[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/11/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/11/96 [00:18] B

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 - 4/11/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 4/11/96 [00:18] BoonDock (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [00:19] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [00:19] hi [00:20] hey. [00:20] there...Im out of #Bible. [00:20] k [00:20] I wrote you Email. [00:20] monster (internut@ppp5.enter.net) joined #Apologetics. [00:20] hi monster [00:20] monster..... [00:21] scary. [00:21] Action: BoonDock screams [00:21] Know Ideal what this room is but caught my eye [00:21] :) [00:21] monster...defence of Christian theism. [00:22] Action: monster makes a mean snarl and coughs, hacking up a hairball [00:22] rooms like this soom to catch the eyes of people with nicks like yours...I dont know what it is. [00:23] seem.. [00:23] Not my real nick, changed it to harrass people in the KKK room. Don't want them to know my real nick [00:23] :) [00:23] ;) [00:23] let me guess [00:23] preston? [00:23] jjejeje [00:23] erm [00:23] Action: BoonDock laffs in spanish [00:23] yes [00:23] KKK room....now theres a place to go for some fun, eh? [00:24] only if ur in the mood for a lynching, ur own [00:24] :) [00:24] yeah...I bet they can lay iit on as thick as anyone. [00:24] wacko's. [00:25] agreed [00:25] Nick change: monster -> Prestonrp [00:25] :) [00:25] Its heartening to know that there are subcultures of people in this world that society considers wackier than christians. [00:26] no offense, many lump them together [00:26] Not that credibility has any real virtue when it comes to metaphysics...... [00:26] then they dont understand either :) [00:26] this is true [00:27] Prest....none taken. A closer look will straighten that blunder out in anyone that is genuinely concerned... [00:27] Ahhhh what a day. [00:28] Preston...so (given the name and nature of this fine channel you find yourself in) what are your thoughts on God and Christianity? [00:29] i gotta 1 sec ping...I know the lag aint me.....SPEAK people!!!!! I feel soooooo alone!!!! [00:29] Action: BoonDock laffs [00:29] :-) [00:29] Wheres W bot to give me ops? [00:30] I do not general think of God and Christianity in the same thought. Christianity is a religion, which is a organization of man's to put into effect beliefs. [00:30] Boon is always there....comfort in my time of trial.... [00:30] Preston...go on. [00:31] ...and yet it is a system of belief that is about God if it is about anything... [00:31] Organized religion in and of itsself is only a conduit to God and only for some of us. Religion is not spirituality and it is spirituality that lead to a personal relationship with God [00:31] Preston...interesting. [00:32] This is true but it is not God's religion but man. God is nondenominational. [00:32] My friend, you've given me a great deal to disagree with!! :-) [00:33] Preston...to KNOW god is nondenominational is to know *positive* knowledge about God. The next question is, how do *you* know this info about God? [00:33] What is the source? [00:33] Organized religion, is a set of guidelines for belief, trying to dictate one belief system and one way of relationship to God. You can't dictate nor organize an one on one relationship, it is personal, it is spiritual [00:34] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [00:35] God is my source, I feel in my soul. How could God have a religious preference when gave us so many to choose from [00:35] heh. [00:35] Preston...your beliefs about god beg a number of questions...because they assume so many commonly believed characteristics ... [00:35] He didnt give us so many to choose from. [00:35] Preston...I can think of many cogent answers. Want to hear one or two? [00:36] Many religions, are u kidden. There are hundreds [00:36] go ahead, always open to new thoughts [00:39] Pret...well, one is that He in fact *didn't* give us any but one. It is plausable that, in our makeup, there exists a passion to answer the questions of origins, both of the world and of man. It is ossible that those origins, co upled with the one revealed religion, coupled with the logical necessity of a first cause or designer, Created all the other religions. In other words, they were all of natural origin whereas only one was divine. [00:40] simply put.... [00:40] GARockey (garockey@slip1.nashville.com) joined #apologetics. [00:40] hi gar [00:41] What's the topic? [00:41] boon is like a box of chocolates...sweet, nutty, good when frozen, full of carbohydrates, melts when you heat her....errr...the analogy kinda breaks down at this point..... [00:42] :-) [00:42] Gar...Christianiyt in a pluralistic society. [00:42] O.k I follow and disagree. When I said God gave us many religions I meant we have a choice of many( christianity being but one). All of these religions, including christianity were made by man, not God. God created spiritual ity. [00:43] Prestonrp -- may I assume, then, that you reject any concept of divine revelation? [00:43] Define it for me. [00:44] The Bible, for example. The concept that God delivers specific messages to his creation. [00:45] Prest...but how do you know god intended just a general *spirituality*? Direct personal revelation wont cut it. If so, how are you SURE? how is it that other sincere type people get different ideas? What about the appearent fact that culture plays a large role in determining what people consider personal revelatory knowledge about the nature of God? [00:45] I am going to jump off this limb I climb out on. I really don't believe the Bible was a direct gift from God. [00:46] I only used it as an example -- do you believe that God has not spoken to His creation? [00:46] culture plays a big role in what religion feels is appropriate in the relationship to God [00:46] That wasn't my question -- Has God spoken? [00:47] I was answering Cassidy, sorry [00:47] oops! [00:47] Prest....thats ok. Honesty is respected by me. I do disagree and believe there are cogent and necessary reasons to believe in ONE revelation of hios character (like the Bible) in order to also believe in truth, free-will, univer sals, ethics, the mind, etc. [00:47] :) [00:47] I don't believe the Bible is the direct word of God, [00:48] Prestonrp -- but do you believe that God has spoken, and if so, where? [00:49] Prest...just adress your answers...we'll try not to overburden you. [00:49] I am not saying that there are not some spiritual truths that can be held by all that seek a path to God, but religion is still not the only path to God. MY path will difer from urs, urs from Boons, Boons from Gar and on and o n [00:50] Has God spoken, no. [00:51] If God has not spoken, then how may we know him? After all, he has not revealed himself if he has not spoken... [00:51] Or perhaps yes, but not in the absolutes that people seem to need to find truth. I believe God speaks daily in our lives, individually and as a collective whole. Sometimes the messages are subtle, sometimes screamed [00:52] How do we know when it's