[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/27/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 2/27/96 [16:12] +lt
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),
[16:16] SHAWNEE (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[16:16] prof, are you a scientist?
[16:16] POLITICAL Science :-)
[16:16] hiya shawnee
[16:17] cool, do you teach?
[16:17] SHAWNEE (email@example.com)
[16:19] SHAWNEE (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[16:19] Prof, does political science ever apply
[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] SHAWNEE (email@example.com)
[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
[16:23] ethics, etc.
[16:23] Vibrator (firewall-u@SecurIt.nsuok.edu) joined
[16:24] another firewall? heh
[16:24] How does political science deal with
[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
[16:25] which is where I come in... ;->
[16:26] Vibrator (firewall-u@SecurIt.nsuok.edu) left
[16:28] lag city
[16:28] Can there be other judgements besides
arbitrary ones(could you define that0/
[16:29] arbitrary: not absolute, no sure reason
for using the standard
[16:29] and yes, there are non-arbitrary standards
[16:30] like... THE BIBLE :-)
[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
[16:32] is/ought fallacy
[16:33] lizy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[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
[16:33] I did
[16:34] hullo lizy
[16:34] you put it up there
[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 (email@example.com) joined
[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 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[16:35] Kiara (email@example.com) left #apologetics.
[16:35] lance make sense? if not consult any
[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
[16:38] lance fallacy, is/ought, check any
[16:38] Lance, we LIVE here
[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] 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] "Rape is natural, therefore Rape shoudl
[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] not me
[16:42] brb be right back
[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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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
[16:47] without the former, you wouldnot even
have the latter
[16:47] lance stop doing theology by doing
[16:47] my problem? Science is knowledge. The
Bible is truth. I have developed my own philosophy.
[16:48] chill1 (email@example.com) left #apologetics.
[16:48] Isn't philosophy less sophisticated than
[16:49] Hey, it's been fun. Got to go.
[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
[16:51] There is nothing new under the sun but
I've never heard of it so it must not have been too
[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] They used entropy?
[16:52] I am talking about the principle of
[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
[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
[16:58] nice pun
[18:23] ether_ore (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined
[18:25] Scott (firewall-u@SecurIt.nsuok.edu) joined
[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
[18:27] Is there a channel politics?
[18:27] i like watching and taking part in
[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
[18:29] In channel apologetics?
[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
[18:32] so you don't believe in a personal
[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] 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?
[18:38] 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
[18:43] okay, then if i were to argue against
the existence of god, i could turn your words around
[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
[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
[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
[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] He has set the standard. He has defined
[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
[18:54] Mode change '+o NedFlndrs ' by ApoloBotemail@example.com
[18:55] I will give you references. As far as
the standard the ten comandments are a good starting
[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
[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
[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
[19:03] I also have scientific evidence why I
think evil is the one that doesen't exist rather than
[19:03] go for it, you haven't given any
biblical reasoning :)
[19:03] _pants (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined
[19:04] <_pants> hello?
[19:04] hi pants
[19:04] scott: you brought up entropy before
[19:05] _pants (email@example.com) left #apologetics.
[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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) joined
[19:09] scott you here?
[19:09] ether_ore (email@example.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?
[19:12] so and don't let me put words in
your mouth, but then you say that what we call evil
is just "entropized" good?
[19:13] 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?