[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/19/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/19/96 Topic for #

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

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/19/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/19/96 Topic for #apologetics: The existence of God and Christian theism.....rational debate welcome Last topic change at Monday, February 19, 1996 11:56:45 PM #apologetics: ProfG @W @ApoloBot #apologetics :End of /NAMES list. ApoloBot has set the topic on channel #apologetics to ATHEISTS: if you come and debate, you've already lost :-) FRANCISCO has joined channel #apologetics FRANCISCO: Dear Apolo, thank you for everyting. ProfG: hello Francisco FRANCISCO: Hi Josh FRANCISCO: Mcdowell? ProfG: Not me FRANCISCO: I see FRANCISCO: but you have heard of that guy? ProfG: more like Greg :-) ProfG: (Bahnsen, that is) FRANCISCO: so what is your area specialty? ProfG: apologetics :-) FRANCISCO: history? FRANCISCO: evidence? FRANCISCO: resurection? ProfG: presuppositionalism FRANCISCO: sin, heaven, hell, angels, god.... asumptions? FRANCISCO: preppp...... what is that? ProfG: the transcendental argument for the existence of God FRANCISCO: preposterism? what is that? FRANCISCO: seem we have a sloooow tiper. FRANCISCO: typer ProfG: ? FRANCISCO: type FRANCISCO: sleeping today hu ProfG: nope, what did you not understand? FRANCISCO: trancendental for the existence of a superbeing? FRANCISCO: try to use short words Alcuin has joined channel #apologetics FRANCISCO: what if I say.... I am god? ProfG: transcendental: non-materialism FRANCISCO: no such thing ProfG: I would say you are not an atheists then :-) FRANCISCO: ok go on.. NedFlndrs has joined channel #apologetics Alcuin: oh, is this a materialism vs. nonmaterialism debate? ;) ProfG: re ned FRANCISCO: then I say I have created all of your memories. NedFlndrs: !op Alcuin: ciao, ned baby... FRANCISCO: nonmatereialism we mean ideas and thinking ProfG: Fran: prove it Mode change "+o NedFlndrs" on #apologetics by ApoloBot FRANCISCO: prove to you that I am god???? NedFlndrs (((((((((( Alcuin )))))))))) ProfG: yes FRANCISCO: good queston. Mode change "+o Alcuin" on #apologetics by NedFlndrs RedCloud has joined channel #apologetics FRANCISCO: Ok Alcuin stands patiently at the sidelines, willing to step in at a moment's notice.... ProfG: hello red Alcuin: <>> NedFlndrs: How are ya Alcuin??!!!! FRANCISCO: first i need to know, what you consider as proof? RedCloud: hi RedCloud: hey, Ned, long time no see. hows it going? ProfG: Fran: the impossibility of the opposite NedFlndrs: :) NedFlndrs: AL.....you should hang here more often bro FRANCISCO: semantic pretzels today hu...... no thank you ProfG: Fran: that IS the proof for the existence of God NedFlndrs: Hello Red FRANCISCO: imposibility of the opposite... pure moonshine Alcuin: Harry Frankfurt: "A proposition may be considered indubitable when denial of that proposition undermines the preconditions of rational discourse" NedFlndrs: Red....refresh my memory ProfG: Alcuin: exactly FRANCISCO: imposibility of the opposite is only in your mind RedCloud: Ned: I've seen you around many places in here, tho we never have talked before. I like your nick. Alcuin: Francisco: do you believe in mind???! FRANCISCO: seems we dont have the same rational standards.... RedCloud: what is the topic? FRANCISCO: thats a start... mind. galileo has joined channel #apologetics FRANCISCO: god, nonexistence Alcuin: Francisco: is mind abstract or concrete? FRANCISCO: mind is abstract and concrete.... depends how you are going to use the concept. FRANCISCO: and for what purpose ProfG: Fran: how do YOU define it? FRANCISCO: mind?.... im not interested in defining mind. NedFlndrs: So Red....what do ya believe in?? ProfG: Fran: retreating so soon? Alcuin: Francisco: abstract = extended in space; concrete = not extended in space. Which is it?? Acolyte has joined channel #apologetics ProfG: Acolyte :-) Acolyte is busy ProfG: poor acolyte FRANCISCO: you have invetnted hot air with the idea of opposite stuff ProfG: we could use you now, buddy ProfG: francisco: define hot air. Is it material? ProfG: Fran: you don't believe in opposites? what do you mean? NedFlndrs: Fran.....how so? FRANCISCO: we dont want to get off the subject..... and we cant agree on what is proof. ProfG: Fran: sure we can. Acolyte: francisco what is your paradigm? Alcuin: Francisco: do you believe in laws of logic? ProfG: Fran: that's what we are establishing now. Acolyte: hey Alcuin Mode change "+o Acolyte" on #apologetics by ApoloBot Alcuin: Hiya ac... FRANCISCO: what is aceptable evidence? NedFlndrs: Fran...we are not asking for proof....we are asking how you justify your standards of reasoning/ Alcuin: Ned: exactly FRANCISCO: I dont have you..... you are the ones who are proposing the existance of a god. NedFlndrs: Fran...what would you use to evalute that evidence? Acolyte: Fan what beleifs are precondtions for knowdlge and what are their ontological referrents? Acolyte: Francisco burden of proofs are context relative FRANCISCO: I need to know first what you consider evidence? FRANCISCO: context relative?? ... more monshine? Alcuin: Francisco: It's not that we are proposing the existence of a god, as if the burden of proof were then on us to justify that proposition. On the contrary, denial of the existence of god is an untenable intellectual position! NedFlndrs: Fran........I propose that does God not exist as a resolve......Now the burden is on you Fran :) NedFlndrs: Fran........I propose that does God not exist as a resolve......Now the burden is on you Fran :) NedFlndrs: its a word game Acolyte: fancisco not all beleifs require proof do they? FRANCISCO: no so the burden is always on those who propose the existence of god. NedFlndrs: Fran......now.......by what methodes will you test that evidence? FRANCISCO: this one does Acolyte: Fancisco why? Acolyte: fancisi Why does belief in God require proof? FRANCISCO: I need to know what evidence first? NedFlndrs: I am not Fran...see my resolve FRANCISCO: once I have what you consider evidence... than I can think on that. Acolyte: francisco evidence is context relative Alcuin: Francisco: Nonsense. Since it is not possible to make sense of rational inquiry, science, logic, ethics, and other instances of predication apart from a theistic belief set, the claim that the burden of proof is on theists makes no Alcuin: sense. FRANCISCO: good question about why belief in god requires proof.... RedCloud: Fran: to a certain extent we cannot prove, as in a court of law, that God exists. The kind of proof you want has to come from within NedFlndrs: Fran....I am not talking about the evidence...so to speak...I am asking you by WHAT criterion do you test all evidence Acolyte: Francisco do all beleifs reqwuire proof? yes or no? NedFlndrs: no FRANCISCO: this belief does require proof. Alcuin: RedCloud: I would have to disagree with your claim. The existence of God can be proved not merely to the satisfaction of subjective standards; God's existence can be irrefutably established. NedFlndrs: ooos NedFlndrs: sorry aco Acolyte: Francisco that is not what I asked you NedFlndrs: Fran?.....acolyte has a good question NedFlndrs: Do they? Acolyte: francisco do all beliefs require proof? yes or no? FRANCISCO: all beliefs require proof.... depends on how important the issue is Alcuin will be back in a moment RedCloud: alcuin: it depends on what measuring standard we use NedFlndrs: Please asnswer the former question FRAN Acolyte: francisco so theya all require proof but they don't all require proof? hows that? NedFlndrs: play fair...we will answer your questions ....but you must answer ours as well :) FRANCISCO: does and does not.... who cares about certain proofs.... but some are important. Acolyte: Francisco, so you believe that all beleifs have to have grounds before one beleifs th Acolyte: Francisco, so you believe that all beleifs have to have grounds before one beleifs them as rational Acolyte: brb FRANCISCO: generally we evaluate evidence based on our experience, other experiece, logic, history, probability and reasonableness. ProfG: Fran: and how do you trust your sensory perceptions of your experiences? NedFlndrs: Fran....would you agree to the formal laws of logic and the attending fallacies formal and informal??? FRANCISCO: generally science advances based on objective tanblible benifits. NedFlndrs: Why...as well Fran? FRANCISCO: logic... is only one factor. NedFlndrs: Fran......does God Not Exist? ProfG: Fran: how does science operate according to a non-theistic or naturalistic paradigm? ProfG: galileo: awfully silent... :-) FRANCISCO: it uses the scientiv method NedFlndrs: Fran......does God Not Exist? ProfG: fran: how is the scientific method reliable according to a naturalistic paradigm? FRANCISCO: scientist need no god to help in their research galileo: waiting to see where you are going FRANCISCO: I see no evidence for the existance of a superbeing. RedCloud: fran: for evidence, look around NedFlndrs: Gal......I am here for your apologetic Pleasure NedFlndrs: :) ProfG: fran: the non-theistic paradigm calls for random chance ONLY; how can the scientific method operate in such a paradigm? FRANCISCO: scientic method is the best we have, and hopefully getting better. Ether_Ore has joined channel #apologetics ProfG: fran: "the best we have" is not a logical answer FRANCISCO: random change can contribute also to advances in science. NedFlndrs: wow.... Prof 1 / Fran O ProfG: fran: but not to the scientific method ProfG: ned lol FRANCISCO: Scientific method is one of the proven method in science. Acolyte: francisco circular argument NedFlndrs: Gal....can I help you? ProfG: fran: circular argument - "science proves the scientific method, which proves science" - illogical FRANCISCO: circular no way..... go to the hospital sometime and see for your self. ProfG: acolyte :-) ProfG: hospital? ??? NedFlndrs: wow.... Prof 2 / Fran O galileo: Ned: nope, just watching the arguments :) FRANCISCO: medical science has proven itself FRANCISCO: you should taste reality without the benefits of medical research ProfG: fran: show how it can possibly "prove itself" in a worldview requiring random chance as a presupposition NedFlndrs: Gal....can I help you? Acolyte: francisco how do you know science is true? NedFlndrs: Fran....a Hospital is emperical proof? ProfG: Ned teehee NedFlndrs: wow.... Prof 2 / Fran -1 NedFlndrs: Medical?? NedFlndrs: we are talking epistomolgy FRAN RedCloud: Fran: what will it take for you to have proof that God exists? NedFlndrs: Red.....a manifistation before his eyes ProfG: Red: the proof of God's existence is the impossiblity of the opposite. Evidential arguments will do nothing for someone like Francisco, whose presuppositions reject transcendentals NedFlndrs: watch Ether_Ore: it's my experience that if someone doesn't want to believe nothing will stop them. RedCloud: Fran: What kind of proof will convince you that God exists? YermeYah has joined channel #Apologetics ProfG: Ether: true, even when shown that their presuppositions require a descent into nihilism ProfG: hiya yerme YermeYah: Shalom NedFlndrs: Welcome Yermeyah Requesting DCC CHAT connection with apolobot Acolyte: Francisco how do you know Science is true? YermeYah: What's this channel about? RedCloud: Fran: What kind of proof do you want that will convince you that God exists? NedFlndrs: Gal.....see...we have not went as far as we needed to.....but we can go there with you :) ProfG: Ned :-) Acolyte: Francisco how do you know Science is true? ProfG: Francisco: do YOU exist on this channel anymore? NedFlndrs: FGal....let me ask you.....Does God Not exist?? Acolyte: Francisco how do you know that any Empirical MEthod is true? NedFlndrs: Galileo....let me ask you.....Does God Not exist?? RedCloud: have we lost Francisco? galileo: Ned: I do not believe in god ProfG: oh FRAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN Acolyte: I think he was lost before ProfG: Acolyte LOL Acolyte: profg lol NedFlndrs: Gal.....answer the question.....yes or no RedCloud: acolyte: come on aco, that's not kind Acolyte: Red but true ProfG cries with RedCloud Acolyte: profg LOL NedFlndrs: Red....kind is not a atheistic trait NedFlndrs: who cares? Acolyte: hey is alcuin here still? ProfG: he's eating NedFlndrs: Gal.....answer the question.....yes or no ProfG: gal: what do you mean, "I do not believe in god" ? NedFlndrs: Galileo....let me ask you.....Does God Not exist?? Purr has joined channel #apologetics Acolyte: Ned let me try Signoff: FRANCISCO (Read error to FRANCISCO: No route to host) ProfG will be right back - putting Jordan down You have been marked as being away Acolyte: Galileo, perhaps you can answer a few simple quesitons about your unbeleif? Purr has left channel #apologetics NedFlndrs: Gal......is your claim that "God does not exist" ? galileo: sure, I'll try SVorhauer has joined channel #apologetics Acolyte has set the topic on channel #apologetics to The Presuption of Theism-The Bane of Atheism SVorhauer has left channel #apologetics Acolyte: woops galileo: I have no claim FRANCISCO has joined channel #apologetics Acolyte has set the topic on channel #apologetics to The Presumption of Theism-The Bane of Atheism NedFlndrs: Go ahead aco...... Acolyte: galileo, why do you not believe in God? NedFlndrs: Hello Pur RedCloud: Fran: What kind of proof do you want that will convince you that God exists? Ether_Ore: gal: what do you base your belief on then? FRANCISCO: LIKE i WAs saying guys,, you cant ague with success... Medical science. RedCloud: Fran: What kind of proof do you want that will convince you that God exists? NedFlndrs: Red....you are a Christian? Acolyte: Francisco how do you know that any empirical methodology is true? galileo: Ether: my belief in what? RedCloud: ned: negative ned Acolyte: galileo, why do you not believe in God? FRANCISCO: good question.... NedFlndrs: yes you do you lil devil NedFlndrs: Hi Fran...re Ether_Ore: your belief in un-belief. FRANCISCO: what sort of prooof.... You are no longer marked as being away NedFlndrs: Red....you are a Christian? FRANCISCO: in other words... what sort of evidence is acceptable... RedCloud: Ned: Negative. I am not a Christian in the sense that you are asking Acolyte: francisco please answer what I asked. Acolyte: Francisco how do you know that any empirical methodology is true? NedFlndrs: Red......why are you arguing for the theistic belief? RedCloud: Fran: yes...what sort of answer NedFlndrs: so it seems FRANCISCO: no good evidence for belief in god. Acolyte: GALILEO why do you not believ in God? RedCloud: ned: I believe in God (must you be a Christian to believe in God?) Acolyte: Francisco, do you mean to say that no where in the universe there is no Good eveidence for God at all? NedFlndrs: Red....In what sense? RedCloud: ned: can you not be a Muslim, Jew, Hindu..? ProfG: Fran: how can we answer your question about "what sort of evidence" if