God, and when it [00:52] Everything is God [00:53] (and when it's) our own desire, or some lively and convincing speaker? [00:53] My desire to do evil to my neighbor is God?! [00:53] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cassidy_[mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com] [00:53] BoonDock (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [00:54] Looks like everyone is leaving! [00:54] It is an aspect of God. I do not subscribe to the notion that the negative and positive aspects of God are separate. They are not in us and we are created in the image of God(spiritually speaking) [00:55] Then we are not responsible for our actions? [00:55] Hope it wasn't sometI didnt' say that [00:55] I mean, I did not say that [00:55] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [00:55] sorry....Im back. [00:55] But aren't you suggesting that when you say that "everything is God" ? [00:56] Hey Cassidy, where'd u go [00:56] Prest...did you get a chance to answer? [00:56] answer what Cassidy [00:56] my server pinged me off. [00:56] prest...hold on, I'll retype it. [00:57] Does God exist in a particular way independant of our beliefs about him...or is He himself a creation of our mind? [00:58] Great question Cassidy_ [00:58] Gar...its NOT original...thats for sure!! ;) [00:59] O.k. you know where the bible states that man is made in the image of God. I believe that God is made in the image of man. God is constant and never changing but our perception of God changes constantly [00:59] But it sure clears up how people think about God once the answer is given. [00:59] Preston...interesting..... [00:59] Prestonrp -- may way conclude from that that man predates God? [01:00] Is it not possible that one of the historical perceptions of this constant and neverchanging God is close or even right on about who God *actually* is? [01:01] Is it even *possible*?? [01:01] no. I am not saying that God does not exist outside the mind of God. But that the true nature of God is so complex that we must specify what God is in our own minds to make sense of everything. And from time to time this def inition of God will change with the times even though the nature of God is stagnant [01:02] That no is to Gar [01:02] and that is outside the mind of Man [01:03] BoonDock (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [01:03] welcome back boon [01:03] If definitions will always change, then will there every be a "correct" view of God? [01:03] thanks [01:03] Prest...can we know any "propositional" knowledge about God? Even if they be true about what they assirt but incomplete? [01:03] cassidy is charismatic and ppl glock to him [01:04] glock? [01:04] re boon!! [01:04] glock? [01:04] I see a Hegelian view of God developing here.............. [01:05] boon is TRULY the modern-day campfire......... [01:05] Gar. Man is not wise enough in his soul to ever fully know the true meaning of God. God is complex and vast, encompassing both good and bad in a balance that is beyond our comprehesion but we will constantly redefine God is t he best way that suits us and our times [01:06] JSG (JSG@www-19-30.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [01:07] I didn't say "fully" know God. I simply propose that you cannot have potentially opposing views of God and have both be "right". I suppose a better phrasi ng would be, is it possible to believe something wrong about God? [01:07] Anyone here? [01:07] Yes! [01:07] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) joined #apologetics. [01:07] Prest...I will let you and Gar continue on your string....but I would very much like to hear about the origin of this knowledge of God....why his *complexity* doesn't also negate YOUR knowledge of Him..and why Christianity speci fically doesn't speak truely of Him. [01:09] Cassidy_: Hasn't God revealed Himself to us through creation and through the Bible? [01:09] JSG..thats my belief. [01:09] Guys I'm beat. Its 1 am here and I got The origin of knowledge is purely my opinions. That is what all beliefs in God are, in the end. If Christianity talks true to u and allows u a one on one with God, than that is ur truth and is to be respected [01:10] Cassidy_: I guess I'm confused on the discussion. [01:10] Unless Christianity is actually right, and knowledge of God ISN'T based on our opinion... [01:10] Prestonrp -- blessings in your search, and good night. [01:11] Action: BoonDock wonders if she has the wrong cd in [01:11] JSG...Pres believes certain things about God and I wanted to know why and from where did he learn those beliefs. [01:11] BoonDock (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [01:11] Christianity is opinion, just real old opinion. Doesn't make it more or less right than any other [01:11] Cassidy_: Thanks for filling me in. [01:11] Journey (blehre19@dial309.skypoint.net) joined #Apologetics. [01:12] That's your opinion... ;) [01:12] Pres...I wish you could stay. Im positive I could convince you (if you were willing) that that is a perposterous position to hold. [01:12] True. Truth is transitory, based on perception. [01:12] Prestonrp: Why do you think Christianity is purely opinion? What do you mean? Do you believe Jesus when he claimed to be God? [01:13] I wish I could convice my car loan people of your perception of truth! [01:13] I don't know, I wasn't walking with Jesus when he made that claim. Slept in that day [01:13] GAR...:-) [01:13] Truths shifts everyday. It's like sand beneath ur feet [01:14] Prestonrp: I assume you didn't see first-hand many things that you believe are true. Do you think Jesus is God? [01:14] How do you lay a foundation for anything that you do? [01:14] Prest....thats an impossible epistemic position to defend. [01:14] As for ur car loan, if society suddenly decided money had no value, the truth would be u would owe no money [01:15] Truth is based on perception. What we held as fact once may not be fact now [01:15] Prestonrp -- there would also be nothing making it "my car" anymore, since I didn't "pay" for it. The difficulty remains. [01:16] Unother shifting of Truth [01:16] Prest...then it's not truth. [01:16] Perception merely perceives truth, not creates it [01:16] Let me do some history. [01:17] ZenRookie (hyperion@blackhole.dimensional.com) left #apologetics. [01:17] In the early 1900's Black people were considered inferior many. It was held(Note held) as truth. It is not our truth today [01:18] That is what I aurgue, truth shifts with our perceptions [01:19] Prest...you're commiting an equivication falacy. I disagree with your definitions of both truth and perception. [01:19] That didn't make it true then, and false now. It has always been false - it just takes time to see. Believing that the world was flat didn't make that "truth". [01:19] Prest...but how do you know that what you perceive is ever true? [01:20] JSG (JSG@www-19-30.