[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/27/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/27/96 [16:12] +lt

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

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/27/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/27/96 [16:12] Is there a scientist on this channel? [16:13] which science? [16:13] hard science. [16:13] define please [16:15] well, The science excluding psycology, persuasion (profewssor actually called it a science), etc. [16:16] SHAWNEE (btalbott@woos1-cs-5.dial.bright.net) joined #apologetics. [16:16] prof, are you a scientist? [16:16] hello??? [16:16] POLITICAL Science :-) [16:16] hiya shawnee [16:17] hi [16:17] cool, do you teach? [16:17] SHAWNEE (btalbott@woos1-cs-5.dial.bright.net) left #apologetics. [16:18] h [16:18] z [16:19] SHAWNEE (btalbott@woos1-cs-5.dial.bright.net) joined #apologetics. [16:19] Prof, does political science ever apply to apologetics? [16:19] Hi [16:19] Shawnee, what are you up to? [16:19] nothin' u? [16:20] Just trying to keep ocupied. [16:20] how old r u? [16:20] 20, ypou? [16:21] you even? [16:21] shawnee, what's your first name? [16:22] 13 [16:22] SHAWNEE (btalbott@woos1-cs-5.dial.bright.net) left #apologetics. [16:22] sorry [16:22] back [16:22] yes, I teach [16:22] did you get my previous question? [16:23] my focus is International Relations [16:23] but I teach a lot on issues in international affairs [16:23] ethics, etc. [16:23] cool [16:23] Vibrator (firewall-u@SecurIt.nsuok.edu) joined #apologetics. [16:24] another firewall? heh [16:24] How does political science deal with ethics? [16:24] firewall rulz [16:24] there are many theories of ethics in political science and international relations [16:24] almost all of which use arbitrary standards of judgment [16:25] which is where I come in... ;-> [16:26] Vibrator (firewall-u@SecurIt.nsuok.edu) left #apologetics. [16:28] lag city [16:28] Can there be other judgements besides arbitrary ones(could you define that0/ [16:29] . [16:29] arbitrary: not absolute, no sure reason for using the standard [16:29] and yes, there are non-arbitrary standards of judgment [16:30] like... THE BIBLE :-) [16:30] cool. [16:31] I have developed a philosophy that deals with ethics giving a scientific foundation that totally agrees with the bible. [16:32] lance you cannot derive ethics from observation [16:32] is/ought fallacy [16:33] lizy (jallen@pulaski-slip5.dynamic.usit.net) joined #apologetics. [16:33] all the rest are man-made, and ultimately have self-contradictory or arbitrary foundations [16:33] interesting, let's hear it [16:33] hiya lizy [16:33] *** CTCP PING reply from ProfG: 2 [16:33] the title was well said by who ever wrote it [16:33] seconds [16:33] ello [16:33] I did [16:34] hullo lizy [16:34] you put it up there [16:34] yes [16:34] cool [16:34] well, I don't know what the is/aught falicy is but IO assure you, I do know scientifically what ethics are more right (exist more). [16:34] why is your name acolyte [16:35] Kiara (guest@comanche.wildstar.net) joined #apologetics. [16:35] lance, you cannot derive they way things OUGHT to be from a state of how things ARE [16:35] lizy because I am an acolyte [16:35] lizy (jallen@pulaski-slip5.dynamic.usit.net) left #apologetics. [16:35] Kiara (guest@comanche.wildstar.net) left #apologetics. [16:35] lance make sense? if not consult any logic text [16:36] dizy lizy be gone [16:36] Hey guys, I dont have time right now to explain it because I have a debate team meweting right now, Is ther another time I can get together with you all and explain? [16:37] We can discover the way things should be by determining the way things are going. At least if you have the foundation that existence is better than nonexistence. [16:38] lance fallacy, is/ought, check any logic text [16:38] Lance, we LIVE here [16:38] heheheh [16:38] Lance do you have WWW access? [16:39] The state in which things are is not the foundation for the way things aught to be. [16:40] The web like what we're on now? [16:40] newbie] [16:40] we are on IRC right now, Lance [16:40] but you might have accessed here using a Web browser like Netscape [16:40] "Abortion is legal, therefore it SHOULD be legal." fallacy [16:40] anyway... [16:40] "Rape is natural, therefore Rape shoudl be practised." [16:41] fallacy [16:41] Lance, go look at http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html - might help you [16:41] false cause type of argument [16:41] I'm seven minutes late will you all be here in two hours? [16:42] brb [16:42] brb? [16:42] not me [16:42] brb be right back [16:42] = [16:43] Acolyte, It deals with entropy. Entropy shows the way to nonexistence,sin etc. [16:45] Is prof gone right now? [16:45] lance how much systematic theology have you read? [16:45] yes he is [16:45] he will brb [16:46] ...ummm...not much. Just science. [16:46] chill1 (swang@sam.ca.jhu.edu) joined #apologetics. [16:46] thats your problem [16:46] origins specifically. [16:46] lance again, thats your problem [16:46] read MORE theology and philisohy, LESS science [16:47] without the former, you wouldnot even have the latter [16:47] lance stop doing theology by doing