we don't know how you even know that any empirical methodology is true? galileo: Acolyte, no experience of a god Acolyte: galileo personal experience? NedFlndrs: Acolyte even said "please" FRANCISCO: I guess it then depends on our expectations about god, we could defines it very modestly Acolyte ignores Fran for the time being seeing that he is not going to even attempt tp answer my question NedFlndrs: Yerm......why so quiet? RedCloud: ned: not in the sense "faith alone will save you. Or, believing in Jesus will save you" Acolyte: galileo personal experience? galileo: personal, yeah Acolyte: Redcloud are you a Spiritualist? RedCloud: Aco: Yes I am. Acolyte: galileo, IC, what if there were logical proofs for God? Would that suffice or no? RedCloud: Fran: Ok, then, define God, as you say Acolyte: There ya go Ned NedFlndrs: Red......kool....now.....You have a belief in God.......how do you know of this God??....by what beliefs galileo: possibly RedCloud: Fran: Ok, then, define God, as you say...and we can take it from there FRANCISCO: Impirical medodology... could you define that first or describe it? NedFlndrs: Red....are you one of those? RedCloud: ned: I've travelled a long road to reach where I've reached..and the road is still long ProfG: Red: what if it's the wrong road ;-> Acolyte: Fran Empirical methodology are mtehods that use sense data to derive knowldge. Science is a kind of Empirical MEthod. I am asking how do you know it is true? RedCloud: ned: one of what? I am a human being, like yourself, created and loved by God. What else do you want to know? Does it matter? FRANCISCO: If I define god and a superbeing having an interest in my life. then I so not see any evidence of such a superbeing. ProfG: Red: how do you know you were created and loved by God"? Acolyte: Francisco, lets stick to one topic at a time ok? RedCloud: Profg: If its the wrong road I will be instructed as such Ether_Ore: what do you call evidence? FRANCISCO: If such a superbeing existed... then it is up to him to show Himself to us. ProfG: poor fran, all over the place, can't settle down Acolyte: Francisco, lets stick to one topic at a time ok? Acolyte: Francisco, lets stick to one topic at a time ok? RedCloud: Profg: I know from within ProfG: Red: that's why you're here, apparently :-) FRANCISCO: would someone care to reapeat the question? ProfG: Red: how can you trust what is "within"? How do you know what is "within"? NedFlndrs: Red.....you can believe you are a tomoato...that does not make it so NedFlndrs: tomato NedFlndrs: Red......so what do you read as literature for your beliefs? Acolyte: francisco so you think that any beliefs needs proof before one holds it as rational? NedFlndrs: Yes Red I would agree NedFlndrs: Crash! RedCloud: ned: there are many books on this topic ProfG: Ned: are you lagged? NedFlndrs: Red....so God is all around us?? FRANCISCO: Acolyte, thats a general statement... get specific. NedFlndrs: in Us?? ProfG: Red: how can you trust what is "within"? How do you know what is "within"? RedCloud: ned: Yes, God is all. NedFlndrs: Red...how would you be instucted? ProfG: Red: how do you know that "God is all"? RedCloud: profg: in each of us there is a monitor that tells us what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes it doesnt reach our senses, but it's there NedFlndrs: Red.....whatbooks Acolyte: franciso do you think for any beleif to be belived rationally it must have proof first? yes or no will suffice ProfG: Red: you tell me this is true. How do you know, is what I asked? NedFlndrs: Red......If God is all......How do you account for malice and evil? FRANCISCO: Ac... you insist on black and white answers RedCloud: prof: what is knowledge? Do you read something and say "this is true?" Do you not need to gain the experience before you can say "This is true to me?" RedCloud: brb Acolyte: francisco I insist on logical answers ProfG: Red: if "God is all", how do you account for particulars? Like, individuals? Acolyte: Francisco, please answer the question Acolyte: franciso do you think for any beleif to be belived rationally it must have proof first? yes or no will suffice NedFlndrs: Red....How do you know that God is all??......by what proofs?? FRANCISCO: Ac to have been staying away from the specific,... and seem to believe that logic is all. ProfG: Red: no, but you apparently DO need the experience. So, how can you trust your sensory perceptions? Acolyte: francisoc I am not here for your personal commentary. ok please answer the question NedFlndrs: See...Red...You really are a naturalist.....that God is in nature...right? FRANCISCO: AC but I think many of your questions are not relevant. ProfG: fran: you were the one who insisted on scientific methodology - I'd think you would WANT logic Acolyte: francisco fine, perhaps they are not, but would you please answer them? Alcuin returns from a satisfying culinary foray Acolyte: alcuin hehehhe ProfG: re alcuin :-) RedCloud: ned: Are asking me which books so that you may read a passage or two from them..or to disprove them? I can supply a passage if you desire. NedFlndrs: lol Alcuin NedFlndrs: See...Red...You really are a naturalist.....that God is in nature...right? FRANCISCO: I cannot answer the question in a black and white fashion.... Acolyte: franciso why not? RedCloud: ned: I have a text of definition of God. Do you want it? ProfG: Fran: why not? that's SCIENCE for ya FRANCISCO: some beliefs are important and may require proof.... some are not. Acolyte: francisco do you think that any and all beliefs require evidence or not? Ether_Ore: fran: but you pose the premis in a black and white fashion RedCloud welcome back alcuin! ProfG: Fran: who gets to determine the "important" beliefs Alcuin: "Science works--just check a hospital for results" is a begging of the question. I propose that the application of scientific method yields success *despite* atheistic notions of science. Successful scie nce works (without admitting it) within a theistic frame of reference. ProfG: ? Acolyte: francisco, so some beliefs do not require proof? Is that what you are saying? NedFlndrs: Red...no.....If you answer profs Questions....as well as mine....all will be well NedFlndrs: See...Red...You really are a naturalist.....that God is in nature...right? FRANCISCO: why not..?... it depends on the issue... and people do decide what is important for them. ProfG: Red stepped away, Ned :( Acolyte: Acluin all men know God (sensus divinitatas RedCloud: ned: I am giving you an opportunity to read the definition of God FRANCISCO: Im saying that some proofs are not important. Acolyte: francisco is logic an important belief? Acolyte: rancisco I am not talking about proof. I am talking about beliefs Alcuin: Acolyte: But knowing God, they honor him not as God, but substitute the creation for the creator. Acolyte: alcuin amen Acolyte: @@@ rom 1 20 21 FRANCISCO: Logic is important..... but depends on how we are going to use it and for what purspose. Acolyte: @@@ rom 1 22 ApoloBot: Rom1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (KJV) ApoloBot: Rom1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (KJV) ApoloBot: Rom1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (KJV) NedFlndrs: GGRrrrrr Acolyte: francisco what proof do you have for logic? NedFlndrs: Ok Red......go NedFlndrs: Ok Red......go RedCloud: ned: Gimme a sec...I gotta find it...I'll be back RedCloud has left channel #apologetics Ether_Ore says fran has fallen and he can't get up! Alcuin: Francisco: It *does* depend on how we are going to use it. And THE question is how on earth we determine worthwhile v. non-worthwhile uses of logic. THE question is how we determine *which* logic to use. NedFlndrs: hey....apolo!!!! scrollin! ProfG: the "definition of God"? ProfG can't wait NedFlndrs: this is a warnin...lol FRANCISCO: proof of logic can be found in correspondence to reality. ProfG: Ether LOL NedFlndrs: grrrrrrr Acolyte: francisco so in this correspondence to reality do you use logic or no? Acolyte: francisco yes or no will suffice NedFlndrs: Prof...he bailed NedFlndrs: lol ProfG: heh RedCloud has joined channel #apologetics NedFlndrs: LOL! NedFlndrs: be nice.......... ProfG: re red FRANCISCO: which logic..... maybe the purpose or mission will help determine the tools. Acolyte: Francisco it is a simple question NedFlndrs: :) ....not :E RedCloud: hold on ned NedFlndrs: re Red Alcuin: Francisco: to what phenomenon in "reality" does the following law of logic correspond: A&(BvC)<-->(A&B)v(A&C) Acolyte: francisco, do you use the law of contradiction when doing your correspondence to reality? yes or no? NedFlndrs: ok ProfG: whew boy RedCloud: there it goes ned... Acolyte: Aluin you are spoiling my fun ProfG: LOL FRANCISCO: logic is part.... like I said. we use experience, reason, probabilites etc Alcuin: Francisco: Have you tested every space/time instance of "reality" to determine whether "logic" worked there? Alcuin: Acolyte? NedFlndrs: Red!!! NedFlndrs: whats this a book?????????????? NedFlndrs: o hh man ProfG: did he dcc you, Ned? Acolyte: Francisco, well lets take mathmatics and probabilities. Is that based on logic or no? RedCloud: ned: take a look at it... Alcuin: Is "reason" the same as "logic" in your view? Does probability theory depend on logic? ProfG: Alcuin good point FRANCISCO: AC you seem to know a lot about logic....so invested in it..... is that why you are to technical. ProfG wants it too, Red Acolyte: alcuin Baby steps to Transendental Proofs ;) RedCloud: progf: Ok, but remember this is a very small part ProfG: heheheh Acolyte: francisco, that is not the questionis it? please answer my question Acolyte: Francisco should we not be reasonable? Acolyte: I think we should. Acolyte: so please answer my question vacanthro has joined channel #apologetics FRANCISCO: logic, can now be safely left to software.... we humans can start to use judgement. vacanthro has left channel #apologetics ProfG: hi vacantro ProfG: bye vacanthro Acolyte: francisco, I asked a simple question, please answer it or leave ProfG: Fran: what judgment? by what standard? NedFlndrs: Red.....within this deff.....do you think that it is logically consistant with the the world inwhich we live? Closing DCC GET connection to RedCloud NedFlndrs: Hi Vacanthro Alcuin: Francisco: Polly-Paralytic has fallen into a pond and will drown if she is not withdrawn from the water. Do you jump in and save her? Do you walk away? What is the specific relationship between the choice you make and Alcuin: your view of logic? RedCloud: ned: please explain? I didnt understand that last question ProfG wants to know if he can dcc the Bible to RedCloud now :-) Alcuin: ACOLYTE: telling people to leave doesn't accomplish much: spose Jesus said the same to you or to me... FRANCISCO: I do not jump in and save her..... RedCloud: profg: Ahhh...come on..its just 13K big Acolyte: alcuin stupid ppl bug FRANCISCO: because... FRANCISCO: I dont know her... good enough? ProfG: Alcuin: doesn't He? NedFlndrs: Red......Ok.....does this view accuratly portray reality?3 Alcuin: Francisco: What is the basis for that choice? Or do you acknowledge that your choice is baseless? Acolyte: rancisco, I will make it really simple, if all beliefs do not require proof, why does belief in God require proof? FRANCISCO: choice based on personal and objective evaluation. Alcuin: Francisco: So your proposed principle is this: if you are acquainted with Polly, you save Polly, and otherwise not. RedCloud: ned: Good question. What is reality? To each, it is different. The same can be said of ANY book Ether_Ore says bravo aco! RedCloud: ned: thats why we must use our judgment :) ProfG: Red: how do you know that reality is different to each person? Acolyte: francisco in a naturalistic paradigm, there is no objecitve perception of reality, hence no objectivity. FRANCISCO: belief in god requires proof because of the way god is defined by christians. Alcuin: Francisco: "Personal and objective evaluation" -- are these weasel words or can you back them up with hard definitions that are general in their scope? RedCloud: ned: did you read it, the first part at least? human has joined channel #apologetics ProfG: hi human roho has joined channel #apologetics Acolyte: Francisco why does the Belief in the xian God rquire proof? ProfG: hi roho human is now known as smee RedCloud: prof: because we r all unique smee has left channel #apologetics YermeYah has left channel #Apologetics FRANCISCO: no objectivity.... you have now studied Karl Popper. Acolyte bows before Eithe_Ore NedFlndrs: Red...good....so now that there are diferent realitys......How would you know what is and is not true?....whats right and wrong...is there an objevtive standard of truth? Alcuin notes that *denial* of the christian God requires proof. ProfG: RedCloud: how are we all unique is God is all? Acolyte: Francisco, Epistemology is my baby. Please answer my uqestion. I did not ask for a Bibliography ProfG: Alcuin notes *well* FRANCISCO: yes requieres proof.... Alcuin: Francisco: Karl Popper's conceptual relativism undermines the possibility of rational inquiry: you have now studied Karel Lambert. Acolyte: Francisco BTW read some Khun ProfG: (Thomas, that is) Acolyte: aluin what bks by Lambert? Acolyte: Alcuin Wittgenstein is better than all of them RedCloud: ned: I believe there is. As I said before, we each have a monitor to know truth. Tho it doesnt reach our outer self (conscious self that is) roho has left channel #apologetics Acolyte: Francisco why does Belief in God require proof? FRANCISCO: because xtian make god so powerful, it merits proof. ProfG: Khun is fun - good ol' paradigm shifts :-) Acolyte: Francisco why does the belief in God's Power make it a belief that requires proof? Ether_Ore: so a little god is okay, but not a powerful one? Acolyte: ether ahahhaha NedFlndrs: Red.....under that belief......You Must Bite the bullet and say things like...."hitler was an ok guy "...are you aware of that? ProfG: LOL Alcuin: Acolyte: Wittgenstein is of limited and specific use. For this discourse, one need only consult Karel Lambert's _Intro to the Philosophy of Science_ to gain a prominent *non-theist*'s grasp of the problematics of "scientif ic method" NedFlndrs: roflol FRANCISCO: the power the christian attribute to their god. Acolyte: Alcuin that is not my field so I will check it out RedCloud: ned: But I bet he knew he was doing wrong ProfG: Red: how do you know we have such a "monitor" if we cannot trust our "outer self" and its perceptions? NedFlndrs: Red....Not true.......... Acolyte: francisco, why does belief A require proof but not belief G? NedFlndrs: Red......he was right within his reality NedFlndrs: right? Alcuin: Francisco: The Xian notion of God is that he is so powerful that he is the standard in terms of which the notion of "proof" is defined!! It is not that your notion of the Christian God is that he is power ful, but rather that you don't see how powerful Xians claim that he is!! ProfG: AMEN heh RedCloud: ned: Yes..you are right...I do believe thos there are certain laws man should follow. Like love your fellow man, for example NedFlndrs: So this same God that you believe in is Evil and Good at the same time in the same sense? Acolyte: francisco, why does belief A require proof but not belief G? Acolyte: francisco, why does belief A require proof but not belief G? RedCloud: prof: That is a belief I hold FRANCISCO: the christian view of god alleges the existance of hell, sin, heaven, so it becomes important to seek proof of that so called entity. ProfG: Red: why do you hold that belief? NedFlndrs: RED...why???....that is imposing on my reality Acolyte: francisco is logic an important belief? Acolyte: francisco if logic is an important beleif what possible evidence could you give for logic without using logic to begin with? FRANCISCO: if someone were to believe in a weak god,, we would not care if he existed or not. NedFlndrs: Red.....why is that if we all have our own reality......You and I can have an intelligent conversation?? RedCloud: ned: Yes. God is in all. You cannot say "because this man is evil, then God is not a part of him". If God created all then therefore He is in all, th Ether_Ore: fran: so if the god that is worshipped does no require anything, no proof is required, but if he does then you require proof? Alcuin: Apart from the Xian God's existence as the very standard by which evaluation and discourse are possible, there can be no evaluation and discourse. Unless the disbeliever in God can account for a *theory of proof* and a *method of proof* apa rt from God, that disbeliever should cease employing such notions as "proof" Acolyte: francisco if logic is an important beleif what possible evidence could you give for logic without using logic to begin with? Acolyte: Alcuin you read Van Til? FRANCISCO: I would use evidence that is perceived by all Alcuin: RedCloud: If you "create" a Caesar's Salad, then are you therefore "in" that Caesar's Salad? If so, I'll have to decline your generous invitation to dinner.... :) RedCloud: ned: re. our own reality. Perhaps I did not get this viewpoint across: I mean we each believe in different things, and therefore perceive the world around us in different ways Acolyte: Alcuin do you subscribe to the Nicean Creed? Acolyte: Fancisco but in using that evidence, you are using logic, Circular argument ProfG: Red: how can you trust your perceptions at all? ProfG: Red: and therefore, how do you know that what you believe is true? Acolyte: Fancisco but in using that evidence, you are using logic, Circular argument Acolyte: Fancisco but in using that evidence, you are using logic, Circular argument Alcuin: RedCloud: If we're all in "different worlds"--different strokes fer diff'rent folks--then is it OK for the "Unabomer" to kill people? It's OK in "his world" ProfG: whew, circles there RedCloud: alcuin: Picture this: an atom in a water droplet in a river..one unique atom...when mixed together in the ocean you see it as one big entity. Tho the atom is still here, no? FRANCISCO: no not circular, I would use data that is available to all, more in the line of rhetoric, like I said logic can only go so far. Alcuin: Acolyte: I believe in one God the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, etc.... ProfG: etc ProfG: :-) FRANCISCO: we have logic, that has not meaning in reality. ProfG: http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/nicene.html :-) Acolyte: francisco if you even think about the evidence you have used logic NedFlndrs: Red.....so how do you account for perceptions at all? Alcuin: RedCloud: picture this: I go to a Football games, and you can't discern me in the bleachers. But I'm still there, no? RedCloud: alcuiin: no, its not ok to kill. If you love your fellow man, you would not kill. There are certain rules that God, I believe, wants us to live by FRANCISCO: why are you so stuck on logic? galileo: Acolyte: how are you defining logic? ProfG: Red: how do you know what those rules are? FRANCISCO: I can us rhetoric Acolyte: galileo three basic laws of logic ProfG: and if you say "the inner man"... RedCloud: acluin: :) NedFlndrs: Red....how do you test your reality to see how that relaity exists? Acolyte: francisco all language is based on logic Alcuin: RedCloud: Where do you find out about those laws? ProfG: I will ask again, "how do you know that?" FRANCISCO: I can point to the past to proof a point. Acolyte: francisco by those very words youhave used logic, Ether_Ore: fran: sorry, but if i understand you, you "believe" in science because it has no power, though it's answers are no less certain than any other, and because god is powerful you refuse to believe in him? is that right? Acolyte: francisco let me elighten you. Logic CANNOT be proved. It is assumed. RedCloud: alcuin: to this I can only answer: In you daily experience of life will you discern these things. Shroud has joined channel #apologetics ProfG sees enlightenment spread across Francisco Acolyte: ether right trak Alcuin: Francisco: rhetoric depends on the efficacy of linguistic communication within a language-group. Therefore, rhetoric depends on logic. Likewise, pointing to the past to prove the future is irrational, since there is no guarantee that the f uture will correspond meaningfully to the past. NedFlndrs: Red.....how do you know that???? galileo: Acolyte: I lost my logic book, those laws are? FRANCISCO: Godel? Acolyte: alcuin perfect ProfG wonders why RedCloud can't answer him... does he perhaps not perceive his reality? NedFlndrs: Red....can you prove that to me? Acolyte: galieleo Law of Contradiction, Law of Excluded Middle, alw of Identity NedFlndrs: shoot! FRANCISCO: Assumed logic..... well there ;you have it.... depends on what assumption we are willing to accept... NedFlndrs: I have to go to a board meeting all..............I will be back......... Alcuin: RedCloud: Ted Bundy discerned in his Daily Life (tm) that it was AOK to bop sorority girls on the head with a club and then rape them. What is your basis for saying he was wrong. (worked fer him!!!) RedCloud: Ned: No, Ned I cannot prove it to you. You must find out the answer which is right for you at this time in your existance Acolyte: Alcuin I could not have said it better myself, well maybe, but dang that was good. ProfG: Fran finally gets it FRANCISCO: why all this focus on one method? NedFlndrs: RED.....very interesting....I wish to continue at a later time :0 Acolyte: francisoco, do you know what the law of contradiction is? galileo: thanks RedCloud: Ned: Yes, Ned. Take care and may God bless and protect you. ProfG: fran: because your presuppositions won't allow for other methods FRANCISCO: we need then to focus on what assumptions will be accepted. Acolyte pulls out his Gordan H. Clark sharpshooter double pump action Sniper of Bad arguments GUN! Acolyte: franciscio EXACTLY ProfG: FINALLY RedCloud must also get going...bye all Acolyte: whois alcuin ProfG: bye red, come back when you can answer my questions NedFlndrs: Aco 5 / FRAN -2 Ether_Ore: so fran, answer aco's original question! Acolyte: okie Acolyte: already oped FRANCISCO: so logic may have nothing to do with reality... if our assumption are invalid. RedCloud : May God bless us all! Alcuin: The three laws of logic to which Acolyte refers are Excluded Middle, Noncontradiction, and Identity. Goedel provides notions of incompleteness relative to semantic sets. Acolyte: francisco, no logic is how you know reality. Acolyte: alcuin correct RedCloud has left