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [01:20] Truth is transitory, what I believe is true today may not be true for me tomorrow, this is growth it is what we do as humans beings. As we change, so is what is true for us [01:21] I would believe all things are true... from the perspective of the creator of that perception [01:21] Well, I am out of time... Later everyone! [01:21] GARockey (garockey@slip1.nashville.com) left #apologetics. [01:22] u are the creator, somewhat, of ur own perceptions. Society, family, friends all have a say in what u believe is true [01:22] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@mvo-ca5-17.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Off to sing with the stars! =============================================================== [08:45] Epesh (joeo@fts4p13-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined #apologetics. [08:45] Wow, there *is* an apologetics channel. [08:46] heh [08:46] u b funny Epesh [08:46] Vic: one of the ops here also goes to Harvard [08:46] Alcuin is his nick [08:46] I'll tell Scott. [08:48] funny? Why so? [08:50] I dunno, Epesh, just your nature I guess [08:50] oops, forgot, there can be no such thing as a "nature" in an atheist paradigm [08:50] :-) [08:50] Profg: au contraire! there's little else. [08:51] how can there be universals in a naturalistic paradigm where there can only be locals? [08:51] So is anyone interested in apologetics here? [08:51] doh [08:52] Action: Epesh is glad to see that this channel is around, since he lobbied for it - hard - a few months ago but got no response. [08:52] I don't think there are only locals. [08:52] Besides, my paradigm is objective, not "naturalistic," unless we're having a confusion of terms [08:53] I know you don't think so, but the question is *how* they can exist in your paradigm? [08:53] you "lobbied" for it? [08:53] ProfG: yes. [08:53] How can they <- what? - exist in my paradigm? [08:54] universals [08:55] Hey prof, I need to leave...can I get your email address? [08:55] Explain the term "universals." [08:56] Vic: wgreen01@solix.fiu.edu [08:57] also available from the #apologetics home page [08:57] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [08:57] Epesh: I digress. Back to the concept of having a "nature". Could you explain to me what you mean by that? [08:58] Nature=existence. [08:58] Bye guys...thanks. [09:00] VicN (vn@ttyr9.tyrell.net) left irc: [09:00] c u Vic [09:00] really? [09:01] that is confusing though [09:01] papa2two (papa2two@copy.cat.rrnet.com) joined #apologetics. [09:02] papa :-) [09:02] Morning! [09:03] Epesh: what do you mean when you say that you have a certain "nature"? [09:03] does it mean you have a certain "existence"? [09:03] that is confusing [09:04] Is it? Only if you decide to make it confusing. [09:04] It means I exist as a primary. [09:06] harriet (AKalish@www-18-131.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [09:06] harriet (AKalish@www-18-131.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [09:07] Epesh: can you give me an example of a "nature" which you posess? [09:08] I exist; I have brown hair; I have hazel eyes; I breathe air. [09:09] brb [09:10] BTW, ProfG: The burden of proof is NOT on the challenger. the burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive assertion. [09:10] Action: Epesh is flipping through the apologetics page... [09:11] sorry, I'm working in other windows at the same time [09:11] Sokay. [09:14] Also: Are you aware of how irritating it can be watching that world spin around? [09:15] yes, that's why it's there [09:16] :-) [09:16] No doubt. :) [09:16] BTW, Epesh: the "burden of proof" is on the one who asserts that his/her worldview can account for reason and logic *at all* [09:17] So you think that reason and logic are not natural, that they don't exist outside of a religious purview? [09:19] Wow, that's ONE way to undercut a viewpoint... of course, then you undercut your own as well. [09:19] no, you misunderstand [09:19] Okay. Enlighten me. [09:19] reason and logic are not possible within an atheistic paradigm [09:20] Oh, darn... looks like MCU is down or not responding. [09:20] Okay. How do you come to this conclusion? [09:20] funny, I'm getting into MCU [09:21] I'm not. What's the address you're giving it? [09:21] http://mcu.edu [09:22] well, like everything else on the 'net, if you can't get in now, try in a few minutes :-) [09:23] Well, it contacted... now it's waiting for a reply. [09:24] Epesh, browse the logs for a bit... I have to get some work done, but I'll bbl. [09:24] The logs may help you understand what I was saying [09:24] Dana_ (dananova@ppp24.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [09:24] i'm back. [09:24] But we'll definitely talk later [09:24] Okay. [09:24] gotta jet now [09:24] Mode change '+o Dana_ ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [09:24] Mode change '-o ProfG ' by ProfG!greenew@SL5.elink.net [09:24] Action: Dana_ (((((((((( ProfG )))))))))) [09:24] Action: Dana_ (((((((((( papa2two )))))))))) [09:25] Dana :-) [09:25] I'm leaving, Dana [09:25] whats up Prof? [09:25] NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [09:25] you gotta stay!!!!!!!!!! [09:25] wanna explain to Epesh why logic and reason are not possible in an atheist paradigm? :-) [09:25] sure :) [09:25] Action: Epesh waits for this. [09:26] Prof....you gonna be back later? [09:26] yes [09:26] Epesh......so you are an atheist..? [09:26] kool [09:26] In fact, I'll hang here virtually, but I'm working [09:27] Epesh....what athiest texts have you read??...Logic texts? [09:28] I haven't read "Let's be an atheist" texts. [09:29] lol...well.....thats not quit what I had in mind....but ok, ...have you read any epistomolgy texts? [09:29] Yes, some. Primarily objectivist texts. [09:30] really.....thats facinating [09:30] I've apparently thought so. [09:31] ok......well.....I guess the issue is, (im new to this argument)......How can you justify using Logic within your paradigm? [09:31] due to the nature of the paradigm itself [09:31] Logic; The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference...... [09:31] the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study...... [09:31] a particular method of reasoning or argumentation. [09:31] Logic is the study of right reason or valid inferences and the attending fallacies, formal and informal......Not everything is subject to logic, Only truth claims are subject to logic. Logic is descpriptive, not prescriptive. In ot her words.... [09:31] Logic states the way we reason correctly. [09:32] There are four laws of logic, these laws are undeniable, to refute logic, you would have to USE logic. [09:32] 1st Law, The law of non-contradiction, A is not non A. [09:32] No Two contradictory statements can be true at the same time and in the same sense. [09:32] Dana: ProfG brought this up, BTW, and he left it about where you started. [09:32] 2nd Law, The law of Identity, A is A. This law states that something is itself. [09:32] Okay. [09:32] 3rd Law, The law of excluded middle, either A or non A. This law excludes any middle alternative between alternatives. [09:32] 3rd Law, The law of excluded middle, either A or non A. This law excludes any middle alternative between alternatives. [09:33] 4th Law, The law of Rational inference, A=B, B=C, C=A. This