science. [16:47] my problem? Science is knowledge. The Bible is truth. I have developed my own philosophy. [16:48] chill1 (swang@sam.ca.jhu.edu) left #apologetics. [16:48] Isn't philosophy less sophisticated than science? [16:49] Hey, it's been fun. Got to go. [16:49] no [16:49] I'll be back at 5:30 Okie time. [16:50] thats your problem [16:50] your phil is nothing new [16:50] Can't science be falsified a lot better? [16:50] old actually [16:50] lance the principle of falsification is self refuting [16:50] that theory is about 60 yrs out of date [16:51] There is nothing new under the sun but I've never heard of it so it must not have been too popular. [16:51] lance it was very popular [16:51] it was called Logical Positivism [16:51] see A.J. Ayer and Ludwig Wittgenstein [16:52] Wazs it nused during the middle ages? [16:52] no [16:52] 1920's [16:52] They used entropy? [16:52] I am talking about the principle of falsification [16:53] Are philosophies falsifiable? [16:53] Falsifiability is out of date? [16:54] philosophical axioms are pre-expereince so they are not falsifiable BY experience but rather govern how data is evaluated and tested for [16:54] How can we test things if there is no falsifiability? [16:54] lnace when was the last time you tested for the existence of an idea? [16:55] Lance (firewall-u@SecurIt.nsuok.edu) left irc: Read error to Lance[SecurIt.nsuok.edu]: EOF from client [16:57] empiricists never learn [16:57] geez [16:58] nice pun ---------------------------------------------- [18:23] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2076.telepath.com) joined #apologetics. [18:25] Scott (firewall-u@SecurIt.nsuok.edu) joined #apologetics. [18:25] Hi [18:25] hello [18:25] Profg left a while ago didn't he? [18:26] i don't know...i was the only one here till you showed up [18:26] Where are you from? [18:26] oklahoma city, how about you? [18:26] Why did you stay on this channel if you were the only one? [18:27] i just got here, i was watching politics waiting to see if anyone came in here [18:27] Tahlequah, OK. I was in OK City this weekend. [18:27] Is there a channel politics? [18:27] i like watching and taking part in debates... [18:28] I love debating. [18:28] really? yes, type /join #politics there are a bunch of kids on now, i left [18:28] so which side of this debate are you on? [18:29] In channel apologetics? [18:29] yes [18:29] I'm for the bible, you? [18:29] no debate here then! i am as well [18:30] However I have an interesting idea on morals. I have a philosophy that suposedly can tell you what's right. [18:30] what do you mean? [18:31] There may be debate on that subject. [18:31] tell me, let's see [18:31] I study science and especially origins... [18:31] go on [18:32] I believe that evil doesen't really exist...even biblically. [18:32] so you don't believe in a personal devil? [18:33] I do believe that there is a state that you can obtain that is not Good [18:33] I believe that Satin exists... [18:33] go on [18:34] However He was a creation of God and at one time was filled with his goodness like a vessel... [18:34] keep going [18:35] scott you there? [18:35] But corruption occured and he emptied himself of this goodness. He didn't replace it with evil because evil was never created and didn't exist. [18:35] Do you know what entropy is? [18:36] yes [18:36] I think entropy happened to Lucifer and happens to all of us to a certain extent. [18:36] Our morals decay. [18:37] Does darkness exist? [18:37] in what context? [18:37] Physically [18:38] darkness is the absence of light or the absence of anything to reflect light [18:38] so yes i think it exists [18:39] My answer to the age old question of God does not exist because if there were a god why is there evil in the world... [18:39] My answer is God does exist and there is no such thing as evol. [18:40] what do you call your state of not-goodness? [18:40] Darkness has no substance to it. Light is made up of photons. Are you saying that since nonexistence is the absence of existence that it then exists. [18:41] are you saying that there is no such thing as a vacuum? [18:42] The state of non goodness can be called evil but then evil becomes the state where good does not exist so why don't we call it non goodness like nonexistence? [18:43] okay, then if i were to argue against the existence of god, i could turn your words around on you. [18:44] In a vacuum no elements exist however the dementions do. If a vacuum were to not exist then there would be an absence of dementions. [18:44] Dimentions even or however you spell it. [18:44] the state of non evil can be called good but then gook becomes the state where evil does not exist so why don't we call it non evil like non existence? [18:44] how could you turn my words around? [18:45] if there is good, there must be evil, just as if there is light there must be darkness [18:46] if it were not so, how could we know what was good or what was evil, just as we wouldn't know what was light and what was dark. [18:46] Would we then call existence non-nonexistence? The analogy with light i think is acurate. Do you have proof for the existence of darkness? Have you ever seen it, smelled it, touched it or tasted