[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/18/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/18/96 [19:51] The

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 - 3/18/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/18/96 [19:51] TheMOM` (rhpowell@ joined #apologetics. [19:52] hiya mama [19:52] Prooooooooooof! [19:52] hey... [19:52] gotta coupla questions [19:52] umm, ok [19:52] I'll try [19:52] okay... [19:52] where the heck are the prophets? [19:52] i mean... [19:52] back in the Old Testament..... [19:53] God practically gave his "day-timer" to the old prophets...you know...like elijah, jeremiah,etc... [19:53] why don't we have anything like that today? [19:53] is the body of Christ that stupid? [19:53] "day-timer"? [19:53] ? [19:53] you know.... [19:54] He was very very specific......i don't see that in the body now-a-days... [19:54] well [19:55] what did you have in mind? [19:55] are there any left? [19:55] Hey, sorry...alive again. [19:55] what i mean i guess.... [19:55] the office of prophet still exists, certainly - in the NT way [19:55] is ... [19:55] re Milhous [19:55] uh huh.. [19:55] what is the NT way? [19:55] Action: ProfG will brb, Jordan needs help going poopy [19:56] okay.. [19:56] John ze Baptizer? My guess. [19:56] Action: TheMOM` waits... [19:56] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) joined #apologetics. [19:56] hmmm... [19:56] Paul? 'Nother guess. [19:56] interesting Milhous... [19:56] greetings all [19:56] Peter? Third.. [19:56] but my question was... [19:56] re [19:56] HI, deanr [19:56] "where the heck are all the prof\ [19:56] er..prophets now-a-days? [19:56] the prof is here [19:56] oh [19:57] yeah, yeah yeah i know...ya smart alec [19:57] Hey, the ATF blew up the last one... :-I [19:57] LOL [19:57] "prophet" literally means "proclaimer", specifically of the word of God [19:57] but seriously... [19:57] hmmm....okay.... [19:57] there were many prophets in the OT, most of whom were never mentioned by name [19:58] we know the big names [19:58] but there were hundreds more [19:58] i agree....but can you name a few true prophets in this age? [19:58] I could name some, sure [19:58] please do... [19:58] Randall Terry, for one [19:58] Randall Terry? [19:58] absolutely [19:59] hmmmm.... [19:59] never knew him as a prophet.. [19:59] Now, at the risk of sounding ignorant, who is Randall Terry? [19:59] he has proclaimed the word of God faithfully, esp. in relation to God's heart for aborted children and the judgment on the nation [19:59] The guy behind the "operation rescue" for abortion clinics [19:59] Milhous: head of Operation Rescue [20:00] Ah. [20:00] okay, i will give you that one..... [20:00] read ANY of his books or articles, or even better, hear him speak [20:00] he operates in the office of prophet [20:00] Action: TheMOM` has heard him speak [20:00] "prophet"? Sounds like common sense to me, and I'm an agnostic, even... [20:00] heh [20:00] you are not an agnostic, Milhous [20:01] Hm? "Positive atheist", if you like... [20:01] "Doubting Thomas", perhaps. [20:01] "positive atheist"? isn't that like an oxy-moron or something? [20:01] :) [20:01] Petrovich (petrovich@perseus.digital-rain.com) joined #apologetics. [20:02] hello... [20:02] Thomas had to see the nail marks. So do I. In my nature. [20:02] a "postitive" atheist would be one who claims (posits) that there is NO god [20:02] hello Petrovich :) [20:02] hi petro [20:02] Strasvuitye, Petrovich [20:02] speeking biblically milhous, or just off the top of your head? [20:02] okay Prof....Terry Randall.....any others? [20:02] and anyone claiming agnosticism is a hypocrite [20:03] hypocrite? [20:03] ProfG: Sorry. I meant more along the lines of "positive" being "not negative", meaning I don't believe in God, but do not negate the possibility. [20:03] Action: TheMOM` is lost now [20:03] profg: Hypocrite?? [20:03] profg... not truly a hypocrite, but maybe backboneless... [20:04] milhous... I agree with the statement on atheism [20:04] Mil: absolutely. as John Frame has said, a true agnostic would go to church half the time [20:04] :-) [20:04] yikes! a dog just ran across my screen [20:04] agnostics *claim* that one cannot be sure of whether God exists, yet live as if He doesn't [20:04] ah..thank you for clearing that one up for me Prof [20:05] They have priorities like an atheist's priorities; they end up implicitly seeing the world from what has to be called an atheist perspective, even though they may call themselves "agnostic" [20:05] ah....but aren't most "atheists" agnostics in reality? [20:05] yes, and agnostics live like atheists... circular, huh? [20:05] they just don't know [20:05] prof... I guess anyone who is not truly religious ends up veiwing the world from the perspective of an atheist though... including many who claim to be religious [20:06] hmmmm... [20:06] what does "veiwing the world from the perspective of an atheist" mean? [20:06] there is the prob Petro..."religious" [20:06] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left #apologetics. [20:07] prof... the perspective of an atheist is one in which the rationale is the replacement for a theism... Bertrand Russell for example... his perspective is truly the perp [20:07] Prof: well, i would gather that