law allows inferences to be reached from a series of premises to a conclusion. [09:33] Okay. [09:33] agree so far? [09:33] Yes, although you don't need FOUR laws of logic to state what you have. [09:33] true....but I do it for the benefit of all [09:33] Okay. [09:34] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [09:35] at any rate.....the atheistic paradigm states that all is matter in motion.....Correct??...that all is nature? [09:36] I don't know about that. We don't know enough to state that "all is matter in motion." A concept, for instance, isn't "matter," and we haven't and can't verify that everything that IS material is in motion. [09:36] More like "all is natural." [09:37] ok...good enough [09:37] What's more, I don't subscribe to an "atheist paradigm" like you would to a magazine. [09:37] ok....please explain [09:37] I don't read a book and say, "Gee, it's in this book. I think I'll just accept it and preach atheism on the street." [09:38] When you speak of an atheist paradigm, that's all well and good, but it may not address MY paradigm. [09:38] ok......good...I am asking for your belief [09:38] ?? [09:40] Okay. Existence exists; without this, no reasoning can have any effect, since reasoning is consideration of reality. [09:40] Everything is itself. [09:41] Epesh: prove that without using circular argumentation [09:41] 3) humans are (in general!) conscious and have the ability to reason and think. [09:41] sorry, just peeked in [09:41] Prove which, profg? [09:41] Epesh....interesting....how do you justify using the inductive method??....That is question begging [09:42] Dana: How do I justify what using the inductive method? [09:42] yoor argument is kinda like...."its true casue its true"...not really a cogent position [09:42] Dana: these are axiomatic; denying reality is to make a cognitive statement about reality, implying that it does in fact exist. [09:42] epesh...you know what an inductive method of reasoning is? [09:43] denying that a thing is itself is to assume that A<>A. [09:43] thats not the issue [09:43] denying that men are conscious is a joke; denial requires a conscious denier. [09:43] hmmm.....your missing the point [09:43] Dana: i do, but tell me your view of it. I think these things are pretty obvious and they're the backbone of my thought. [09:44] ok...when you statedOkay. Existence exists; without this, no reasoning can have any effect, since reasoning is consideration of reality. [09:45] thats circular.....in form......however........ [09:45] So how do you prove that a triangle has three sides without referring to the definition of a triangle? [09:46] your assuming that reasoning is well within the athiestic paradigm [09:46] hehehehehee......hold on there Mr speed typer [09:46] Once again, the "atheistic paradigm" is something I'm not aware of. I'm aware of MY paradigm. [09:47] well....I am addressing your view of it [09:47] Okay. How do you decide that reason is not within my paradigm? [09:48] Epesh [09:48] ok.......because you have assumed that Logic is a properly basic belief, when in fact it is not,....It is not within Nature as you have defined,.... [09:48] Dana: do tell. [09:48] how do you know that "reality" is real? [09:49] May I butt in? [09:49] Oh, brother. So what you're sayingis that I'm floating in a fantasy-land of my own - or another's - making? In that case, it doens't matter WHAT I believe, since I'm another's creation and toy. [09:49] papa: Sure. [09:50] Dana: How is logic not applicable in the nature I've defined? [09:50] Epesh: no, what we are saying is that your are engaging in self-deception. But we mean it in a nice way. :-) [09:50] Indeed. Illustrate my deception, if you would; I'm interested, or I'd have come in here saying 'You're all liars and fools," which I don't believe I've done. [09:51] Epesh, where do you believe the laws of logic come from? [09:51] and we appreciate it, Epesh :-) [09:51] papa: I think they're obvious. [09:51] Are they material or immaterial? [09:51] You have assumed Logic, Logic is immaterial....Just as God is NON-matterial.......how do you justify believeing/using something that is NON materialistic...and not within nature...the question is...where do we get reason....and why do we reason...do you not believe in Naturalsitc beliefs? [09:52] Why are they obvious? [09:52] A concept is not "real" in terms of being something you can grasp. Certainly you've run across THAT idea before. That doesn't mean that the concept is valid or invalid; it does mean that the conc ept exists. [09:53] In this case, logic is a valid set of concepts in that it's applicable to reality. [09:53] papa: Because we breathe. [09:54] Are the laws of logic changable or immutable? [09:55] Am I lagging? [09:56] Epesh......you still have assumed the USE of logic, why should you use Logic in a view that states there is nothingbut nature? [09:56] Epesh (joeo@fts4p13-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for Epesh[fts4p13-bfs.scri.fsu.edu] [09:56] aaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!! [09:57] That's why Epesh wasn't answering. [09:57] brb [10:01] Lannie (LAE@www-17-193.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [10:01] Hello Lannie [10:01] greetings from atlanta, papa! [10:02] Atlanta. Please tell me you are not a Braves fan! [10:02] :) [10:02] what do you expect??? [10:02] back [10:02] Hi Lannie [10:02] da braves are not doing so well now.... [10:02] I guess I can forgive you... :) [10:03] hi dana! [10:03] Lannie...you an atheist? [10:03] my goodness, no! why do you ask? [10:03] hehehheee [10:03] are all braves fans atheists??? [10:04] Action: Dana_ is practicing athiest arguments [10:04] No, just their owner! [10:04] true! [10:04] I don't understand how anyone could be an atheist... [10:04] Dana, what could we have done better with Epesh? [10:04] learn the argument [10:04] there is no logic to their arguments.. [10:04] LOL [10:05] True... [10:05] I am lost most of the time [10:05] I hate that.... [10:05] May I make a suggestion? [10:05] I know some of it... [10:05] then some I dont [10:05] Please [10:05] any help I will HUMBLY take [10:05] Ask more questions and lecture less... [10:06] are either of you fans of the Christian Research Institute? [10:06] ok [10:06] I am [10:06] The more you know about someone's specific positions, the better. [10:06] CRI headquarters is 20 mins away [10:06] CRI? Tell me more. [10:06] wow! have you ever been there? [10:06] Papa....anything else? [10:07] That's the main thing... I couldn't tell for sure what Epesh's views were yet... [10:07] Nope...I know a few people that work there [10:08] CRI is thought by many to be the #1 apologetics society in the US, if not the world. Hank Hanegraff, current president, hosts a radio show called the Bible Answer Man, which is wonderful. [10:08] If you let them ask questions, you can start to point out errors in their thinking as they show up... [10:09] answer that is [10:09] Ok... I've heard of the Bible answer man. [10:09] I studied under Craig Hawkins [10:10] Epesh (joeo@fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined #apologetics. [10:10] Hi, all. Sorry about that.. my server decided to have a fit. [10:10] Epesh! You made it back! [10:10] Action: Dana_ (((((((((( Epesh )))))))))) [10:10] It took a while, but yes. [10:11] I was asking if you thought the laws of logic were changable or not... [10:11] papa: no, or else they wouldn't be laws. [10:14] Epesh....can you tell me what YOUR view of NON material things is? [10:15] Dana: Without more information on exactly WHICH nonmaterial things you're referring to, it's kind of hard; however, I'll try. [10:15] Caveat emptor, though; Don't apply this generally. I think that nonmaterial "things" exist, like concepts, or ideas. [10:16] papa (papa2two@copy.cat.rrnet.com) joined #apologetics. [10:16] hehehe, I see myself! [10:17] Ok....so how do you justify belief in NON materialsitic things??...such as Logic? [10:17] Hi, papa. Did you see my response? [10:17] No, I'm sorry. [10:17] Epesh....can you tell me what YOUR view of NON material things is? Dana: Without more information on exactly WHICH nonmaterial things you're referring to, it's kind of hard; however, I'll try.< Epesh> Caveat emptor, though; Don't apply this generally. I think that nonmaterial "things" exist, like concepts, or [10:17] I don't believe in them the same way that I believe that a pen is sitting on my desk. [10:17] papa: no, or else they wouldn't be laws. [10:18] dana: those things don't exist in terms of material form. [10:18] However, that's not saying that the concepts don't exist. [10:19] papa2two (papa2two@copy.cat.rrnet.com) got netsplit. [10:19] There we go... The lag is dead now! [10:19] Nick change: papa -> papa2two [10:20] how do they exist?.....and whay causes them to exist(speaking of Logic) [10:20] Action: Epesh thinks that "Rational Theism" is either an oxymoron or it's an un-necessary repetition... but nobody says "rationality" = "theism." :) [10:20] whay=why [10:20] Dana: They don't exist in such a way that you can pick them up or anything like that. Neither do numbers, for that matter, yet both exist as ideas and concepts. [10:20] Ok, so you believe in unchanging laws... [10:21] Do you accept these unchanging laws purely on the basis of observation? [10:23] Epesh (joeo@fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for Epesh[fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu] [10:23] Now epesh is lagging... [10:24] hmmmmmmm [10:24] And gone! [10:24] gotta runb [10:24] this might be a toughy [10:24] ProfG (greenew@SL5.elink.net) left irc: READ ERROR: ****** $@^%^&%#$ [10:24] God bless [10:24] ?? [10:24] Can you see where I am trying to go? [10:24] Man....Epish can tpye [10:24] type [10:24] yip...a lil [10:25] papa2two (papa2two@copy.cat.rrnet.com) got lost in the net-split. [10:25] thats intimidating....... [10:25] What's intimidating? [10:25] he smokes the answers....not that they are sound...but he types fast! [10:26] I see. [10:26] My next question, depending on Epesh'reponse is how can you by observation know that something is unchangable? [10:27] mmmmm [10:27] ok...what if I say yes? [10:27] where would you go? [10:27] You can know that it hasn't changed while you were looking, but have no way of knowing that it won't in the future. [10:28] You are accepting by faith that logical laws exist as a absolute, non-material thing... [10:28] true [10:29] It is imperitive to find out the nature of Epesh's masterialistic views... [10:29] Epesh (joeo@fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined #apologetics. [10:29] materialistic even [10:29] re all. Sheesh! [10:29] Hey welcome back again! [10:29] Epsih...lol....re..again [10:29] ooppss..Epesh [10:29] So, do you accept these unchangable laws purely on observation? [10:30] That's okay. I figured out who you were talking to. [10:30] papa: A percept is either valid or invalid; I think the "laws of logic" are valid. [10:30] How do you know they are valid? [10:31] Or is it merely your "best guess" that they are valid? [10:32] YOHANN (YOHANN@ joined #Apologetics. [10:32] Epesh? [10:32] Hi yohann [10:33] good morning from tis side of the world. [10:33] Hi Yohawn [10:33] Good morning to you too. [10:33] hi everybody [10:33] what does apologetics mean if you excuse me asking? [10:34] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [10:34] Apologetics is the rational defense of Christianity... [10:34] Apologetics;( from the greek word, apologia), The word apologia means..... [10:34] A defense or justification of one's beliefs, attitudes, or actions. [10:34] An Apologetic is the branch of theology that defends the claims of Christianity. [10:34] An apologist is a person who defends an idea, faith, cause, or institution. [10:35] Epesh are you there? [10:35] does it come from the root apologize?? [10:35] brb.....in 5 mins [10:35] does it come from the same root as apologize?? [10:35] No. It is from the greek apologia [10:35] hold on.. work [10:35] no Yohann [10:36] I see [10:36] Although it may be the same root come to think of it... [10:36] Ok... [10:36] if we all are trying t justify our beliefs aren't we all apologists?? [10:36] if we all are trying to justify our beliefs aren't we all apologists?? [10:36] Well, in a way... [10:37] But too many ppl just go through life without ever really thinking about what they believe, let alone trying to defend it. [10:37] papa: I can either doubt myself and stop living or I can assume that identity is what it is, exiistence exists, etc. [10:38] yohann's right, but normally the term refers to "christian apologetics." [10:38] I see, Epesh... [10:38] and if we are all apologists so there is'nt a diffrence between being one a not being one. [10:38] So basically, you have a hope that logic holds, but can never be certain? [10:38] yohann: Most people don't bother defending what they think. [10:39] Right Epesh. [10:39] papa: I tell you what; I say that I am what I am, and that's logic. I'm CERTAIN of that. I'm also aware that I'm conscious. That's logic. [10:39] Kant you to say that that we can't hold any certainty [10:39] Kant was a fool who should have died immediately after saying that, if he believed it. [10:39] epesh how do you know you are [10:40] aurifex (aurifex@www-31-199.