be Good. [00:49] chappy if God kills someone it is good. [00:49] it is right [00:49] Blix (blixxed@general5.ASU.EDU) left irc: changing servers [00:49] Blix (blixxed@general5.ASU.EDU) joined #apologetics. [00:50] Hope fully you can all see me quickily here. [00:50] CTCP PING: 824709003 from Blix (blixxed@general5.ASU.EDU) to #apologetics [00:50] If god created all and is omniscient then he knew from the outset tahat you would commit evil. Is he not responsible then? [00:50] Hello? [00:50] chappy responsible means being answerable to someone, who si God answerable to? [00:50] Hello Blix [00:50] Chappy: thank you [00:51] Himself [00:51] hullo Blix [00:51] Acolyte: thank you [00:51] chappy right, and if he is perfect then what is the problem? [00:51] blix watching fantasy movies again? ;) [00:51] I would argue that a god who is perfect would not think that evil is perfectly okay [00:52] Acolyte: Yes... and I've found, based upon my point of view, that the statement Ben Kenobi said is entirely true. [00:52] ^-__-^ (irc@pslip210b.egr-ri.ids.net) left #apologetics. [00:52] chappy but how do you know what is evil apart from God? If God is the standard, then how cna youcall anything he does evil by defintion? [00:53] chappy, outside of my paradigm, can you even talk about evil in a meaningful way? [00:53] I didn't say he was the standard, that is your paradigm, [00:53] chappy ok, so what standard do you judge a perfect being by? [00:53] Acolyte: by the Chappy Standard of Moral Excellence. [00:54] A perfect being would be "all good" [00:54] pascoe Huburis Ethical standard eh? [00:54] chappy true. So? [00:54] Acolyte: Chappy has defined his standard as 'that which is all good'. 8) [00:55] pascoe: I'd be willing to put my bayonette scenario against your god's perfection anyday. I believe I could look myself in hte mirror with my paradigm in that situation. Could you? [00:55] Chappy yup. [00:55] chappy why is it wrongin your paradigm? [00:55] chappy why is anythngwrong in your paradigm? [00:56] It's been fun, ciao [00:56] Blix (blixxed@general5.ASU.EDU) left #apologetics. [00:56] Pascoe that means who ever can honestly live with their paradigm decides truth questions. Great logical profundity there. [00:56] In my paradigm, people are driven by their resultant biological and experiential realities. [00:56] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip30.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Read error to pascoe[xslip30.csrv.uidaho.edu]: Connection reset by peer [00:56] chappy ok, by antecendent states of affairs governed by natural law right? [00:56] yes or no? [00:57] define natural law [00:57] chappy natural law are the properties inherrant in nature that are observed as probable regularities [00:58] okay [00:58] yes or no? [00:58] chappy ok, by antecendent states of affairs governed by natural law right? [00:58] yes [00:58] yup [00:58] ok, how do get morality from that? [00:59] chappy how do you derive moral states from physical states? [00:59] chappy do you quantify morality somehow? [00:59] Papin (MHANNAH@bos1b.delphi.com) left irc: Leaving [00:59] is it measurable? [01:00] a sentient being would understand that bayonetting a baby causes pain which is umpleasant f or others and could get yourself killed and a host of other antecedents that woudl also be unpleasant for the bayoneetor [01:00] Does it have hieght? [01:00] Chappy so? [01:00] chappy sentience is caused by bio-chemnical reactions in nature. [01:00] Yes [01:01] Chapy whenyou say that you are only DESCRIBING what goes on in someone. NOT what SHOULD go on. [01:01] ethics deals with what one OUGHT to do. How do you derive an ought from an is? [01:02] The bayonnetter should compare his behaviour to what is considered good and then measure the diparity between his acituons and a Good action [01:02] That woudl help determine what he ought to do [01:02] Just becuase they would hold belief E, is only a description of a bio-chenmical states in them. it is DEscription, NOT PREscription. [01:03] chappy how does anyone know what is good? [01:03] chappy how does one derive what one OUGHT to do from what IS? [01:03] Social comparison- gut feeling- a combination of both [01:04] ah, so what if I in Soveit Russia? [01:04] or how about Nazi Germany? [01:04] my culture says it is right to kill jews [01:04] I feel it is right to killjews [01:04] I have been tuaght that my whole life [01:04] is it right? [01:05] (hypothetically of course. I am not anti-semetic) [01:05] Depending on your perspective but I believe even the Nazis were aware that waht they were donin was wrong [01:05] chappy note that any feeling I have or my ulture has is caused by bio-chemical states caused in them by nature. [01:06] chappy but even if they were aware of that, it is only because nature produced their beleifs. Or did their beleifs come form somewhere OUTSIDE of nature. [01:06] and the processing of that stimuli yes [01:06] ? [01:06] chappy so they thought it was right/wrong because of nature. [01:06] Yes [01:06] so, how does anyone know ethics? [01:07] do u understand the question? [01:07] Yes [01:07] Thinking [01:07] BTW [01:07] I have an off topic quick question [01:08] Go ahead [01:08] Do you think I am stupid? [01:08] Not at all. Do you think I'm stupid? [01:08] No [01:08] Do you think I am trying to be rational? [01:08] I just don't agree with your beliefs as you have stated them [01:09] Do you think I am trying to be rational? [01:09] Do I fit your stereotype of Christians? [01:10] Acolyte: I believe you are attempting to use a logical argument that deflects criticism of your beliefs [01:10] no [01:10] but then again Christians are not a homogenous group [01:10] has our discussion changed in any meaningful way your conception of being a Theist or Theistic belief? [01:11] Not yet although you've forced me to think about the grounds for my beliefs [01:11] ok good [01:12] I am not trying to convince you [01:12] I am only trying to show you that Theism is rational and that I am rational as well [01:12] I haven't heard too much about what you believe, you have an effective strategy of leading me off track [01:12] tho many theists are not rational as are many non-theists [01:12] ok [01:13] anyhow [01:13] how does anyone know what is ethical or if there are ethics? [01:13] wait [01:13] let me put it this way [01:13] I would like togo over somethng [01:13] I have always considered myself a rational person although I admit I am not immune to thinking illogically at times [01:13] you agreed that all beliefs are caused by nature, correct? [01:14] chappy non I have met is. don't feel bad [01:14] Yes [01:14] ok, so nature produces beliefs in us. [01:14] yes? [01:14] to the extent that causality can be determined [01:14] ok [01:14] I am not talking about measruability tho [01:14] yes [01:15] okay [01:15] I am just talking about why chemicals move [01:15] Yes [01:15] how they move and how we measure themare different questions I think [01:15] mare=move [01:15] ok [01:15] to continue [01:15] so lets take Fred [01:15] yup [01:15] fred believes web of beliefs X [01:16] ok [01:16] now fred believes set X because of nature, bio0chemical reactions in the brain [01:16] yes? [01:16] in Fred nature holds X set beleifs [01:16] yes? [01:16] yes [01:16] chappy how could Fred ever verify set X? [01:17] beliefs are inherently impossible to verify- [01:17] agreed [01:18] if one is a naturalist that is [01:18] so [01:18] here is my question to you [01:18] but because one needs beliefs to function [01:18] How do you know, based on naturalism that any of your beleifs are either TRUE or FALSE? [01:18] the set of beliefs you choose defines who you are and how you operate in nature [01:18] chappy if we need them to function does not address the questionof their being true. [01:19] chappy but nature determines your choices [01:19] no? [01:19] Yes [01:19] or is something else not affected by nature making choices? [01:19] a non-natural thing? [01:19] or supranatural if you will? [01:19] no I suppose I'm a determinist then [01:19] yes [01:20] now [01:20] look what this results in [01:20] No belief canhave truth value [01:20] NO ethics are possible [01:20] Knowldge is not possible [01:20] Science is not possible [01:20] Nihilism [01:20] Naturalism=Nihilism [01:21] YUp that about clinches it [01:21] Do you see the argument? [01:21] yes [01:21] do you feel its weight at all? [01:21] It explains why I always get into disputes with colleagues over causality [01:21] this is how I see it then [01:21] no [01:21] it explains nothing [01:22] nothing is explained in nihilism [01:22] it is a NON-logical system [01:22] nothing is known [01:22] true [01:22] no, not true [01:22] there isno true or false [01:22] you have passed the event horizion of Truth [01:22] true in my paradigm [01:22] you are on the other side of logic [01:22] nihilism has no truth value tho [01:23] That is very polite of you [01:23] none of your beliefs are true [01:23] they are not even false [01:23] they just are beleifs [01:23] brain states [01:23] Now [01:23] this is how I see it [01:23] I can give up rationality ad ethics [01:23] or I can be a Theist and keep them [01:23] Perhaps that is why I have become an agnostic psychologist [01:23] I think the latter is FAR more rational [01:24] perhaps why that is why I am a Theistic Philosopher [01:24] I suspected as much [01:24] If you do not choose naturalism, then you can do ethics and rationality [01:24] if you do, well you're a nihilist [01:24] chappy this is why I do not take seriously naturalistic critiques of Theism [01:25] that is why your dependence theory ultimately means nothing [01:25] your paradigm has no justification for knowldge at all, hence it can make no claims or criticisms, thus you were inmplicitly Assuming the truth of my paradigm and what it provides in order to criticise it. [01:26] hence to make any meaningful ethical or rational statement one must assume Theism, or at least does assume it unknowingly [01:26] hence [01:27] dang it [01:27] Part of the reason for my agnosticism is based on your arguments. I suppose I have never tested them in quite this way before. [01:27] chappy well perhaps you should seriously consider Theism then? [01:27] chappy can I ask you a personal question? [01:28] But I have always known that there were flaws but none so glaring I thought as faith [01:28] by my definition [01:28] sure [01:28] your age? sex? location? [01:28] male 29, Waterloo, Canada and U [01:29] chappy will this make you investigate Theism? perhaps someone has delt with your problems before? [01:29] male 24 Anaheim, CA USA [01:30] Perhaps if you look, perhaps you could find outthat somone has answerd all the problems you have? [01:30] I have read a fair amount of philosophy and actually read John Stuart Mills, Hume ,Kant St Thomas acquinas etc [01:30] for fun [01:30] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [01:30] chappy well that is general reading [01:30] more historical than anything [01:31] perhaps you should might try looking at somethng else [01:31] somethng a tad more up to date [01:31] ? [01:31] such as?? [01:31] Well I know of many scholarly works in the field that address many problems. [01:31] I could recomend some to you if you feel compelled to investiagte Theism more fully [01:32] Perhaps, I once considered myself a Deist but I can't quite remember what it means anymore... [01:33] Deist-Clockwork Cosmos [01:33] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics. [01:33] Ahh now I remember [01:33] Well Theism is different than Diesm [01:33] Mode change '+o W ' by okc.ok.us.undernet.org [01:33] would you be interested? [01:34] if not that is fine, but please do realise that as far as rationality and ethics go, you are on the "outside" f manking any meaningful statements. [01:34] I am but have limited reading time. As you can understand I'm sure [01:34] at least that is my perspective [01:34] yes [01:34] I will try to keep it "short and sweet". [01:35] if you give me your email I will send you a short list. [01:35] dschapma@watarts.uwaterloo.ca [01:35] Chappy think of it this way [01:36] Please tell me Theists don't only go to churches... [01:36] You are betting your life [01:36] no I do more than that [01:36] trust me [01:36] I do NORMAL things too [01:37] liek throw babys on bayonetts...and... [01:37] jk [01:37] just kiddiing [01:37] ;) [01:37] :) [01:37] I enjoy Volleyball, and other sports [01:37] yes I saw the humour [01:37] fishing [01:37] camping [01:37] Astronomy [01:37] Geology [01:37] etc [01:37] My Fiance has a masters in Education [01:38] and a BA un history [01:38] she has varied interests as well [01:38] like me ;) [01:38] I have to admit I am a little baffled how you can reconcile astronomy and Christianity... [01:38] chappy why? [01:39] Christianity places the age of the universe somewhat younger than astronomy [01:39] oh really? [01:39] like when? [01:39] I don't believe I would be betting my life on being an agnostic BTW [01:39] chappy if Theism is true youa re betting your life BTW [01:40] the stakes are high, choose well [01:40] but anyhow [01:40] about the age of the cosmos [01:40] ... [01:40] If god created me how could he blame me if I have doubts? [01:40] you werre saying? [01:40] chappy does he blame you for doubts? [01:41] if I am betting wrong then perhaps he does... [01:41] well