channel #apologetics FRANCISCO: we cannot know reality via logic if our assmptions are invalid. NedFlndrs: RED......I will.....Im gonna have a great big bowl Of God for dinner :) NedFlndrs: God bless Red ProfG: Fran: that is correct FRANCISCO: Perception is how we know reality Acolyte: francisco can logic be an invalid assumption? Alcuin: Francisco: what *exactly* do you take to be our "assumptions"? FRANCISCO: dont know Loki has joined channel #apologetics Acolyte hands Francisco a Copy of David Hume. HERE>>>REAWD THIS! ProfG: heheheh NedFlndrs: BTW......FRAN....to refute those laws.....you will use those laws Alcuin: bye, Ned... FRANCISCO: our assumption.... thinking... ProfG: lookie, it's loki Loki: moo. Acolyte: This reminds me of that movie War Games where the Comupter has to learn the Obvious. ProfG: lol ProfG: shall ProfG: we Ether_Ore: lol FRANCISCO: assumption.... depend on subject at hand ProfG: play ProfG: a ProfG: game Acolyte: hahahaha MacBinary has joined channel #apologetics FRANCISCO: we have some assumptions as to what is valid evidence. Acolyte: hullo mac MacBinary: hi Acolyte: francisco *sigh* don't you get it? ProfG: Fran yes we do - that is at the basis of many questions you are being asked Acolyte: fran look you ASSUMP logic, it is BEFORE any expereince. Acolyte: fran it is HARD WIRED into your head. Acolyte: capiche? FRANCISCO: hard wired... what it????? Alcuin: Francisco: Perception is the manifestation of sense data to material sensory organs. If our knowledge of reality depends on this mechanism, then we are in deep discourse, because: [1] there is no guarantee that what appears to us correspond s to what is actually there; [2] appearances vary (how can you tell that distant things that appear small aren't actually small at that moment?) ; [3] laws of thought cannot be derived from purely empir ProfG heard that phrase "hard wired" used by a naturalist at a seminar last week Acolyte: py VEY! Acolyte: oy vey! Loki has left channel #apologetics ProfG: he called himself a "secular Kantian" ProfG: I called him on the carpet for it, and he couldn't even understand what I was asking him Acolyte: profg is that a euphemism for Closet Nihilist? ProfG: he pushes "constructivism" in International Relations Acolyte consoles Profg galileo: Acolyte: what are your basic assumptions? Acolyte: galileo Logic for one ProfG: and he heads the Ph.D. program in IR at FIU ProfG: how lame can you get? Alcuin: Francisco: We all bring assumptions to bear on our interaction with any instance of human experience. The particular network of assumptions does vary in some measure with the situation. Nevertheless, there are some aspects to that network that are constant for all experience. Acolyte: galileo the Triune God as the basis for logic NedFlndrs: @@@ acts 19 8 God bless theSaints!!!!!!!!! NedFlndrs has left channel #apologetics ProfG: Acolyte: "closet nihilist" is right FRANCISCO: constant to all experiece??? specific??? Acolyte: Profg I am thinking that all those nasty little van Tillians are gonna have a BALL with the rising Tide of Post Modernism. Acolyte: galileo other Minds ProfG: Acolyte: amen! except this guy calls himself a "late modernist" - uses postie rhetoric, but won't call himself that! Acolyte: profg the worse things get, the better our arguments becomes. ProfG: heheheh Alcuin: Francisco: Your claim, to the extent that I have been able to tease it out of this discourse, is that we "assume" the identity and applicability of logical laws when we engage sense data. My claim is that it is not even possible to *assume* such things as laws of logic and differentiated sense data without presupposing a worldview that can account for such phenomena. nedflndrs: No such nick/channel ProfG had fun at the seminar; everytime he asked a question, questioning shut down Acolyte: profg I can just see it now...."So today onm Phil Donahue.. should grown women co-habitate with dogs...." ProfG: "Your questions are all epistemological, Bill!" MacBinary: what seminar? Alcuin is currently writing at length on the continuities and discontinuities of PostModernism and VanTillian thought structures. Acolyte: Alcuin EMAIL it to me when you are done ProfG: Mac: on constructivism and identity in International Relations ProfG: Alcuin: let us put it on the web page! :-) Alcuin: Acolyte: are you a Clarkian? [or <> a Robbinsian?] Amante has joined channel #apologetics Acolyte: Alcuin well yes and no Acolyte: Alcuin Clark has some good ideas. Shroud has left channel #apologetics Amante: hello ProfG: hmmm... did Francisco lose his voice? :-) Acolyte: I came to study Van Till via Clark. I mean I became PResup ebcause of Clark first starkle (starkle@access-one.com) has joined channel #apologetics ProfG: hi Amante ProfG: hi starkle Ether_Ore: hi Acolyte: Alcuin I don't care for Robbins tho starkle: hey profg Alcuin: ProfG: After Wolterstorff has a crack at it, then maybe the web page would be a good idea. ProfG became presup all because of Bahnsen Acolyte: Alcuin Robbins is a wanna be Gary North/GReg Bahnsen Amante: hey Profg Acolyte: brb Amante: how long have you been here ProfG: there goes Acolyte, brbing again ProfG: hours Alcuin: Acolyte: Robbins, Lord Blessim, doesn't show himself equipped for serious academic discourse. He's a *loyal popularizer and polemicist* though. FRANCISCO: still thinking on the idea that language is based on logic... and that stuff about assumption in worldview. Amante: no i mean a member to GNN ProfG: as long as you keep thinking, Fran ProfG: I am not a member to GNN Acolyte: Ether brb=be right back Amante has left channel #apologetics Alcuin: Francisco: You just take your time and think it through. There's no need to feel railroaded into notions that don't settle well with you. ProfG: he was lost MacBinary: what is the presup position Acolyte: Alcuin I am somewhat Eclectic tho. It is reflective in my theology since I am not Reformed FRANCISCO: I dont see how language is based on logic... if so, we would have automated translations much sooner. ProfG: Acolyte: try being a reformed charismatic :-) Acolyte: Mac the presup more or less says that god is a necessary belief/precondition for Knowledge/ethics/ metaphyscis etc. Alcuin: MacBinary: the presup position is that human experience (rational discourse, emotion, ethics, behavior, predication) are possible only within a Christian Theistic understanding of reality. Acolyte: Profg I did. I got better ProfG: Acolyte: on BOTH counts? golly ProfG: :-) Acolyte: profg try being a Van Tillian Anglo-Catholic MacBinary: what is a theistic understanding of the world? ProfG: theistic = God-based MacBinary: err a Christian theistic one Alcuin: Francisco: language depends on logic, but it is not reducible to logic. Systems of logic are formal languages that express universal principles of validity; natural languages are local conventions regarding the use of sets of signs. FRANCISCO: I thought language is based on culture and arbibrariness. Acolyte: francisco no, it is shaped by it but not based on it ProfG: how could language be arbitrary and yet be understood? FRANCISCO: AC .. I see. Acolyte: profg in a naturalistic paradigm you can have contradictory beleifs, Dalectical as van Til would say Alcuin: Francisco: In a given natural language (say, French), a word is a semantic token that refers to a material entity or relation, or to an abstract concept. That word is distinguished from other words formally (having different sounds or lette rs) and semantically (referring to different "stuff"). Acolyte: Acluin hav eyou read Fr Seraphim Rose' work on Nihilism? ProfG: Acolyte: in a naturalistic paradigm, you'd HAVE to AlphaB has joined channel #apologetics ProfG: hi alpha FRANCISCO: language understood by convention. Acolyte: profg awe no, you don't have to, you GET TO...ehehehe ProfG: heh AlphaB: hello bros! starkle has left channel #apologetics MacBinary: okay suppose that I take the assertion that the laws of logic presuppose God - how would one go about arguing this assertion? Alcuin: Francisco: You are insightful to believe that the choice of semantic tokens (words) is entirely conventional, based on local usage, preference, etc. However, the *linguistic universals* (subject, predicate, semantic denotation) are present in all languages. Whereas natural languages are highly irregular, due to how they come into existence, formal languages (such as a deductive logic) are highly regular, due to how *they* come into exist issie has joined channel #apologetics Acolyte: mac think of it this way. You have a car lot. You look to see which car runs. If there is only one car that runs, GUESS which one you are gonna take? MacBinary: that is not what I mean Alcuin: MacBinary: are you familiar with the mathematical notion of an indirect proof? Where, to test a claim, you assume that the claim is false, and then deduce a contradiction? Since denial of the claim leads to contradiction, affirmation of th e claim is logically true. MacBinary: yes FRANCISCO: thanks Alcuin Acolyte: macbinary, make sense? ProfG: Acolyte and Alcuin tag-team Alcuin: Acolyte: that's not quite it. Maybe no car runs. What we must assert is that driving a car presupposed the possibility of internal combustion kinetics. So, denying the existence of God is like driving around in a Lexus while asserting tha t motors cannot *possibly* be. Ether_Ore takes his now throbbing head and leaves, with the promise that he'll be back. ProfG: God bless, Ether Ether_Ore: adios. Acolyte: Alcuin it was a ruff anology, no anology has direct correspondence tho Ether_Ore has left channel #apologetics Acolyte: hey issie issie: Hi everyone. :> FRANCISCO: Anyone have a coment on Paul Feyerabend? Alcuin: Francisco: We welcome you to abide here in #apologetics with us as long as you wish, and as silently or engagedly as you choose. We feel no need to pressure you into accepting our views. If the God we speak of exists, then he is already an d undeniably known to you (though you don't necessarily recognize that fact). If he is not there, then you'll have to figure out how on earth it's possible for you to have wondered about him in the fir MacBinary: lets suppose that the presup position is correct - why does it have to be the xtian God - why will not another concept of God or gods do ProfG: Mac: because of inherent contradictions in other religions Signoff: galileo (Leaving) Acolyte: mac no other concept of God would fit the Transendental needed to be an ontological basis for Logic etc MacBinary: why though Acolyte: mac-for example only Trinitarianism soleves the Transendental problem of the One and the Many. Islam does not, neither can Judaism Acolyte: hence Xinaity is the only choice left ProfG may be lagged... FRANCISCO: but xtians did not invent the concept of trinity. Alcuin: MacBinary: well, with the notion of indirect logical proof in mind, consider this notion: [A] proposition that God exists [B] test proposition by drawing deductive inferences from its denial [C] proposition that God does not exist is inconsi stent with the preconditions of rational inquiry. [D] Therefore, God exists. MacBinary: lets suppose that is correct - can there not be a non-xtian trinity Acolyte: mac could be, but no religion has come up with one yet. Acolyte: alcuin beautiful, absolutly gorgeous Alcuin: Francisco: what is your understanding of the origin of the doctrine of the trinity? MacBinary: elaborate on C FRANCISCO: I thought the Egyptions had a trinity. Acolyte: francisco you cannot invent truth, that is right we did not inevent it Acolyte: Francisco oh really? Like who? Acolyte: Francisco the Egyptians had TRI-Theism, not Trinitarianism FRANCISCO: Ok maybe I mistundestood how the Egyptions view trinity or tritheism. Alcuin: Francisco: Ahhhh. Other religions may posit triads of deity, such as the various modes of Vishnu, or the range of manifestations of the Enlightened Guatama Siddhartha in Hinayana Buddhism. But triad is different than the notion of trinity. Acolyte: francisco maybe? MacBinary: I don't understand how one and the many has to presupose a trinitatianism - why wouldn't a tri-theism work or an n-theism Acolyte: profg u missed it last night tho FRANCISCO: why is Trinity important? ProfG: I was here a little, Acolyte ProfG: had to be with the wife :-) Acolyte: Macbinary because then in tri-theism the many would be many would be ultiamate, constant dialectic Alcuin: MacBinary: Very astute of you to focus in on [C]. What exactly does it mean that a view is "inconsistent with the preconditions of rational inquiry" after all? Acolyte: profg wish I could say that Acolyte: mac let me re-phrase MacBinary: yes MacBinary: please do ProfG: acolyte: you will :-) Acolyte: mac in tri-theism reality would be ultimately many things. In Pure MOnotheism the many would be subject to oneness, to substance, no personality. Alcuin: MacBinary: Well, rational inquiry as a material practice in the 3d world is complex. Typically, a potentially knowing self engages a potentially knowable range of data, and applies criteria of identification and evaluation to whatever stimu lates his sensors. That's how you tell a pirhana from a piano. Acolyte: mac hence Trinitarianism maintains that BOTH are ultimate, one and many FRANCISCO: but some christian beleive trinity concepts was invented about 300 C.E. Nicea. Acolyte: Francisco no xian thinks that Acolyte: francisco, if that were the case, why is Tertullian teaching it in 200 AD? Acolyte: fran and Ireneaus in 180 AD? MacBinary: but wouldn't n-itarianism work as well? Acolyte: francisco and ignatius in 115 AD? FRANCISCO: maybe it was not widely accepted? Acolyte: mac you mean non-trinitarianism? Acolyte: fran maybe? MacBinary: n as in multiple MacBinary: a natural number Acolyte: fran do you have an argument or just "maybe's" Acolyte: ? Alcuin: MacBinary: Such an engagement is possible only if [a] there is a cogent notion of self [b] the existence of stuff to be known can be accounted for [c] the method of identification and evaluation can be justified [d] that method, which is abs tract, can be brought to bear on a concrete mind and concrete data, and [e] that the sensory mechanisms and the data they receive are sufficiently constant over time. Acolyte: mac easy, you can't have more than one infinite FRANCISCO: I have some information on history of christianity. Alcuin: MacBinary: So, there are all these preconditions to the simplest engagement with reality {even telling your hand from your handkerchief} MacBinary: no you misunderstood - a 4in 1 or a 5 in 1 etc Acolyte: mac subject verb predicate Acolyte: francisco so do I. SO? MacBinary: oh that is the signifigance of the 3 Acolyte: mac that is one way to look at it Alcuin: MacBinary: The denial of the existence of God undermines the possibility of the very activity of denying, since only a Christian Theistic frame of reference can satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions of such an activity. FRANCISCO: maybe we read different histories? ProfG: there is only one history Acolyte: francisco perhaps you are reading sloppy scholarship? ProfG: heh FRANCISCO: ONe history FRANCISCO: amen Acolyte: francisco I have read the primary sources, have you? FRANCISCO: how do you know you are rreadding good scholarship? creation has joined channel #apologetics Acolyte: francisco oh please Acolyte: HEYA ccreation AlphaB has left channel #apologetics Acolyte: welcome to the party creation: hello acolyte FRANCISCO: primary sources... such as Joesephus? creation: acolyte: What is the party? Acolyte: francisco no, such as Ignatius of ANtioch FRANCISCO: primary bias sources? FRANCISCO: historians within the christian community? creation: Acolyte: and Iraneus ? MacBinary: alcuin: I guess my question is this. Suppose I assert that lungs are necessary to breath - though of course not sufficent. I can show this rather crudley by removing somethings lungs (crass I know) and observer that they no longer can bre Alcuin: Francisco: the notion of trinity turns up among the early fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, etc, to be sure. But the Christ's command to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, along with other New Testament sources, indicates that the notion was being *defended* and *clarified* by those fathers, not invented by them. MacBinary: ath creation: sp MacBinary: so if God presuppose logic - how do you show that God is a necessary entity for these laws to exist FRANCISCO: but those books in NT written much later. Acolyte: fancisco, no it is really simple. If someone alledges that the Christian Church did not teach X before a certain date and I can find half a dozen sources before date D that taught X, then obviously those schoalrs are wrong are they not? Acolyte: Francisco when do you think the NT Documents were written? creation: origen Alcuin: MacBinary: A crude illustration, but perhaps a useful one. Breathing presupposes the material existence of lungs. Take away the lungs, and there won't be much more analysis, cuz someone'll be waxing brain-dead. FRANCISCO: written betwen(gospels) 70 and 150 C.E. Acolyte: Creation Ignatius taught it and he was a disciple of Peter and paul. Ordained in about 66 AD by Peter personally Acolyte: Francisco nope Acolyte: francisco no one dates the NT outside of 100 ad now creation agrees with acolyte MacBinary: I don't understand this presup position - I guess I will have to do some reading FRANCISCO: you have not seen the Jesus Seminar? Alcuin: MacBinary: Now, on the assumption that the Christian God does not exist, try to account for the presuppositions of that question itself (viz., whether God exists). For that matter, try to account for *any* rational inquiry. Acolyte: francisco the LATEST date for Marks gospel for example is 65 AD creation: Franc: The Jesus Seminar? hehehehehehehe What a joke Acolyte: francisco I am VERY familair with the Seminar, what would you like to know about it? MacBinary: recommendations? FRANCISCO: and the latest of john? Acolyte: Francisco the JS is using a methodology of Straus that was refuted by Schweitzer 60 yrs ago at elast FRANCISCO: so if written so late.... who wrote them? Acolyte: francisco the latest date for John's Gospel is about 85 AD Acolyte: francisco the Apostles Acolyte: Fracnisco some schoalrs date MAtthew at about 35-42 AD Alcuin: Francisco: the majority of credible NT scholars (even those biased against Christianity) acknowledge that late dating of the NT manuscripts was fallacious. Late dates were based on tenuous theories of text generation that are now rejected b y numerous secular scholars. Acolyte: francisco and Mk about 45 AD FRANCISCO: so how can they write, if they are dead? FRANCISCO: sources sources mine say 70 to 150 Acolyte: francisco we have an Egyptian text of the Gospel of John dated from 90-120 AD. ProfG is BACK creation: acolyte is on a roll :) Acolyte: francisco what ar eyour sources? ProfG: why, hello, creation :-) FRANCISCO: William Harwood... Mythologys Last Gods. Acolyte: AHHAHAHAHHAH Acolyte: I read that bk creation: alcuin, Macbinary: Waht are you discussing? creation: hello profg Acolyte: its by Prometheus press Acolyte: what a JOKE ProfG: Prometheus? LOL! Acolyte: Creation Transendental argument Signoff: issie (washington-r.dc.us.undernet.org washington-1.dc.us.undernet.org) Signoff: FRANCISCO (washington-r.dc.us.undernet.org washington-1.dc.us.undernet.org) Acolyte: francisco I have already read it ProfG: Netsplit ProfG: *sigh* Acolyte: now if onl;y Hume and Icarus will come on line ProfG: if only creation: hehehehehehe this is too funny Acolyte: we can all go and inbade #atheism Acolyte: invade even ProfG: they would love us there LOL Acolyte: they would all freak creation: acolyte: is that what macbinary is discussing? ProfG: they freaked at just you and me, Acolyte ProfG: :-) Alcuin: MacBinary: It's not that God presupposes logic. It's that the use of logic presupposes a worldview in which God is absolute. Try John M. Frame, _Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought_; John M. Frame, _Apologetics to the Glory of Go d_; or Richard Pratt, _Every Thought Captive_ for some inroads that you can travel at leisure. creation: why hume and icarus? MacBinary: freaked? Acolyte: profg "tyedye-I'ts got to be the Second Coming!! Look at all of them!!" ProfG: heheh Acolyte: profg I read that bk, uses Bultmans late dates ProfG: Acolyte: what are Hume's and Icarus' web page URLs? Acolyte: profg have you read John A. T. Robinson' Can We Trust the NT? Acolyte: profg dunno Alcuin: Well, it's been real, but I'm off to other matters. Nice chattin' in your company. Acolyte: profg Robinson, a liberal argues that the WHOLE NT is dated before 70 AD creation: I take it he left? Acolyte: later alcuin ProfG: God bless, Alcuin Acolyte: Dominus Vobiscum Alcuin ProfG: Acolyte: I assume you've read _Before Jerusalem Fell_ Alcuin: coram deo, folks.... MacBinary has left channel #apologetics Signoff: Alcuin (#apologetics) Acolyte: profg no, parts ProfG: it's excellent ProfG: one of the best Acolyte: profg I came to preterism by reading non-preteristic sources creation: What is the trancendental argument? ProfG: brb Acolyte: creation the one I sent the essay on to you Acolyte: creation thatis one form of it You have been marked as being away creation: acolyte: On the Other Side? Acolyte: creation God is the precondition for epistemology and ethics etc Acolyte: creation yup Shiner has joined channel #apologetics creation: Oh. Why is it called the Trancendental argument? Acolyte: creation as time goes on, that essay will become more handy Acolyte: creation because it argues that a Transedent, somethng above the cosmos is necessary creation: acolyte: Why is that? Acolyte: why is what? Acolyte: oh the handy part creation: acolyte: Why will it become more handy? creation: yea Acolyte: because of Postmodernism Acolyte: creation you can just rip posties with it creation: Acolyte: Is it growing? creation: hehehee Acolyte notes that he just Coined the word "Posties" Acolyte: "Fundies" and now "Posties" Shiner is well aware of fundies.. and learning bout posties. Acolyte sings with glee running around the room "Posties will be toasties, Posties will be toasties!" creation: Does postmodernist = positivist? Acolyte: creation no Acolyte: creation tho they can go together they usually do not -------------- END OF LOG -------------- [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_2_19_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