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [10:40] there is nothing knew under the sun epesh,but thought [10:40] Yohann: By the ability to observe, I establish consciousness [10:40] yohann: according to koholeth, not even that [10:40] That is fine Epesh, but does this mean your knowledge is limited exclusively to what you can observe/ experience for yourself? [10:40] how do you know you observe? [10:41] hold on... [10:41] yohann: percepts either are or they're not [10:41] why can't i t be some evil gennie deciving you into believing your certainty [10:41] Am I correct in saying that you are not a materialist then? [10:42] if this is possible then no certainty is possible [10:42] not at all [10:42] I meant Epesh, but that's ok... :) [10:42] I'm in search of the path of Truth [10:42] papa: I'm a rational being. [10:43] I think that existence exists, things are what they are, and man is conscious. [10:43] how do you know you reason [10:43] Yohann: The ability to question whether I reason indicates my ability to do so. :) [10:44] how does man know he is conciuos it like a frog believing he is the king of the universe [10:44] So do you try to find reasons why we exist and things are, or do you stop the inquiry there? [10:44] yohann: Once again, the ability to question consciousness indicates consciousness. [10:44] I try to investigate the way things are. I see no "over-riding purpose" in any individual's life. [10:45] but how do you know that the answer to your questions is concoiusness [10:45] Yohann: I'll give you a hint about Truth: if you assume that reality isn't real, you'll never find it [10:45] Nick change: Dana_ -> NedFlndrs [10:45] Yohann: never mind. if you're that much of a Kantian, then there's nothing I can do for you; you've already discarded reason. [10:46] I think reallity is real ,but our perception of it is not. [10:46] lol [10:46] Yohann: same thing. Why do YOU eat, then? [10:46] and i am not a Kantian, I just respect some of his views [10:46] I don't. Kant was an idiot. [10:47] Epesh, what other "non-material" things would you admit exist? [10:47] have you read critique of pure reason [10:47] Besides laws of logic... [10:47] yohann: I'm aware of it. [10:47] aurifex (aurifex@www-31-199.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [10:47] papa: I think we define "existence" differently. [10:47] did you read it [10:48] Perhaps... [10:48] No, I haven't. I don't need to read the twaddle of a fool who says that we can't know things definitely. [10:48] Kant had no absolute reason to breathe; after all, it might have been his error in perceiving things that he thought he needed air. Or food. [10:48] human thought has evolved from Decartes to Kant it has been an evolving process. [10:49] If that's "evolution" then we might as well give up the human race as lost. [10:49] it seems that we believe in things that are more convinient to us rather than believing in truth [10:50] yohann: So show me "truth" if our perceptions aren't to be trusted; by what other means have we to discover "truth?" [10:50] Is truth relative or absolute, Epesh? [10:50] nebulae (DJonnalag@www-30-234.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [10:50] Decartes had the certainty of saying I Think therefore i am. But it is not a certainty a thats where you are confused [10:50] There are absolute truths. [10:51] We agree on that... [10:51] How do you justify absolute truth on an atheistic worldview? [10:51] yohann: What's not a certainty? [10:51] I KNOW that there is an absolute truth [10:51] papa: existence. if it exists, it exists. [10:51] Yohann: how? You might be mistaken. [10:52] After all, it might be convenient for you to believe that there are absolute truths; reality/whatever might not concur. [10:52] Epesh, but you must start by assuming that existance exists... You do, but Yohann does not... [10:52] Bye bye, "absolute truth." [10:52] papa: You think that existence doesn't exist? [10:52] Yohann: So why do you look for absolute truth, if it's a possibility that nothing is real? [10:53] Action: Epesh thinks this is getting stupider and stupider by the minute. [10:53] sorry I'm back [10:54] Epesh.....the help him see your point :) [10:54] No, existance exists, but we have no logical proof... It all depends on definitions, which are accepted by faith... [10:54] hi u all [10:54] Hi sieb [10:54] NedFlndrs: I've already said quite enough to him. My point's already proven. [10:54] papa: If that's the case, why eat? [10:54] Epesh...I didnt say prove...I said help [10:55] Because I start by accepting that there is reality and absolute truth, just like you do... [10:55] Ned: I've already helped him. He's already admitted existence exists, whether he admits THAT or not; he's already given us his idea that there are absolute truths, by stating absolutes. [10:56] papa: And if you think that there's a possibility - not reliant on ACCEPTANCE - that there is NOT reality, then you've jumped off the edge already. [10:56] True.....I would add that even if he stated |"there are no Absolute"...he thus has doen so in the truth affirmative [10:56] we'll we have to do the best we can in this world even if there are no certainties we must overcome the rules of the herd. and defend what deep inside ourselves whatever it might be we believe the truth is and act accordingly for the benefit of all. [10:56] Not true... Our only proof of definitions / presuppositions, is trial by fire. [10:57] papa: And I think reality has been tried by fire. :) [10:57] Yohann: That's too bad, man. [10:57] Yes, but what is the nature of reality. [10:57] what's bad my brother [10:57] papa: Once again, we go back to percepts. If you think you're hungry, do you doubt it? [10:58] I'm not your brother. [10:58] Of course, you don't KNOW that, but... [10:58] Is reality materialistic, or is there something beyond our ability to perceive it? [10:58] Don't KNOW what?? [10:59] The Nature of reality? [10:59] I thought in christianity we believe that we are all brothers under god's command. [11:00] umm...that would be God...not god [11:00] lol [11:00] That is the real question... Not whether reality exists, but what is its nature. [11:00] If reality exists, but I don't perceive it correctl;y, are my perceptions reality?? [11:01] If I fell hungry right after a big supper, is it because I am really hungry and in need opf food, or is it something else? [11:01] Samekh (joeo@fts4p12-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) joined #Apologetics. [11:01] Epesh (joeo@fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left irc: Ping timeout for Epesh[fts4p21-bfs.scri.fsu.edu] [11:01] I think I'm just going to not bother trying to download from mcu any more. [11:01] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp24.snni.com) left #apologetics. [11:02] Nick change: Samekh -> Epesh [11:02] Bummer again! [11:02] Epesh? [11:02] Yes? [11:02] Where did we lose you? [11:03] Yohann had just said something about "my brother." [11:03] OK.... [11:03] Don't KNOW what?? [11:03] nebulae (DJonnalag@www-30-234.gnn.com) left irc: Read error to nebulae[www-30-234.gnn.com]: No route to host [11:03] The Nature of reality? [11:03] That is the real question... Not whether reality exists, but what is its nature. [11:04] If reality exists, but I don't perceive it correctl;y, are my perceptions reality?? [11:04] I believe that [11:04] papa: Is that to me? -- ah. So! We go back to the validity of perception. [11:04] Is reality materialistic, or is there something beyond our ability to perceive it? [11:04] If I fell hungry right after a big supper, is it because I am really hungry and in need opf food, or is it something else? [11:04] papa: if your perceptions are not with reality then you'll notice discrepancies in your reality. [11:04] There are my comments after you left... [11:04] Correct. [11:05] our sense are inperfect so anything that comes through them is like it's origin and therefore subject to doubt [11:05] So even then your percepts will clue you