viewing the world from the perspective of an atheist means that one would look at the world and think..."gee, hasn't man done great"? or something like that? [20:07] Petrovich (petrovich@perseus.digital-rain.com) left irc: Read error to Petrovich[perseus.digital-rain.com]: EOF from client [20:08] "his perspective is truly the perp"? oh boy...i am outta my league here... [20:08] Milhous (hlm3mr@ left irc: Ping timeout for Milhous[] [20:08] but the atheist worldview, or paradigm, only leads to absurdity [20:08] cheeze, where'd they go? [20:08] i dunno [20:08] so...how are ya? [20:08] *&%&$*&((() [20:08] dagnabbit [20:08] ok, you? [20:09] pretty good....did nancy tell you how my job is somewhat miserable lately? [20:09] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Atheist Worldview Leads Only to Absurdity and Nihilism [20:09] nope [20:09] Milhous (hlm3mr@ joined #apologetics. [20:09] re Mil [20:09] Hiya Mil :) [20:09] Siri- (iris@prism.com) joined #apologetics. [20:09] hi siri [20:09] Hi ProfG [20:10] Sorry...timedout, I guess... [20:10] lost Petro too [20:10] What's this 're' bit I see? [20:10] re = re hi [20:10] means "re-hello" on IRC [20:10] hi again [20:10] Siri- (iris@prism.com) left #apologetics. [20:10] Buh. [20:10] 3 months, and didn't catch on. Oh well. [20:11] hey! you learned something new.... [20:11] JSL (JLeighton@www-18-198.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [20:11] JSL :-) [20:11] hi prof [20:12] so what is up tonight/ [20:12] Milhous: did you catch the topic? [20:12] it is what I said when you pinged out [20:12] Hmmm...what was it? [20:12] Oh., [20:12] I see it. [20:13] WHat the heck does that mean? [20:13] The Atheist Worldview Leads Only to Absurdity and Nihilism [20:13] well, it's like this, Mil... [20:13] Perhaps human existence is absurd. [20:13] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp1.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [20:13] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( ProfG )))))))))) [20:13] i know a few absurd humans.... [20:13] under the non-theistic worldview, Unbeliever has to believe that qualities turn into their opposites, contradictions can be inspired, and we can't know anything of ancient history [20:13] I am an absurd human. [20:13] Ned :-) [20:14] mithrandi (afn32275@slip05.unf.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:14] hi mith [20:14] ProfG: So? We can choose to believe that we know. What, really, does it matter? [20:14] HI ALL!!!!!!!.....Good to see you. :) [20:14] Hail Gandalf Stormcrow. [20:14] Mil: you can choose absurdity and nonsensical beliefs if you wish. Me, I prefer real life. [20:14] hello everyone... [20:14] hi Mith [20:14] Action: mithrandi is flattered [20:15] Mil: well, it depends on what you believe that you know! If you believe that it is okay to kill little kids...well, i guess then your beliefs *would* matter [20:15] profg: You choose what you believe is real life :) [20:15] what precisely is going on in here? [20:15] TheMOM`: To everyone else, yes. [20:15] mith: chit-chat [20:15] Mil: and you examine it to see if it IS real, or if it leads to absurdity [20:15] mith: apologetics [20:15] ahhh...i see : [20:15] profg: Reality is absurd. That's why we have a sense of humor. [20:15] Greek "apologia", defense [20:16] apologetics = defense of the faith [20:16] what is reality Mil? [20:16] thanx profg, but i knew the definition :) [20:16] Milhous: we have a sense of humor so we can put up with ppl that say that reality is absurd :-) [20:16] JSL: Who cares? [20:16] :-) [20:17] if you say it is absurd you must know what it is [20:17] Action: mithrandi knows what reality is [20:17] hey mith....are you a gator? [20:17] good Mith, then tell us what it is [20:17] JSL: Do you know why you do everything you do? [20:17] Action: TheMOM` looks to mithrandi to find out what reality is.... [20:17] yes....how'd you guess the afn give me away? [20:17] Mil: the unexamined life is not worth living. If you simply say "I believe this way and I will not examine my beliefs" then you must accept that you are living in hypocrisy and are not worth much to listen to [20:18] reality is whatever it is perceived to be by whoever is perceiving it :) [20:18] mith: yuppers....i am a seminole fan tho....'scool tho...i won't mess with ya ;-) [20:18] mith: incorrect [20:18] profg: Duh. Of course I re-examine my beliefs. That's why I'm here, instead of on #atheism [20:18] reality is what is, isn't it Mith? [20:18] perception does not equal reality [20:18] profg: And I have determined that the only person who can convince me of God's existence is God Himself. [20:19] Prof: then what does reality equal? [20:19] JSL: If you like. [20:19] Mil: BINGO!!!!! [20:19] mil: I applaud your efforts in the direction of self-examination. However, simply saying "Who cares" to questions of reality leaves much to be desired.... [20:19] gotta go [20:19] mithrandi (afn32275@slip05.unf.edu) left #apologetics. [20:19] by Mith [20:19] ProfG: It's an unanswerable question. [20:19] nonsense [20:19] profg: From my current viewpoint. [20:19] Mil: that is the point!!! It is not MY job (nor Prof's) to convince you of God's existance....only He can do that..... [20:19] brb [20:20] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp1.snni.com) left #apologetics. [20:20] that I agree with, Mil [20:20] Well, then, God, I'm waiting. [20:20] from your current viewpoint, you CANNOT be convince of the existence of God... which is why you must make a paradigm shift in order to BE convinced [20:20] for what Mil, he has given enough evidence of his existance [20:21] I was not convinced of God's existence until I came to believe in God's existence [20:21] one's presuppositions determine one's beliefs [20:21] what evidence of his existance are you prepared to accept Mil? [20:21] profg: Oh, I'd say I could be convinced of a god...wine flowing out of my tap, Jesus Christ appearing in my living room...standard miracles. [20:21] In fact, anything supernatural would suffice. [20:21] anything? [20:22] TheMOM` (rhpowell@ left #apologetics. [20:22] Mil: what would you say if I proved to you that NOT believing in the existence of God meant that one would have to believe EVERYTHING that happens is a miracle? [20:22] I've seen those verses twice in 15 minutes :) [20:22] Mil :-) [20:23] JSL (JLeighton@www-18-198.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [20:23] Bull. Miracles are supernatural. God is supernatural. Without God, miracles are impossible. [20:23] Mil: shall I explain, or do you wish to ignore and dismiss out of hand? [20:23] :-) [20:23] Go ahead. [20:24] On the unbeliever's approach to the world, by which he thinks that everything that happens has a natural explanation - "everything that happens is random" - which means that everything that happe ns is *unpredictable* [20:24] This means that *everything* is without an explanation! [20:24] In science, we assume the uniformity of nature - the way things will be in the future will resemble the way things were in the past [20:25] All language assumes uniformity as well [20:25] We don't worry about whether the English words which were spoken to us today will mean the same thing tomorrow; we just assume we know the meanings of the words [20:25] Where does God come in? [20:25] hang on, you'll see what I mean [20:25] You couldn't have language if you didn't have that kind of predictability [20:25] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line10.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:26] If we couldn't learn from the past and project into the future, then we couldn't learn; we couldn't control our environment [20:26] Alcuin :-) [20:26] Greetings, earth people [20:26] It won't do a scientist *any* good to do all this research for years and years, and finally think he understands chemical interactions or whatever it may be, if it turns out tomorrow that it may all be changed; [20:26] the game may be completely different - all different rules, all different relationships - we couldn't function that way! [20:27] But...may I break in? [20:27] None of have the temptation to think that when we burn ourselves at the stove that that was a one-time experience; we all tend to think that that's a universal type of thing - I can count on that tomorrow too... [20:27] Languages DO change, and so does science. [20:27] Action: Alcuin tosses a coin in the air... it flies up and to the left, out of sight... [20:27] yes, but my point is coming here... [20:27] You don't walk up to the stove the next day and think, "Well, I wonder if *this* will be the thrill of a lifetime!" and put your hand out there [20:27] In the unbelieving approach to reality, there's no reason why you *shouldn't* do that, because the unbeliever cannot *tell* you why the future should be like the past; on the unbeliever's approach, the future is random [20:28] If *anything* can happen, then tomorrow, putting your hand on that flame might not hurt, and all that we've learned about science previously may not be applicable, and the way that we've learned language and how we've used it in th e past ma [20:28] Not random. [20:28] may be utterly inapplicable, etc. etc. [20:28] why would the future not be random in the atheistic paradigm, Mil? [20:28] Bound by observable natural laws. Remote chance that something else may occur, but very very small. [20:28] Action: Alcuin notes that though languages change and scientific models are displaced, such changes presuppose a profound metaphysical continuity in experience.... [20:29] So small to be dismissible. [20:29] or able? [20:29] "observable natural laws"? what the heck are those, in an atheistic paradigm? [20:29] Milhous: Have you ever actually *seen* an "observable natural law" ? [20:29] oh well [20:29] The fact is, if tomorrow it turns out that nature is uniform with what we've learned in the past - THAT'S A MIRACLE!!! [20:29] I drop my mouse. It falls. [20:29] You can't *expect* it - there's no predictability, so if it happens to work out that way, "WOW! What an astonishing thing!" [20:29] I try it again, and again. [20:29] Milhous: How many possible instances of mouse-dropping are there in space/time? [20:30] which is what a miracle IS [20:30] Eventually, I will expect that it will always fall. [20:30] It may not. [20:30] In so expecting, you will be unwarranted.... [20:30] you have no reason to believe that, Mil [20:30] Alcuin: Past experience. [20:30] You still haven't brought God into it. [20:31] BY REJECTING MIRACLES, the unbeliever is