it? [18:47] scott: have you ever seen, smelled, touched or tasted good? [18:47] We would know what was good and what was better. I'm not saying you cannot sin... [18:48] but sin is non-good (evil)! :) [18:49] If you walk into a room that had dim or little light in it you would say "boy it's dark in here" even though there was light there... [18:49] go on [18:50] You could walk into a room that was neither too bright nor too dark and thind that you had found a midpoint between the two. I think that is how we can define sin. [18:51] Actually, I think that is how God can define sin. :) [18:52] I think you can have good, better, and les good. [18:53] you said that you were for the bible, do you believe god will judge the world? [18:53] scott are you there or am i lagged? [18:53] Yes. [18:53] He has set the standard. He has defined the "midpoint" [18:53] I thionk there may be lag. [18:54] scott: please give me one reference from the bible to support your statements. ie what would the midpoint be? [18:54] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp26.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [18:54] Mode change '+o NedFlndrs ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [18:55] I will give you references. As far as the standard the ten comandments are a good starting point... [18:56] The bible says that nothing is imposible with God yet it also says that God cannot sin... [18:56] Is this a contradiction or is it trying to say something to us?... [18:57] where did he ever say good better best...he's not sears for crying out loud! :) [18:57] are you still there? [18:57] am i still here? [18:57] If nothing is imposible with God then I would have to say that a lie is nothing. [18:57] are you god? [18:58] ned: can you ping me, i think i'm lagged! [18:58] Nope, and not even confused on that point. [18:59] well what has what is possible and not possible for god got to do with us? [18:59] 2 secs ether [18:59] thanks ned [18:59] np [19:00] scott: answer my original question please, do you think god will judge the world? [19:01] As far as with us I really dont know. Actually I was presenting Biblical evidence for my I dea on the point that Evil does not exist. [19:01] Yes, do you? [19:01] yes, now, if evil doesn't exist...what is god going to judge it for? [19:02] he's not a usda inspector using a grading scale...it's an either or proposition! [19:02] Remember that midpoint I was talking about? [19:02] :) [19:02] yes [19:03] I also have scientific evidence why I think evil is the one that doesen't exist rather than Good. [19:03] go for it, you haven't given any biblical reasoning :) [19:03] _pants (baby_baby@hurricane3.mgl.ca) joined #apologetics. [19:04] <_pants> hello? [19:04] hi pants [19:04] scott: you brought up entropy before right? [19:05] _pants (baby_baby@hurricane3.mgl.ca) left #apologetics. [19:05] bbl [19:05] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp26.snni.com) left #apologetics. [19:05] Action: ether_ore hopes HIS pants last longer! [19:05] That is the whole basis for my reasoning for the existence of good. [19:06] Things that exist tend to decay... [19:07] Like energy, matter, information, etc. [19:09] When a system is left on its own to do what comes naturally it tends to decay. [19:09] Net_Range (emerkel@zoom2004.telepath.com) joined #apologetics. [19:09] scott you here? [19:09] yep. [19:09] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2076.telepath.com) left irc: Ping timeout for ether_ore[zoom2076.telepath.com] [19:09] Am I the person you are looking for net? [19:09] okay, this is ether_ore, i don't know what happened [19:10] Nick change: Net_Range -> ether_ore [19:10] i got blown off and had to reconnect [19:10] that was wierd. [19:10] did you not get some of my reasoning? [19:10] tell me about it, okay, i was going to ask you something so let me catch back up [19:11] What was the last you heard? [19:11] if i understand entropy, it basically says that chaos will increase...is that right? [19:11] yep. [19:12] so and don't let me put words in your mouth, but then you say that what we call evil is just "entropized" good? [19:12] exactly. [19:13] so god will not judge us on anything other than the purity of our good? [19:14] I guess you could say that. [19:15] is an infant "good" and as he grows and is impacted by the world, his good "entropizes"? [19:17] you there? [19:17] I don't think so. He must be exposed to a surounding of good in order to become good. A metal ball can only remain hot if it stays in a hot environment. Otherwise it would get cold. [19:18] so a baby fresh from the womb would go to hell? [19:18] I'm going to have to wrap this up. My study partner just got here. [19:18] okay bye! [19:19] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2004.telepath.com) left irc: ours is not to wonder why, ours is to manipulate the data! [19:20] A baby fresh from the womb may be under it's mother's responsibility otherwise it would be an empty container just like lucifer became. [19:20] /exit [19:22] Scott (firewall-u@SecurIt.nsuok.edu) left irc: Leaving [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_27_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