in to their own invalidity. [11:05] And if such a thing as absolute truth exists, shouldn't we want to find it? [11:05] Yohann: in that case we resort to "reason" and apply our minds and consciousness to validating what we perceive. [11:05] that i think is the human goal papa2 [11:06] Right YOHANN... [11:06] Action: Epesh sighs... why? [11:06] in hinduism it is said that reason is not of the body but of our eternal soul [11:07] Butbrbr phone [11:07] or maybe through reson we can percieve the evelasting and unchanging quallity of our absolute self [11:07] This *IS* a waste of time. (sigh) [11:07] or maybe through reason we can percieve the everlasting and unchanging quallity of our absolute self [11:08] what the matter epesh my words frighten you [11:08] Not at all. It's twaddle. My 9-month old son makes just about as much sense... although he can't speak english yet. [11:09] Action: Epesh 's son doesn't doubt his percepts, either [11:09] what' unreasonable about hinduism's filosofy [11:09] is not reason a natural outgrowth of the human mind's desire to sense the order of the universe? [11:09] that a good question lannie [11:09] The idea that reality isn't what we think it is; the idea that there's some absolute truth out there, even though we can't say ANYTHING absolutely... [11:10] but we can only have faith and courage [11:10] Why? Faith is a dependence on absolutes. [11:11] because we are not GOD and we can't know everything [11:11] does not order exist in the universe aside and apart from our ability to reason it? [11:11] Lannie: yes, it does. therefore, "existence exists." [11:11] yes lannie we independent , of reallity not reallity on us. [11:12] are our minds finite? [11:12] Yohann: We're independent of reality? You really think that? [11:12] hey epesh you should defenetly read meditations by Decartes. You have a very similiar tone. [11:13] Action: Epesh sighs... you're using a "real" method of communication. [11:13] Everything you DO is real. Otherwise you'd be unreal, nonexistent. [11:14] my question again: is our mind finite? [11:14] epesh i think that GOD gave us our free will wich is our only possesion. and we can use it according to the rules of the eternal law or not it's our choice [11:14] Ah! So there's an "eternal law." What is it? [11:14] Lannie: Depends on what you mean. Yes, I think we're finite. [11:14] I'm back... Epesh, you sound like a theist in so many ways... [11:14] it is in us all to find out [11:14] No offense... [11:14] papa: no offense taken. [11:15] our mind like our body dies, lannie therefore it is finite [11:15] yohann: ah. So is it different for each person? [11:15] Yohann, if "absolute truth" is merely inside each of us, then it is not absolute... [11:16] we all percieve reallity in a difrent way though reallity is unchanging.and one. [11:16] Absolute truth must exist indepent of the individual to remain absolute. [11:16] we are certainly finite in terms of our bodies giving out. but is our mind capable of knowing and compehending every facet of the universe? [11:16] Ok, but unless we perceive it correctly, we do not perceive truth... [11:16] Lannie: Chances are, no. [11:17] papa2 we should do the best we can to reach the higher platform of understanding [11:17] so now we have established there are areas of the universe outside of our understanding? [11:17] lannie: No, we haven't. [11:18] But what tools do we have apart from the logic and reason we have been given to reach a "higher understanding?" [11:18] Epesh: did you not say the human mind is not capable of knowing and comprehending evry facet of the universe? [11:19] Epesh, absolute truth is outside of our understanding. If we fail to look for it or perceive it incorrectly, it remains absolute and true despite our lack of understanding. [11:19] I guess those are the only tools that humans have and not animals therefore we should use them with responsability [11:19] Lannie: Ah. I thought you meant in total. No, I don't think there's a facet of the Universe which cannot be known. [11:19] papa: in that case, it's undefined and unreal. [11:19] what about its creation? [11:19] Unreal != truth; not truth, then. [11:19] and not let our bodily cravings get in the way of our path to truth [11:19] No. I don't think so. [11:20] Lannie: eventually we may discover the nature of the universe's creation, as well. [11:20] papa2?? [11:20] Yohann: Why don't you see if absolute starvation - if there is such a thing - leads you to "truth," then. [11:20] Epesh: so you do acknowledge the universe was created? [11:20] Something unreal cannot be truth. If it can't be validated, it's not truth. [11:20] What Yohann? [11:21] I think anything that makes us trancend our commmon view of reallity is a door to perception of truth [11:21] Lannie: No. I acknowledge the universe is existent. When I refer to "creation" I'm referring to whatever you choose to call the "big bang" or any of a number o f plausible alternatives. I don't know the nature of the universe's youth, or even if it HAS a youth. But I think that eventually we'll be able to say. [11:22] papa2 do you ever trancend? [11:22] papa2 did you ever trancend? [11:22] yohann: in that case, the individual cannot know truth; therefore it's outside of reality; unreal. [11:22] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #Apologetics. [11:22] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org [11:22] Yohann, no. [11:23] Epesh: but in order for anything to exist, must not is first have been created? [11:23] If I understrand your last statements then, you equate truth with whatever is not "common reality?" [11:23] Lannie: No. [11:23] Lannie you're thinking of a "first cause." Not necessary or even valid. [11:23] Epesh, that is very non-materialistic of you... [11:23] papa: what? [11:24] Action: Epesh isn't even aware of what you mean by calling him a "materialist." I've been trying to figure it out ever since you guys started calling me one. [11:24] Sorry, I misunderstood your comment... Ignor it... [11:24] Epesh: can you give me an example? [11:25] Sorry, materialist is teh basic position of MOST athiests... Nothing exists apart from the material world. [11:25] we are born and led to believe in certain reallities until, our mind is placed in an altered state of reallity we are able to see with a third eye in comparison what reallity is about that is the origin of trancendence [11:25] papa: I started off clarifying that. An atheist who believes that is an idiot; ideas, for instance, aren't material. [11:25] Action: Epesh thinks third eyes belong in freak shows [11:26] I see. [11:26] Lannie: for instance, YOU are not created; you're a combination of various materials produced by various events in certain sequences. You aren't created from nothing. [11:26] So why don't you accept the possibility of God? [11:26] papa: If someone could prove to me that he exists, I'd accept him. [11:27] I would argue that your reliance on absolutes presupposes the existence of the Christian God... [11:27] epesh the third eye is just a metaphor to explain, what we see beyond duallity [11:27] papa: And I'd say the exact opposite. [11:27] Yohann: I don't even see duality. [11:28] There can be no transcendant law without a transcendant law giver, basically. [11:28] you just don't know it but anything that changes is duallity [11:28] Ah. the "necessary being." [11:28] there is a trancent creator [11:28] Otherwise, laws of logic become mere conventions that seem to work, but we can never be sure they are absolutely true... [11:29] Action: Epesh sighs [11:29] You guys insist on denying reality, don't you? [11:29] epesh do you believe your soul is eternal [11:29] epesh do you believe your soul is eternal? [11:29] This is insane. I'll be around later, but I've had all of this I can stomach. [11:29] We can argue that laws of logic exist in the abstract, but if we are basing that purely on our observations, we can never KNOW for sure that they are the "right" laws of logic. [11:30] Yohann: I don't believe man HAS a "soul." Not in the religious meaning. [11:30] Just a bunch of electro-chemical reactions? [11:30] papa: If I stumble on a stone, what reason do I have for not believing the stone exists? [11:30] DJonnalag (DJonnalag@www-44-93.gnn.com) joined #Apologetics. [11:30] do you believe in the origin of choice and desicion beyond mind [11:30] A stone is a material object, but a law is not... [11:30] Yohann: I don't know what you mean by those terms. [11:30] Nick change: DJonnalag -> nebulae [11:30] papa: But a law determines that the stone EXISTS. [11:31] if we had no mind would we be? [11:31] Not man [11:31] So? [11:31] yohann: I'm not even going to bother with you any more. [11:31] papa: "so?" Geez. [11:32] I mean what is your point? [11:32] I don't follow what you are getting at. It wasn't meant as an insult. [11:32] Look: If I trip on a stone, does the stone exist? Does it HAVE to exist? [11:32] what the matter epesh you have no logical expositions to contradict me [11:33] Because you are not operating within logical bounds Yohann... [11:33] Yohann: You're not even making sense; you start off denying absolutes exist and you've spoken in vague absolutes ever since. get a grip. [11:33] Yes, the stone has to exist. But a stone is not a law... [11:33] Yohann: In fact, just to make my life easier, I'm going to break a rule; you're /ignored. [11:34] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [11:34] But there is an axiom of existence that says that the stone has properties, including material existence. [11:34] Ok... [11:34] in its own plane of logical existence reffering to the stone [11:35] neb: what? [11:35] seconding u epesh [11:35] Ah. [11:36] The exists apart from my perception of it. I may perceive it as I am tripping over it as a log or a box or a clum,p of dirt. My perception of what it is does not change its reality though. [11:36] The stone exists, that is... [11:37] papa: This will come as a surprise, no doubt, but that's exactly what I've been saying. It has the proprties of a stone; your percepts make no difference to it. [11:37] its in ones owns logical perspective how we look at things - and existances.. [11:37] If you think it's a clump of dirt, fine; it won't behave like one. And it won't act like a log, either. [11:37] It will act exactly like a stone. [11:37] Right. But the point is that our perceptions fail quite often... [11:37] in its own plane of reasoning [11:38] Walk into any courtroom in the land and watch a trial... [11:38] skyler (anon@blc55.blc.scbe.on.ca) joined #Apologetics. [11:38] papa: However, reality always works as it should; if we choose to continue with errors in perception, it's our fault for not correcting the perception. [11:38] yes [11:38] 20 witnesses who all saw the same event will tell 20 different stories of what happened... [11:38] or how we percive [11:38] And the whole point of a court of law is to determine WHAT happened, in reality, independent of perception. [11:39] in what plane of reasoning [11:39] But percepts make up how we tell what happened. [11:39] skyler (anon@blc55.blc.scbe.on.ca) left #Apologetics. [11:39] Thus, how can we know that laws of logic or any other law exists based solely on human perceptions? [11:39] the 20 percived in their own planes of reasoning [11:39] papa: Already addressed that. [11:40] jonathan livingstone seagull [11:40] Richard... Thomas? Bach! That's it. Bach was a Kantian. [11:41] he didn't even have the guts to admit it. [11:41] do we ever ponder to reason in different planes [11:42] boils down to our own limits to understanding- or limitations not to explore [11:42] Epesh, If all we have to go by is our percpotions, we can never claim to have correct knowledge. It is always just a "best guess." [11:43] So if you think you can never be correct, absolutely, why are you a Christian? [11:43] I don't think that way, because my world view provides a logical explanation of how certainty can be achieved. [11:44] Ah, yes. [11:44] Certainty is possible because there is an absolute standard setter who has revealed the absolutes to us. [11:44] I never denied that absolutes exist, I said that we can't ever percieve them in an absolute way therefore call them certainties, we should remain open to views of truth and may form our view of it in our best possible way only kno wing how imperfect we are, will open the doors to knowledge ,with patience reason and COMPASSION. Bye guys it was great talking to you [11:44] being a christan is a belief that one belives would be his thread to understanding the cosmos [11:45] Of course. How silly of me to forget. [11:45] nice summation yohann [11:45] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line13.cis.yale.edu) joined #apologetics. [11:45] Anyway, guys, I'll see you later. Maybe. [11:45] YOHANN (YOHANN@ left #Apologetics. [11:45] I agree with you that there are absolutes and that truth can be found. [11:45] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line13.cis.yale.edu) left #apologetics. [11:46] I just don't see how absolutes can be found with any certainty without God. [11:46] Only "best guesses." [11:46] Understand? [11:46] papa: That means you rely on a revelation, an experience. Doesn't work; I'll chat later. [11:46] Epesh (joeo@fts4p12-bfs.scri.fsu.edu) left #Apologetics. [11:47] Truth can be found anywhere ! question is how do we percive it [11:48] like the 20 witnesses all belived that they were telling the truth [11:48] Some would say they each in fact told the objective truth, but that cannot logically be the case. [11:49] Lannie, still here? [11:50] noe there is the defination of truth; rational truth, objective truth, logical truth what not.. [11:52] maybe each one came to a rational conclusin how they justified there own ends to the understanding of being a witness which they labled it as truth [11:52] Truth is truth. "Types" of truth are merelt our ways of showing things to be true or not true. [11:52] mere even [11:53] nice chatting with u papa! got to go later******** [11:53] Bye! [11:53] nebulae (DJonnalag@www-44-93.gnn.com) left #Apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_4_11_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