forced to say that EVERYTHING that happens is a miracle! Given this worldview, you can't expect anything to be predictable, so the unpredictable happens all the time [20:31] Milhous: And what non-questionbegging reason is there to think that the future will be like the past? [20:31] Wait a minute, you skipped a step. [20:31] miracles are the UNPREDICTABLE [20:31] profg: I am going to drop my mouse. I think it will fall. [20:32] It did. [20:32] Where's God in that? [20:32] so? [20:32] Milhous: There are a *whole bunch* (tm) of possible instances of mouse-dropping in space/time, of which you have tested only a tiny, tiny portion.... From which, you infer by induction that mouse-dropping always entails mouse-fal ling (in the presence of sufficiently massive bodies). Is that rational? [20:32] the only way you can make that prediction, Mil, is by borrowing from the theistic paradigm. [20:32] Alcuin: agreed [20:33] Milhous: God is in the fact that your mouse didn't fly off into space, since nothing in your experience could possibly ground the expectation that you admit you hold to (religiously).... [20:33] Is there any reason to believe that dropping a mouse in another point in space time will not result in it falling? [20:33] back later...food beckons. [20:33] Cheers, Milhous... [20:33] Seeya [20:33] bye al [20:34] Mil: yes, there is a reason to believe that - but not in an atheistic paradigm [20:34] I will need proof of a mouse not falling in an equivalent point in space-time for my supposition to be broken. [20:34] profg: How bout a little objective evidence? [20:34] That's your basis for science? "Prove to me that my hypothesis is false!"... [20:34] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line10.cis.yale.edu) left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical! [20:34] Um. Yes. Basis for all science. Duh. [20:35] Mil: that is not the point. You are relying on past experience of mouse fallings, when in the atheist paradigm of randomness and chance, past experience can NOT be relied upon [20:35] Falsifiability, etc,. [20:35] no, Science is the proof that the hypothesis is CORRECT [20:35] Hey, quit talking about an "atheistic paradigm", please. That's rampant generalization. [20:35] it's factual generalization [20:36] nothing wrong with it [20:36] profg: Um. No. First tenet of science is that nothing is provable, beyond a doubt. [20:36] Milhous: prove it [20:36] profg: You can't prove anything correct. [20:36] Milhous: prove that statement [20:36] profg: Only incorrect. [20:36] Milhous: prove that statement [20:36] profg: That's not science. Red herring. [20:37] W (cservice@undernet.org) left irc: will be right back [20:37] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #apologetics. [20:37] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org [20:37] profg: Prove it incorrect. [20:37] You are making claims as facts. Prove them please [20:37] And I'll listen. [20:37] Disprove them, please. [20:37] you are making universal claims. The burden of proof is therefore on you [20:38] You have a hypothesis. [20:38] And you have data. [20:38] Milhous, I have to get my son out of the bath - brb [20:38] The data can either support, or disprove the hypothesis. [20:38] It cannot prove it. [20:39] Go back to 7th-grade science class. [20:39] But, this sort of science isn't much use for technology. [20:40] Therefore, we accept hypotheses that have been consistently supported, and not disproved as "facts" [20:40] And they do appear to be so. [20:40] Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etcetera. [20:42] No God in that. [20:43] back [20:43] :) [20:44] Milhous: why accept these hypotheses as fact if they are not facts? [20:44] Glenn (gturner@ joined #apologetics. [20:44] hi glenn [20:44] Greetings all! [20:44] profg: Why accept a Newtonian universe when it's more Einsteinian? Convenience. [20:44] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line25.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:45] re [20:45] but one cannot live by "convenience" if one's paradigm is self-contradictory [20:45] then one is living by "hypocrisy" [20:45] re alcuin [20:45] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal03-09.ppp.iadfw.net) joined #apologetics. [20:45] Achimoth :-) [20:45] hi prof [20:45] Glenn (gturner@ left #apologetics. [20:46] my email really drags.. :( [20:46] Alcuin: I finally figured out what your nick means, in conjunction with your username :-) [20:47] profg: How is that 'paradigm' self-contradictory? My paradigm has no God in it, but the universe has semblance of order. [20:47] Action: Alcuin gives ProfG the right hand of inference [20:47] Mil: exactly - that is a self-contradictory paradigm [20:47] Milhous: The Problem (tm) is that your universe has a semblance of order *despite* what you claim is the case with respect to that universe. [20:48] greetings, Achimoth [20:48] Which is what? [20:48] Action: ProfG HATES the ping on ircle [20:48] Atheism demands the universe comes about by chance, yet the also claim a high amount of order came out of this chaos... [20:48] Ever hear of chaos mathematics? [20:48] The universe bears scrutiny. The atheist worldview cannot make that fact intelligible. [20:49] Order arising from disorder. [20:49] Derefram (Derefram@www-12-154.