xianity does nt say he balmes youfor doubts [01:41] other things perhaps but not for doubts [01:41] such as? [01:41] rebellion [01:42] breaking his laws [01:42] how could someone rebel if he created them [01:42] and is perfect? [01:42] easy [01:42] God is perfect [01:42] we were made righteous [01:42] we chose another path tho [01:43] we chose rebellion [01:43] Cosmic treason [01:43] If god was omniscient, he knew the moment he created the universe that this woudl happen [01:43] chappy yup sure did [01:43] so? [01:43] chappy why is that a problem? [01:43] chappy do you have kids? [01:44] but chose to create the universe that way regardless [01:44] chappy do you have kids? [01:44] yes [01:44] How old are they? [01:44] 3and 1/2 and 20 months and a fetus (3months in womb) [01:45] ok [01:45] well lets say its 10 yrs down the line [01:45] ok? [01:45] sure [01:45] and yor kid, lies to you [01:45] yes [01:45] know are you going to tel me that you did not know that your kids would lie to you ? [01:45] but yet you had them. WHY? [01:46] How about this [01:46] You knew they would do evil, and yet yos till chose to have them. Why? [01:46] oh no, answer that onefirst [01:46] be fair now [01:46] I had them for many reasons [01:46] Why did you have kids if you knew they would commit evil? [01:47] but you knew in advance that they would lie, cheat, steal, mect [01:47] etc [01:47] I believed they would commit more good than evil [01:47] chappy oh really? [01:47] yes [01:47] so becuse they did more good that makes the evil ok? [01:47] or just acceptable? [01:48] I also believed that the evil they would do would not be serious [01:48] So having kids where more good would result in the end than more evil was accetpable? [01:48] all evil is serious [01:49] for me because I am not omniscient nor could I choose the exact nature of my children [01:49] ok but what if, it was not possible for God to make beings free and yet without the possibilityof evil? [01:49] would it be accetable for God to do that and yet inthe end bring about so much more good than evil? [01:50] How could an omniscient god create anything free? [01:50] is that acceptable? [01:50] Chappy what do you mean? [01:50] Well lets keep this simple, let's say god can choose A or B in creating the universe [01:51] Okay [01:51] ok [01:51] since he is omniscient, he knows the exact outcome of A an B [01:51] ok [01:52] If A was to give man free will, he would know exactly what the nazis would do and the doubts that I have hte moment he [01:52] creates universe B Correct [01:52] I mean A [01:52] hold on a second [01:52] got a call [01:52] brb [01:52] ok [01:54] In reality he would have an infinite # of choices with the exact words that I am typing changing with each choice [01:59] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip27.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [01:59] ok [01:59] ok [01:59] did you get my last [01:59] that assums that there is an infinte amount of choices to be made [01:59] yes [02:00] hey pascoe [02:00] chappy, perhaps God only wanted a certain kind of world [02:00] hello Acolyte. [02:00] I mean,a fter all a world where free would exist would limit his choices to some extant, would it not? [02:00] How could free will exist then given his infinite # of choices and his prior knowledge of each of their outcomes [02:01] chappy well that depends on how you define free will [02:01] chappy there is more than one conception of it that are avaliable to Christians to hold [02:02] it also depends on how you understand foreknowledge, whether it always implies coercion. [02:02] not necesarily [02:02] If all is predetermined (ie. god knew how it would all turn out) how could he blame anyone for rebelling against him? [02:02] chappy ah wait a second [02:02] who said forkowing meant forordainging? [02:03] If I know a car is going to hitsomeone, does that make the car hit them? [02:03] no [02:03] there are christian positions that take God's knowldge as non-determinative [02:03] by creating the universe and knowing how each tinker would develop, he woudl be forordaigning [02:03] there is more than one option here [02:04] chappy I tend to argee, but like I said, you are entering a relm where there is more than one option open to christians [02:04] Chappy: God can know the outcome of each individual and be glorified in either outcome. To know that an outcome will be destruction does not mean that God cannot proceed. [02:05] if you created time space and dimension then yes you knew the moment you created the universe that the cars would collide under that formula and consequently "caused the crash" [02:05] Chappy but again, look at your choices, It is Nihilism, which is nothing, or it is Theism with different perspecitves on how to solves various problems. Whcih is more rational? [02:05] I would say theism [02:05] Now, I think before you toss all yourcookies youshould investiage this more [02:06] I mean after all, you are talking a VERY sophisticated problem here. You are not going to solve it in 10 seconds [02:06] Theism assumes that you need to solve these things [02:06] chappy theism assumes that there is rationality and thus there is an answer for them [02:06] true, but do you not see the logic in my deterministic explanation ? [02:06] Chappy: foreknowledge does not always imply coercion. God can create things which behave as independent beings, and have a passive or active role in the existence of those beings. [02:07] chappy I see it. I also see a plethora of problems with it [02:07] chappy look at it this way [02:07] chappy you are a pschologist right? [02:08] correct? [02:08] that is your profession? [02:08] Acolyte I think it might have been darrow that argued against the watchmaker argument [02:08] something to do withe the delusion of purpose [02:08] right [02:09] chappy you mean the Teleoglogical argument, yes Darrow was one fo them. [02:09] but anyhow\ [02:09] now in yor field there are certian issues [02:09] for example [02:09] nature VS Nurture [02:09] yes [02:09] or Piaget's Model or Frued's Model of child develeopment [02:09] and these are complex issues [02:10] yes [02:10] it takes time to appreciate them and see the different arguemnts [02:10] now [02:10] I am not a pschologist [02:10] nor am I trained in the field [02:10] but I have read my fair share of it [02:10] but lets take someone from the Jungles of Brazil [02:10] who is intelligent but ignorant [02:11] or your basic freshman [02:11] :) [02:11] now, what would you think of them for coming to dogmatic answers on these issues without serious investigation? [02:11] Not much right? [02:11] too easy [02:11] the issues are toocomplex [02:11] right? [02:12] Yes, are you implying I'm from a jungle? [02:12] Now, how do you think *I* see you when you seem so sure that this is a real problem whenI have been in this field for 10+ yrs? [02:12] no I am not, just out of your element is all [02:13] since you were 14? [02:13] yup [02:13] at what level? [02:13] I have been reading Philosophy, Theology, Church history, etc etc for 10 yrs [02:13] well I had to start somewhere. [02:13] chappy put it this way [02:14] I was readinging post graduate Ph.D papers whenI was a sophmore in high School [02:14] I read, then as now about 60- 70 bks a yr [02:14] That would be unusual but not undoable [02:14] and I am not braggin either [02:15] anyhow [02:15] you don't need to [02:15] all i am saying is that the problems youraise have been delt with indepth already [02:15] I think that you should investiagte it further [02:15] I mean after all, you only have "nothing" to loose [02:15] and everything to gain [02:16] I believe that could be the case...I have to admit ii HAVE REAd little philosophy in the last six years or so [02:17] I think you have a lot to gain by searching this out [02:18] think of it this way [02:18] I believe it is always best to come to conclusions based on evidence- if I don't have hte evidence then my conclusions could be faulty [02:18] when you disciplin your kids and you tell them "Johnny, don't do that, its wrong." You won't be lying if you become a Christian. [02:19] chappy me 2 [02:19] chappy why do you think I am a christian? [02:19] Chappy, outside a thesitic paradigm, evidence is menaingless tho [02:19] only a theistic paradigm makes knowledge possible and evidence meaningful [02:20] I suppose meeting you in a Bible channel had something to do with it [02:20] what do you mean? [02:20] Most people adamantly defending the New Testament would be christian would you not agree? [02:21] most yes [02:21] so? [02:21] but not all [02:21] ture [02:21] true [02:21] so? [02:21] but if you were going to bet... [02:21] I'd go with Chrisian [02:21] what do you mean? [02:21] you're losing me [02:22] based on probability and the facts I knew about you , I assumed you were christian [02:22] yes I am [02:23] I meant to say that I am a Christian BECUASE I base my belief on reason and evidence [02:23] Just as I assume that given your vocabulary and grammar your first language is english [02:23] or rather reason and evidence are based on certain beleifs [02:23] Why not another religion based on theism? [02:24] well I think that logic, among other things rules them out [02:24] Polytheism is illogical and has toomany historical problems [02:24] how does logic rule out other religions? [02:25] Pantheism is Atheism [02:25] chappy well pretty easy actually [02:25] chappy, for example [02:25] Dualism cannot account for ethics [02:25] since one could never know which side was really good [02:25] Sozo (Shack@dialin15.connect.ab.ca) joined #apologetics. [02:25] and there would never be a true God [02:25] so [02:25] dualism get sscrapped [02:26] I mean it is rather simplsitic but I am just giving you the dime version of it [02:26] chappy and so on [02:26] chappy I think it boils down to Judaism, Christianity or Islam. [02:26] I think it would be difficult for anyone religious to logically explain away all other religions [02:27] chappy, perhaps, but then again, you thought it difficult to explain toher things too. But I did [02:27] and others have as well [02:28] My wife's cousin rolls on the floor at church and speaks in tongues. He is a Christian [02:28] there are many forms of even Christianity [02:28] chappy I can ASSURE YOU I do dnot do that [02:28] sure there are [02:28] and there are ways to dealw ith that problem [02:28] chappy for example [02:28] What denomination d o you follow? [02:29] me? I am Anglican Catholic [02:29] Huh? [02:29] ok let me explain [02:29] You know what Anglican is right? [02:29] yup [02:29] do you know what High Church and Low Church is right? [02:30] fuzzy there [02:30] hold on a sec [02:31] Well we are the Conservative Anglicans that left the mainline episcopal Church. [02:31] Oh. [02:32] I was Baptised Catholic (probably the religion I disagree with most) [02:32] make sense? [02:32] yes [02:32] ok [02:32] well think of it this way [02:32] let just assume for the sake of argument that the Bible is the word o God and that Christianity is true [02:33] it's a stretch but okay [02:33] now, if God trusted certzin ppl to put his word together, wouldn't it be logical to trust those ppl with what it means? [02:34] yes but that would make them very old woudl it not? [02:34] yes it would, but trustworthy none the less [02:35] hence new kids on the block so to speak would be suspect to put it nicely [02:35] yes [02:35] Acolyte: Jesus was a new kid on the block from a certain chosen people's perspective. [02:36] pascoe true but Jesus authenticated his message as well. [02:36] are these the same people that committed so many sex crimes in the last 30 years? [02:36] chappy, what? [02:36] chappy I am talking about the Early Church fathers [02:36] Acolyte: yes, with miracles and with appeals to scripture. [02:36] These people that god trusts [02:37] pascoe yes and guarantees of his church staying true too. [02:37] Acolyte: guarantees? [02:37] pascoe yup [02:37] Acolyte: define staying true. 8) [02:38] Action: pascoe diverts the discussion to internal Christian matters. 8) [02:38] pascoe they would not fall away from the True Apostolic practices and beliefs [02:38] Acolyte: ok. [02:39] chappy I am just trying to show you that there are ways to solves these problems absed on reasn and evidence [02:39] I really must get some sleep... Thanks Acolyte for the stimulating conversation. As has always been true for me, good philosophical discussions have always raised many more questions than answers. [02:40] Perhaps I remain agnostic in order to process them all [02:40] chappy I am hoping you willl search for Him that you might find Him. [02:40] chappy perhaps not, after all Nihilism or Theism [02:40] take your pick [02:40] It sure woudld be nice if there were a heaven and all that... [02:41] chappy there is [02:41] there is [02:41] Chappy: agnosticism is the result of presuppositions. the validity of an individual's set of presuppositions is the issue here I think. good night. [02:41] chappy Love is stronger than death [02:41] I hope so [02:41] chappy seek, ask and Knock [02:42] Good night my friend [02:42] peace be with you [02:42] Chappy (dschapma@cnts2p24.uwaterloo.ca) left #apologetics. -------------- END OF LOG -------------- [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_2_18_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank