[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/8/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/8/96 [19:20] Booze

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 - 3/8/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/8/96 [19:20] Boozer (sda6717@xyp60.acns.fsu.edu) joined #apologetics. [19:32] ProfG (wgreen01@SL9.elink.net) joined #apologetics. [19:32] hello Boozer [19:33] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [19:33] hmmmmm am I lagged? [19:34] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [19:34] hey prof [19:34] hey. [19:34] Acolyte :-) [19:34] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [19:34] I've just been sitting here waiting. [19:34] just because I only have a 1200 baud modem [19:34] yuck. [19:35] Action: Bawn grins innocently [19:35] Bawn (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [19:35] So about this presuppositionalism, if that's what you call it.... [19:35] so you have some questions, boozer? [19:35] ah [19:35] presup is kewl hehhe...hehe...hehe Kewl..hehe..... [19:35] You have a certain number of presuppositions upon which everything else follows? [19:36] yeah yeah... kewl... huh huh [19:36] I don't want to addresss empiricism right now. [19:36] NZ (Micah@ppp45.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics. [19:36] or evidence (or dubious evidence) [19:36] Action: Acolyte thinks that he and Profg are the Beavis and Butthead of Apologetics. (Why does that not sound quite right?) [19:36] Boozer: yes, we have presuppositions. Just as you do. [19:36] LOL [19:36] is that basically it? [19:36] well, no... [19:37] boozer presup deasl with the preconditions for knowledge, ethics, metaphysics etc [19:37] NZ (Micah@ppp45.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics. [19:37] Can you give me an example of one of the presuppositions? [19:37] Booxer the Christian God exists [19:37] the basic issue, boozer, is which presuppositions are necessary for rational discource and logic [19:38] "the xian god exists" is a presupposition? [19:38] boozer yup [19:38] what if we are discussing whether or not there is a god? [19:38] boozer ok, this is how it works [19:38] that can't be a presupposition if it's a possible conclusion. [19:38] boozer, you take ur presups and my presups and compare [19:39] which is consistent and provides for ethics, knowledge etc [19:39] boozer: of course it is a presupposition. Just as yours is. There is no escaping presuppositions [19:39] boozer your presups determine how one interprets any data [19:39] I have not defined my presups explicitly. [19:39] boozer no but you have them [19:39] no, but you DO have them [19:39] everyone does [19:40] heh [19:40] beat ya [19:40] I suppose I do. [19:40] PUN! [19:40] he [19:40] lol [19:40] I presuppose I do [19:40] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [19:40] anyway, if we were to discuss the existence of god, it can't be a presupposition. [19:40] boozer sure, why not? [19:40] brb [19:40] ProfG (wgreen01@SL9.elink.net) left irc: Changing servers [19:41] because it's circular reasoning. [19:41] boozer why can't it be? [19:41] oh, how so? [19:41] I conclude that god exists because god exists. [19:41] boozer never said that. [19:41] it is a vacuous statement. [19:41] boozer here let me explain further [19:42] ok, lets say knowledge is a necessary belief [19:42] ok? [19:42] make sense? [19:42] You have to say "God exists because ...." and fill in some independent argument [19:42] y or n? [19:42] just wait [19:42] ok, lets say knowledge is a necessary belief [19:42] knowledge doesn't seem like a belief. [19:42] it is, but just go with me for a second [19:43] boozer we will symbolize knowledge as K [19:43] how is knowledge a belief? [19:43] oK [19:43] boozer I will explain that later but just let me give you an example of what I am trying to illustrate [19:43] ProfG (wgreen01@SL5.elink.net) joined #apologetics. [19:43] re [19:43] So, K is N(necessary belief). [19:43] the illustration will be more effective if I believe your foundation. [19:44] Now, what are the preconditions for K(N)? [19:44] ShyDavid (shy.david@s14.edenbbs.com) joined #Apologetics. [19:44] had a phone call [19:44] just wait [19:44] hi david [19:44] K(N)? [19:44] say for example some paradigms don't allow for K(N) then obvioulsy they would be rejected [19:44] Knowledge as Necessary belief=K(N) [19:45] boozer for example, Nihilism does not allow for K(N) [19:45] I'm sorry, but you've got to make some sense out of that before going any further. [19:45] so Nihilism should be rejected since it does not allow by the nature of its preconditions...kn what does not make sense? [19:46] what does not make sense? [19:46] Nihilism does not allow for any knowledge at all, right? [19:46] boozer yup, correct [19:46] right [19:46] nor ethics, metaphysics etc [19:46] the knowledge as necessearry belief. [19:46] history, science, etc. [19:47] language, etc. [19:47] ok, we can dismiss nihilism as being a rather illogical approach. [19:47] boozer Nihilism is a paradigm that denies the possibility of any knowledge of anything. Everything is meaningless, there is no reason, no logic [19:47] Boozer no, Nihilism is not ILlogical, [19:47] it is NON-Logical [19:47] Logic does not apply to it [19:47] Action: Boozer splits hairs. [19:47] it is a NON-Logical system [19:48] I'll keep that in mind. [19:48] ok [19:48] so what next? what else do I need to explain? [19:48] but get back to this K(N) business [19:48] ok what about it? [19:48] what about knowledge makes it a belief? [19:49] much less a necessary belief? [19:49] one primary Q in Philosophy is, is knowledge possible? Some paradimgs, as shown before do not allow for knowledge, If one tho answers Yes, knowledge is possible then it is a belief one holds. [19:49] ][XQUS (mondar@cs4-16.sun.ptd.net) joined #apologetics. [19:49] hey xq [19:49] ok, I will accept that knowledge is possible. [19:50] Boozer so the belief that there is knowledge and it is possible is K [19:50] <][XQUS> hiya profg [19:50] ok, so will you accept that K(N) tho? [19:50] why incorporate necessary? [19:50] necessary to move on to other things? [19:51] boozer, so you don't think it is necessary to be rational to think that knowledge is possible? what would a worldview be like if it did not matter if a belief that knowlwedge was possible be like? Not a very consistent one, woul d it? [19:51] <][XQUS> whta happened to the bot [19:51] I think you're asking a compound question there. [19:52] the bot is here [19:52] ][XQUS (mondar@cs4-16.sun.ptd.net) left #apologetics. [19:52] boozer and his compound questions [19:52] boozer, not really, it is not disjuntive at all nor a false birfucation, which is usually characterstic of Fallacy of complex question [19:52] :-) [19:52] boozer ok think of it this way [19:52] hey, you're the guys asking them :) [19:52] boozer, you ask someone that holds K but not K(N) but rather K~(N) [19:53] Knowledge is possible but not necessary to be rational [19:53] so one could think anything and hold it as rational but it would not be knowledge [19:53] flying pink unicorns etc tec [19:53] get the picture? [19:53] Let me summarize where I think you have arrived thus far: We must necessarily believe that we can have knowledge in order to move on to other discussions. [19:53] boozer yes [19:54] K(N) is a necessary precondition for any further rational discusion or the possibility of such [19:54] ok, so I guess we share that presupposition. [19:54] ok [19:54] how about logic? [19:54] indeed [19:54] what about logic? [19:54] profg imgio dei :) [19:55] heheh [19:55] boozer is L(N)? [19:55] that we can apply logic to these arguments, including themselves? [19:55] Er, ah, I've quietly sat here reading this, and I have yet to see any "rational" discourse. Bye. [19:55] ShyDavid (shy.david@s14.edenbbs.com) left #Apologetics. [19:55] shy yeah sure [19:55] just like we can have knowledge of the words that we use? [19:55] wonder what he was expecting. [19:56] boozer is L a necessary belief? [19:56] is Logic the criteria for language and the evalation of all propositions? [19:56] we haven't really defined logic yet, but I'll go with that. [19:56] how about this [19:56] 3 laws of logic? [19:56] you subscribe to those? [19:56] you'll have to list them for me. [19:57] Excluded Middle, Contradiction and Identity [19:57] Contradiction A=! ~A [19:57] A cannot be Non-A in the same time, space and realtionship. [19:57] ok, contradiction is fine. [19:57] that is, it is not fine, you know what I mean. [19:58] Excluded Middle- Ais either True or False but not BOTH [19:58] heheh [19:58] how about neither? [19:58] ok it could be neither [19:58] but it is NOT Both [19:58] wait [19:58] neither what? [19:58] neither true nor false? you mean it has no truth value? [19:58] yes, not both, but possibly neither true nor false. [19:59] nope [19:59] well, there the possibility that it could not be shown true or false. [19:59] ok, let's accept that for now [19:59] you know, like trying to prove a negative. [19:59] boozer no I do not mean that, that is not a logical problem but a methodological problem [19:59] ok but that is a problem of HOW we know something but not weather it is T or F [20:00] know what I mean? [20:00] ok, what is identity/ [20:00] even if we can't verify a Proposition, it is either T or F. [20:00] Identity- A=A [20:01] that's sort of what I figured. [20:01] A is itself. [20:01] 1=1, 2=2 etc etc etc [20:01] ok, is that basic enough? [20:01] ok then, the 3 laws of logic are fine with me for presuppositions. [20:01] so K(N) and L(N) [20:02] yeah [20:02] ok [20:02] now [20:02] here's the kicker [20:02] what is man? [20:02] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: RATIONAL THEISM - shhhh, class is in session... [20:02] you mean as a species of animal? [20:03] Action: Acolyte hears the anouncer say "Welcome to the Metaphysical Express-Please keep your heands and arms in the roller coaster at all times and do not attempt to leave until such time as the ride has come to a complete and full stop." [20:03] :) [20:03] ok [20:03] heh [20:03] boozer ok, what is man? [20:03] you mean as a species of animal? [20:03] boozer is man one thing? 2 things? what? [20:04] no [20:04] whatis mans nature? what is his stuff? [20:04] a = a ? [20:04] :-) [20:04] whats he made of? [20:04] I have no idea what sort of answer you are looking for. [20:04] ok, does man have a soul? [20:04] No soul that I have observed or felt otherwise. [20:05] boozer so, no soul, ok, so what is he? [20:05] a body? [20:05] a body only? [20:05] yes, a body. [20:05] ok [20:05] is that all? [20:05] and what is the body composed of? [20:05] it's a carbon based life form. [20:06] that is to ask, is the body material or non-material? [20:06] it is matter. [20:06] only matter? [20:06] what else? there's energy in the chemical bonds. [20:07] and energy is released and absorbed in the various chemical reactions. [20:07] ok, but energey is matter tho, just configured differently E=mc2 [20:07] ok [20:07] great, we are making great progress [20:07] now [20:07] so he is part of nature? correct? [20:07] nature is everything? the whole universe? [20:08] yes [20:08] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip91.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:08] every material thing [20:08] most definitely part of nature. [20:08] hey pascoe [20:08] ok [20:08] Action: Boozer wonders where this is going. [20:08] hello Acolyte. 8) [20:08] and whatis nature governed by? [20:08] pascoe :-) [20:08] hello ProfG. 8) [20:09] there appear to be a certain number of Laws governing nature, although they are all observed rather than derived. [20:09] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line30.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:09] hullo alcuin [20:09] hello Alcuin. 8) [20:09] hi guys who just arrived. [20:09] hiya folks [20:09] Action: Acolyte genuflects before Alcuin. Pax [20:09] alcuin :-) [20:09] lol [20:10] Acolyte: arise, thou obsequious knave [20:10] alcuin yeah sure [20:10] boozer so nature is governed by natural laws. good [20:10] now [20:10] boozer, man is then governed by natural laws as well? Correct? [20:11] yes, of course. [20:11] pascoe :-) [20:11] ProfG: 8) [20:11] Acolyte: nice verse. 8) [20:11] dang it [20:11] hold on [20:12] Action: Boozer waits for Acolyte's next step. [20:12] acolyte's favorite verse? [20:12] LOL [20:12] sorry, regulars come on and a party begins, Boozer :-) [20:13] we can continue, of course [20:13] I can play that game. [20:13] logos5 (pasc8891@hidden.cs.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:13] logos5 :-) [20:13] ]]job32 11 [20:13] JOB 32:11 "Behold, I waited for your words, I listened to your reasonings, While you pondered what to say. --NASB [20:13] heh [20:13] hello ProfG. 8) [20:13] pascoe later [20:14] boozer ok I am back [20:14] ok. [20:14] boozer, BTW I have read Mckinsey already. but that is for another time [20:14] yo Apolo. 8) [20:14] boozer now, so, man is governed by natural law [20:14] Action: Boozer wonders who McKinsey is. [20:14] boozer I think we have a problem [20:15] boozer never mind if youdon't know [20:15] boozer I think we have a problem [20:15] yes, we've reached that point. [20:15] what problem? [20:15] Action: pascoe waits his turn. 8) [20:15] boozer, now, I think it follows from all of this that K(N) and L(N) are excluded by this view of man [20:15] boozer hence making knowledge and logic not possible in this system [20:16] how? [20:16] boozer do you see the problem or shall I explain [20:16] ? [20:16] the K and L can be a part of the natural law. [20:16] gotta go rustle up your own pascoe, methinks :-) [20:16] boozer how would you know it? [20:16] Action: pascoe takes a seat in the back row and takes notes. [20:16] how would I know what? [20:16] boozer how would you know if it did or not entail N or L? [20:17] boozer let me explain [20:17] I thought we already established those as necessary. [20:17] boozer it is, but I don't think this system allows for it [20:17] let me explain [20:17] why not? [20:17] let me explain [20:18] Action: Alcuin raises his hand [20:18] "can I go to the mathroom?" [20:18] If man is physical only and the physical is governed by natural law then it follows that man is governed by natural law as well [20:18] alcuin yes master [20:18] Action: pascoe writes Alcuin a hall pass. [20:18] boozer from this it is apparent that any ideas man has are bio-chemical reactions [20:18] governed by natural law as well [20:18] lol [20:19] we've established that. [20:19] Boozer: are you purely bio-chemical? [20:19] boozer hence he thinks what he does NOT because it is true or false or logical, but because of natural law. he is mechanistically determined to think whatever he does [20:19] boozer there is no possibility for verifying any proposition at all [20:20] since all attempts to do so and any outcome would be determined by antural law as well [20:20] class dismissed? [20:20] hence Nihilism [20:20] why can't we verify propositions? [20:20] ah, interesting. [20:20] Acolyte: isn't truth just a balanced chemical equation? 8) [20:20] boozer how could you ever get outside of the determined system to verify them? [20:20] pascoe if it is, you would never know it. [20:21] Acolyte: 8) [20:21] so we live in a closed system. is there a problem with that? [20:21] pascoe nauter might dispose you to think it, but you would not know it [20:21] boozer, ah perhaps I should explain further [20:21] perhaps you should [20:22] yeah, please do. [20:22] while you're at it I'll be pondering the chaotic nonlinearity of our neurons. [20:22] boozer the problem is not only that it is closed but that one does not think what one does because of an arguement or evidence but ebcause nature disposes you to think it [20:22] ohplease do, that makes the problem worse [20:23] chaos ensures Nihilism [20:23] Boozer: do you believe that truth can be known? [20:23] pascoe he did a while ago [20:23] so where do these presuppositions come in? [20:23] Acolyte: I see. I'm wondering if he has changed his mind. 8) [20:23] pascoe K(n) the belief that knowledge is possible [20:23] and I still do. [20:23] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp41.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [20:23] hello NedFlndrs. 8) [20:23] boozer oh did you not see them already? [20:23] hey ned [20:23] ned :-) [20:23] the gang's all here... [20:23] ned more boxes please [20:23] woooooooooooooo hoooooooooooooooooo........the Ganag is all here!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [20:24] gang I mean [20:24] ganag LOL [20:24] I mean we had K and L, those were the presups right? [20:24] Action: Alcuin returns to his slate [20:24] Acolyte....No problemo my Servant O christ [20:24] booser sure, but what are K and L in this system? [20:24] Action: pascoe erases his slate and starts over. [20:24] are you the bloods or the crips? [20:24] bloods (of the Lamb) [20:24] Pascoe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [20:24] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( Alcuin )))))))))) [20:24] boozer K and L are chemicals. They lack truth value, they are determined by natural laws. They are non-rational [20:24] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( Acolyte )))))))))) [20:25] we already defined K and L much earlier. [20:25] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( ProfG )))))))))) [20:25] the Blood's [20:25] HIS that is [20:25] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( pascoe )))))))))) [20:25] :-) [20:25] sure but given P K and L are meaningless [20:25] sorry I asked. [20:25] Boozer: do you believe that truth can be known? [20:25] booser given Physicalism, K and L are nothing but chemicals [20:25] P=Physicalism/Naturalism [20:25] pascoe, please catch a refresher course sometime. [20:25] =nihilism 8) [20:26] Boozer: sorry, I joined late. I guess a yes/no would be too much. 8) [20:26] boozer, if your beleifs are determined you do not think them because they are true, but because they are determined by nature. Hence they have no truth value [20:26] I don't see where there is a probem. [20:26] Action: NedFlndrs sits with Pascoe and looks at his paper [20:26] pascoe is gonna have to read the logs hehehehe [20:26] pascoe, I did answer the queston for you earlier. [20:26] boozer ok, how would you know if a proposition were true or false? [20:26] Boozer: was it yes or no? [20:26] it was yes. [20:27] Action: Boozer sighs. [20:27] boozer ok, how would you know if a proposition were true or false? [20:27] Boozer: ok, answer Acolyte's question then. 8) [20:27] I guess it would be determined by the natural laws operating in my brain. [20:27] sure, so would you know if it were true or false? [20:27] it was yes. no, it was no. no, it was yes. [20:27] could T or F be known for ANy proposition? [20:27] Boozer: are you saying that all the natural laws operating in your brain = truth? [20:27] No [20:27] not ever [20:28] I'm going to concentrate on Acolyte's questions. [20:28] Boozer: ok. [20:28] Yes, I would know if something were T or F. [20:28] Jack the Ripper's brain: "it is not the case that I'm ripping the gall bladder from this prostitute..." : therefore, ... [20:28] any proposition for which T or F could be determined that is. [20:28] boozer at best you could only say that in you nature holds X beleifs, but you would not know if that statement were T or F either, hence naturalism produces Nihilism and makes K and L impossible, hence either be a nihilist or rej ect it [20:28] Alcuin: Jack only looks natural. 8) [20:29] Action: NedFlndrs leans over to pascoe and whispers....." hey man...what the heck are they talkin about"....lol [20:29] boozer how woul dyou determine T or F for any proposition? [20:29] NedFlndrs: nihilism. [20:29] Acolyte, why do you keep asking the same question over and over? [20:29] Mode change '+o Alcuin ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [20:29] boozer because I don't think the point has stuck yet [20:30] Pascoe....I was reasin....it was "a joke".....thanks bro [20:30] boozer how would you determine the Truethfulness or falsity of any statement? [20:30] Action: Alcuin notes that Acolyte's question is a pretty good question... [20:30] reasin=teasin [20:30] I told you how we determine what is true and false. I disagree with your conclusion that it leads to nihilism. [20:30] Neal who? [20:30] Action: pascoe is confused. 8) [20:30] boozer: I kinda am looking for your answer as well... [20:30] Topic changed by Alcuin!kingtutor@remote4-line30.cis.yale.edu: RATIONAL THEISM - "Nihilism--exciting and new..." [20:30] boozer well tell me again, I must have missed it [20:30] Prof..lol [20:31] Dann (Micah@ppp45.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics. [20:31] You use your brain, which by natural laws, gives you a conclusion. [20:31] hi dann [20:31] hi [20:31] Boozer: you only said that you determine truth by what is in your brain, but you must acknowledge that not all brains admit the same conclusion. thus some brains must be unreliable even tho they are all natural. [20:31] boozer so does your brain come to true conclusions or just conclusions determined by nature? [20:31] hi dann [20:31] hi Ned [20:32] those deterimined by nature, they are often true, but sometimes not. [20:32] Action: Acolyte notes that Oiongo Boingo comes on the radio [20:32] pascoe: for instance, Jack the Ripper's, or Jack Kemp's [20:32] Boozer: by your criteria, no natural brain could produce a false conclusion since brains are natural and chemical. [20:32] boozer if they are detemined by antrue, thatis, if ALL your beleifs are determined by nature and all your actions are determined by nature, how would you check any proposition out? [20:33] acolyte 1 /boozer 0 [20:33] anture=NATURE [20:33] ned quit it [20:33] sowwy [20:33] Dann (Micah@ppp45.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics. [20:34] Boozer: is it possible for a false conclusion to come from a natural brain? if so, how could we tell the difference? [20:34] You mean I might determine a proposition to be false (incorrectly) using natural law operating in my brain. [20:34] boozer RIGHT [20:34] And how might I distinguish that from a true one. [20:34] RIGHT [20:34] if all actions are determined [20:34] how do you know? [20:34] When contradictory evidence appears. [20:34] how do you distinguish [20:35] Boozer and any idea about evidence would be determined by logic or natural law? [20:35] which one? [20:35] depends on the situation. [20:35] Boozer: so conclusions of the brain cannot determine truth. truth must be determined by evidence? [20:35] boozer are all situations determined by nature? [20:35] but how do you know which are true and which are not? [20:35] Oingo Boingo? haven't heard THEM in a long time... [20:35] I cannot think of a situation that is not natural. [20:36] boozer so they are all determinec, correct? [20:36] yes, how can there even BE truth or falsity in a purely naturalistic paradigm, with only chemicals running around in that brain...? [20:36] determined even [20:36] Sojouner (DCConner@www-30-155.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [20:36] profg how are chemicals ABOUT something? another question for pondering [20:36] I'm not sure determined is the right word. [20:36] hi soj [20:36] Boozer, ok what would be? governed? caused? [20:36] boozer say we ahve a particle [20:37] heheh [20:37] Hi Soj [20:37] boozer and Particle A meets particle B, why does particle A move? does it think? does it present an argument or does natural law determine how it will act? [20:37] we ahve a particle [20:37] let's just roll with "determined" [20:37] boozer ok [20:38] how do you determine what contray evidence is since you are determined to think anything antecedent states in nautre cause you to think? [20:38] anything antecedent states? [20:38] boozer how does a determined thing evaluate something if it is determined to think anything it does think? [20:38] woops [20:39] that antecedent states [20:39] Acolyte........can you bring my Bahnsen tape?? [20:39] ned I packed it already [20:39] ned its in abox [20:39] you moving acolyte? [20:39] prog yeah [20:39] GGGRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr [20:39] a block away [20:39] Action: ProfG never hears anything until it has already happened [20:39] profg its called history [20:40] prof....can you send me the bahnsen tape you have???......I will pay ALL costs [20:40] lol [20:40] Acolyte, can you re-state the question? [20:40] Boozer ok, lets say you think X [20:40] ok? [20:40] yes. [20:40] Action: Boozer thinks X. [20:40] you wish to test X because nature has caused you to think that you should test X [20:40] so you text X because naturte has caused you to test X [20:41] Action: Boozer wishes to test X. [20:41] text=test [20:41] no such thing as history, is there? ;-> [20:41] Ned: which ones? :-) [20:41] Action: ProfG thinks X too [20:41] Action: Alcuin thinks ~~X [20:41] Prof.......uuuummmmm........ALL [20:41] lol [20:41] Sojouner (DCConner@www-30-155.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [20:41] Now you come to a conclusion about X because nature has caused you to coe to that conclusion about X. [20:41] Now how do you know if your conclusionis true if you were determined to think it? [20:41] Mode change '-o Alcuin ' by Alcuin!kingtutor@remote4-line30.cis.yale.edu [20:41] Ned: I am busy summarizing and outlining them right now :( [20:41] Action: Boozer doesn't bother with the action. [20:42] boozer do you see the problem? [20:42] boozer any attempt to evaluate X would be determined as well, and so on and so on and so on [20:42] etc etc etc [20:42] I suppose you have varying degrees of certainty, which does not conflict with K. [20:42] "whether you decide that x=t or that x=f, you can appeal to natural law to back you up" [20:42] GGGRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr [20:42] boozer but any belief would be determined [20:42] there are those things for which we can have K. [20:43] boozer how is K possible if you cannot verify any proposition? [20:43] boozer any thing you think is notbecaus it is logical or not, but because you were deteremined to think it [20:43] boozer hence there is no room for truth [20:44] Action: Boozer sighs. [20:44] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: RATIONAL THEISM - "How do you know there *is* a K?" [20:44] hence a proposition being true is not the cause for you to hold it [20:44] wow, Alcuin, you did it [20:44] the cause for you to hold X as being true is natural law, NOT Logic [20:44] :-) [20:45] boozer do you even see the problem that I am bringing up as a problem at all? [20:45] by that statement you are saying logic does not exist. [20:45] well, you're going through this rather rapidly. [20:45] boozer no I am saying that there is no way to know if logic does exist or no [20:45] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp41.snni.com) left irc: Ping timeout for NedFlndrs[ppp41.snni.com] [20:45] Phineas (Dananova@ppp16.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [20:45] in YOUR paradigm, that is, boozer [20:45] I thought we presupposed logic exists. [20:45] Phineas :-) [20:46] Nick change: Phineas -> NedFlndrs [20:46] boozer sure we assumed that logic does exist and can be known, but some paradigms don't allow for logic rememebr that part? [20:46] Boozer: I think the problem is that illogic and logic exists in nature and thus nature cannot be appealed to to define logic or truth. [20:46] Boozer your naturalism is Nihilism, it does not allow for K or L [20:46] what paradigms didn't allow logic? [20:46] see above [20:46] yours [20:46] natualism does not allow for K or L [20:47] Action: Boozer is checking out the scroll. [20:47] Boozer your naturalism is Nihilism, it does not allow for K or L [20:48] Boozer if man is only matter governed by natural law, then it excludes K and L [20:48] hence Nihilism [20:48] ethical Nihilism [20:48] Epistemological Nihilism [20:48] metaphysical Nihilism [20:48] aesthetic Nihilism [20:48] + [20:48] = [20:48] a paradigm that does not allow for L is oriented to Christmas -- NO L LOL [20:48] I slay me [20:48] naturalism [20:48] Profg LOL [20:49] Action: pascoe erases his slate again after ProfG's comment. [20:49] profg I don't get it [20:49] Melkor (Morgoth@C6.globalx.net) joined #apologetics. [20:49] lol pascoe [20:49] Action: Alcuin hands pascoe a moist towelette [20:49] Hi Melkor [20:49] LOL [20:49] boozer do you see the problem? [20:49] hello [20:49] hi, Melkor [20:49] Acolyte: no L, no L - get it? [20:49] let's go back to the statement that.... just a sec. [20:49] how are melkor? [20:49] boozer if you are gonna hold K and L as necessary you must find a worldview where it comports with the conditions of the worldview [20:49] bad [20:50] i dunno, how are melkor? [20:50] Melokr? [20:50] boozer K and L do not comport with Naturalism [20:50] Mode change '+o NedFlndrs ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [20:50] bad [20:50] why? melkor [20:50] I'm sorry, I don't even know where to start on that. You went by too fast. [20:50] feel sick [20:50] ProfG: Acolyte is ACC, so that'd be Ad-vent ad-vent [20:50] tired [20:50] lol [20:50] Melkor...sorry to hear that [20:50] brb [20:50] alcuin BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [20:50] k [20:50] ya [20:50] that's why he didn't get it [20:50] Melkor (Morgoth@C6.globalx.net) left #apologetics. [20:50] hehehe [20:51] lol [20:51] boozer fast? that was fast? [20:51] boozer that was SLOW [20:51] super slow [20:51] s [20:51] l [20:51] o [20:51] w [20:51] d [20:51] o [20:51] w [20:51] yes, it was too fast. [20:51] n [20:51] that was the argument in a nutshell [20:51] ok [20:51] what would you like to go over? [20:51] Acolyte: the part that makes sense [20:51] profg the Dialog is in the WWW [20:51] LOL pascoe [20:51] URL? acolyte [20:51] alcuin explain? [20:52] well, if I could find the point in the scroll and point you to it. [20:52] profg I gotta get it [20:52] without feeling rushed. [20:52] boozer cut and paste it [20:52] Acolyte: i.e., recap the essential for the record. [20:52] alcuin what do you mean [20:52] Boozer.....I can cut and paste for you [20:52] BTW I am running on 3 hrs of sleep [20:52] and I am moving [20:52] so cut me some slack [20:52] ok, let's all sit here and talk among ourselves until Boozer finds what he's looking for [20:52] Action: Boozer ponders cutting and pasting. [20:52] what paradigms didn't allow logic? see above [20:53] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip91.csrv.uidaho.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for pascoe[xslip91.csrv.uidaho.edu] [20:53] Acolyte: I mean, since B can't find the key passage that confuses him, why not stick the thing out there again. But it's moot now, since he's a-searchin' [20:53] nedflndrs do you have the SCCCS catalog? [20:53] profg I do ;) [20:53] profg I have all catalogs [20:53] profdg matter of fact, do I have ONE FOR YOU! [20:53] nope [20:54] I can get you any Bahnsen tape at 20% discount [20:54] profg New Anglican Publisher heheheheheheh [20:54] Action: NedFlndrs crys out in intellectual hunger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [20:54] profg I can get Bahnsen at 40% off [20:54] LOL [20:54] I don't have cut and paste. it's right after Ned says GGGGRRrrrrrrrrrrr [20:54] ok [20:54] lemme get it [20:54] well, so can I, but I can't sell it to YOU for that [20:54] Acolyte: Oh, that must be one of those *protestant* publishing houses...;) [20:54] :-) [20:54] LOL...Alcuin [20:54] ned ALWAYS says grrrrrr [20:54] you guys kill me [20:55] Alcuin, no Anglican CATHOLIC Publisher [20:55] hey I can't scroll up that far [20:55] Not true profg!~......GGGGRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrr [20:55] profg can you get it? [20:55] profg anyone can get bahnsen at 40%=GCB [20:55] Acolyte: how do you determine what contray evidence is since you are determined to think anything antecedent states in nautre cause you to think? [20:55] Boozer: anything antecedent states? [20:56] Acolyte: boozer how does a determined thing evaluate something if it is determined to think anything it does think? [20:56] Acolyte: woops [20:56] Acolyte: that antecedent states [20:56] NedFlndrs: Acolyte........can you bring my Bahnsen tape?? [20:56] Acolyte: ned I packed it already [20:56] Acolyte: ned its in abox [20:56] ProfG: you moving acolyte? [20:56] Acolyte: prog yeah [20:56] NedFlndrs: GGGRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr [20:56] no, different Grrrrr. [20:56] lol [20:56] you see? he always says grrrrrrrrrr [20:56] boozer just typoe it in then [20:56] lol [20:56] maybe it was......gggrrrRRRRRRRRRRR?? [20:56] Action: Acolyte has to go soon [20:57] I have the passange in question right here... [20:57] the one with "but any belief would be determined" [20:57] alcuin post it [20:57] Acolyte: boozer any attempt to evaluate X would be determined as well, and so on and so on and so on [20:57] that's what Acolyte said. [20:57] Acolyte: etc etc etc [20:57] Boozer: I suppose you have varying degrees of certainty, which does not conflict with K. [20:57] Alcuin: "whether you decide that x=t or that x=f, you can appeal to natural law to back you up" [20:57] NedFlndrs: GGGRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr [20:57] how do you determine what contray evidence is since you are determined to think anything antecedent states in nautre cause you to think? [20:57] Prof.......you dont have to add the GRRRrrrrrrrrr [20:57] lol [20:57] LOL [20:57] boozer how does a determined thing evaluate something if it is determined to think anything it does think? [20:58] boozer what is the prob? [20:58] anything antecedent states? [20:58] ***is it this stuff, Boozer?*** [20:58] the one with "but any belief would be determined" said by Acolyte. [20:58] boozer any belief would be determined in naturalism [20:58] because of our naturally determined thoughts. [20:59] correct [20:59] ok, now slowly, progress on that. [20:59] so any attempt to discover truth would be determined as would the outcome. its all determined [20:59] ok. [20:59] well the conlsuion to any determined investigation would be determined too [20:59] ok [21:00] it MIGHT be a true conclusion but you would only believe it not because it actually WAS True but because you were determined to think it as true. [21:00] hence there is a division between the appearance of knowlegde and the aquisition of it [21:00] you have data sure [21:00] but it was determined [21:00] hence [21:01] we've assumed that truth exists outside of the human body, correct? [21:01] there is no way to verify if the data is true or not [21:01] "knowledge"=Justified, True Belief. If it ain't justified, it ain't knowledge. [21:01] Boozer let me explain further [21:01] slow down. [21:01] alcuin amen [21:01] ok [21:01] what I am trying to show you is this [21:01] as what you just said whips off the screen...... [21:01] if you hold to K and L as N then you have to see what paradigms make K and L as N possible [21:02] if a worldview does not make K and L possible as L then, you would either have to reject K and L as N or reject the worldview in question [21:02] ok. [21:03] make sense? [21:03] those last 2 lines do. [21:03] boozer so what I have displayed is how naturalism excludes K and L as N since there is no way to "check" any proposition. [21:04] now you need to establish that K and L cannot fit. [21:04] boozer *sigh* i just did [21:04] for the past 45 minutes [21:04] not to my satisfaction. [21:04] what was not to your satisfaction? [21:04] looks like a presuppositional rejection to me [21:04] Boozer...what would make it ok? [21:05] let me organize my thoughts on this.... [21:05] boozer.....what would be exceptable? [21:05] ok fine [21:05] Action: Acolyte ponders deeply and keenly what he did not explain to boozer's satisfaction?????????????????? [21:05] Alcuin......How are you sir? [21:06] Action: ProfG checks the log... nope, perfectly acceptable [21:06] Greetings, Thou Fleming [21:06] true K would be an accurate description of nature, right? [21:06] boozer sure [21:07] and L is the application of the laws we went through way back when. [21:07] correct [21:07] Alcuin...I am glad that you are here......I just wanted to say that I enjoy your fellowship [21:07] :) [21:07] these can be contained within the framework of my "paradigm" (favorite word on this channel) without conflict. [21:08] Profg, Acolyte as well [21:08] Well, right back at you, Ned ol' buddy [21:08] :-) [21:08] they are all a part of nature; all a part of the causes that give us K. [21:08] I love you, man [21:08] sniff sniff [21:08] YOU acnt have my Bud Light [21:08] ProfG: You *can't* have my Bud Light. [21:08] boozer ok, lets say you have a proposition P, how would you verify it? How would you know it is was actually the case given the fact that nature might dispose youto believe soemthing false? [21:08] :( [21:08] acnt=cant [21:08] Action: Alcuin high--fives Ned [21:08] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( ProfG )))))))))) [21:09] lol [21:09] boozer how do determinec chemical reactions give you true proposition? [21:09] is this proposition an identity for which knowledge is automatic, or otherwise? [21:09] sniff sniff....ok...... [21:09] one question at a time please. [21:09] Action: NedFlndrs hands profg a cold one [21:09] heh [21:10] I am an ol softy [21:10] boozer what do you mean? [21:10] boozer how would one verify wheater P was accurate or not? [21:10] If the prop is an identity we already have knowledge of it. We don't bother verifying identities. [21:10] boozer you could not [21:11] you WOULD only come to a conlsuion that chemcials caused you to come to [21:11] boozer, and what is an identity? [21:11] a=a [21:11] Boozer, Acolyte: tautologies are logically true. Pick a non-identity statement [21:11] boozer how do you know what identities are? [21:11] boozer now do you think z=z because it is true or because nature caused you to think it? [21:11] uh, you told me earlier :) [21:12] heh [21:12] boozer that was not given N tho [21:12] boozer now do you think z=z because it is true or because nature caused you to think it? [21:12] z=z because it is true. [21:12] zoo (mjhurst@ppp33.skn.net) joined #apologetics. [21:12] and that is part of knowledge with is given N. [21:13] with = which [21:13] boozer do you know what is true or do you know what nature determines? [21:13] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip96.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [21:13] both. [21:13] boozer what is knowledge in N other than chemicals? [21:13] although I'm leary of that question. [21:13] is N nature or necessary? [21:13] how can it be both since you only believe what you nature causes u to? [21:13] boozer maybe z=z is false [21:14] naturalism [21:14] Action: Boozer pounds the keyboard. [21:14] you only think what nature causes [21:14] NO [21:14] wait [21:14] N originally means Necessary [21:14] ah [21:14] Now I am using it to represent naturalism [21:14] sorry [21:14] given naturalism what is reason other than chemicals? [21:15] reason would be the chemical reactions. [21:15] nothing...there is no reason [21:15] zoo (mjhurst@ppp33.skn.net) left irc: Ping timeout for zoo[ppp33.skn.net] [21:15] right? [21:16] boozer and what is it governed by? [21:16] all governed by natural laws. [21:16] Reason =chemical reactionsgoverned by natural laws [21:16] so [21:16] truth is excluded [21:16] natural laws including knowledge and logic. [21:16] and how do you know other than what nature causes you to think? [21:16] Action: Alcuin clears his throat. [21:16] why are you excluding truth all of a sudden? [21:16] Boozer: truth and error can result from natural laws. [21:17] boozer ok, let me try this one more time [21:17] Catholic1 (.epix.net@lsptppp47.epix.net) joined #Apologetics. [21:17] Boozer: by saying that natural laws define truth you are saying that nothing is false. [21:17] blue = yellow is false. [21:17] if reason is only chemical reaction, then it could produce things that are false [21:18] boozer how do you know that? [21:18] boozer chemcials MADE you think it [21:18] because I have K. [21:18] how do you verify it? [21:18] Catholic1 (.epix.net@lsptppp47.epix.net) left #Apologetics. [21:18] prove that blue = yellow is false [21:18] but what is K? [21:18] K is only chemcials [21:18] so what's the problem? [21:18] that ae governed By natural law [21:18] alcuin am I blind or is he? [21:18] natural law forms a closed set. [21:18] *sigh* [21:18] boozer how do you know that L and naturalism are of the same set? [21:19] Boozer: are you saying logic defines truth or nature defines truth? [21:19] pascoe he is saying that the laws of L are entailed in nature [21:19] because that's part of K which is also part of the set. [21:19] boozer how do you know that K is part of the set? [21:19] Acolyte: how does he know? [21:19] Action: ProfG suggest acolyte tag alcuin or pascoe and go to bed [21:19] boozer, look you misunderstand [21:19] Action: pascoe tags ProfG. [21:20] Action: NedFlndrs runs from the tag [21:20] uh oh [21:20] screamin "not me!!" [21:20] You mean nature isn't causing me to have the proper chemical reactions? [21:20] boozer, I said inthe begging thatsoem beliefs allow for K and L, some do not. How does K and L FIT with chemcial reactions that are determined? [21:20] Action: Alcuin points out that Ned is dying to pick up the gauntlet [21:20] BOOZer NO, how would you ever KNOW IF IT WAS? [21:20] BOOZER YOU CAN"T [21:20] THATS THE PROBLEMO [21:20] CAPICHE? [21:21] Action: Alcuin plugs his ears to fend off the screaming. [21:21] lol [21:21] heh [21:21] "Emily Post for everyone...on the house!" [21:21] Action: ProfG thinks Acolyte needs some sleep :-) [21:21] what is it that you think I cannot know? that these things are a chemical reaction? [21:21] lol [21:21] boozer I don't think you can know ANYTHING, expecially K and L [21:21] Action: pascoe wants a turn with Boozer. 8) [21:22] Alcuin would you please proceed, I got work to do, packing particularly [21:22] K and L were presups. [21:22] Good luck with the move, Acolyte, and kudos. [21:22] boozer K and L were necessary to be rational [21:22] boozer I did not say that they were Presup to ALL paradigms [21:22] we've had K and L all along. [21:22] brb....... [21:22] Someone define K and L. [21:22] I was trying to show that NOT ALL paradigms, aprticularly naturalism does not allow for K and L [21:23] L=laws of logic [21:23] Nick change: NedFlndrs -> away__ [21:23] K=knowldge [21:23] belief that knowldge is possible [21:23] N=Necessity ? [21:23] I'd say they fit in rather nicely to naturalism [21:23] Lala (lala@dal40.fastlane.net) joined #apologetics. [21:23] alcuin K as Neceesay beleif [21:23] Logical necessity or causal necessity? [21:23] boozer *sigh* u don't see the problem of verification [21:23] Boozer: would you like to answer some of my questions now? [21:23] alcuin either, take your pick [21:23] thanks [21:23] are you leaving Acolyte? [21:23] alcuin go for it [21:24] Action: ProfG thinks that acolyte tagged Alcuin AND pascoe [21:24] boozer yes I am too tired and I have to move tonight [21:24] got MORE BOOKS to pack [21:24] well have a nice move. [21:24] YUK [21:24] bye Acolyte. 8) [21:24] I'll be hitting the restroom and the kitchen. be back soon. [21:24] Enjoy the tiles [21:24] don't leave Boozer [21:25] Action: ProfG is very appreciative that Boozer came tonight [21:25] bye Acolyte [21:25] God bless [21:25] Boozer is just afraid of me. 8) [21:25] Action: ProfG senses a taunt [21:25] pascoe: uh, perhaps you should be, too. [21:25] Boozer: just kidding. [21:26] ]]pr26 7 [21:26] Lala (lala@dal40.fastlane.net) left #apologetics. [21:26] PROVERBS 26:7 {Like} the legs {which} hang down from the lame, So is a proverb in the mouth of fools. --NASB [21:26] heh [21:27] pascoe fear alcuin [21:27] pascoe if I do, you should [21:27] is that a politically incorrect remark about handicapped people? [21:27] the Bible IS pi [21:27] p.i that is [21:27] Acolyte: I'm humbled [21:27] Remember, Ac. Don't lift with your back.... Lift with your knees. [21:27] Acolyte: why do you fear Alcuin? he seems peacable. [21:28] Action: Alcuin is peacable. [21:28] ok, now if I may ask the question of ProfG that I came for.... [21:28] pascoe so does God [21:28] Acolyte: God fears Alcuin? [21:28] oh, everyone is still here? [21:28] Action: Acolyte notes that Alcuin is the most able and learned Apologist on IRC [21:29] Action: Alcuin approaches boldly, with fear and trembling [21:29] pascoe no but God seems peacable as well [21:29] Acolyte: true. I'll be careful with Alcuin. I don't want to bring down his wrath upon me. [21:29] pascoe put it this way, if Alcuin can out read and out think me,...well think about it [21:29] Action: Alcuin bows deeply in the direction of his Anglican amigo. [21:29] Action: ProfG is here [21:29] away__ (Dananova@ppp16.snni.com) left irc: Ping timeout for away__[ppp16.snni.com] [21:30] away? who was that? [21:30] Ned when Danny gets here do you want to come over and help move books or will that cause you to Covet? ;) [21:30] ProfG: maybe it was a Christophany? naaaah... [21:30] With regard to the "free gift" of salavation offered on the jf.org page, I argue that it is far from free. [21:30] Boozer: define free. 8) [21:30] argue away [21:30] ANORMAN (ANORMAN@www-11-40.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [21:30] without cost or obligation [21:31] Boozer: ok, that's the problem. there is obligation. [21:31] boozer: is it defined that way on the page? no. [21:31] there are several strings attached. [21:31] Boozer: we need to count the cost. [21:31] boozer God offers it to yo from no obligation on his part, it is gratuitus [21:31] Acolyte, go home, you ding dong [21:31] pascoe u missed the question [21:31] profg ding dong? [21:31] ANORMAN (ANORMAN@www-11-40.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [21:31] heheh [21:31] Boozer: if someone gives you a 'free' car. you must accept it AND you must accept the maintenance and insurance costs. [21:32] profg a charismatic calling an Anglican a ding dong, now I have seen it ALL [21:32] yeah, go move your books. [21:32] one of those charismatic phrases, Aco [21:32] Action: ProfG agrees with pascoe [21:32] now give me that car [21:32] ok, well that was easier than I thought then. [21:32] Action: Alcuin waves pendulum in front of Acolyte: **You are getting sleeeee-py. Sleeeepy...** [21:33] lol [21:33] Parting shot on that subject: You get what you pay for. [21:33] Boozer: ok. it depends on how you think of the word 'free'. [21:33] no, you get what WAS paid for [21:33] Boozer: or what Christ paid for. 8) [21:33] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism - Acolyte go home! [21:33] heh [21:34] .kick Acolyte bye. [21:34] obviously you don't see where it costs me. [21:34] Boozer: I realize that for anyone to accept the 'free' gift of salvation, they have to give up some things. [21:34] in terms of obligations. [21:34] boozer: define "costs" [21:34] Boozer: yes, count the cost carefully. [21:34] ah [21:34] that is obligations, not costs [21:34] ok, then you see what I mean. [21:35] costs = obligations. [21:35] it's very expensive. [21:35] Boozer: for example: you will have to give up the delusion of self-rule you might have been living under. [21:35] no, it is free; the obligations are demanding [21:35] Let's put some meat on this. Just *what* are the costs that interest you, Boozer? [21:35] hardly a delusion. [21:35] Boozer: you might also have to give up the desires of the flesh. [21:36] Boozer: in regard to lust, I mean. [21:36] pascoe: any such sacrifices are tokens of thanks to the Redeemer. Hardly costs. [21:36] well, sooner or later someone is going to tell me that I must go to church. [21:37] so there's my valuable time being whisked away. [21:37] Alcuin: we need to consider these sacrifices carefully before we accept. if we have no intention of obeying Christ then we cannot afford the 'free' gift. [21:37] Boozer: you must go to eat. You have a problem with that? [21:37] then they'll want me to tithe. that cost is obvious. [21:37] ProfG? [21:37] Boozer: you must return borrowed books. You have a problem with that? [21:38] I don't have to return the books :) [21:38] Boozer: In other words, Christian belief entails certain lifestyle changes that affect time and money. Is that a fair paraphrase? [21:38] Boozer: for a Christian, fellowshipping with the Saints is as necessary as eating; tithing is simply returning what was God's already [21:39] Boozer: exactly, that is called theft, which is what God calls not tithing as well [21:39] Alcuin, fair enough. [21:39] Action: Alcuin notes that by breathing, walking, thinking, and sleeping, we're already selectively taking advantage of God's generosity. [21:39] all presupposing the existence of such a god of course. [21:40] Boozer: If what Acolyte was suggesting is correct, then you're in the position of accepting some aspects of the Christian belief system just to be able to think and function, while you reject other aspects as you see fit. [21:40] Boozer (sda6717@xyp60.acns.fsu.edu) got netsplit. [21:40] hmmm.... [21:40] LUKE 12:48 but the one who did not know {it,} and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. --NASB [21:40] Action: ProfG agrees with Alcuin [21:40] ? [21:40] well well, I hope that was an accident [21:41] Boozer (sda6717@xyp60.acns.fsu.edu) returned to #apologetics. [21:41] re boozer [21:41] humph. [21:41] oh, good. re [21:41] Server problems? [21:41] re. [21:41] Action: Alcuin notes that the pun was intended... [21:41] can someone paste the last line before I went poof? [21:41] the gift is 'free' in the sense that God did all the work and we didn't contribute anything to it. it is not free in the sense that it requires obedience on our part. [21:42] Boozer: If what Acolyte was suggesting is correct, then you're in the position of accepting some aspects of the Christian belief system just to be able to think and function, while you reject other aspects as you see fit. [21:42] What I'm wondering, Boozer, is whether you grant this "if->then" statement. [21:42] flant (blairej@ joined #apologetics. [21:42] Did the part about "My point was...." get through? [21:43] no [21:43] Boozer: no [21:43] Alcuin, I disagree with your previous large statement. [21:43] Boozer: you had a point? 8) [21:43] surprise surprise [21:43] My point was that the "free gift" had strings attached, as do most all free gifts. [21:44] Sorry. I have to make a phone call. I'll be back in a short while. [21:44] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line30.cis.yale.edu) left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical! [21:44] I'm not just picking and choosing items off the xian belief system shelf, as if they had cornered the market on certain ideas. [21:44] Boozer: the gift is 'free' in a particular sense, not in all senses that one might imagine. [21:44] free has to be free in all sense or it isn't free. [21:45] Boozer: who told you that? [21:45] Boozer: are you going to define 'free' for God now? 8) [21:45] I figured it out on my own. [21:45] that would make you God, Boozer? [21:45] Boozer: that explains it. 8) [21:46] free from God? would you like a definition? [21:46] Boozer: Jesus is called the 'bread of life'. Does this mean Jesus is bread in every sense of the word? [21:46] I don't care to discuss the ramblings of the bible. [21:46] Boozer: would you care to discuss morality instead? [21:47] how about mortality? [21:47] Boozer: I had some questions about the earlier topic but more related to moral truth/error. [21:49] Boozer: would you agree that truth/error can be believed thru the following means: faith, science (strictly repeatable), formal proof (logic), and definition (presupposition)? [21:49] You're conceived, you live (if you're lucky), you die. That's it. [21:49] Ok, we can move on to morality. [21:49] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp4.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [21:49] re [21:49] re ned [21:50] Why is it that all you apologists put everything in such definitive form? It's like you're trying to lure me into a trap. [21:50] lol..love the topic [21:50] Boozer: of course we are. 8) [21:50] boozer: it's called rational discourse. what's wrong with that? [21:50] but so far Pascoe, that fine for determining truth or error. [21:50] ]]mt10 16 [21:50] MATTHEW 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves. --NASB [21:51] Boozer: of those four (unless you would like to name another), which method can be used to determine/define moral error? [21:51] and why aren't more xians at all concerned about defending their faith? [21:51] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp4.snni.com) left irc: Read error to NedFlndrs[ppp4.snni.com]: Connection reset by peer [21:51] Boozer: they are lazy? [21:52] Boozer: or maybe too busy? 8) [21:52] the same reason that more atheists aren't I guess [21:52] because they often don't examine their own beliefs [21:52] and so they cannot rationally defend them [21:52] ProfG: no, the question for atheists is 'why are they concerned about defending their faith'. 8) [21:52] or they think they cannot [21:52] I suspect a combination of laziness and the unwillingness to examine beliefs. [21:52] Boozer: of those four (unless you would like to name another), which method can be used to determine/define moral error? [21:53] but getting back to this moral order. it asks the question "Does such a moral order exist?" [21:53] So if you will indulge my explanation of moral order, you can pigeon hole it as you see fit. [21:54] well kiddies gotta go [21:54] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp2.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [21:54] moving the desk now [21:54] Moral order exists as a convenience to society. [21:54] Boozer: do you believe that all moral notions are equally true or are some false? [21:54] hey ned [21:54] RE AGAIN!!!!! [21:54] finally. [21:54] wanna move stuff? [21:54] grrrrrrrr [21:54] leaving already, Acolyte? [21:54] moving the desk now [21:54] hey ned [21:54] wanna move stuff? [21:54] no [21:55] I have to go to work [21:55] Action: ProfG wonders if Acolyte saw the topic :-) [21:55] NED wann help I want to help a BROTHER? [21:55] bah humbug [21:55] I cant...I have to go to work Bratha [21:55] you CAL ppl have wierd hours [21:55] NEd want to help a brother? [21:55] in christ? [21:55] yes [21:55] ho? [21:55] thank you ned [21:55] who? [21:55] we love u [21:55] bro [21:55] lol [21:55] who? [21:55] now? [21:55] ME [21:55] NOW [21:56] what? [21:56] Your no Brother [21:56] get your buns over here [21:56] LOL [21:56] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left irc: Read error to Acolyte[delta1.deltanet.com]: EOF from client [21:56] Hes a monster [21:56] lol [21:56] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism - and many irrational atheists [21:57] ProfG: atheists aren't irrational. they are semi-rational. they borrow some rationality from its only source. [21:57] Boozer..... [21:57] So, as moral truths are a convenience to society, they differ from place to place. [21:57] so where ya at now? [21:57] Boozer: do you believe that all moral notions are equally true or are some false? [21:57] ok [21:58] never mind [21:58] and from situation to situation. [21:58] give an example of a moral notion. [21:58] Boozer: if that is your definition of morality, how do you define immorality? [21:58] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Christian Theism - and several mushy-minded quasi-atheists [21:58] Boozer: abortion being wrong is a moral notion. [21:58] Boozer......then you have to "bite the bullet".....and say that Hitler was ok with in his societal rights [21:59] Hitler was a xian. [21:59] LOL [21:59] Boozer: are you morally nihilistic? [21:59] no, he was an occultist [21:59] yip....he took darwin serious [21:59] and, ProfG, I have the documentation on my other account to DCC to you sometime. [21:59] also niche [22:00] afr (arogers@p2.pm2.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [22:00] boozer: in your paradigm, one cannot KNOW history is true at all, so why should I accept your "documentation"? [22:00] hello afr [22:00] well, he certainly wasn't an atheist. [22:00] nietzche? [22:00] Hi Ned and people [22:00] thanks pascoe [22:00] hiya afr [22:00] Boozer: do you believe that all moral notions are equally true or are some false? [22:00] flant (blairej@ left irc: Leaving [22:00] Action: ProfG wishes Boozer would answer pascoe [22:00] Boozer: do you believe that immoral notions exist? [22:00] getting back to immorality, how about that which does not benefit society. [22:00] Boozer: how do you define 'benefit society'? [22:00] sure, I have them all the time :) [22:01] causes the least pain or the most pleasure. [22:01] pascoe has asked about a half-dozen questions. Finally an answer [22:01] Boozer: so you believe that abortion is immoral since it causes pain to the unborn child? [22:02] it depends on what will happen to the mother. [22:02] Boozer: then you are redifining your definition [22:02] Boozer: whos pain are we considering and who's pleasure? [22:03] no, I am looking at things case by case. [22:03] and who gets to decide? [22:03] we are looking at the pain of the fetus, the mother, and society as a whole. [22:03] Boozer: if we look at the unborn child's pain, we can determine that abortion is immoral. [22:03] unfortunately the mother gets to decide. [22:03] Boozer: who says that causing less pain or more pleasure is beneficial? [22:03] the father has no say, nor does society. [22:03] Boozer: is it moral for the mother to decide? [22:04] Boozer: why doesn't society get to decide if the benefit to society is the criteria? [22:04] I neglect the fetus's pain as inconsequential. [22:04] Boozer: so you don't really believe your own definition of morality in regard to pain? [22:04] pain is pain [22:04] if the two of you are going to insist on machine gunning questions at me I can leave and you can play with yourselves. [22:05] Boozer: just answer mine then. 8) [22:05] Action: pascoe may timeout soon, but will try and get right back on. [22:06] cheeze, I'll just shut up then [22:06] ok, we consider the pain and pleasure of all those involved. [22:06] Yeah Prog Jest hesh [22:06] Action: ProfG finds the "machine gunning" much more intense when he goes to #atheism [22:06] ProfG: you gotta wait till you're tagged. 8) [22:06] Boozer.....kinda like a Xtian on #atheism ehhh? [22:06] but he don't CRY about it [22:06] I'm sure you do. [22:06] a lion in a Christian den [22:06] Boozer: so your moral notions are imposed by popular opinion? [22:06] Nick change: ProfG -> BooHoozer [22:07] Nick change: BooHoozer -> ProfG [22:07] sorry, couldn't resist [22:07] lol [22:07] well, when I'm on #atheism I give the xian a chance to speak, and recognize the multitude of questions being fired. [22:07] you're the ONLY one then, Boozer [22:07] true Prof [22:07] Boozer: so who's pain/pleasure matters when we consider morality/immorality? [22:07] we consider all those involved. [22:07] Action: NedFlndrs usually gets booted/banned [22:08] now, for example with abortion... [22:08] lol [22:08] who is "we"? [22:08] Boozer has a flaw in his atheistic armor [22:08] you have no claim in the matter of someone else's child. it matters not to you if it is born or not. [22:08] Action: ProfG only gets booted when Shad is on [22:08] :-) [22:08] :) [22:08] Shad don't like to engage in rational discourse [22:09] Boozer: if a mother kills her 2 year old child, does it matter to you? [22:09] perhaps I'm just more tolerant than most. [22:09] No, not really. [22:09] Boozer: so its perfectly moral then? [22:09] well, 1 or 2 years old is sort of a gray area. [22:10] says who? [22:10] says me. who are you asking? [22:11] pascoe2 (pasc8891@xslip08.csrv.uidaho.edu) joined #apologetics. [22:11] sorry, I timedout. 8( [22:11] pascoe: Boozer: so its perfectly moral then? [22:11] Boozer: well, 1 or 2 years old is sort of a gray area. [22:11] ProfG: says who? [22:11] Boozer: says me. who are you asking? [22:11] pascoe2 (~pasc8891@xslip08.csrv.uidaho.edu) has joined channel #apologetics [22:11] for pascoe's benefit [22:11] thanks ProfG. perfect. [22:11] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp2.snni.com) left irc: Ping timeout for NedFlndrs[ppp2.snni.com] [22:12] you can see a lot happened in your absence. [22:12] pascoe!pasc8891@xslip96.csrv.uidaho.edu kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: ghost process [22:13] Boozer: so that's the best you can answer? [22:13] Now once you've got a baby born, there are a lot of adoption parents on waiting lists who would like one, so it would be best for all involved (baby, new parents) to adopt. [22:13] Boozer: let's take the example of theft. is it immoral to steal if we don't get caught? [22:14] and the mother has already been through the pain, so we can't minimize that retroactively. [22:14] Boozer: what if the parents have an insurance policy on the child? is it ok to kill it for the insurance then? [22:14] Nick change: pascoe2 -> pascoe [22:15] No, it is not okay to steal. This would lead to everyone guarding their pile of stuff all day. [22:15] Boozer: the insurance settlement could be quite pleasurable. [22:15] We would not progress as a race. [22:15] Boozer: why should we progress as a race? [22:15] Progress is good. [22:15] Boozer: why? [22:16] Boozer: cutting down a forest and building McDonalds is progress. [22:16] The insurance is to protect against accidental death. the insurance company isn't going to say, Ok, kill your kid and we'll give you a million dollars. [22:16] it is not the ethics of theft, it is the inconvience of gaurd duty that matters. Amazing [22:16] bye [22:16] progress leads to greater pleasure, less pain. [22:16] Boozer: if the parents can deceive the insurance company then they will incure great pleasure and thus it is perfectly moral, right? [22:17] afr (arogers@p2.pm2.theriver.com) left #apologetics. [22:17] why is greater pleasure and less pain good? [22:17] ah, but deception of the insurance company is the same as stealing. [22:17] Nick change: ProfG -> ProfG_ [22:17] Boozer: yes, did you say stealing was wrong? but it is pleasurable isn't it? [22:17] Nick change: ProfG_ -> _ProfG [22:17] pleasure is by definition good. [22:17] Boozer: so stealing is by definition good? [22:18] Champ (emmonst@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu) joined #apologetics. [22:18] <_ProfG> hi champ [22:18] theft or stealing leads to societal breakdown (remember us guarding our piles of stuff) which outweighs the pleasure one person might gain. [22:18] Nick change: _ProfG -> ProfG [22:18] Hello _ProfG [22:19] boozer: why is societal breakdown wrong? [22:19] Boozer: why should we care about society if we can get pleasure for ourselves (which you define as good). [22:19] it's the reverse of progress. [22:19] Boozer: if I steal a bunch of money and build an empire, that's progress isn't it? [22:19] because society will come after your butt. [22:20] Boozer: but its all perfectly moral by your own definition. [22:20] you mean steal a bunch of money now and build an empire? where? [22:20] Boozer: australia? [22:20] boozer: so what if it's the reverse of progress? why is progress right? [22:20] Profg, you keep asking the same question. [22:21] boozer: and you keep avoiding an answer [22:21] no I don't. read the scroll. [22:21] ProfG: progress is tearing down a forest and building a Wendy's or a McDonald's. that is by definition good. 8) [22:21] let's suppose you did steal money and build an empire. everyone else would try to do the same. you would constantly be guarding your empire (pile of stuff) against invasion. [22:22] Boozer: "A is good because B is bad. B is bad because C is good. C is good because D is bad. Etc. etc. etc." [22:22] circles [22:22] Boozer: but its all perfectly moral by your own definition. [22:22] Action: Boozer sighs. [22:23] Boozer: you tell me the consequences, but the act itself still satisfies your definition of moral. [22:23] Maestro7 (PhilSC@atl-ga10-14.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [22:23] hi maestro [22:23] ok, one more time, progress is good because is has the capacity to increase the comfort of society. comfort is good , therefore progress is good. [22:23] Boozer: if I steal enought money to hire guards to protect my empire then it is moral and pleasurable. [22:23] Alcourt (alcourt@carmina.execpc.com) joined #apologetics . [22:23] pascoe, you guards will turn against you. [22:24] Boozer: who is society? is the Nazi regime a society? [22:24] Hello M7 [22:24] Boozer: my guards are part of my society. [22:24] the nazis were a part of society. [22:24] Boozer: I pay them well, they are happy. 8) [22:24] Alcourt :-) [22:24] Earth and it's entire population is society. [22:24] I thought I recognized the nick. Just popping by quite briefly [22:25] Pardon--greetings :) [22:25] Boozer: "progress is good because is has the capacity to increase the comfort of society. comfort is good , therefore progress is good" - circular reasoning, illogical [22:25] You will have to deal with all of them. [22:25] it's not circular it's a=b and b=c therefore a=c [22:25] Boozer: why do we have to deal with all of them? what if we have never met them? [22:25] Alcourt (alcourt@carmina.execpc.com) left #apologetics. [22:25] boozer: but what about X - "good" ? [22:26] You intend to isolate yourself? [22:26] Boozer: if we kill all the old people, isn't that good for the world society? [22:26] Rational Christian Theism. Interesting. One day I will explain how nature/science establishes God :) hehehehehehehehe ;) [22:26] Boozer: no, I just don't intend to meet everyone. 8) [22:26] a = x, b = x, c = x [22:26] what is x? [22:26] a, b, and c. [22:26] ;) [22:26] No, killing all the old folks has a detrimental value. [22:27] a=b=c [22:27] and why are a, b, and c = x? [22:27] Boozer: how is it detrimental? they are a burden on our pleasure right? [22:27] they may BE = x, but what makes them x? [22:27] Boozer: they are past their contributing years right? [22:28] maybe in language you can understand: progress begat comfort which is good. therefore progress is good. [22:28] what do you mean "contributing years" [22:29] why is comfort good? [22:29] Boozer: they don't produce anything but they consume resources. it is moral to kill them right? [22:29] it is good by definition. [22:29] Boozer: is comfort an absolute? 8) [22:30] Boozer: if society agreed that they would be more comfortable if they killed everyone over age 75 then that would be moral? [22:30] if the old person is just a vegetable and the family gains nothing by seeing the person (perhaps they are even hurt by seeing someone in such pain) then I have no problem in letting them go. [22:30] boozer: ah, a presupposed definition of "goodness"? From an atheist? and what pray tell is the source of this definition? [22:30] afr (arogers@p2.pm2.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [22:30] Boozer: so you believe its ok to kill someone else if it makes us comfortable? [22:30] No, because not everyone over 75 is a "contributor of nothing" [22:30] re afr [22:30] arf :) [22:30] yo [22:30] afr:_ [22:30] :) [22:31] dictionary ProfG, I'm sure you have one. [22:31] Hey! watch that age limit [22:31] Boozer: not every theif is ever caught either. thus some theives get comfort and are therefore perfectly moral? [22:32] boozer: and how do you know that the dictionary is right? [22:32] let's say we're putting that person out of his misery. perfectly justifiable. [22:32] ProfG: the dictionary is his guide book of life. 8) [22:32] No, of course the theif is not moral. [22:32] Boozer: but not all thieves are caught. [22:32] Are you suggesting that comfort is not good? [22:32] Boozer: I'm suggesting that all comfort is not good. [22:33] Duh, I know all theives are not caught. Who said life was fair? [22:33] boozer: no, I'm saying you have no basis for believing that it is or is not good [22:33] Boozer: who said life was fair for people over 75? [22:33] Action: Maestro7 likes where this line of questioning is headed--who's to say what's right and wrong? :) [22:33] sure, there can be consequences to certain comforts. [22:33] me :) [22:33] Maestro7: right, moral nihilism. [22:33] CFuentes (CFuentes@www-24-58.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [22:33] (Bunch of thinkers here, good...) [22:33] Boozer: is smoking immoral? [22:33] CFuentes :) [22:34] Boozer is once again exhibiting nihilism [22:34] certainly there will be abuses of the system. [22:34] which he earlier rejected as a paradigm [22:34] Boozer: is tatooing immoral since it is painful? [22:34] smoking, no. tatooing, no. [22:34] Who decides morality? [22:35] then you once again reject your own definitions of morality, boozer [22:35] afr: boozer apparently gets to [22:35] Boozer: smoking is not progress, nor does it cause pleasure for society. [22:35] I see [22:35] however, when smoking interferes with someone else pleasure or inflicts pain it becomes immoral. [22:35] Boozer: yes, please be consistent with your prior definition or else correct it. [22:35] afr: but with no set standards, it gets a little difficult sometimes... [22:35] Yeah [22:35] Smoking has a short term pleasureable effect for the smoker. [22:36] Boozer: smoking causes societies health insurance to go up, therefore it is immoral by YOUR definition. please be consistent. [22:36] Heh.. [22:36] ;) [22:36] why don't you point out the inconsistency. [22:36] Action: ProfG has to go to bed. Have fun guys, I'll read the logs :-) [22:36] God bless all [22:36] Take care and God bless, ProfG :) [22:36] Boozer: killing someone may have shortterm pleasure for a murderer. [22:36] Bless you Profg [22:36] CFuentes (CFuentes@www-24-58.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [22:36] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line12.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [22:36] Action: Boozer is going to the restroom. [22:37] Alcuin :) [22:37] ProfG (wgreen01@SL5.elink.net) left irc: http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [22:37] on the keyboard????? [22:37] Hi, folks [22:37] Boozer: going to the restroom is immoral. [22:37] Action: Maestro7 grins [22:37] hi al [22:37] Like nailing up a fence line without posts [22:39] now, where was I inconsistent? [22:40] Boozer: you said that smoking was not immoral. that is inconsistent with your definition. [22:40] how so? [22:40] because smoking does not promote the comfort of society. it is a burden in health costs for example. [22:40] which is why cigarettes should be taxed $5/pack and smokers pay very high premiums. [22:40] but it's their own choice. [22:40] Boozer: so you agree that smoking is immoral? [22:41] No. The smoker must be prepared to make certain sacrifices if he chooses to smoke. [22:41] Boozer: the murderer must be prepared to make certain sacrifices too. they are both immoral by your definition tho. [22:41] Likewise for the tattoo recipient, but you seem to have focused on smoking now. [22:42] the murderer is a completely different category. [22:42] Boozer: tatoos cause pain which is in violation of your definition. it is immoral by your definition. [22:42] what's the definition? [22:42] Boozer: smoking and murder are in the same set by your own definition. [22:42] If you go down to the local tattoo artist and ask for it, then you asked for it. [22:42] the pain you receive is part of the deal. you have no complaint. [22:43] afr (arogers@p2.pm2.theriver.com) got netsplit. [22:43] So, murder and smoking are not choices? [22:43] You ask for it either way. [22:43] Boozer: so pain is irrelevant to morality? your definition is false then. [22:43] if you want one without pain, get a painted one that will wash off. [22:43] ok, where did you get the idea that I said smoking was immoral? [22:43] Boozer: you are not willing to apply your definition of morality consistently now. 8( [22:44] What's the "definition" of morality in question? [22:44] I don't suppose you can make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary pain. [22:44] Boozer: you didn't make that distinction. [22:44] Mode change '+o Alcuin ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [22:44] well excuse me. I thought it was obvious. [22:44] Definition of morality according to Boozer, please. [22:44] (Or whatever it was) [22:45] I second Maestro7's motion. [22:45] Action: Boozer will be leaving in 15 minutes. [22:45] Boozer: I regret that you and I did not have a chance to talk for a while. Will you be passing this way again? [22:46] from much earlier I said "Immorality is that which does not benefit society." it has be expanded upon since then. [22:46] maybe Alcuin. [22:46] Thank you. [22:47] Thanks for the definition. Just wanted to follow the thread. [22:47] ok, where did you get the idea that I said smoking was immoral? [22:47] Therefore, according to that definition, whatever society deems beneficial is therefore moral. Hmmm... [22:48] Boozer: if society defines morality, then your morality is defined by whoever is mightiest and rules society. Might makes right is how your morality reduces. another question to pursue sometime would be why we should do what is moral once we have defined it. [22:48] Pascoe? [22:48] There ya go. [22:48] Boozer: smoking does not benefit society, therefore it is immoral by your repeated definition. [22:48] Society is relative, morally speaking, at best; therefore, if you base your morals solely on what benefits society, your morals are relative. [22:49] afr (arogers@p2.pm2.theriver.com) got lost in the net-split. [22:49] Champ (emmonst@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu) left #apologetics. [22:49] you have to narrow exactly who the smoking is affecting. just the smoker and those around him. [22:49] Boozer: also if society defines your morality, you run into nasty self-contradiction when different societies have opposing laws such as slavery and abortion. [22:49] the smoker likes it, so bully for him and it's not immoral. [22:50] Boozer: you said society, now you way to make morality an individual decision? which is it? [22:50] DSiii (DSiii@www-32-238.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [22:50] DSiii :) [22:50] Hi, DSiii [22:50] hi [22:50] way = want. 8) [22:50] ....or morality an individual decision based upon society? Same difference. [22:50] only that part of society that is affected by the decision is allowed to be in on the decision making process. [22:51] As history shows, inevitably all of society becomes affected... [22:51] which is why you don't get a say in someone else's choice for an abortion, tattoo, or smoking. [22:51] Unless society deems it beneficial. [22:51] Boozer: if society defines morality then individuals don't define morality. society imposes itself by popular opinion. you have not allowed for individual morality at all. [22:51] anselm (ontic_nec@slip20.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [22:52] ...individual morality based on society. Same thing. [22:52] anselm :) [22:52] "Only the Jews, affected by the decision, were allowed to be in on the decision making process in Hitler's Germany." eh?!? [22:52] I don't see how I'm affected by some inner city girl's choice to start smoking (you were sure I was going to say abortion) [22:52] DSiii (DSiii@www-32-238.gnn.com) got netsplit. [22:52] If that girl has insurance, insurance rates will go up. Therefore the rest--or some of--society is affected. [22:52] Boozer: you said immorality is defined and imposed by society at large. you have not made any allowance for individual morality at all. [22:52] I never said that the moral rules weren't broken. [22:53] We were talking about how we establish them. [22:53] According to the definition, society establishes moral rules. [22:53] (This is kinda fun) :) [22:54] DSiii (DSiii@www-32-238.gnn.com) returned to #Apologetics. [22:55] Like I said, if someone starts smoking they should immmediately get lumped in with the other fools who made the same choice and pay the price. [22:55] ...therefore all of society pays the price, as in the illustration of health insurance. [22:55] Boozer: so you cannot apply your own definition of morality to this situation? [22:55] compassion impels us to stop others from hurting themselves. [22:55] only that part of society which is supposed to pay. [22:55] The highway to hell is paved with good intentions. [22:56] :) [22:56] For precept X, if society establishes X, then X is moral. The key here is in "establishes." What counts as "establishing" a moral precept? Majority? Pres idential dictate? Ivy elite? Garage mechanics' consensus? [22:56] Hence the root of the situation. [22:56] Boozer: you defined morality as that which promotes pleasure and decreases pain in a society. you are unwilling to apply this definition to the case of smoking. [22:56] Therefore, contradiction! [22:56] Alcuin: might makes right. 8( [22:56] You're not going to like this: Society is those who are affected by the action. [22:56] Survival of the fittest. [22:56] The question ultimately is not whether smoking is or is not moral in system A, but rather how system A can make such judgments (*establish* them) at all. [22:57] In the case of you building an empire and conquering the world, that's everyone. [22:57] Boozer: you're right, I don't like that, because it allows the mother to kill her 2 year old son. [22:57] Alcuin: So true, so true. [22:57] Vamp (vamp@magi02p20.magi.com) joined #Apologetics. [22:57] Hi guys! [22:57] How does society deem morality? Based on what? :) [22:57] Vamp :) [22:57] Boozer: Jews were affected by governmental action in Nazi Germany. Were Jews "society"? [22:57] HI Vamp! [22:57] What are we bitching about today? [22:57] Alcuin: A significant part of that society (which you knew already and so did Boozer) :) [22:57] Didn't we discuss how adoption would be a better option? [22:57] Action: Vamp was adopted... [22:57] Alcuin, are you under the impression that I condone the actions of Nazi germany for some reason? [22:57] Boozer: yes, but you failed to apply your definition to the problem to declare it immoral. you refused to apply your own definition. 8( [22:57] Maestro7: And as a "significant part of that society", did Jews have any voice in defining the prevailing morality? [22:58] Boozer: On the contrary. I assume that you do *not* condone the actions of Nazi Germany. [22:58] DSiii (DSiii@www-32-238.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [22:58] Alcuin: Absolutely not. They were not a part of the "ruling class; [22:58] I wonder if the holocaust was karma? [22:58] Alcuin: Actually, even if Jews in 1940's Germany wanted to make a say, they were taken out and ignored anyway. [22:58] Boozer: I'm just really interested in learning how your model of ethics works, and thought that a real life example might show whether that model makes sense. [22:58] Alcuin: Boozer is not willing to apply his model to real life situations. 8( [22:58] Vamp: perhaps your wondering that is itself karma. [22:59] pascoe, you keep bitching about me not applying my definition in places where it seems I have applied it perfectly fairly. Now, since it's almost 11 EST I must go. but you can be sure that I'll be back sometime. [22:59] adios [22:59] Boozer (sda6717@xyp60.acns.fsu.edu) left irc: Leaving [22:59] He was getting a bit irrational, I do beleive! :) [22:59] heheheheheheeh [23:00] He was certainly a good participant. [23:01] Oh yes. [23:01] And he had announced his impending departure 15 minutes in advance. [23:01] Alcun: No, I have a fairly good concept of what karma is. I'm just not sure how it applies to other lives. If we are indeed caught in a cycle where we stay within the karmic group, then it could just be possible that the haulocaus t was a mass retribution for the Genocide committed by the Isrealites illustrated in the book of Joshua. [23:01] pascoe (pasc8891@xslip08.csrv.uidaho.edu) left #apologetics. [23:01] When someone has a broken shin, but believes he can walk, do you kick him, laugh at him, or carefully help him walk. [23:02] Assuming of course that it really happens. [23:02] -d, sorry. [23:02] Vamp: My point was that the notion of karma leads to infinite regress. [23:02] Action: Maestro7 shall return later... take care and God bless, all :) [23:02] Maestro7 (PhilSC@atl-ga10-14.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [23:02] Alcuin: Maybe. Maybe it only leads back to the point where humans developed sentience. [23:02] logos5 (pasc8891@hidden.cs.uidaho.edu) left #apologetics. [23:02] I don't know, and probably never will. [23:02] Vamp: morality based on karma is no morality. There is no rational basis for belief in karma, though there are emotional and nostalgic reasons for doing so. [23:03] Alcuin: Is there a rational reason for believing in any religion? [23:03] Vamp: [23:03] Yes. [23:03] Pray explain. [23:04] It is fairly obvious that we all act *as if* certain things were true, though there are many explanations of human experience out there. [23:04] Yes, but just becuase we believe them doens't make them true. Eg, world is flat. [23:04] Vamp: that's right. [23:06] Vamp: However, there are some beliefs which are necessary; denial of them undermines the possibility of making sense out of experience. [23:06] Such as belief in a higher power (in whatever form you choose)? [23:07] Vamp: Nope. [23:08] Vamp: "in whatever form you choose" isn't sufficiently specific. Neither is "higher power". [23:08] Why not? [23:08] Action: anselm thinks higher power = god-Lite [23:08] pilgrim (rbaca@pool001.Max8.Los-Angeles.CA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) joined #apologetics. [23:08] Vamp: The claim often made in this channel is that human experience can be engaged only in terms of a view of the world that is defined around the Christian concept of God. [23:08] Howdy, pilgrim. [23:08] Action: Vamp thinks that anselm can think whatever he likes. [23:08] Hi there [23:08] thank you! [23:10] Isn't that rather arrogant to say that? What about the Muslim concept of God? Or perhaps the Hindu concept of God(s)? [23:10] Vamp: Put a bit differently, denial of the existence of this specific concept of God undermines the possibility of making sense out of life. [23:10] Vamp: If arrogance is a when person X believes that his|her particular views are right while the views of others are wrong, then perhaps. However, that's not the claim being made here. [23:11] Alcuin: Whoah... so you're saying that if you don't accept the Christian concept of God then you will never make sense out of life? [23:11] Vamp: The claim being made here is that person X believes something that *all people* believe, whether they realize it or not. All people are always presupposing the existence of God--as defined in Christian terms--in order to ge t by at all. [23:12] that's a colossal claim, Alcuin! [23:12] Some people don't have to presuppose. [23:12] Vamp: No, I'm saying that the non-Christian probably *will* get by in life, but *not* because of the non-Christian's worldview. [23:12] Presupposing some tacit metaphysical principles is one thing; presup'g the Xian God is another. [23:13] Vamp: Rather, the follower of Islam will wind his watch and tie his shoes, because the truth of the Christian worldview makes such activities intelligible. [23:14] anselm: there are no tacit metaphysical principles that can be rendered intelligibly apart from the Xian concept of God. :) [23:14] pilgrim: Can you describe an instance where someone doesn't have to "presuppose" ? I'm not sure what you mean. [23:14] Alcuin: Ahem. Umm... what about before there were Christians? [23:15] Vamp: I see the Christian worldview and the Judaic worldview as continuous. [23:15] Vamp: Yes, there are many many nuances, sects, factions, disagreements, etc. Nevertheless, the mainstream of Jewish and Christian orthodoxy as defined in the Biblical canon is what I'm singling out for special attention. [23:16] Alcuin: Ok, what about before there were Jews? [23:16] Al, sometimes, God takes control of a person's life whether they want Him to or not. He just does it. [23:16] Vamp: the existence of God is not contingent on the existence of people. [23:17] pilgrim: true. That's not the issue addressed by "presuppositions", however. [23:17] Sorry. [23:18] OK, let's deal with that. What exactly IS the Christian worldview? [23:18] I believe that Christian Worldview is an oxymoron. [23:18] Alcuin: Ok. SO, the gods are eternal. That idea was around LONG before Jews came along... [23:19] Vamp: by worldview, I mean a set of propositions taken as true that are interrelated and are axiomatic for the differentiation of one's experience. By *Christian* worldview, I mean that the set is derived from Biblica teachings. [23:20] Vamp: the preSocratic notion of the eternality of "gods" is entirely unrelated to the topic under discussion. [23:20] pilgrim: How an oxymoron? [23:20] Alcuin: Biblical teachings are harldy axiomatic. [23:21] Assuming you are using "Axiom" as I understand it, meaning "not needing proof". [23:21] Vamp: Nope. The Axiomatic status of a statement does not necessitate its being exempt from proof. [23:21] I just noticed your definition. I may have misunderstood your original question. I believe that reality is in God's spiritual realm and this "world" is created by man's own desires as opposed to God's will. We, as people of God, are to keep ourselves unspotted from the world. [23:22] Hence, Christian and the World are in opposition. [23:22] Alcuin: well, webster's describes "axiomatic" as "blatantly self-evident and not needing proof". [23:23] Just as flesh and Spirit are set in opposition. [23:23] Vamp: Nice definition. I like it. However, please note that the fact that X doesn't "need" proof does not imply that X is not provable. [23:24] Axioms are provable from within a system by means of indirect argumentation. [23:24] Alcuin: It may be provable, but it implies that proof is not necessaty, a dangerous implication, especially when dealing with religious teachings. [23:24] Vamp: why? If X is blatantly self-evident anyhow, and provable for those who care, where's the danger? [23:25] Alcuin: What if X is "all enemies of the religion should be destroyed"? [23:26] Alcuin: Within the system, it is Axiomatic. From without, it's dangerous. [23:26] If it is axiomatic within Religion R that X: all enemies of R should be destroyed, then one must ask whether such an axiom provides the conditions under which experience is intelligible. [23:26] I suspect that on such an axiom, experience would not be intelligible. [23:27] This is why some models of God fail, while the Christian model of God succeeds. Some such models include axioms that undermine experience. [23:27] Well, I'll see you folks another time :) [23:27] Alcuin: The people in Religion R won't be asking that question, and to them, their experience would be completely intelligible. In fact, I don't see how anyone's life could NOT be intelligible to THEM, only how it could not make se nse to anyone else. [23:27] pilgrim (rbaca@pool001.Max8.Los-Angeles.CA.DYNIP.ALTER.NET) left #apologetics. [23:28] Vamp: see, that's where you and I disagree. I strongly suspect, and am willing to demonstrate, that apart from the axioms of Christianity, one's experience *can't* be intelligible even to oneself. [23:29] Folks will still get by, but it'll be *despite* what they tell themselves about experience. [23:30] For example, Hundu A is pious all his life, goes to his rituals, gets enlightened, and lives his whole life within the confines of hinduism, and becomes enlightened unto many things. Christian X does exactly the same thing, only go es to Church, does charity work, etc. What's the difference? [23:30] Alcuin: An interesting belief, but I can't see how it can be proved... [23:30] You could prove me wrong, Vamp, by providing a model of how person P has a worldview W that is intelligible to P apart from Xian presuppositions. [23:31] Vamp: It's ok if you can't yet see how it can be proved. That's why this channel is here! [23:31] Has Hindu A made his experience intelligible to himself? What you have so far is a list of physical behaviors. [23:31] Alcuin: OK, you are presupposing tha God created the universe and set everything in motion, correct? [23:32] I don't deny that Hindu A can go to temple. I deny that Hindu A can *explain* what temple-going is and how it is possible, and how he can know that it's possible, etc. [23:32] Vamp: close: I'm presupposing that God created the universe and that he actively sustains its changes. [23:34] If Barry Buddhist walked up to Harry Hindu and challenged, "Why are you going to temple?", what could Harry say? [23:34] Alcuin: Oh come on. You can't even prove to me that you EXIST, much less anything else that you do. All we have to work with are our senses and perceptions. For all I know I'm the only real human and everything else is an illusio n. You have to take certain things for granted! [23:34] Vamp: I admire your scepticism. How do you *know* that I can't prove such things before you've even checked? Do you mean that you hold existence claims to be unprovable in principle? [23:36] Temple going: Harry Hindu goes into temple to worship what god(s) he believes in. Is he right or wrong? I don't know. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility. [23:36] Vamp: "You have to take certain things for granted!" This is what you assert. I too believe that certain things must be taken as given. I believe also that unless those things are the defini ng elements of the Xian worldview, the set of things is insufficient. [23:37] Alcuin: You're trying to prove things using an arguement which is self-defeating. Why do YOU go to Church? Your answer is as valid as Harry Hindu's. [23:37] jako (yoyo@cad148.cadvision.com) joined #apologetics. [23:38] Vamp: You seem to evaluate the situation of Harry Hindu by applying reason to the situation. You say something like this: "all we have to go on is our senses and some limited knowledge plus some givens. I don't see how we can disprove Harry's claims, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt." Is that a fair paraphrase of you? [23:38] Such as one god, god was here before people, satan exists, etc? [23:40] Fairly good. At the very least we should leave him in peace to believe what he likes, even if he is considered a "heathen". [23:40] By the same token, I don't see how we can disprove your claims, so you, too, deserve the benefit of the doubt. [23:40] Vamp: The givens must be sufficient to account for human experience, rather than undermining it. Human experience is here defined as the ability to differentiate, predicate, apply logic, draw moral judgments, and infer probabilis tically from limited empirical experience. [23:41] Vamp: Your open-mindedness must win you many friends. Is there a rational basis for it? Or do you disavow the need for rationality? [23:41] Icarus_ (Daedalus@145.net4.nauticom.net) joined #apologetics. [23:41] It seems that neither can be proved absolutely right or wrong, so there is really no point in doing anything other than what you believe. [23:42] I don't understand your term "rational belief". There is no such thing. If you can prove it, it's not a belief, it's a fact. [23:43] phileo (phileo@os-ppp45.datasync.com) joined #apologetics. [23:43] Big discussion here? [23:44] Woobie [23:44] Vamp: A little philosophy 101, if I may: "knowledge" is normally defined as "true justified belief". That means that Person P knows proposition X if and only if X is true and P believes that X is true and P is justified in believing that X is true. [23:45] then what is knowledge without logic? [23:45] Besides, religion is anything BUT rational. It's a belief, but that doens't give it force of fact, and anything that is a fact doens't have to be believed in. [23:45] Something like that. Take a seat, join in if you like. ;) [23:45] So, Vamp, if X is a "fact" as you say, then P knows X only by believing X. [23:45] Belief: Full acceptance of a thing AS true. Not a thing that IS true. Webster's, again. [23:45] Vamp: You may believe that all religion is non-rational. Many of us in this channel hold that most religion is irrational, but that some religion is rational. [23:45] I don't care how much you believe that gravity doens't exist, you are not going to go floating off anytime soon. ;) [23:45] ther are absolute truths in the universe [23:46] no response [23:46] Vamp: Reflect on your definition from Webster. Accepting X *as* true doesn't say yes or no to whether X *is* true. So that definition of "belief" is consistent with the definition of "knowledge" that I offered. [23:47] Mode change '+o Icarus_ ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [23:48] Vamp: How do you *know* that you're not going to go floating off sometime soon, despite your belief in gravity? [23:49] phileo: the only absolute is God. [23:50] Icarus_ (Daedalus@145.net4.nauticom.net) left irc: Leaving [23:50] I agree, but important to refuting a morally relativistic stance is the proof that there are universal absolutes [23:50] Alcuin: Because I don't, I never have, and EVERYONE else knows that I won't. [23:50] phileo: No. I disagree. Important to refuting moral relativism is the assertion that there are universals. Those universals are what they are because God is who he is. But only God is absolute. [23:50] Alcuin: Also, people do not go floating off the planet spontaneously. [23:50] Action: anselm feels himself floating off the planet... [23:50] Vamp: You're being imprecise. Folks may, and indeed *do* **believe** that you're not going to float away. I'm asking for an intelligible account of how it is possible to *know* such a thing. [23:51] I agree, God is what defines those universal absolutes [23:51] Vamp: after all, the future is not guaranteed to be like the past is it? [23:51] It would have been in all the papers. ;) [23:51] phileo: They're not "universal absolutes"--this is not a cogent use of the term "absolute" [23:51] What does universal mean [23:51] Vamp: LOL Yes, indeed it would've made the headlines. I grant that everyone believes in gravity. I'm looking for something more than a mere Websterian "belief" as you defined it. [23:51] phileo: "universal"=true in all places and times. [23:51] Alcuin: No, but there is no reason to think otherwise either. [23:51] In fact, there is more reason to think that things will NOT change than to think that things will change. [23:51] Vamp: That's where you're mistaken, amigo. [23:51] I mean to assume that science is relevant at all, the number 1 has to always be equivalent to 1 [23:51] Alcuin: Oh, you have proof that things are going to change? [23:51] You grant that our judgments concerning gravity are derived from sense experience, right? [23:52] Alcuin: Show me something that is NOT related to sense experience. [23:53] It IS all we have. [23:53] Vamp: Easy. Laws of logic. [23:53] If he showed you, it would be sense experience [23:53] If all knowledge derives from sense data, there can be no knowledge of laws of logic. [23:53] Alcuin: Laws of logic are sense experiences. [23:53] Vamp: OK, name the sense experience that leads to the inference of a law of logic. [23:53] No laws of logic must always be true, therefore cannot be arbitrarly defined by sense [23:53] Alcuin: Or, more apropriately, the laws of logic are BASED on sense experience. [23:54] Action: Alcuin announces that he must go in just a few moments. [23:54] otherwise they are not logical [23:54] Define "Law of Logic" [23:54] Vamp: That's slightly more credible, but only at first glance. Name the sense experience[s] that lead to the inference of any law of logic, and explain how (apart from logic) you know how to do the inferring. [23:55] Alcuin: If man didn't have a way of sense-experiencing numbers (originally fingers and toes) then we would have no concept of math. [23:55] I would say, that to think that we have a clear picture of the meaning of everything is to propagate an error of the ages [23:55] Vamp: ok, show me the sense experience that leads to the square root of -1 [23:55] The math may be logical, but the numbers are not. [23:55] 1 apple is 1 apple whether I see it or not [23:56] Vamp: numbers aren't related to logic? [23:56] obviously no mathematicians in here [23:56] other than me [23:57] Alcuin: Yes they are. The logic is BASED on the numbers, which are symbols, which we sense. Therfore math is an abstraction based on a sensual experience. [23:57] phileo: Would you prefer that we use Frege's definitions of number as predicates of concepts? [23:57] math an abstraction, what a concept... obviously you are philosophers [23:58] Vamp: That's a nice theory. However, you need only set about the task of trying to figure out which sense experiences lead to [a] numbers, and [b] laws of logic to realize that sense experience cannot possibly account for all tha t is entailed in math and logic. [23:59] There are rules, we discover them by sense [23:59] phileo: math is an abstraction. Even a mathematician can agree with that ;) [23:59] but they were there before we discovered that they are true [23:59] the application of math is an abstraction [23:59] Laws of logic are abstractions piled on top of abstractions. However, at the base of this upside-down pyramid is the original sense that led us to numbers in the first place: the need to count things. [00:00] phileo: OK, show me the sense data from which the following rule can be inferred: [A&(BorC) if and only if (A&B) or (A&C)] [00:00] but math must work according to predefined rules [00:00] Vamp: have you counted more than a trillion things in your experience? [00:00] It is a distributive process [00:01] phileo: yes, it is a law of distribution. Name a sense datum that implies it. [00:02] phileo: after all, you asserted that "There are rules, we discover them by sense" [00:02] I never said that sense was what defined math [00:02] phileo: no? [00:02] Did we discover truths of math? [00:02] Alcuin: No, I've never needed to. And to do that would take longer than my attention span. [00:02] Vamp: Good. Now, do you believe in the number "one trillion plus fifteen"? [00:02] Discovery is not definition or creation [00:02] phileo: what is "discovery" ;) [00:03] it is finding out what already is true [00:03] sense [00:03] but the sense does not make 1 = 1 [00:03] Alcuin: You're missing my point completely. Math is an abstraction, discovered/created by us because we needed it in the sensual world. [00:03] Vamp: If you *do* believe in that number, then you have a mathematical concept not based on your empirical experience. If you *don't* believe in that number, then if you're right, it'll make the headlines! [00:04] no math is math because 2 is not 1 [00:04] 3 is also not 1 [00:04] phileo: and for statement X that person P "discovers", how does P determine whether or not X is true? [00:04] but that does not make 3 = 2 [00:05] If it can be proven that X is not true, then the discovery or assumption must be adjusted to accommodate the truth [00:05] Vamp: [a] how do physical beings interact with abstract concepts? [b] why should our concepts necessarily have anything to do with our sense experience? [00:05] Alcuin: So you are implying that God is an abstraction? Interesting... [00:06] Phileo: I like that. Proof by negative counterexample. However, can we test *all* possible instances of X to determine whether X is always true? [00:06] Alcuin: Read the last 4 lines I've printed. You're just not listening. EVERYTHING eventually related back to a sensual experience. Otherwise we wouldn't have it! [00:06] Vamp: God is an abstract being, where abstract="not extended in space" [00:07] Are you assuming that there are boundary conditions or no? [00:07] Vamp: I understand well that you're *asserting* that it all relates back to sense experience. I'm just amazed that you do not recognize how debilitating such a claim is. [00:08] Vamp doesn't understand the gravity of his assertion [00:08] phileo: Let's say, all instances of X in space|time.... [00:08] phileo: lol [00:08] Milhous (hlm3mr@ joined #apologetics. [00:08] Greets. [00:08] ciao, Mil [00:08] howdy [00:09] well, I must retire to Real Life (tm). [00:09] God does not exist in time... "at the end of time..." [00:09] If anyone is interested in picking up any of these threads, I'll be around here from time to time. [00:09] Action: Alcuin waves [00:09] I assert that these truths also do not exist in space/time but are timeless and take up no space [00:09] God? [00:09] Alcuin: It is really very simple. Humans create things becuase they are perceived to be needed. We have math, becuase someone way back when perceived that it was needed. We have a concept of god (in whatever form) becuase someone perceived it was needed. It's the only motivation we have! We only do things for two reasons. 1) We WANT to. 2) We HAVE to. [00:10] Action: Milhous . o O ( we're supposed to discuss god here??? ) [00:10] :_ [00:10] :) [00:10] see ya alcuin [00:10] this is apologetics [00:10] Action: Milhous was being sarcastic. [00:10] Read Descartes [00:10] Thanks for the chat, Vamp. You *assert* interesting explanations. You may want to reflect on [a] *how* the things you assert can possibly be true, and [b] *how* you would know whether they are. [00:10] ^ vamp [00:11] see you again, phileo [00:11] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line12.cis.yale.edu) left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical! [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_3_8_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