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [20:49] exactly - The unbeliever has to believe that qualities turn into their opposites [20:49] Milhous: chaos mathematics is a set of paradigms. multivalent logic is a set of paradigms. How in an atheist universe can the claim be sustained that such paradigms have anything whatsoever to do with the *stuff* that's comin' a tcha? [20:49] irrational and illogical [20:50] hi dere [20:50] ProfG: nicely put. [20:50] Hello [20:50] Action: ProfG graciously accepts the complement from the mysterious Alcuin... [20:50] especialy in the light of the Second Law of thermodynamics which says that order goes to chaos not chaos to order... entropy [20:50] :-) [20:51] Achimoth: That's very seventeenth-century of you. [20:51] Mil: that's very post-modern of you. [20:51] :-) [20:51] Achimoth: That's only applicable in a closed system, and as you say, chaos is not a closed system. [20:51] Derefram (Derefram@www-12-154.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [20:51] milhous: not really..... even chaos mathemiatics dont support order from chaos [20:51] Action: ProfG waits for an answer by Milhous to Alcuin's previous question [20:51] OK. Perhaps there is a design. Perhaps it's even intelligent. We're a long way from Christianity. [20:52] Milhous, Achimoth, ProfG: That's very Post-Now of you... [20:52] if anything the mathmatics raise the concept of chaos to a new plane [20:52] alcuin: Thank you :) [20:53] I remember reading a Discover Magazine isuue, where they were discussing the Mediocrity cosmology theory... [20:53] Milhous: We're not *necessarily* a long way from Christianity if there's order. Here's why. We're not just saying that Any Ol' Theism (tm) is sufficient to account for human experience. We're narrowing it down to Revelational E pistemology (tm), and even further, to the Biblical Account (tm). [20:54] Discover Magazine, now we're into some surces :-P [20:54] er sources. [20:54] Achimoth: Compare that to the SuperString Unified Field Theory...;) [20:54] Milhouse: the source does not elleviate the theory being discussed.. which i believe was spoken of in Scientific American months before [20:55] there are scientists that hold to the theories, trying to explain a non designed universe. [20:55] alcuin: All right. This is #apologetics. Let's assume for a minute, that I am an any ol' theist (tm). Why Christianity? [20:55] Milhous: Glad you asked... [20:55] Achimoth: Nonsense. The issue of design is not up to science. Never was. [20:56] Action: Alcuin pulls out an insurance policy, a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, and the note on some land in Florida. "You don't think I'd try to pull one over on you, do you?" [20:56] Milhous: then how can science explain order arising from chaos in SPITE of numerous examples that order always leads toward chaos not the other way around [20:56] heh [20:57] TheFiend (+kgreen@ joined #apologetics. [20:57] Achimoth: Order to Chaos is only within a given closed system, despite what Duane Gish might assert....;) [20:57] hello TF [20:57] hi, prof [20:57] achimoth: It's not chaos. Matter bound by natural laws. [20:57] Milhous: Since you're willing to come along for the ride, arguendo, may I paint a little picture for you of "why Christianity" ? [20:57] argh duane gish....dshdshdeirj93uriwejsjgkdnkvkdsls [20:58] milhouse where do these laws come from? [20:58] Alcuin: More than willing. [20:58] achimoth: Not a scientific question. [20:58] we don't know where the laws came from. [20:58] alcuin: if the universe is an open system.. then the atheists are wrong and there is more than we can peceive.. ;) [20:59] Action: ProfG offers the floor to Alcuin [20:59] achimoth: Than we do perceive, not can. [20:59] milhous: oh.. so we have to take on faith that these laws are there by chance not by design? [20:59] the universe may be either open or closed, but it hasn't no bearing on atheism or evolution. [20:59] Alcuin, you have the floor :-) [20:59] achimoth: Either way. Take yer pick. [20:59] shaddup and let him talk already [20:59] Milhous: Good. The Bible is taken by some Christians to be a self-revelation of God. If there is some WorldProposition WP such that for any proposition P, one may deduce either P or ~P from the WP, then God knows that WP. You w ith me? [20:59] thefiend wrong [21:00] Hi, TheFiend... [21:00] Sure. [21:00] if the universe is a closed system, then order must degrade to chaos [21:00] ach; your assertion that it's wrong does not make it wrong. [21:00] only in an open system is the law of entropy avoided [21:00] achimoth: Again, how newtonian. [21:00] Action: ProfG is about to +m so Alcuin can talk, already [21:00] correct alcuin? [21:00] achi; 1. we're not talking about the layman's concept of order, but the thermodynamicists. [21:01] go ahead, prof [21:01] ok [21:01] Dernit, gotta go... [21:01] thefiend: ahh, so you use semantics to answer the questions you want to ask, but when you get to the fundamentals of existence, you say.. "oh, thats not in the pervue of science" how nice of a way to avoid the dilemma [21:01] no way [21:02] Maybe on later, hopefully... [21:02] So, the WP is obviously an enormous proposition consisting of the conjunction of many propositions, all of which are true. [21:02] Crud. [21:02] achi; i thought we were waiting for acuin [21:02] Sorry to see you go, Milhous. When might you return? [21:02] TF: we were. He wasn't. ;-> [21:02] achi; learn something about thermo. [21:02] Hopefully tonight. I'm sure we'll meet again. [21:02] i have [21:02] All the best to you, Mil.... [21:02] achi: Thermodynamics is not the universe. That is all. [21:02] You too... [21:02] achi; from anything other than a creationist brochure? [21:03] Milhous (hlm3mr@ left irc: God is dead -- Nietzche. Nietzche is dead -- God. [21:03] thefiend: personal attacks? how cute [21:03] not yet. [21:04] as a matter of fact im not even attempting to deal with a special creation theory at this point... I'm dealing with the universe occuring by sheer chance [21:04] i asked a direct question. right now i'm asking myself the question "Is this guy worth spending a few minutes with or not?" [21:04] and no I dont read "creationist brochures" [21:05] Achimoth: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not follow from the model of a universe of sheer chance. So, it is self-evident that such a law will be inconsistent with such a model. [21:05] i don't think i criticized special creation. i criticized your interpretation of the second law. [21:05] Alcuin: yes, I agree... [21:06] yet, the atheist will trumpet these "natural laws" all day long [21:06] Achimoth: Do you also agree that the Real Question (tm) is how in an atheist's universe this or any other law can be posited at all? [21:06] and i once again ask where do these natural laws come from, what mechanism can cause them to be? [21:06] alcuin: yep.. ;) [21:07] ach; we don't know. [21:07] "I don't know, so I'm going to base my worldview on it" [21:07] hmmmmm [21:07] ach; there are speculations - superstring theory, etc. but "we don't know" [21:07] TheFiend: Do you believe that although you don't know, you *can* know? [21:07] hehehe [21:08] alcuin; i don't know if i *can* know. (and I mean that in both senses) [21:08] so thefiend: you rely as much on faith as does the theist [21:08] achi; not at all. faith is belief without evidence. [21:09] achi; we do not 'believe' the laws without evidence. we accept the laws until they are shown to be unworkable. [21:09] TheFiend: What evidence leads you to believe that you can act as if there's regularity in nature? [21:09] thefiend: ahh, but you have just admited you are sure you can know how the laws came to be [21:09] cannot know even [21:09] alcuin; what evidence leads you to believe that you can act as if there's not? [21:09] JSur (JSur@www-47-244.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [21:09] the feind you take without evidence that the laws came to be by sheer chance [21:09] achi; i never said that. i thought i maintained the contrary. [21:09] hi jsur [21:10] Action: Alcuin POSITS A LAW: The human brain is actually tomato paste, when no one is "looking" at it, where "looking" is any kind of probing or discerning. [21:10] thats faith [21:10] LOL [21:10] Is this a college course of? [21:10] alc; your LAW might be true. we can't look at it scientifically. [21:10] lets try this again... the Laws determine how the universe works [21:10] Action: Alcuin notes that according to TheFiend, this LAW is legitimate until disproved. [21:10] JSur: nope, but it might as well be :-) [21:10] the Laws came to be when the universe began, that much we know... [21:11] alc; no. i didn't say that. nor did naything i say imply that. [21:11] Ah parrallel lines do meet, in infinit! [21:11] and no one disputes this... [21:11] BUT [21:11] TheFiend: Nope, we can't look at it scientifically, by definition. Now what we're all interested in knowing from you is why you think any other law is in a different category than the one I offered.... [21:11] what evidence do we have of where these Laws came from? [21:11] alc; it is only sensical to posit law that can be proven wrong if they are wrong. [21:12] TheFiend speaks: """we do not 'believe' the laws without evidence. we accept the laws until they are shown to be unworkable.""" [21:12] alcuin: sounds like faith to me... ie the Laws just coming to be [21:12] TheFiend: What would constitute "proving wrong" the Law of Gravity? [21:13] alc; that was a shortening. clearly we don't say everything when we type. [21:13] or type everything we say [21:13] heh [21:13] lol [21:13] alc; by the 'law of gravity' i assume you mean the inverse square law F=Gm1m2/r^2? [21:14] TheFiend: Or, intuitively, that this anvil will plummet at 9.8m/sec^2 if I drop it from Rockefeller Ctr.... [21:14] Action: ProfG thought he meant the universal hectagonal law, Zip/=huh7buh8huh9buh [21:14] How to "disprove" such a law....atsa da question... [21:14] ah, but see, that is not the law of gravity....we knew that anvil plummetted long before we had a 'law of gravity'. [21:15] ProfG proffered the "hectagonal law" but had to eight his words.... [21:15] lol [21:15] it plummets *without* a law of gravity? [21:15] TRTimm (TRTimm@www-14-31.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [21:15] interesting... [21:15] hi trt [21:15] TheFiend: That's why I said "intuitively".... Do you have any gesture toward an answer to this inquiry? Or is your model of disconfirmation admittedly an article of faith? [21:16] TRTimm (TRTimm@www-14-31.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [21:16] lol [21:17] alcuin; sure. if airplanes ceased to work properly, or the athmosphere suddenly flew away from the earth, or the ocean suddenly spewed up to the moon, that would be a good indication that the law was wrong. [21:17] alcuin; failing that we could devise a series of simple experiments with weights. [21:17] how did the law of gravity occur? [21:18] what mechanism caused it? [21:18] if the law of gravity did not hold we might never have discovered some of the outter planets. [21:19] it was only due to perturbations of the orbits of the 'known' planets that caused astronomers to look for them. [21:19] TheFiend: There. That's something to work on. Now, in actual practice, when a scientist comes upon apparently disconfirming phenomena, does the scientist [a] toss out the hypothesis [b] assimilate the deviant phenomenon to the i nstances that conform to the norm [c] question whether additional conditions might have obtained that supplemented the test conditions [d] have a Bud Light(tm) ? [21:19] Normally, when airplanes cease to work properly, the notion that the law of gravity has been disconfirmed is not even given lip-service. [21:20] alcuin; if they all ceased to work at once, it might. [21:20] alcuin; when we say that something is falsifiable, that doesn't mean that it will be falsified. only that it's somehow capable of being falsified. [21:21] Why should a failure of the law of gravity be universal rather than only in a particular space/time coordinate? [21:21] hey ProfG, gimmee that extension again is this right http://www.fiu-edu/~qgreen01/apologetic.html? [21:21] doesn't need to. could be magic. [21:21] then again, we couldn't investigate it, if that were the case. [21:22] TheFiend: And what I'm saying is that the notion that anything is falsifiable, though popular among logical positivists in the early part of this century, has been thoroughly discredited by now... [21:22] JSur: no, apologetics.html [21:22] i would say that the experiment would be repeated. a single exception could be an experimental error. [21:22] TheFiend: Nope, we couldn't investigate at all, if nothing were verifiable.... That's the quandary of a non-theistic universe, where there's no basis for believing that laws will not be capricious.... [21:23] JSur: and it's ~wgreen01 [21:23] alcuin; falsification was not a big thing for positivists...verification was. [21:23] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [21:23] alc; i agree. [21:23] A single exception *could be* an experimental error. Or it could be a place/time where the law just happens not to work. If the latter is the case, then it follows that the law has no predictive value. How then is it possible t o distinguish these two cases? [21:23] alc; if the laws are capricious, we can't examine anything. [21:23] TheFiend: exactly [21:24] YES [21:24] alc; let me think about this. [21:24] brb...[reading a letter] [21:24] however, we all-of-us use this method of reasoning to survive. [21:25] TheFiend: that's true. [21:25] yup [21:25] no one is denying that the method is used [21:25] and is sound [21:25] JSur (JSur@www-47-244.gnn.com) left irc: gone [21:26] but to use it, one must employ certain presuppositions [21:26] if i come home and my family is dead and i have a video of Mr. X performing the crime, and his fingerprints on the weapon, etc. and he claims it was really a demon did it at the last sec...etc. [21:26] which, in an atheist paradigm, would be contradictory [21:26] TheFiend: Our theory here is that we *can* all get by *despite* the ways in which what-we-claim fails to be true just because there is a true account of how-things-are. When Atheist A "gets by" , or when Theist B "gets by" it's because Theism happens to be the case, *regardless* of what A or B profess is the case.... [21:27] prof; well, would a theist say, "Hey, we can't disprove it, so we let the guy go?" [21:27] TheFiend: The theist would say: In a theistic world, it makes sense to uphold the continuity of nature, the reliability of the senses, and moral precepts. So nail the guy... [21:27] no, but that is because the theist has reason to rely on the "proof" [21:27] alcuin: exactly [21:28] Whereas an atheist would hafta say: An atheistic worldview cannot account for the reliability of the senses, the continuity of nature, the reliability of logic, or the cogency of moral claims. Nevertheless, nail the guy... [21:29] i agree with the "cogency of moral claims" part and disagree with the others. [21:29] ah hah [21:29] TheFiend: that's fine. I admire your forthrightness in stating where you stand as of now. [21:29] i need to think this through a little. it's a slightly different approach than what I've heard before. [21:30] TF: you are welcome here anytime. [21:30] :-) [21:30] alcuin; hey! and i admire your not wasting my time telling me silly stuff i've heard a million times before. [21:30] TheFiend: It probably is a different approach. I think that I, and perhaps others here, would join you in asserting that most theistic claims and arguments are quite obviously unpersuasive and arbitrary. [21:30] Alcuin: AMEN [21:30] wish i'ld logged this. [21:31] do you have a page? [21:31] TheFiend: If you're not logging this, the logs are available from ProfG... [21:31] TF: we prefer what has been called the "presuppositional" apologetical approach, not the evidentialist [21:31] Action: Alcuin prefers both, rightly related to one another... [21:31] TF: we post discussion logs on the #apologetics Web site [21:31] Alcuin: well, of course ;-> [21:31] okay. i know where it is. [21:31] This log will be labelled with today's date. [21:32] Action: ProfG is a couple days behind getting them up... :-/ [21:32] Now ProfG has an incentive...:) [21:32] heh [21:32] well, i better get home to me munchkins. (heck i probably won't get around to checking it out til the weekend anyway) [21:32] ok, TF [21:32] and TF... [21:32] later...it's been worthwhile. [21:33] That's fine. We expect that, if the future is like the past, we'll be around here often. You're welcome to drop in anytime.... [21:33] yes? [21:33] God bless you :-) [21:33] hehehehehehehe....yea, right! [21:33] TheFiend (+kgreen@ left #apologetics. [21:33] "if the future is like the past", lol [21:33] :) [21:33] that slays me ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [23:44] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal03-09.ppp.iadfw.net) joined #apologetics. [23:45] Mode change '+o Achimoth ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@ [23:45] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [23:45] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@ [23:46] betcha utopia doesnt come [23:46] Life4Him (Life4Him@ppp-67-50.dialup.winternet.com) joined #apologetics. [23:47] utopia (slurpy@colosseum.com) joined #apologetics. [23:48] welcome [23:48] hullo [23:48] bow [23:48] okay so what is an apolegeticthen? [23:48] utopia, what would youconsider evidence? [23:48] Action: utopia would like to read the bible, but he doesn't know where to obtain one. [23:49] hmm.. aco apolobot REQUIRES that faq be in it.. heh [23:49] utopia what country are you in? [23:49] acolyte: anything physical... [23:49] utopia, what do you mean? [23:49] acolyte: Canada. [23:49] utopia you mean it has to be inn front of you to be considered eviedence [23:49] ? [23:49] acolyte: Anything that can be proven by one of the 5 senses. [23:50] Life4Him (Life4Him@ppp-67-50.dialup.winternet.com) left #apologetics. [23:50] utopia IC, so you think the only kind of proof is whatis available to you now? [23:50] hmmm.... then i guess a tree doesnt make a sound when no one heres it... ;P (just a joke folks) [23:50] hears even... heh [23:50] acoltye: yes. if it is not.. then it is an unprooven theory.. unless it has been prooven by another reliable source (prooven with one of the 5 senses) [23:50] acolyte: yes, anything else can be forged. [23:51] utopia , true, but physical evidence can be tampered with, can it not? [23:51] achimoth: hehehehe... unless it falls on a gopher (sorry from a tv show!) [23:51] utopia: then how do we know that say.. Karl Marx existed? [23:51] acolyte: it can, but it is much more reliable. [23:51] achimoth: I say that he existed because I have seen him in a movie... [23:52] guilty (x@ joined #Apologetics. [23:52] utopia why> [23:52] why is it more reliable? [23:52] achimoth hold on [23:52] utopia but movies can be faked [23:52] wrong... that could have been an actor portraying a fictional character [23:52] very easily [23:52] guilty (x@ left #Apologetics. [23:53] utopia, why is physical data more reliable? [23:53] acolyte: but so could the bible. [23:53] acolyte: physical date? like what? [23:53] utopia I asked a question [23:53] how can 66 books over 1000's of years maintain a pretty common theme? [23:53] sorry if I'm a bit slow in replying.. but u are challenging me, and it takes me time to think.. :) [23:54] utopia sure it could, but the question is not what COULD be what what we do in fact have evidence for. [23:54] utopia no [23:54] achimoth hold on [23:54] utopia why is physical data more reliable than eyewtiness accounts? [23:54] ok [23:54] think away [23:54] Action: Achimoth withdraws till aco makes his points [23:54] achimoth: they maintain a theme of Fear.. which is common to the whole human race. [23:54] achimoth untell an epistemology is agreed on it does not do any good to throw out examples, particularly to a skeptic [23:55] utopia why is physical data more reliable than eyewtiness accounts? [23:55] acolyte: okay, A physical date means nothing to me. eyewitness accounts do.. but I would have to meet the eyewitness. [23:56] utopia please READ what I said. I did not say DATE, I said DATA as in information. [23:56] Action: utopia wants to believe in god, but refuses to believe in god. [23:56] utopia, why is physical DATA, information, empirical data, more reliable than eyewitness acounts? [23:57] acolyte: terribly sorry. because everyone sees everything differently. [23:57] why? [23:57] utopia, ic, do ppl use their five senses to see? [23:58] acolyte: it is late and I am not making much sense... but if something is prooven to me by means of one of my 5 senses then it is real. until it is prooven otherwise. [23:58] acolyte: to see what?? I don't understand the question. [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_18_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank