[ref001] #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/24/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/24/96 [01:15] M

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 - 5/24/96 #apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 5/24/96 [01:15] Mode change '+b *!*kntr@*.cc.ukans.edu ' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com [01:15] iggie!ikntr@falcon.cc.ukans.edu kicked by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: lugen [01:15] bye bye iggie [01:16] i guess lugen you don't like him? censorship is quite christian.. [01:16] `Skept (skept@h-adamant.ekx.infi.net) joined #apologetics. [01:16] then go to faith [01:16] <`Skept> hi [01:16] yo [01:16] hey skept [01:16] <`Skept> lo [01:16] !niv heb 11 1 [01:16] Action: Jubilant says, "Hello, `Skept!" :-) [01:16] <`Skept> lo Jub [01:17] !niv psalms 137:9 [01:17] I'm back... [01:17] :( [01:17] My sister was on the phone. [01:18] i was also talind to poseidon: he said the water's quite polluted [01:18] Atheist: I warned him about his language, kicked him, and he still persisted. I gave him ample time to consider the consiquences of his actions [01:18] so he's banned now [01:18] Poor iggie... [01:18] lugen get real, he didn't cuss more than twice at most: you're just too christian [01:18] In all honesty, I would like someone who actually seems to know about the channel to define for me what apologetics is... [01:18] Hebrews 11:1 To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see. [01:18] (TEV) [01:19] then i have faith in zeus and faries [01:19] fairies rather! [01:19] ...just a paraphrased definition would do [01:19] Atheist, then you don't have a rational faith. [01:19] !niv hosea 1:2 [01:19] Atheist: that is not a point for debate, that is a statement of fact. [01:19] Atheist: Beats NOT believing in God. :) [01:19] neither does paisano dudes/l wake up [01:20] Jubilant: If it were ever argued rationally that God did not exist, would you believe it? [01:20] huh? zeus is just as retarded as jesus dued: get a life [01:20] Atheist: I bet you believe in evolution too. :):) [01:20] T/O, if it could be proven I would believe it. [01:20] TrueOne: it cannot be done, moot point [01:21] that's right boy, what you think i believe we came from the chinese cosmic egg? [01:21] But, you came to late to even discuss it because I know that He does exist. I talked to Him this morning. [01:21] lugen: Amen! [01:21] Okay, I respect Jubilant a bit more... and I see lugen as being just that much more biased [01:21] lugen: That wasn't a moot point... it's the whole purpose of this channel... [01:21] Jubilant: Grin. [01:21] i talked to sant this morning too: he said I should keep believing in zue because that's where all morality comes from [01:22] ...if you cannot say that you would believe a rational argument, IF it existed, that god doesn't exist, [01:22] Atheist: Where do you think you came from? [01:22] ...then you cannot claim that your belief in god is rational. [01:22] Hebrews 11:1 To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see. (TEV) [01:22] Atheist, perhaps you need to see a shrink. [01:22] my aprents' dna, i bet you came from zeus? [01:22] Jong (mymail@di alup66d.mnl.sequel.net) joined #apologetics. [01:22] ...you have an easy out--all you have to do is say "yes, IF it were"... I would challenge you to be honest about it though [01:22] no, i think jesus needed to see a shrink [01:22] Action: Jubilant says, "Hello, Jong!" :-) [01:23] lo [01:23] True: 1) I do not believe in "proofs" with respect to existence; 2) all of metaphsics is based on faith; 3) as I've already indicated, people see what they want to see, nothing more, nothing less [01:23] Atheist, I am glad to see that you accept the validity of an historical Jesus. [01:23] Atheist: Calm down; your spelling/typing will improve. Where did your parents and their parents come from? [01:23] :) no i don't i'm funny,. but jesus never existed [01:24] parents from their parents to homo erectus to homo habilis...etc... [01:24] lugen: I've just one point to make--I am quite sure that this channel--apologetics--is meant to rationally argue Christianity [01:24] 'cuse me.... do you kick people who do not believe in 'rational theism'? [01:24] why nt belif in zeu trueone? [01:24] Atheist, you seem to be making some very misleading statements about your beliefs. [01:24] they kicked iggie [01:24] excuse me then: enough funny stuff [01:24] TrueOne: Can you be honest? I suspect Romans 1:18-20 proves you canNOT be honest because in your heart of hearts you DO KNOW that God exists, you are just NOT prepared to give him honor and thanks. [01:25] Jong, yes and we stomp on them real hard too! [01:25] TrueOne: Rational argument can imply many things, not just proof [01:25] SlackJaw (jchow@pm1-1.starlink.com) joined #apologetics. [01:25] Paisano: But honesty is what led me to be an atheist in the first place [01:25] Not [01:25] hey slack [01:25] ...before that, I was a born again Christian [01:25] Then should I just lurk and not voice out my opinions? [01:25] atheist: Let's boil it down. Where did the FIRST molecule come from? [01:26] molecules are mad up of atoms [01:26] re Slack! [01:26] ...the bible says "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you"... [01:26] T/O, so do you think that Christianity is cheating people into being honest? [01:26] TrueOne: Atheism is an oxymoron. [01:26] paul was an advocate of lying actually [01:26] True: I guess that applies to about everything but proof [01:26] ...so, if I were asking, seeking, et al, like I was doing... like I AM doing... then, if Xianity is right, the bible promises that I'll find the answers [01:26] Atheist: Your delusion is self-imposed. [01:26] actually christinsanity is: loving god [01:27] pa: judge not lest ye be judged [01:27] Atheist, you are taking that passage out of its context. [01:27] TrueOne: the Bible is a book of Proclimation, not one of argumentation [01:27] no i'm not [01:27] There are types of judgement that are forbidden and other types which are commaned. [01:27] Action: SlackJaw sometimes wishes he had a "Harvey" to worship...a "Harvey" that would save him from mere death and cure his fears of non-existance [01:27] garbage lugen paul said the bible can be used for rebuking and proving [01:28] commanded [01:28] er, so, the bible proclaims then that I willfind the answer... so? [01:28] wrong [01:28] TrueOne: You will find the answers IF you are seeking with an honest heart. But, make no mistake about this, you will someday know for sure when you face your creator. Pray that by then he has been merciful to you and given you faith. [01:28] Paisano: I seek with the most honest of hearts... [01:28] Action: Atheist paisano's right! pray to your creator! but which one? zeus, shiva, jehovah, allah! so many choices! [01:29] Paisano: are you saying that God is vengeful? [01:29] ...I was even a "deist" praying to "whichever god was out there that REALLY was the true god", before becoming atheist [01:29] Jong: It would make NO difference what I said, it only matters what God has said. [01:30] humans naturally need to have some sort of savior to cure their ills, and coax them when they are afraid...it is primal instinct [01:30] Paisano: Then how do I know truly what God has said? Isnt it true that the Angels and the Devil speak the same language? [01:30] ...so here I am... honesty and all... seeking truth... atheistic [01:30] this is boring [01:31] Atheist (atheist@exp5.wam.umd.edu) left irc: Leaving [01:31] Slack: That's a good point, but it doesn't really favor either side [01:31] ...we could just be believing in god because we are programmed that way by nature... or by god [01:31] True: what kind of answers are you looking for?? [01:31] True: I never said I was on a side [01:32] Paisano: Given the cunning of the devil, how can I, a mere mortal, know which is the true word? [01:32] "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, but to be its sav ior. Whoever believes in the Son is not judged; but whoever does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in God's only Son." John 3:16-18 (TEV) [01:32] Jong: We are NOT defenseless; we have the Holy Spirit as our guide and comforter. [01:32] lugen: I seek truth... what is true is more important to me than what I was raised to believe... [01:33] SlackJaw (jchow@pm1-1.starlink.com) left #apologetics. [01:33] ...if the two were the same, it would have been great [01:33] TrueOne: what is truth? [01:33] Paisano: How do I recognize the will of the Holy Spirit? I base it on my conscience? [01:33] Action: Jubilant sez... an insane learner learns strange things. [01:33] Many things are true, lugen... [01:33] steck (aduran@apolo2-a16.racsa.co.cr) joined #apologetics. [01:33] Jong: The Holy Spirit is also our guarantee that God will keep his promises and give us eternal life. [01:33] ...but many things are false too :) [01:33] Jong: Your conscience is worthless if it is not informed by the Holy Spirit. [01:34] Paisano: How do I recognize the will of the Holy Spirit? [01:34] Here's something I wrote about truth... it will help you understand my views a bit more [01:34] TrueOne: How did life begin? Where do we come from? [01:35] TrueOne: How was the universe begin? How did it get here? [01:35] Jesus is the life... for ever [01:35] Jong: Without Christ IN your life, there is no way you can receive the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand spiritual things. [01:36] erm [01:36] Paisano: you speak of Christ as if he is someone we could recognize without err [01:36] brb... emailing :) [01:37] I'm agree, Paisano [01:37] steck: True. "Jesus answered him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one goes to the Father except by me.'" John 14:6 (TEV) [01:37] Enlighten me: How do I know that you, Paisano, is not the devil himself speaking? [01:38] Jong: First, do you know God's Word? It contains the words of life and it provides us constant hope. You are wise not to take any man's word about God; compare what you are told against scripture. It is the touchstone. [01:38] The devil is at the hell... [01:39] Jong: Jesus said his sheep know his voice; they will not listen to another. [01:40] Jong: Jesus is the good shepherd; he will not abandon his sheep. [01:40] Paisano: But the devil has such cunning that It could mislead the sheep [01:41] Jong: That is NOT possible; his sheep will listen to no other. [01:41] Action: Jubilant says The Origin of Species is a fairy tale for adults... [01:41] Paisano: And if the sheep know the shepherd's voice, why are have so many sheep been mislead so far, to suffer damnation as God promised? [01:42] Jubilant: Agreed; the emperor has NO CLOTHES. :) [01:42] Render (not@kato-ip-80.theramp.net) joined #apologetics. [01:42] Chiara (watson@ppp12.prcn.org) joined #apologetics. [01:42] I am So sorry. [01:42] Jong: God knows how to keep the lost lost and to keep the saved saved. [01:42] God fucked my ass. [01:42] Action: Jubilant says, "The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit." [01:43] Mode change '+b *!*not@*.theramp.net ' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com [01:43] Render!not@kato-ip-80.theramp.net kicked by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: lugen [01:44] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: changing servers [01:44] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined #apologetics. [01:44] GOD BLESS ALL YOU! [01:44] CTCP PING: 832830287 from lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) to #apologetics [01:44] I'm on the rock... Jesus. [01:45] much better [01:45] Paisano: Even Judas has been had by the devil [01:45] Chiara (watson@ppp12.prcn.org) left irc: Ping timeout for Chiara[ppp12.prcn.org] [01:45] islander1 (none@dialup95.aloha.com) joined #apologetics. [01:46] islander1 (none@dialup95.aloha.com) left #apologetics. [01:46] Am I lagged? [01:46] Action: Jubilant says... 51% of being smart is knowing what you are dumb at! [01:48] Alright... it has been sent [01:49] Jong: Judas made his own choice; he was chosen to fulfill prophesy and to achieve the purposes of God. [01:50] Paisano: Judas' choice was wrong? And hence he is damned for eternity? [01:50] Jong: Don't worry about Judas; worry about yourself. I am confident he would tell you likewise. [01:51] Paisano: I am afraid the same rules apply [01:52] What rules Jong? [01:52] Paisano: That if I made the wrong choice, I would suffer eternal damnation. [01:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [01:53] That the ops die! Ja ja ja : ) [01:53] soon1 [01:53] Jong: That's life; full of choices ... humble yourself and ask God for help. He will not let you down even though you and I let him down far more than we should. [01:54] apolobot is a louger [01:54] W too... [01:55] W is gay [01:55] Paisano: How would I know that I have let God down? [01:56] APOLOBOT MAKING LOVE A W [01:56] W has just dated X yesterday, and the're both gay, steck [01:56] QED (pch1@osip92.ionet.net) joined #apologetics. [01:56] OPS... [01:56] Sheesh... [01:56] Xinyang (WDYT@castles79.castles.com) joined #apologetics. [01:57] Jong: The Holy Spirit will CONVICT you if you sincerely trying to serve Jesus Christ your king. [01:57] qED FUCK YOU [01:57] xINYANG TOO [01:57] steck: Please KNOCK it off. Thanks. [01:57] why me [01:57] You are very gay [01:58] Paisano: How do I know what pleases God and what doesnt? Does God really require pleasing? [01:58] Jong fuck you too [01:58] steck please watch your language [01:58] steck: I just had one, thank you. [01:59] very lovable. [01:59] XinYang!!!!!! [01:59] steck; problems? [01:59] Jong: He does need anything we have. He does NOT need our praise; he can command the rocks to give him all the praise he might want. We need God. Period. [01:59] hello jong [01:59] steck: If you're looking for punishment... try #bdsm or #wasteland or some other netsex channel [01:59] Paisano: Then why do we have to please him at all? [02:00] #wasteland is known for it's sadism :) [02:00] Paisano: You mean we were created to please God, else suffer eternal damnation? [02:00] Action: QED prescribes diazepam for steck: 10mg t.i.d. [02:01] Jong: Watch out... they'll pull the "we cannot possibly know God's perfect plan" on you in a heartbeat [02:01] Action: Jong prescribes a large rubber prophylactic stuck in steck's nose. [02:02] TrueOne: God's perfect plan includes eternal damnation? [02:02] steck: You're only going to mildly offend a few Xians here, who will then ignore you, and then you'll have no more fun [02:02] Will going to he hell all. [02:02] The hell is the better. [02:02] Jong: Sure... and it's quite benevolent in ways we cannot comprehend [02:02] steck is a juvenile, I tell you [02:02] nops [02:02] jong is a juvenile. yeah [02:03] Hmmm... benevolent eternal damnation... [02:03] Jong: Get real. What answers do you have now? Zip. You will NEVER understand the ways of God or understand spiritual things UNTIL and UNLESS you humble yourself and repent of your sinful ways and accept Jesus Christ as your L ord and Savior. At that point you will be given the gift of the Holy Spirit who will guide you into all righteousness. [02:03] ...it's all perfect, but, of course, we, especially if we go to hell, will never be able to comprehend it [02:03] JOhn fucked his sister [02:03] I hope steck suffers eternal damnation [02:03] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial79.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics. [02:03] With you. YES [02:03] Paisano: and you claim to understand? [02:04] Paisano: I'm the one who am seeking for truth honestly and am an ex-Xian... a living counterexample to your previous arguments [02:04] Mode change '+o lugen ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [02:04] Mode change '+b *!*aduran@*.racsa.co.cr ' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com [02:04] steck!aduran@apolo2-a16.racsa.co.cr kicked by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: lugen [02:04] who is too :) [02:04] Thx lugen :) [02:04] sorry, did not know he was a problem... was in email [02:04] hmmmmmmm [02:05] Jong (mymail@dialup66d.mnl.sequel.net) left irc: emergency [02:05] thank you lugen [02:05] Mode change '+o ProfG ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [02:06] Action: ProfG is lagged [02:06] QED (pch1@osip92.ionet.net) left #apologetics. [02:08] Mafu (matthew@isaac.biola.edu) joined #apologetics. [02:08] Mafu (matthew@isaac.biola.edu) left #apologetics. [02:09] TrueOne: Eph2:10 "...we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, to do good works,...." [02:09] Okay Xinyang... [02:10] TrueONe: I would not brag if I were you about your disloyalty and desertion of your savior. The Word says that one who renounces Christ and turns his back is like a dog returning to his vomit and a pig who is bathed but returns to the mud and wallows. God help you. [02:12] Paisano: You interpret it as bragging... I'm only interested in truth... your point you made before didn't apply ("you will never understand the ways of god or spiritual things UNTIl and UNLESS you humble yourse lf and repent of your sinful ways and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. At that point you will be given the gift of the Holy Spirit...") [02:13] ...the reason it didn't apply, is because I fit the above criteria, but am a counterexample to the implications... [02:13] True one: what happened [02:13] ...it's a moot point... you are simply arguing "You cannot possibly agree with me unless you believe in what I believe" [02:13] why do you no longer believe [02:13] what do you believe [02:13] now [02:14] It's true ... if you can believe it; get on your knees before your maker and pray that he would have mercy upon your soul. I can give you nothing but there is NOTHING that he cannot do for you if you will humble yourself and sim ply ask. [02:14] Christianity post-rationalizes things... it claims to have the truth, but when faced with opposition, it modifies itself to where it can still be true... [02:14] ...that's not scientific. That's one problem. [02:14] TrueOne: what do YOU claim? [02:15] What religion is scientific? [02:15] ...another problem is that Christianity viewed objectively has no more value than that of a number of mutually exclusive religions [02:15] st_aidan (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [02:15] Nick change: st_aidan -> Acolyte [02:15] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [02:15] Acolyte :-) [02:15] hey profg [02:15] Mode change '-o lugen ' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com [02:15] 2 MORE DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [02:15] I have found Christianity to be the truest of them all [02:15] ...a third problem is that Christianity is semantically inconsistent... [02:15] trueone thats funny [02:16] TrueOne: Christianity post-rationalizes things... it claims to have the truth, but when faced with opposition, it modifies itself to where it can still be true... [02:16] TrueOne: ...that's not scientific. That's one problem. [02:16] Trueone where did you ever get the idea of consistency apart from God? [02:16] TrueOne: ...another problem is that Christianity viewed objectively has no more value than that of a number of mutually exclusive religions [02:16] TrueOne: ...a third problem is that Christianity is semantically inconsistent... [02:16] for your edification, Acolyte [02:16] :-) [02:16] profg that was edification?? ;) [02:17] budso (budman@client22.sedona.net) joined #apologetics. [02:17] lol [02:17] more like mortification? [02:17] Action: Acolyte notes he gets engaged in 2 more days [02:17] Action: ProfG offers even more congrats [02:17] profg ever read C.S. Lewis Space Trilogy? [02:17] Acolyte: What do you mean, consistency apart from God? [02:17] budso :-) [02:17] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx02-50.teleport.com) joined #apologetics. [02:17] Acolyte: no, stuck with Narnia :-) [02:17] Trueone what do YOU believe? [02:17] brentf :-) [02:17] trueone how do you arrive at the idea of consistency apart from a Theistic paradigm? [02:17] Xinyang: I'm atheistic [02:17] Paisano (tony@slip4.dtx.net) left irc: Excess Flood [02:17] profg DO YOURSELF a favor and read it [02:17] Action: ProfG notes that the #apologetics cavalry has arrived [02:17] ProfG :) Good to see ya! [02:18] and what made you turn away from god [02:18] Paisano (tony@slip4.dtx.net) joined #apologetics. [02:18] Hello, Acolyte :) [02:18] hey brentf [02:18] hey paisano [02:18] profg the guy saw the future, lem me tell ya [02:18] Acolyte: By examining carefully what "God" really means and the reasons why people believe in god [02:18] Acolyte: I read the Didache. [02:18] True fien, that is not what I asked for [02:18] brentf good [02:18] ...I would believe in God if presented with the right evidence [02:18] trueone how do you arrive at the idea of consistency apart from a Theistic paradigm? [02:18] Action: Jubilant asks... Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket? [02:19] trueone please adress the quesiton that I addresed [02:19] Acolyte: I asked what you mean. Do you lack the ability to clearly phrase questions? [02:19] So as an atheist you believe in the religion of evolution? :) [02:19] TrueOne: how do you define "the right evidence"? [02:19] ...rephrase the question [02:19] Trueone, do you also lack the ability to clearly answer them? [02:19] Mode change '-o ProfG ' by ProfG!wgreen01@fiudial79.fiu.edu [02:19] Acolyte: I cannot answer any question I do not understand [02:19] we'll be here all night then [02:20] ;-> [02:20] Trueone: So as an atheist you believe in the religion of evolution? :) [02:20] Trueojne how do you arrive at the idea of consistency or regualarity apart from a theistic paradigm? [02:20] Trueone what is it that you do not understand? [02:20] Xinyang: evolution isn't a religion... do you need it to be so that you can refute it? [02:20] It is not a science [02:20] Acolyte: I do not understand what your question means... [02:20] TrueOne: Acolyte is asking how, in an atheist worldview, one can believe in the idea of consistency or regularity AT ALL [02:20] True do you know what the word Paradigm means? [02:20] ...are you asking how I can have a consistent system of beliefs without believing in God? [02:21] True no, how do you justify a beleif or come to a belief in consistency? [02:21] no, how can there by ANY consistency in an atheist worldview? [02:21] prog in any worldview [02:21] True in your paradigm, what are beleifs? [02:21] aco this one in particular though [02:21] Ah... why is God necessary for consistency? [02:21] answer the question, TO [02:21] you aren't socrates [02:21] ...the universe exists... truths are things in our mind that explain the universe perfectly [02:22] answer with answers, not questions [02:22] True, no, how do you arrive at the idea of consistency outside of a thesitic paradigm? [02:22] And you aren't Jesus ProfG [02:22] prove it, TO [02:22] ...what's the point? We can both think... or at least claim to [02:22] ProfG: Are you attempting to demonstrate that I must have faith in my views? [02:22] true, I did not ask what truths are, I SPECIFICALLY Asked what beleifs are in your paradigm? [02:22] TO: I'm TRYING to get you to answer Acolyte [02:23] Well, I still don't understand what Acolyte is asking :) [02:23] Action: Acolyte notes that Atheismis pure mythology, an illusion, an organised illusional beleifs system signifying nothing [02:23] doh [02:23] true on, do you have an idea of consistency? [02:23] Action: ProfG notes that Acolyte is correct [02:23] yes or no? [02:23] as usual ;-> [02:23] As in, something can be consistent? Of course [02:23] profg alcuin could say it better than i. [02:23] True no, do you have specific ideas? [02:24] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: Atheism is pure mythology, an illusion, an organised illusional beleifs system signifying nothing [02:24] heheheh [02:24] Specific ideas? Yes... that the universe exists... [02:24] ...and that truths are models in the mind that explain the universe [02:24] Profg Lewis seriously saw the whole Lesbo/gay thing back in 1946, seriously. pretty trippie [02:24] aco: whoa [02:24] true ok, you meantioned consistency, that is an idea as well,is it not? [02:24] The word "atheism" would even be meaningless if there was no theism. It cannot stand alone. [02:24] profg yea, and lots more [02:25] Action: ProfG wishes he had time to read :( [02:25] ...I believe that subjectivity leads to stagnated views, which may be true or false... [02:25] jubulant if there were not God there would not be anymeaning for anything to be called meaningless [02:25] ...but that objectivity can at least change views to approach a truth [02:25] TrueOne: is that a non-subjective view? [02:25] true fine, but do you have an idea of consistently? yes or no willbe sufficient? [02:25] Agreed, Aco [02:25] Action: ProfG waits for TO to actually answer a single question from Acolyte [02:25] jubilant if the cosmos were meaningless we should have never found out that it were so [02:26] true fine, but do you have an idea of consistently? yes or no willbe sufficient? [02:26] Acolyte: I believe that things can be consistent [02:26] Aco, if there was no God there would be no cosmos. [02:26] true fine, where does this beleif come from? [02:26] "I believe"... PROVE it [02:26] prove it's POSSIBLE in your paradigm [02:26] oops... [02:26] Action: ProfG steps back and lets Aco have his fun [02:26] profg slow down, baby steps to Jesus...;) [02:26] From an assumption that I must make in order to explain anything :) [02:27] Action: Acolyte puts on his surgical apparel, "Its time for yet another mental abortion." [02:27] true, and what assumption is that? [02:27] hehe [02:27] Aco, my teaching on "The Reasonableness of the Christian Faith" is on the 'net now in RealAudio format... [02:27] if there is no consistency at all, then I will come to find that out, and will probably end up in a Buddhist temple [02:27] profg kewl [02:27] true I have a question [02:27] Aco: http://jf.org/radio/sermons.htm [02:28] trueone if there were no consistency at all, even in your brain, would you even have a consistent idea that there were no concistency? [02:28] switching servers. brb [02:28] budso (budman@client22.sedona.net) left #apologetics. [02:28] True, here, the answer is real simple. its a big fat NO. [02:28] big [02:28] fat [02:29] Acolyte: Could you be under the illusion that that was the case? [02:29] True if there were no consistency, your ideas would not be consistent inthemselves either [02:29] true sure I could, could u? [02:29] true, but that is not jthe real issue. [02:29] True, now to the second point [02:29] True what is an idea? [02:29] An idea is something imagined by the mind [02:30] Action: Acolyte pulls out his super duper analytic scapel [02:30] True what is the mind? what is its essence? [02:30] true does the mind have location? [02:30] The mind has no specific location... it's an abstract [02:31] profg you would be amazed how much Lewis forsaw...utterly baffles me [02:31] ...in a sense, though, it can be said to be located in the brain [02:31] true, so the mind is an idea as well? abstract? [02:31] ic [02:31] Action: ProfG notes the bafflement in Acolyte's typing [02:31] so the mind is abstracted form the brain? [02:31] Acolyte: Yes... can't you imagine your own mind? [02:31] ...is that not what self-awareness is? [02:31] true that is context relative actually to what paradigm one is in. [02:31] true, and what is the brain? [02:32] Acolyte: Precisely. That is why your mind seems to "go" in stage 2, 3, and 4 sleep... [02:32] true thats nice, but what is the brain? [02:32] ...and also why you feel more "aware" at some times than at others [02:32] sheesh [02:32] fine, but again........ [02:32] The brain is a collection of neurons [02:32] whatis the brain? [02:32] ic [02:32] finally [02:33] Action: ProfG pulls out his neuron collection... "Look, a brain!" [02:33] Trueone is a human anything more in essence than his body? anything other than natural? [02:33] hehe [02:33] Acolyte: No [02:33] bada - BING [02:33] True, and what is the essence of a human? mental? material? what? [02:33] then you have no mind? [02:33] take away half my brain, and I will only be half a person :) [02:33] ProfG: I tried the address but it says Netscape is unable to locate jf.org??? [02:34] xinyang don't spoil this for me ok [02:34] Paisano: server may be down right now. Try again later. [02:34] sorry [02:34] True, and what is the essence of a human? mental? material? what? [02:34] true what is the nature or esence of the body? mateiral perhaps? [02:34] ProfG: Wilco. :) [02:34] (take away all his brain, and he's an atheist) [02:34] lol [02:34] The essence of the body is material [02:35] ...the essence of the mind is material [02:35] true ic, and what governs the actions or mechanisms or processes of the body? [02:35] Paisano: it's part of the first Christian Internet-only Radio Station [02:35] Acolyte: The brain [02:35] ...the environment [02:35] it just went up, so bugs are being worked out [02:35] true, no perhaps I should clarify, including the brain, what governs them? somethng in nature or outside of nature? [02:36] ProfG: Great ... heard about it but it was just sending a test feed last time I checked. [02:36] Something in nature acolyte [02:36] ...why do you think LSD produces hallucinations? [02:36] true, and what is it in nature that governs the processes of the human organism> [02:36] Paisano: what on the internet is NOT a test feed? lol [02:36] true, and what is it in nature that governs the processes of the human organism? [02:36] Acolyte: It is nature [02:36] redundant [02:36] LOL [02:37] Nature is nature... is that redundant? [02:37] True, ic, so there are principles in nature that govern the processes of the human organism? [02:37] that's not what you said, TO [02:37] Acolyte: Yes, and demonstrably so [02:37] profg its no biggie for now [02:37] Prof: It's not what you heard, but it's what I said [02:37] okie dokie Aco [02:38] true IC, and are the thoughts or ideas of the brain chemical processes of nature governed by these principles or somethng outside of anture that does so? [02:38] TO: you think what you said is not what I heard, but what I heard is what you said even though you said that you think that what I heard is not what you said and what you said is not what I heard [02:38] anture=nature [02:38] I think [02:38] TrueOne: What made you turn your back upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for you? [02:38] paisano hold on [02:38] paisano almost there [02:38] Why, they are governed by nature acolyte [02:38] True I don't know how that answers my question [02:38] True please address my question [02:39] Action: Xinyang whistles dixie:) [02:39] if you can't then say so plainly plz [02:39] true IC, and are the thoughts or ideas of the brain chemical processes of nature governed by these principles or somethng outside of anture that does so? [02:39] "are the thoughts or ideas of the brain chemical processes of nature governed by these principles or something outside of nature that does so?" [02:39] ...they are governed by nature [02:39] true plz answe that question [02:39] ok [02:40] so, are youpart of nature as a human organism? [02:40] Sorry, I had already answered it, so I was requoting you to show you I was answering in that context [02:40] Action: ProfG notes that TO doesn't even see the brick wall he's running into [02:40] ok [02:40] Acolyte: Correct, I am part of nature [02:40] but [02:40] ok [02:40] then I have a simple question for you [02:40] last one [02:40] heh [02:40] hehe [02:41] drumroll... [02:41] Action: TrueOne has a feeling that this will be quite an interesting response to the question [02:41] If all your concepts are determined by the principles of nature, and everything in nature is governed by them as well, ho would you ever be able to verify any beleif since all your beleifs are determined by nature as well? hence they are neither true NOR [02:41] NOR [02:41] NOR [02:41] false they are meningless because there is no way to verify any beleifs that u have [02:41] ... [02:41] ah [02:41] If all your concepts are determined by the principles of nature, and everything in nature is governed by them as well, ho would you ever be able to verify any beleif since all your beleifs are determined by nature as well? hence they are neither true NOR [02:41] false they are meningless because there is no way to verify any beleifs that u have [02:42] and there you have it [02:42] we can all go home now [02:42] True how would you verify any beleif since all beleifs are determined? [02:42] Ah... sorry, I thought I was the one that was going to answer that [02:42] you've been a great audience! good night! [02:42] you have reached nihilism it seems [02:42] true go for it [02:42] ;-> [02:42] Acolyte: Perhaps, I am part of nature, as I have already said above [02:42] true perhaps? you don;t knwo if you are or not? [02:43] ...if I choose to do something, that is natural... [02:43] that doesn't address what Aco said at ALL [02:43] true exactly, so it is natural, does not make it true or right or wrong, just natural process [02:43] true how do you know what is correct if you all yoru actions and beleifs are determined? [02:43] Acolyte: Truth exists [02:43] True it does? [02:43] ...how can the existence of nature deny that things cannot be true? [02:44] true in natrue nature exists [02:44] True it dos not deny it, it excludes it [02:44] double negatives are HARD to follow. [02:44] I know what is correct only by showing what is not [02:44] Acolyte: Nature excludes truth? [02:44] true, but if all your beleifs and actions are determined, how do you CHECK to see if they are true if even your CHECKING is determined as well? [02:44] True naturalism excludes truth yes [02:44] ...if I dropped a pencil, it will hit the ground... [02:45] ...is that true? ...is it nature? [02:45] Nomos (Nomos@kuts6p08.cc.ukans.edu) joined #apologetics. [02:45] true sure,. but youwould not know it [02:45] hi [02:45] ture you would only have a determined chemical reaction [02:45] chemcials are not true or false [02:45] You're making some pretty huge leaps here Acolyte [02:45] hiya nomos [02:45] hiya prof [02:45] true oh, on the contrary [02:45] trueone YOU ARE [02:45] Acolyte: You're right... chemicals cannot be true or false [02:45] amen ACO [02:45] ...neither is the mind the brain [02:45] true, are your chemcials determined by nature? [02:45] yes or no? [02:45] ...neither is a computer program a set of transistors [02:46] true, are your chemcials determined by nature? [02:46] yes or no? [02:46] Action: ProfG notes that it is 2:45 am where he is [02:46] Acolyte: Yes [02:46] and he should be sleeping [02:46] lugen: co to robisz? jak sie masz? [02:46] Acolyte: Everything you observe having to do with physical reality is a part of nature... [02:46] trueand your ideas are chemical reactins determine by nature, correct? [02:46] ProfG need only move to Louisiana to gain an hour. :) [02:46] ...that's even true if you accept theism [02:46] heh [02:46] true given that, even my reactions are part of nature [02:46] Acolyte: precisely [02:47] true, all your ideas are determined [02:47] Move to New Mexico to gain 2 hours. [02:47] they have no truth value since they cannot be checked [02:47] TrueOne: What made you turn your back upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for you? [02:47] Acolyte: That's true, too [02:47] no, NOTHING IS TRUE [02:47] there is only Nihilism [02:47] er, that's where you go wrong Acolyte [02:47] you have reached ground ZERO [02:47] Atheism = Nihilism [02:47] true, there is no wrong to go to at this point [02:47] No, you have reached zero for me acolyte, by interjecting what you think I believe [02:47] TO: he walked you here. where did you stumble off of the path? [02:48] true show me where I have reasoned incorrectly? [02:48] ...and your own definition of "nature" [02:48] Acolyte: I showed you exactly where... [02:48] True, ok define nature [02:48] true name the fallacy then [02:48] ...Nature does not imply that there is nothing true [02:48] true define nature [02:48] TrueOne: What made you turn your back upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for you? [02:48] ...quite the contrary... nature would be the truth itself [02:48] nature would be a chemcials collection in motion [02:49] nanture chemcials are not true or false, as you agreed to [02:49] hence nature is NEITHER true nor false [02:49] unTrueOne: What made you turn your back upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for you? [02:49] Right Acolyte... and look what chemical collections in motion can do [02:49] Right acolyte... neither are transistors true or false... [02:49] true, so? motion or utility doe snot equal truth [02:49] ...and electricity cannot be true [02:49] Paisano, you are being rude. [02:49] ...so, does that nullify everything done using computer programs? [02:49] true, and you are chemicals, only, hence your ideas being chemcials are determined chemical reacitns, they lack truth value [02:49] ...you seem to be confusing the hardware with the software [02:49] TrueOne: What made you turn your back upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for you? [02:50] Happy now Jubilant. :) [02:50] Truwe so u do thins, so?> you don't KNOW if anythng is true or not, even if you do do things, there is no truth [02:50] Thanks [02:50] Paisano: I've told you a few things to get you started already [02:50] true, is the software governed by nature? is the hardware governed by nature? [02:50] Jubilant: Paisano has a point though ;-> [02:50] Acolyte: Nature implies no truths? [02:50] TrueOne: What have you told me? [02:50] ...this assumption comes from where? [02:50] True, natuealism excludes anything metaphyscial, don't u knw that? [02:50] TO: he just SHOWED you [02:51] were you in another window? [02:51] true comes form the fact that truth is not a physical thing [02:51] ProfG, I agree to the point but not to the way Paisano presented in one instance. [02:51] Acolyte: define metaphysical [02:51] True or do you tink that Truth is physical? [02:51] META-physical, not physical, above or beyond the physical [02:51] simple enough? [02:51] Jubilant: well, we're not always the most... ummmm... non-sarcastic bunch in here... ;-> [02:51] Truth is an abstract Acolyte [02:51] TrueOne: Why did you DESERT your Savior who loved you so much? [02:51] please defien NATURE [02:51] true and absractsa re chemcials, so? still meaingless [02:52] hehe [02:52] You're confusing software with hardware Acolyte [02:52] paisano and looked what he deserted it FOR, for NOTHING [02:52] true I am? [02:52] True can I ask you a simple question? [02:52] ...would you accept a text file if I dcc-ed it to you? [02:52] Acolyte: You have been asking me questions for quite some time... I'm about to go to bed... [02:52] TrueOne: have you ever visited our web site? [02:53] sleep well nihilist [02:53] T/O, I think you need to go back over the log here and see what happened to you tonight. [02:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [02:53] and maybe looked at our logs? [02:53] If I were nihilist I would have told you already Acolyte :) [02:53] True the last point, BOTH hardware and software are chemcials, hence still dtermined [02:53] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [02:53] You plainly lost the debate. You should be man enough to admit defeat and come back again another time. [02:53] TO: you did. [02:53] true you are in denial tho. [02:53] TO: you said you are an atheist [02:53] ipso facto [02:53] ProfG: I'm not nihilist [02:53] a nihilist [02:53] TrueOne: I am sincerely interested. Please answer before you go why your deserted the one who loved you so much? [02:53] I'm atheist [02:53] True sorry I don't have access to DCC email me if you like [02:53] true that snice, still a nihilst [02:54] . [02:54] atheist = nihilisty [02:54] True the last point, BOTH hardware and software are chemcials, hence still dtermined [02:54] no y [02:54] TrueOne: I am sincerely interested. Please answer before you go why you deserted the one who loved you so much? [02:54] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: ATHEISM = NIHILISM [02:55] Paisano: I didn't desert anything... I merely seek truths [02:55] NAturlistic evolutionary Athiesm=Nihilism [02:55] True just think about it, everythng is chemcial in your paradigm, it lacks truth value [02:55] True just think about it, everythng is chemcial in your paradigm, it lacks truth value [02:55] TrueOne: I see. Does that mean you still are a follower of Jesus Christ and that you consider him your Lord and God? [02:55] Paisano take a quick guess [02:56] Acolyte: Truth is not a property of nature... it's an abstract [02:56] Aco: Let him answer plz. :) [02:56] miche (mspring@ra01-03.sota-oh.com) joined #Apologetics. [02:56] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: Naturalistic evolutionary atheism = Nihilism [02:56] true abstrazcts are chemcial as well [02:56] Acolyte: What is your email address? [02:56] true hence still nihilism [02:56] ~st_aidan@deltanet.com [02:56] TO: please visit our web site [02:56] and look at some logs [02:56] TrueOne: I see. Does that mean you still are a follower of Jesus Christ and that you consider him your Lord and God? [02:56] Acolyte: no ~ in your address [02:56] profg same argument, different defeats [02:56] Aco: yup [02:56] profg oh, sorry [02:57] TO the point is that your paradigm denies epistemology, ethics, science, just about everything [02:57] TO hence your paradigm is kinda, perhaps, just a tad...COMPLETELY FALSE [02:57] big clue [02:57] those things are not possible in your paradigm, TO [02:57] ok? just think about it dude [02:57] TrueOne: You said you were once a Christian? Are you still a Christian? [02:58] Acolyte: You've quite a stubborned meme [02:58] meme? [02:58] yeah, that meme [02:58] you know, your meme [02:58] Paisano: That depends on who you ask... if you ask me, no :) [02:58] yes I am stubborned, truth has a habbit of being that way ya know [02:58] TrueOne: What got you off the RIGHT path? [02:58] Action: ProfG notes that Acolyte has had a stubborned meme for quite some time [02:58] True, think about the argument [02:58] Profg I was bonr that way, its not my fault!!! [02:58] hehe, yeah, as the saying goes: "They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the clown" ================================================ [03:05] Aman (Musl@Cust27.Max4.Boston.MA.MS.UU.NET) joined #apologetics. [03:05] hullo aman [03:05] Lugen: Why do play Satan on #bible? [03:05] did I just see something about Nihilism? :) [03:05] Aman, are you a Muslim? [03:05] [ilgim just missed it [03:05] U bet [03:05] oh boy [03:06] jubliant perceptive of you [03:06] I thought perhaps by your name... [03:06] Aman: Poor fellow. [03:06] oh good, a MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YUMMY [03:06] Lugen is a MUTE satan! [03:06] they always taste good going down [03:06] aman lugen is busy [03:06] aman, why did you come to our wonderful channel? [03:06] U see folks..a mute Satan..dares not tell the truth..Just like Lugen here! [03:06] Aman: Pick on someone your own size. [03:07] aman why are you a Muslim? [03:07] yeah... like a 4 year old [03:07] brentf u there? [03:07] Qoheleth (jb@phx-ts10-36.netzone.com) joined #Apologetics. [03:07] Aman: Mohammed is dead and buried and the food of worms. [03:07] Judith (Sandra@dial148.skypoint.net) joined #apologetics. [03:07] you rang? [03:07] I pick on Satan and his children.. [03:07] aman why are you a Muslim? [03:07] yes.. [03:07] aww man... [03:07] aman thats nice, why are you amulsim? [03:07] Paisano: you forgot "Peace be upon him" [03:07] LOL [03:07] i'll be back when aman is gone [03:07] Judith (Sandra@dial148.skypoint.net) left #apologetics. [03:07] aman thats nice, why are you a muslim? [03:08] judith no wait [03:08] Begone .. [03:08] ProfG: A pox on his house maybe. :) [03:08] jusith you have such lovely hair anyhow [03:08] daughter of Satan. [03:08] aman, fihgt nice now [03:08] ok.. [03:08] aman why are you a Muslim? [03:08] Aman: debate rationally, or leave [03:08] yes..for the third time..i say yes. [03:08] aman I am not asking IF you are, but WHY you are a muslim? [03:09] Aman: Does insanity run in your family? [03:09] U see Judith and Lugen,,the twin of Satan kicked and banned me from #bible! [03:09] aman why do you beleif in the Quar'an? [03:09] Judith (Sandra@dial148.skypoint.net) joined #apologetics. [03:09] paisano thank God not in Italian ones. ;) [03:09] hey judith [03:09] aco: grin. [03:09] Aco: It is the only book that is divine..no contradictions in it. [03:09] Aman why did they kick you? What did you say? [03:09] aman why do you believe in the Quar'an as truth? [03:09] Aman, I have some questions I have been wanting to ask of a muslim [03:10] Aman, ic, so can somethng be conssitent and be false? [03:10] Aman: Yeah like we have seen the fruits of the Muslim religion. [03:10] jubilant reading Giesler perhaps???? [03:10] aco: consistently false. :) [03:10] Pilgrim: I just commited the "sin" of opposing homosexulaity and lezbianism..They must adhere to these respective persuasions. [03:10] Aman: #Bible is for the discussion of the Bible, with the assumption that it is the TRUTH (not "corrupted", etc.). You need to come HERE to debate the veracity of one faith over another. [03:10] Can you tell me about the Satanic verses which are found in the Quoran? [03:10] someone mention Norman? [03:10] aman, my math book does not have any contradictions in it, does that make it divine too? [03:11] Qo I did [03:11] Can you tell me about the Satanic verses which are found in the Quoran? [03:11] Let Lugen say sonthing..assuming he is not a mute Satan! [03:11] Aman cut the stuff about lugen ok [03:11] Can you tell me about the Satanic verses which are found in the Quoran? [03:11] Qoheleth what about Normie? [03:11] lugen is AWAY, Aman [03:11] get it? [03:11] AWAY [03:11] Aman I oppose those two and believe they are sin [03:11] Aman: Are you deaf? Aco told you he was away. [03:11] creation_ (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined #apologetics. [03:11] In order to appease his pagan family members and the members ofthe Quraysh tribe, Muhammad decided that the best thing he cold do wasto admit that it was perfectly proper to pray to and worship the threedaughters of Allah: Al-La t, Al-Uzza, and Manat. [03:11] Aco..I am a mthematician..Math is a part of GOD..as GOD is TRUTH! [03:12] hey creation [03:12] very good apologist, AC [03:12] hello acolyte [03:12] Mode change '+o creation_ ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [03:12] acolyte: Haveing a good discussion? [03:12] qo perhaps [03:12] This led to the famous "satanic verses" in which Muhammad in amoment of weakness and supposedly under the inspiration of Satan(according to early Muslim authorities) succumbed to the temptatio n toappease pagan mobs in Mecca (Sura 53:19). [03:12] Jubilant: Peace.. [03:12] creation eh [03:12] Qo, he'd be better if he was not a racist [03:12] Acolyte: did you get my email? [03:13] creaution have not checked yet [03:13] Quo u there? [03:13] Acolyte: that's "racialist" [03:13] Geisler...a racist??? [03:13] lol [03:13] Jubililant: U know U are not quoting the HOLY BOOK! [03:13] The story of Muhammad's temporary appeasement of the pagans byallowing them their polytheism cannot be ignored or denied. It is afact of history that is supported by all Middle East scholars, Westernand Muslim. [03:13] acolyte: Ok [03:13] Qo sure, didn't u know? [03:13] qoh, never heard about his black grandchild that did not make it out of the womb? [03:13] Action: lugen is back. [03:13] no, and I don't take hearsay lightly either [03:13] Muhammad is just a man..a prophet..he is not GOD! [03:14] Qo, I know the couple, do you? [03:14] WHAT ABOUT THE CONVERTED JINNS (genies)? [03:14] Aman, how do you know he was a prophet? [03:14] Aman: Case solved ... he is also a liar. [03:14] jub reading Morey IC [03:14] In Suras 46:29-35; 72:1-28 Muhammad supposedly preached to andconverted the jinns (or genies). In turn the jinns preached Islam tothe people. Thus the male and female spirits who inhabited the trees,the rocks, and the waters o f Arabia were now Muslims and under thecontrol of Muhammad. [03:14] Well, weell, well. [03:14] Jub: Djinns [03:14] erm, Djins [03:14] Aman: Can you type There is no god but Allah without typing "and Muhaamad is the messenger of God"? [03:14] Acolyte, I have heard you before and I am always impressed by your haughtiness [03:14] Muhammad is dead and buried and the food of worms. [03:14] Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well? [03:15] Qoh, Giesler is a convienient Pro-lifer. Its a fact. write to him and ask him about it. [03:15] This is a classic form of shamanism in which Muhammad nowclaimed to be in control of the spirits of the earth. [03:15] Qoh thats nice [03:15] acolyte: I just got done reading the essay "Divine Necessity" by Robert Merrihew Adams. I had trouble understanding most of it. I understood some. [03:15] Jinn and other beings are there..One must be a total idiot to really belive in the last decade of the 20th century that humans are the only intelligent beings around. [03:15] sarcasm [03:15] qoh, I am not hear to appease ppl [03:15] Creation adams is somewhat liberal [03:15] to offend? [03:15] Creation see William Lane Craig, Politically Incorrect Slavation [03:15] why Acol? [03:15] Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well? [03:15] Creation see William Lane Craig, Politically Incorrect Salvation [03:16] Qoh, to teach [03:16] Jubilant can you put those verses about converted djinns back up? [03:16] Aco: No..it is man made [03:16] they scrolled off [03:16] aman what is man made? [03:16] WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE BIBLICAL MOSES IN THE QURAN? [03:16] Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well? [03:16] aman what r u talking about? [03:16] just like the new and old testiment..full of contradictions.. [03:16] aman ahahahahha [03:16] CTCP PING: 832835802 from lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) to #apologetics [03:16] He who presumes to teach should teach with truth AND love [03:16] The Quran states in Sura 7:136 compared to 7:59ff, that Noah'sflood took place in Moses' day. It also states that Haman (of the bookof Esther) lived in Egypt during the time of Moses and worked forPharoah building the tower of Babel (Suras 27:4-6; 28:38; 29:39;40:23-24 & 36-37). [03:16] kewl [03:16] Qoh sometimes love gets mad ya know [03:17] woh never heard of righteous indignation? [03:17] Acolyte: This essay was pretty good. He was counterarguing arguments against the necessary existance of God. He argued against "necessity" based on "analyticity". It confused me. [03:17] This is not only evidence that Muhammad drew uponJudaism, but that he didn't do a very good job of keeping his storiesstraight. Not only do these incidents contradict the Bible, they alsocontradict secular history as well. [03:17] Jubilant: wrong.. [03:17] creation try plantinga heheheh [03:17] Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well? [03:17] creation Platinga's bk The Nature of NEcessity took me a stinking month to read [03:17] Perhaps you would like to read these passages to me and correct me if you think I am wrong. [03:17] and it's only 25 pages [03:17] I challenge you to do so. [03:17] well..all must understand that All prophets came from the same GOD..hence an intersection set is a tutology! [03:18] Jubilant Mohammed was taught by a Excommunictaed Gnostic Monk [03:18] acolyte: Hmmm, I don't think I have the patience. [03:18] Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well? [03:18] aman: Tautology [03:18] No Prof. [03:18] Aman: you are no Muslim [03:18] ProfG: hey, you got an answer :) [03:18] creation: ask the mathematician! [03:18] aman are you shi'ite or Sunni? [03:18] prof: yes [03:18] aman: ask him what? [03:18] aco: a muslim is a muslim. [03:18] lugen but was it intelligable is the quesiton [03:19] aman fine are you Shi'ite or Sunni? [03:19] Aman: a muslim believes that the Hadith is as holy as the Q'uran [03:19] Aman who was Issa? [03:20] well I am gonna check my email and probbaly log off [03:20] have fun with him kiddies [03:20] Well..The HQ commands humans to think..hence the HADITH is HADITH..(i.e. x said this and Y said that) what concurres wioth the HQ is OK..what does not is NOT! [03:20] Judith (Sandra@dial148.skypoint.net) left #apologetics. [03:20] Acolyte: What do you think of William P. Alston's essay "Functionalism and Theological Language"? This is all from Morris's book "The Concept of God" [03:20] acolyte God Bless [03:20] creation have not read it [03:20] creation since I don't have that bk by Morris but I want it [03:21] Xinyang (WDYT@castles79.castles.com) left #apologetics. [03:21] creation Alston is the leading guy in that field tho [03:21] bye aco [03:21] by profg [03:21] Acolyte: Well, you probably wold understand more of than I do since you have the background. [03:21] Action: Jubilant sez... bye to Acolyte! Jubilant warmly shakes Acolyte's hand; lightly pats Acolyte on the back: and says, "I'll see you next time!" :-) [03:21] creation I understand some of it [03:21] jubulant c-ya [03:21] U see..the evolutionists have had it 80% right..20% wrong..the sad part of it is that they get the most important 20% wrong! [03:21] Aco: more than I :) [03:22] creation think about starting a course....erm...."the Philosophy of Immunology" [03:22] They just reversed the 80/20 rule into a 20/80 one! [03:22] Aman: Are you American? [03:22] hehehe [03:22] lol [03:22] Paisano:Si [03:22] Aman: can I ask you a quick question before I go to bed? [03:22] of course. [03:22] Aman: From South America? :) [03:23] The Koran tells us that Allah is so different from creation that nothing can be said of him - he's incomparable - correct? [03:23] no. [03:23] no? [03:23] but I have read the Koran [03:23] and it DOES [03:23] Aman: Are your parents Muslim? [03:23] Yes ProfG..(the no was for paisano's question)! [03:23] oh [03:23] heh [03:23] so, I am correct, yes? [03:23] Acolyte: The interesting part with Adams was when he brought up the possiblility of knowing necessary truths because of the existence of a mind that intrinsically knows necessary truths that belongs to God. [03:24] creation it all hangs together [03:24] ProfG: You are right..actually the Quraan flatly says "Nothing like HIM"! [03:24] then, Aman... [03:24] creation: sounds like Descartes revisited :( [03:24] So, how can the Koran speak of him? [03:24] if Allah is so different from creation that nothing can be said of him - he's incomparable - how can the Koran speak of him? [03:25] lugen: Actually, Augustine [03:25] Aman: Are your parents Muslim? [03:25] Yes ProfG..You are right in that point...There is nothing like GOD..hence trying to imagine him is sacrilgeous! [03:25] Action: Acolyte goes to battle for the Trinity with a modalist [03:25] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left #apologetics. [03:25] Yes..Paisano..My parents were muslims. [03:25] creation: shaky framework :) [03:25] Aman: if Allah is so different from creation that nothing can be said of him - he's incomparable - how can the Koran speak of him? [03:25] Aman: What are they now? [03:25] lugen: oh well, i'm just an amatuer [03:26] creation: metaphysics is dead :) [03:26] Lugen..a sad thing to say from somebody who is posing as an OP in #bilble! [03:26] lugen: I don't want to get into it. [03:26] aman: leave lugen alone and focus on the discussion [03:26] creation :) [03:27] Action: ProfG doesn't have much time [03:27] going to bed soon [03:27] Paisano: One is dead.One is waiting GOD's mercy..I pray both will end up in heaven! [03:27] if Allah is so different from creation that nothing can be said of him - he's incomparable - how can the Koran speak of him? [03:27] Aman: Who was Jesus Christ of Nazareth? [03:27] Paisano: unfortunately for them, Muslims do not have the absolute assurance of heaven, as we do [03:28] Paisano: note the "I pray both will end up in heaven" [03:28] ProfG: I will never leave Lugen alone..He started a war against me..He is my enemy! [03:28] aman: take it to /query then [03:28] do your jihad in /msg [03:28] what is qyery? [03:28] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [03:28] they are too musch of cowards to talk to me! [03:28] ProfG: How tragic they don't understand that Jesus is the Way, the truth and the Life. And, that no one comes to the Father EXCEPT through Jesus Christ. [03:29] aman: type /query lugen [03:29] MICHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [03:29] then only he will see what you say [03:29] brentf btw what did you think of the Didache? [03:29] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [03:29] Acts2_38 (doris.ros@wisof9.WiSo.Uni-Augsburg.DE) joined #apologetics. [03:29] Hey Acolyte :) [03:29] i tried..byt he and His conspirator are too much of ....to talk to me... [03:29] brentf u there? [03:29] ahhhhh [03:29] Aman: Lugen could be the MOST important friend you have; he can recount to you the words of life. [03:30] hi Acolyte. I am not trying to avoid you, but I just don't feel like arguing today. [03:30] paisano kenotically of course tho ;) [03:30] Three cheers for the Didache....every NT should have it in the appendix [03:30] I just wanted you to know that. [03:30] acts thats fine [03:30] Acts2_38 (doris.ros@wisof9.WiSo.Uni-Augsburg.DE) left #apologetics. [03:30] act I know its kewl [03:30] Action: Acolyte blesses Pilgrim1 [03:30] Paisano: I know this..whatever lugen says is wrong..WHY? he is UNJUST! [03:30] brentf u there? [03:30] you been bugging the pentecostals again, aco? [03:30] Profg Modalists [03:31] Profg he is Oneness Pentacostal [03:31] Aman: You do NOT know Lugen and you misjudge him. [03:31] Profg denies the Trinity [03:31] oh, oneness [03:31] the BAD pentecostals [03:31] heh [03:31] profg he sent me some stuff from their Web page and I answered it, in of course excruciating detail. ;) [03:31] Paisano: I do not listen to their words..I consider their deeds.. [03:31] *sigh* [03:31] heh [03:31] what web page is that, Aco? [03:32] Aman: Why don't you apply the same test for Muhammad? [03:32] profg, so I juest wanted to see if he read my response [03:32] profg don't know [03:32] I did Paisano [03:32] profg he just told me that he got it from them [03:32] Aman: shut up about lugen and stick to the subject here [03:32] oh [03:32] ok aco [03:32] Paisano: thanks for the character defense, but I don't need it per se.... he is mad because I banned him for being vulgar and rude on #bible, let him think about what he wants of me. I don't care [03:32] lugen sticks and stones [03:32] a muslim, vulgar and rude? noooooo... [03:32] ProfG..watch your language..else i may conclude you are an IGNORANT IDIOT! [03:33] Lugen: okay. [03:33] heheheh [03:33] profg and just think, with no alchol either!! [03:33] Mode change '+b *!*Musl@*Max4.Boston.MA.MS.UU.NET ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu [03:33] oh well [03:33] no voice [03:33] amdn adn you are a banend idiot [03:33] so we are even [03:33] lol ================================================ [03:52] Silvern (mburnett@spork.callamer.com) joined #apologetics. [03:52] hello [03:52] Action: lugen is off to sleep [03:52] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: Leaving [03:52] every=ever [03:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [03:53] Paisano.... i asked about this word once before... and a man I admire told me.. that the translators... decided on the surrounds text if it would be gods or LORD God [03:54] Silvern: Can we help you? [03:54] miche (mspring@ra01-03.sota-oh.com) left irc: Leaving [03:54] Aman (Musl@Cust27.Max4.Boston.MA.MS.UU.NET) joined #apologetics. [03:54] i doubt it; i'm just looking through your faq for anything about creation/evolution [03:54] Zote: Contextual translation is important. A ball is not always a baseball. :) [03:54] Then... this gen `1:26 puzzled me... [03:55] Silvern: Are you an evolutionist? [03:55] Paisano,,, well I took the oportunity to ask you learned folks... [03:55] yes [03:55] zote: Why does it puzzle you? [03:56] Action: Jubilant sez... bye to Pilgrim1! Jubilant warmly shakes Pilgrim1's hand; lightly pats Pilgrim1 on the back: and says, "I'll see you next time!" :-) [03:56] Paisano... well because the surrouning text is plural... sorry i don't explain things good. [03:56] Silvern: There is a GREAT question to ask you then. What one thing can you tell us that you know to be TRUE about evolution? [03:56] Action: Jubilant says... Good bye to all! The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits (2Tim 4:22). Grace be with you all! :-) [03:56] Action: Jubilant shouts... I LOVE JESUS, YES I DO! I LOVE JESUS, HOW `BOUT YOU? [03:56] Action: Pilgrim1 says to Jubilant Be seein' ya bro [03:56] Ciao Jubilant ... be happy! [03:56] gee, i've never heard that one before. [03:57] Silvern: What's your answer? [03:57] Action: Pilgrim1 says i love jesus yes I do, I love Jesus how about you? [03:57] Action: Jubilant sez to Silvern... yeah right!!! :-) And you've never been to a Carman concert either... :-) [03:57] zote: So you have a plural noun to describe a God with more than one personality. [03:57] Jubilant (griff@dialup25.nmia.com) left irc: Praise to the One who sent us His Son! [03:57] Action: Pilgrim1 has a virtual frog in his throat :) [03:58] God Bless and Good bye [03:58] Ciao Pilgrim, God bless you too. [03:58] Pilgrim1 (voerding@usr07.primenet.com) left #apologetics. [03:58] paisano.... ok... thanks for trying to answer.... i didn't want to ask it on #bible... [03:58] an answer would be: evolution produces many structures which when examined appear flawed. these structures don't appear as products of intelligent design, but as adaptions formed from what an organism had to work with. [03:58] zote: no problem. [03:58] Goodnight God bless all [03:58] zote (tm125@dialup02.geko.net.au) left #apologetics. [03:59] silvern: Any examples of that? [03:59] paisano: i will major in evolution btw. i am just a beginning bio student (just finished my first semester). [04:00] Mooo (who@j7.ptl11.jaring.my) joined #apologetics. [04:00] Silvern: Have you heard the question before? [04:00] Dozer (killdozer@pws.net) joined #apologetics. [04:01] yes... i'm rather well acustomed with such questions. [04:01] i've never been asked it though... just listened to others discussing evolution [04:02] Silvern: Are you aware that there is NO RIGHT ANSWER because there is NOT ONE THING about evolution that can be proven to be true by established scientific methods? [04:02] and i did just formulate that answer [04:02] paisano: science doesn't prove things true. [04:02] Dozer (killdozer@pws.net) left #apologetics. [04:02] Silvern: I commend you for trying to answer. What is the scientific method? [04:03] Silvern: What is a truth? What is a fact? What is a theorum? What is a theory? What is an assumption? [04:04] paisano: science proceeds in different ways... [04:04] presuppositionalism? is this what you're going to head into? [04:05] Silvern: But can a fact be established if one can not demonstrate (repeat) the hypothesis? [04:05] what hypothesis and fact did you have in mind? [04:05] Silvern: Or to put it another way, can a theory be considered a fact UNLESS it can be proven by scientific method to be true? [04:06] paisano: theories do not become facts, theories are never proven true. science doesn't prove things true. [04:06] Silvern: Evolution is a theory. It is based upon certain assumptions and hypotheses. Don't they have to be demonstratable (repeatable) to be considered a FACT? [04:07] evolution is a theory; it is based upon certain evidence. [04:07] Silvern: That's okay but the OPPOSITE is definitely true. A theory stands UNTIL it can be proven false in ONE case. [04:08] and then it will usually be modified to fit the new data [04:08] Silvern: Then why is it presented as defacto truth and as a fact of science if it is indeed a theory? [04:08] for instance newton's understanding of gravity ---> einstein's [04:09] i have not met him.. [04:09] it is presented as a theory (the only scientific theory) for explaining the patterns of diversity of life on this planet. it appears that "evoltion happened" is indeed a factual statement. [04:10] Aman (Musl@Cust27.Max4.Boston.MA.MS.UU.NET) left #apologetics. [04:10] Silvern: Would it surprise you to know that the question I asked you is a favorite of Colin Patterson who is a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and the author of that museum's general text on evolution ? [04:11] keke (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics. [04:12] keke (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics. [04:12] Mattwolf (mcjohnson@reqf-091.ucdavis.edu) joined #apologetics. [04:12] Mattwolf (mcjohnson@reqf-091.ucdavis.edu) left #apologetics. [04:12] Mattwolf (mcjohnson@reqf-091.ucdavis.edu) joined #apologetics. [04:12] paisano: well, not really. paisano, if you we are going to start playing a who's who of evolutionists and creationists, believe me, you that will get no where. there are no influential members of the scientific community who do n't accept evoltion. [04:12] Silvern: He asked that question first at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 to a group of distinquished and leading evolutionists gathered there for a symposium. He got stunned silence for an answer. [04:13] What a cool channel [04:13] You guys read Descartes, or what? [04:13] ah yes, this is indeed the exact way i saw this question asked before. they were probably so suprised at his stand. heh [04:13] Silvern: You are right about that but they base their beliefs upon SECURED knowledge ... why is it unsecured? Because few are brave enough to challenge the fact that the Emperor has NO CLOTHES. [04:14] paisano, don't you think evolution would have been a beautiful solution for a god to come up with? [04:15] the emperor has no clothes? are you saying there is no evidence for evolution. please pick up an introductory college level bio book. [04:15] Silvern: Perhaps but they could NOT answer the question once they recovered. Even they had to admit there was NO right answer because there is NOTHING that has been PROVEN about evolution. [04:15] `Skept (skept@h-adamant.ekx.infi.net) left irc: Ping timeout for `Skept[h-adamant.ekx.infi.net] [04:16] Silvern: It is one lie built upon another lie. [04:16] paisano: i cringe at the word proven, but there is much that has been demonstrated about evolution! [04:17] paisano: just lies? the shelves and shelves of books on evolution in your nearest university library... all lies? [04:17] if i were a christian, i would attribute evolution to god. it's brilliant. [04:17] Silvern: He later tried the same question at the Field Museum of Natural History. Same response. Again, he tried it at the Evolutionary Morphology seminar. Same response except one fella stated that he did know one thing-- it ought not to be taught in high school. [04:18] i've never heard of those what do i know? [04:18] Silvern: It is the wisdom of man which is foolishness to God. [04:18] keke (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics. [04:19] Mattwolf (mcjohnson@reqf-091.ucdavis.edu) left #apologetics. [04:19] hahaha [04:19] the wisdom of non-christians only, though? [04:20] Silvern: Just be skeptical, that's all. Don't let your profs spoon-feed you stuff they have no proof to back up what they say. As it stands, the naturalist have failed to demonstrate their case. It is based upon BELIEF only . .. pure-dee FAITH ... but ... NOT science. [04:20] what is? [04:21] i'm always skeptical... paisano: since you've called any evidence i might bring forth lies, i guess we haven't much more room for discussion on the topic? :) [04:21] what was the topic? [04:21] evolution [04:22] oh, who is pro and who is con? [04:22] pro [04:22] Silvern: Such is the situation UNLESS and UNTIL one can show documented proof WHICH can be verified to prove the claims that have been made. [04:23] i know of an interesting web site about this subject its a book called "A New Look At An Old Earth" at power.net/users/aia/newlook/NLCHPTR5.htm#top [04:23] Silvern: Take the answer you gave: how does it prove evolution is responsible for the changes you observed? [04:23] documented proof... science deals in documented evidence. i do suggest perusing through the evolution books in the library, at least to see what the paleontologists and biologists are presenting as evidence. [04:24] Silvern: Evidence is PROOF. [04:24] that book is written by a physicist named Don Stoner [04:25] paisano: not in science. we are constantly finding new evidence, all our theories change. even evolution. it will change more. [04:25] you should check out that web site it has both sides of the issue [04:25] i'm sure i've seen everything it has to offer... talk.origins is a pretty good place also. [04:25] it's a usenet group [04:26] do they discuss the young earth creationist theories vs the old earth theorie? [04:26] the patterns of diversity (probably a better way to say that) show that eoops [04:27] Silvern: Mark my words; in no more than 10 years anyone subscribing to evolution as it is now taught will be committed to the same asylum as the "flat earth society" because the Emperor has No Clothes and there are fewer and fewer scientist who are swallowing that the pseudo-science underlying the theory of evolution. [04:28] they show that evolution probably ocurred... for instance, why are the animals in desert regions of south america more morphologically related to animals in temperate regions of south america than they are to animals in desert re gions of africa? [04:28] alot of scientists now are changing their views on evolution, i doubt it will take ten years.... [04:28] evolution explains this! and natural selection is our proposed mechanism [04:28] scanning back to see what i've missed [04:28] Silvern: What you described is that a theory STANDS only so long as there is no evidence to the contrary. At that point, it is proven false. Evidence is collected to determine or prove the claim made or the untruth thereof. [04:29] paisano: hehe, i guess i should change my major from evolution and ecology to something else? [04:30] there is evolution among species for the adaptation to changes in the environment ie pesticides, strip mining, stripping of the amazon, etc. [04:30] silvern: Would it not occur to you that desert creatures must have somethings in common if they are to survive and flourish? Doesn't that demonstrate that a clever designer placed the right creatures in the environment they wou ld have to live in? [04:30] paisano: that's correct. if you can present onr organism in which could not possibly have been formed by evolution (this is only one example), then the theory of common descent is falsified. [04:31] Silvern: Science is ill-equipped to handle origins. [04:32] paisano: you didn't catch the question correctly: the creatures in the african and south american deserts are more disimilar to eachother than are the animals in the south american temperate regions are to those in the south ame rican deserts... [04:33] Galileo's theory of the earth revolving around the sun was refuted by the Inquisitors of the religious right of the day stating it was hearsy against the bible because of the scripture stating that the sun stood still.... [04:34] paisano: why do you think christians won't except evolution eventually like they have other things (keke's example for one) [04:34] sorry, i didn't mean to make that question so loaded [04:35] Silvern: I just finished scrolling back. You have changed the question dramatically. [04:35] perhaps i made a mistake when i first wrote it... one sec [04:35] Silvern: Anything is possible. :) [04:36] i worded is poorly :( v2.0 is correct [04:37] the inquisitors took the statements literally from the bible "the sun rising" etc and interpreted them to be literal to support their own beliefs of the sun revolving around the earth... [04:38] to say the sun rises is not incorrect in as much as our language communicates what we really mean and what is understood.... [04:38] Silvern: Okay but even v2 makes a big leap if we are to attribute natural selection and evolution as the reasons for these differences. The fact is that we can not demonstrate (repeat) NOR verify any of the claims made upon its behalf. We see lots of extinctions but no new creatures formed in the fossil records. [04:39] keke: Shows what old men holding power of life and death over other people can do when they don't know the word of God. [04:40] The creation of the earth in 6 literal 24 hr days is open wide for different translation if you go back to the original greek, the word "day" can mean 24 hrs or a longer period of time.... [04:40] keke: That same power is being wielded by the evolutionists in our university science departments today. [04:42] so Paisano does that mean you believe that this whole world was created in 6 24 hr days......? [04:42] keke: Any God who could create this universe and world and everything in it IS not limited. [04:43] i didn't say he was limited...i asked you if that is what you believe... [04:43] the fossil record is sometimes sketchy... possible due to punctuated rates of evolution or mosaic evolution (evolution of non-fossilizing adaptions (eyes)). but we do have transitional forms. archaeopateryx for one, and the evo lution of modern horses [04:43] lag! [04:43] is well documented [04:43] okay going back [04:44] pasiano? [04:45] keke: My point being; it is possible. God said it. I accept it. I suspect we will know the answer someday and as unlikely as some might believe it to be; everything will be exactly as it is written. For the present time, we do best to focus on the cross and our lives in Christ. [04:45] probably got alot to type this time through [04:45] paisano? [04:45] keke: ? [04:46] well...that is true about focusing on the cross...it is interesting to discuss though the differences on the creation issue...are you a young earth creationalist? [04:46] God said it? paisano, here your challenging me to be skeptical is contradicted. what evidence do you base your biblical beliefs on? [04:47] keke: How can I not be; the Jews have been keeping track of time from the beginning and they are only up to about 5776 years (give or take a few ... it being late, I won't consult my Jewcal program for the correct number). :) [04:47] Paisano? [04:47] paisano: would you like to make a wager about that 10 years until evolution is no longer the main theory on the life's origins? [04:48] Paisano, how do you explain dinasours? they are older than that [04:48] Silvern: Let me EXPLAIN myself. I base my beliefs upon FAITH and I do so unabashedly but I do NOT pander them off as SCIENCE. [04:49] Silvern: I see Jesus coming long before any such 10 year period might end. [04:49] Silvern: Then we will all know FOR SURE. :) [04:50] paisano: i base my beliefs upon evidence. e.g.: the overwhelming evidence that whales evolved from land mammals [04:50] Silvern: As for my "biblical beliefs" ... they are based upon the Bible. :) [04:50] Silvern: What else? :) [04:50] Paisano please ans the question... [04:50] you want more: haven't you anything to say about this example? [04:50] or is it a "lie"? [04:51] silvern: There is NO EVIDENCE unless you can demonstrate it happened and your so-called facts can be verified (repeated). [04:51] Paisano, how do you explain the dinasaurs? they are older than 5,776 years.. [04:51] paisano: is there no evidence that the american civil war happened? [04:52] Mooo (who@j7.ptl11.jaring.my) left #apologetics. [04:52] There is evidence that the earth is older than 5,776 years..... [04:52] keke: What dinosaurs? The Bible does speak of large mammals roaming the earth but they were present with man like in the Alley Oop cartoon. [04:52] keke: Upon what possible basis can you make such an assumption? [04:53] Paisano, if so then why are there none now, did Noah forget to put them on the ark? [04:53] dinosaurs and man lived during the same time? [04:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: The Home of Rational Theism [04:53] silvern: Sure there was a civil war; until a few years back ... we even had living witnesses. And, they were even recorded on tape. [04:54] Paisano ans the question, please... [04:55] Paisano, what happened to the dinosaurs? [04:55] paisano: the evidence for evolution is just like the recordings on the tape yo mentioned. events leave signs! and this is how we discover evidence for passed events. [04:55] keke: See, that's the problem. How much do we really know about dinos? You are talking about rocks that resemble a bone. Then you give it a name and create a fantasy to go with it. You give it flesh and blood and can even te ll us what he ate. All from a rock? [04:55] Paisano, i guess you don't know the answer.... [04:56] paisano: yes [04:56] Paisano, i have been to the Smithsoian institute, those are bones.... [04:56] keke: I know the answer and it is as you suspect. One fossil (rock) that resembles a bone does not a dinosuar make. [04:56] paisano: you do realize your definition of evidence has been made useless [04:56] There litereally thousands of dinosaur skeletons and remains.... [04:57] the civil war's occurence is not repeatable [04:57] i've been to the smithsonian also [04:57] Paisano, you need to read up on history, you are very ignorant [04:58] come now :) [04:58] lots of bones... [04:58] it just blows my mine that someone can make statements like that [04:58] keke: They are NOT bones .... they have found maybe one so-called fossil bone but it is no longer made of calcium and other bone type materials. Afterall, that's why they think they are billions of years old ... it would take t hat long to become a rock. But, ask yourself the question ... aren't you talking some form of carbon-14 testing and if so, who's been around 7000 years to determine the halflife of carbon? [04:59] keke: And if we are talking 7000 years, how can anything tell us anything about something that is older than 7000 years. [04:59] Carbon-12 [04:59] keke (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left irc: Read error to keke[dynasty.doi.com]: EOF from client [05:00] paisano: you are demonstrating some severe misunderstandings of how science work (and also of specific scientific techniques). i suggest sticking to the presuppositionalism techniques i have read through on the apologetics web p age. those are much tricke [05:01] trickier to wade through than claims that dinosaurs never existed (or whatever it is you are insinuating) [05:01] keke: The rest of the skeletons are CREATED out of whole cloth from the imagination of the discover of the fossil. He even gets to name them and invent a good story to go along with it. It's a very nationalistic thing ... what country wants to be left without any dinos ... so get with the program and invent an even bigger, meaner and better dino. :) [05:01] silvern: Have you ever met a dino? [05:02] yes, i have several of them in my house. [05:02] two finches and a cockatiel [05:02] silvern: sure ... grin. I each them for breakfast. :) [05:02] Silvern: Then you have done well, you have proven dinos are not extinct as thought. :) [05:02] birds are the evolutionary remnants of dinosaurs, fyi. :) [05:02] they aren't, really [05:03] Silvern: Do you know what the word dinosaur means? [05:03] terrible lizard [05:03] or something like that [05:03] silvern: so much for your bird theory. :) [05:03] uh... [05:04] please, go to the library. [05:04] bird=lizard [05:04] silvern: I think NOT! [05:04] dinosaurs were not "lizards" [05:04] they were warm-blooded for one [05:05] Silvern: They were a class to themselves at best if in fact they ever existed. [05:05] paisano: this is another subject which much work has been done on. [05:05] silvern: Yeppers ... like a Japanese movie. :) [05:05] paisano: are you going to put this discussion on the web page? [05:06] i hope so [05:06] no, you really can go and look it up! i promise! [05:06] Silvern: I haven't even visited the web page. You promise what? That dinos existed. What's the evidence? Are they rocks or not? [05:07] fossils... you should read about those too. [05:07] fossils are rocks. [05:07] or impressions in the rock formation. [05:09] two minutes left online... any desire to continue this? [05:09] i don't see exactly where we are going hehe [05:09] one... [05:10] No, but I have enjoyed the convo; we'll meet again and then we can set a course for our favorite topic. [05:10] alright... i'll be back :) [05:10] Don't let the profs buffalo you ... they are paper tigers. [05:10] Silvern (mburnett@spork.callamer.com) left #apologetics. [05:10] Paisano (tony@slip4.dtx.net) left #apologetics. =============================================== [19:34] pascoe (Pascoe@vrb.com) joined #apologetics. [19:43] Mithras (user12@pc39.vernal.usu.edu) joined #apologetics. [19:43] join #monty-python [19:44] Hi, is this the channel where the fundies apologize for the contradictions in the bible? [19:45] Mithras: no. [19:46] darn. [19:46] are you a christian, or do you believe in Mithras? [19:46] Action: pascoe is a Christian. [19:47] are you in the Unitarian-Universalist sect? [19:47] LDS? [19:47] JW? [19:47] Xpressor (kgb@slip3.worldaxes.com) joined #apologetics. [19:47] Meth? [19:47] Mithras: just plain Bible believing Christian. [19:47] VideoBlue (email@qrvl-67ppp158.epix.net) joined #Apologetics. [19:47] video! [19:47] X!! [19:47] tryed to caa you [19:48] Call [19:48] The Bible is, obviously, a work that needs interpretation, for there are a legion of contradictions and literary devices that decieve the fundies. [19:49] Mithras: we need to be patient with our understanding before we proclaim that God's Word has contradictions. [19:51] Explain Lev. 11:20-23. [19:51] i like the NIV better. [19:52] Mithras: its a bit easier to understand than KJV. but what is your question? [19:52] no winged creatures with four legs *exist* [19:52] Mithras: what about the praying mantis? it goes on four legs all the time. [19:52] Mithras: so does the mole cricket. [19:53] he might as well say "Thou shalt not eat green arklenseizures from Alpha Centauri." [19:53] Beetles, however, as mentioned in lev. 11:23, do NOT. [19:54] Mithras: if a man with one arm got down on the ground, could we say he was down on all fours? [19:54] Obviously not, but there is no analogy to the question. [19:54] Mithras: going on all fours is an idiom for creepy crawly things that have horizontal locomotion as opposed to vertical locomotion. [19:55] Insects here are said to walk on ALL FOURS, while they obviously have SIX LEGS. [19:55] VideoBlue (email@qrvl-67ppp158.epix.net) left #Apologetics. [19:55] Mithras: do you believe that the scientific classification of centipoda is accurate for centipedes? [19:55] God did not say "four legs" here, he said "ALL fours." [19:56] Mithras: centipedes obviously don't have exactly 100 legs either, but I bet you still call them centipedes. [19:56] Mithras: what about milipedes? do you deny the science of taxonomy because milipedes don't have exactly 1000 legs? [19:57] Of course not, but God is supposed to have written this perfect work called the Bible, right. And there is a flaw. Centipede is a misnomer. Millipede is a misnomer. And God's taxonomy made a mistake. It's as simple as that. [19:57] Mithras: if the weatherman says that the sun will rise at 6:20 tomorrow, do you reject the science of meteorology and astronomy because you know that the sun is really stationary and the earth rotates? [19:57] It doesn't matter what I believe. [19:58] I reject the notion that the weatherman is infallible. [19:58] Mithras: your difficulty is not with the accuracy of the Bible, but with the imprecision of normal discourse itself. [19:58] The Bible is not accurate! [19:59] Clearly God has said "Four legs," when he meant "six." [19:59] Mithras: idiom is a normal part of common discourse. your difficulty is with the imprecision of language and not really the Bible itself since it is quite clear what is meant in that passage. [20:00] Mithras: what you are attempting to do is assert that ancient Jews couldn't count to six, but the rest of Scripture shows that claim to be kinda silly. [20:00] No wonder the Trinity is such a load of bollocks. The Bible can't discern between four and six or one and three. [20:01] So much for Biblical perfection and infallibility. [20:01] Mithras: if this is really the best argument you have against the accuracy of the Bible, then that is reassuring to me. since the claim that Jews can't count is patently absurd. [20:02] Make no mistake, I think that the Bible has been the most influential literature in the world, and has been used for great good, and it is a great window into the eyes of the ancient Hebrews' paradigm, but is still frought with e rrors. [20:03] Of course, God could simply be a liar and *telling* us that all the Scriptures are inspired. [20:03] Mithras: but you haven't shown any errors yet. all you have done is point out the imprecision of common discourse. the Bible is not unique in its use of idioms. every one uses idioms including scientists. [20:03] God has been shown to not be entirely factual, as is the wont of an omnipotent deity;-) [20:03] Unless YHWH is like Q from Star Trek;-) [20:04] Mithras: who has shown that? certainly you haven't yet. 8) [20:05] I have. How can God be so STUPID as to say that beetles et al. walk on ALL FOURS? [20:05] Mithras: the only thing you have done is pointed out the imprecision of common discourse. that is certainly no slight against the Bible because it is written using common discourse. [20:05] Mithras: why are scientists so stupid as to name them centipedes when they don't have exactly 100 legs? [20:05] That's right. The Bible is nothing more than common discourse, and liable to error. Thank you for conceding the point. [20:06] Mithras: I don't see you throwing out science because of this imprecision on the part of taxonomy. [20:06] The scientists ARE stupid you git! [20:06] That's why they PURSUE knowledge instead of assuming they have all the answers inside a damn BOOK! [20:06] Mithras: first you need to show an error in the Bible tho and how it changes the message being conveyed. [20:07] 4=6. [20:07] Mithras: so you are really going to stick to the claim that Jews couldn't count to 6? ok. 8) [20:07] if it were not written in common language wouldnt it be dconfuseing to the people of the day? [20:07] God would not tolerate even A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IF THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE PERFECT! [20:08] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.FIU.EDU: The Home of Rational Theism [20:08] Mithras: I think its kindof a pitiful argument on your part to even use this example, but it appears to be the best you have to offer as far as errors are concerned. [20:08] perfect for us [20:09] Mithras: Jesus spoke in parables that many of the listeners didn't even understand. We are called to study to show ourselves approved, but God has blessed us with a tremendous amount of textual resources to study His Word from. [20:09] Where have I explicitly claimed that the Jews could'nt count to six? I'm saying that if God DESIGNED and CREATED the smegging buggers that he bloody well should know how many LEGS they have! [20:10] Mithras: so now you are trying to argue that God Himself can't count to six? that is even more absurd since God knows the number of hairs on our head. [20:11] Or that the Priests were lying when they said that God even *exists...* [20:11] Mithras: the only thing you have succeeded in doing is pointing out the imprecision of common discourse. going on all fours is an idiom for horizontal locomotion. just like sunrise is an idiom for the earth's rotation. [20:12] well i hate to leave but i must .. but it the phrase chokeing on nats and swallowin camels does come to mind [20:12] Xpressor: haha, bye. 8) [20:12] c ya! [20:12] Xpressor (kgb@slip3.worldaxes.com) left #apologetics. [20:12] Mithras: is this really the best example you have against the Bible? [20:13] Refute the notion that the Holy Bible was written by old shepherd coots four thousand years ago who had no idea that the world was round, that insects were thought to have four legs since four was a holy number, and that, if Jesu s is God, that he forsook [20:13] himself on the cross. [20:14] That is how outsiders see the Bible. [20:15] Mithras: I'm not denying that you can reject the Bible if you want to. but to do so for the reasons you are asserting is absurd and deceptive. the truth is that you don't like what you find there so you make up external reasons to reject it. [20:15] The Bible is nothing more than the Common Discourse among the Levite priests, and made an oopsie about the insects. [20:16] I don't like the notion that The Living God lied to me as to how many legs insects have. [20:16] Mithras: if someone said 'sunrise' would you corrrect them for making an 'oopsie' or would you accept the idiom as common discourse? [20:17] The Sun rises in the Earth's inertial frame. Point refuted. [20:17] Mithras: the Sun does not rise at all, the earth simply rotates around. you just made an oopsie. 8) [20:18] um, pascoe, you presume that space is absolute, you stupid git. remember Albert Einstein. [20:18] All space is ****relative***** [20:18] ;-) [20:19] Mithras: wait a minute are you saying that its ok to say that the Sun moves arount the earth? [20:19] Mithras: so if the Bible said that the Sun moves around the earth you would find it perfectly acceptable? 8) [20:20] Mithras: still tho, this whole point is kinda silly. nothing you have presented changes the message that God gave in the slightest. [20:20] Indeed it does;-) but very slowly you see. Since forces are equal and opposite, the sun accelerates around the earth in (mass of sun)/(mass of earth) years. [20:21] Mithras: hahah, whatever. and centipedes have exactly 100 legs too. 8) [20:21] Well God says that beetles have four:-P [20:22] Mithras: no, it says they go on all fours as an idiom. I'm sorry you can't accept that. but if its the best you've got, I guess that's what you have to use. 8) [20:22] do insects have four legs? no. [20:22] God says that insects have four legs. [20:22] Mithras: the praying mantis goes on four legs. [20:23] Mithras: no, the verse says they go on all fours as an idiom. [20:23] There are no literary devices or allegories used here. It is a simple error or an outright lie. [20:24] Mithras: ya, the Jews were trying to lie to us about the number of legs that insects have so that they could prepare us for the coming alien invasion of earth right? where is the motivation here? [20:25] I'm afraid not, pascoe, the phrase "walk on all fours" is a category that included winged beasts that had *six* legs.. [20:25] idiom is a literary device and useful in common discourse. [20:25] I'm afraid your responses are about as garbled as the Bible. [20:25] Mithras: why are you afraid? is it because this is your best argument? [20:26] Mithras: 'bugs' is a category for animals that have 6 to 1000 legs, big deal. [20:27] my use of "i'm afraid" is a result of being an imperfect, flawed being who is subject to chaos. [20:27] However, since God is Perfect in Every Way, He has no Holy Excuse. [20:27] Mithras: so 'I'm afraid' is imprecise discourse? hahahahahah [20:28] I'm going to tell somebody about Ezekiel 23:20. [20:28] Mithras: how do you draw that conclusion? God has subjected all creation to futility, including communication thru written languages. But His message remains preserved for anyone who would care to study it. [20:28] brb [20:29] Xluv (briekw@exp8.wam.umd.edu) joined #apologetics. [20:30] my fiancee did a report on Mithraism [20:30] d/owx [20:31] pascoe (Pascoe@vrb.com) left #apologetics. [20:31] CTCP PING: 832984272 from Xluv (briekw@exp8.wam.umd.edu) to #apologetics [20:31] Xluv (briekw@exp8.wam.umd.edu) left #apologetics. [20:33] Mithras (user12@pc39.vernal.usu.edu) got netsplit. ============================================ [22:13] Cleese (gayle@pc50.vernal.usu.edu) joined #apologetics. [22:13] creat, yes. a "right" is a previlege that cannot be denied or taken away from a person. I would not have a right to free speech in this country if that right was repealed by the laws of this co untry. [22:13] hello, Cleese [22:13] clesse: are you here to make trouble ? [22:14] clees: because I won't put up with it. [22:14] AMDG (xenon@ joined #apologetics. [22:14] agathos: But you just contradicted yourself [22:15] creat, in what way? [22:15] agathos: You said that a right can't be taken away but then you say it can. [22:15] depends on what you mean by trouble. [22:15] Cleese: I'll be the judge of that. [22:15] dissenting viewpoint, yes. [22:15] creation: Scripture absolutely denies the right to free speech! [22:15] creat, it can't be taken away if it is supported by law. if the law is repealed, then the right no longer exists [22:16] ad hominem attacking, no. [22:16] Cleese: good [22:16] cleese: I know that Ironsky wouldn't last long [22:16] netwit (LPH9@38-2.client.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [22:16] netwit (LPH9@38-2.client.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [22:17] netwit (LPH9@38-2.client.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [22:17] Listen, agathos and brentf, I refuse to argue about it. Ok? Just let me be. [22:17] fine, creation. Just chill out a little, okay? [22:17] creat, what? [22:18] brent: In due time :) [22:18] :) [22:18] I do not view the Holy Bible as an infallible scripture that is the vox deus. [22:18] creat, I'm not certain that I understand your response, in light of the channel name [22:18] Roamin (jbrewer1@slip28.dialup.ua.edu) joined #apologetics. [22:18] Roamin (jbrewer1@slip28.dialup.ua.edu) left #apologetics. [22:18] AMDG and netwit: Hello, by the way :) [22:19] Cleese, how would you define "infallible scripture?" [22:19] agathos: anyways. [22:19] Hello brentf [22:19] hello... [22:20] hello netwit [22:20] agathos: I will just conceed to your point. We have no rights whatsoever. Ok? [22:20] agathos, an infalllible scripture is a document that is entirely self-consistent and wholly consistent with reality. [22:20] agathos: outside of laws that is. [22:20] Cleese: How have you determined that God did not, in fact, inspire the words we read in the Holy Bible. [22:20] The Bible fails both these tests. [22:21] Cleese: Where? [22:21] creat, I don't believe that was the point. the point was the substantiation for a right to be angry. certainly people do become angry, but is this a right or a choice? [22:21] agathos: fine, I have no rights that arn't substantiate by law. [22:21] Cleese, self-consistant? what does this mean? [22:21] Action: brentf thinks anger is neither a right nor a choice, but a reaction ... at least initially. [22:22] Well, I presumed that God always tells the truth (i'm sure you can find scripture that says God cannot lie) and that God is omnipotent and all that. [22:22] Cleese: Yes. [22:22] agathos: So, I have a right to choose. [22:22] And that he created the Universe perfectly. [22:22] creation: You are forced to choose, it is not a "right". [22:22] Cleese: Yes. [22:22] creat, you have an ability to choose. whether you have a "right" is a differnt issue [22:23] Cleese, not necessarily [22:23] cleese: perfectly as this possible world can be made [22:24] cleese: that doesn't mean that this world is the best possible world. [22:24] If God is omnipotent, he really can't *not* be anything that he wants to be. [22:24] IMHO: absolutely perfectly. "Good" was God's word for it. [22:24] Cleese: He can choose to limit Himself. [22:24] cleese: Are you saying that God can't want? I'm not sure what you are getting at. [22:25] When you ascribe imperatives like "God cannot lie" "God cannot hate" the premise that He is omnipotent is contradicted. [22:25] Cleese: not at all. [22:25] Why did God nail His Son on a tree? [22:26] Cleese, the concepts of "lie" and "hate" are not connected with the concept of power. they are connected with the concept of morality [22:26] BTW: God can hate (loathe, detest, etc.) [22:26] people nailed jesus...not god... [22:26] cleese: depends on how do define "omnipotent" . If you define it as God can do anything and everything, then of course it leads to contradictions. But I define omnipotence as that God has e very power that it is possible for him to have. [22:26] God is then guilty of neglecting his son. [22:26] Clees: A possible power [22:27] excuse me [22:27] no...god is guilty of devising a perfect plan to redeem people..... [22:27] Cleese, I'm sorry but I don't quite understand your argument [22:28] please, why did it have to involve such a sadistic *requiring* of shedding Jesus' blood? [22:28] AMDG (xenon@ left #apologetics. [22:28] Cleese: Jesus, who is Himself God, chose to allow Himself to be nailed to a cross so that you could have life, instead of the punishment you, and I, deserve. [22:29] we can make cute arguments like"is god strong enough to create a rock so big he can't pick it up...." and call that a contradiction, but that's a smoke screen for the real issues... [22:29] I mean, couldn't God, in all His Infinite Wisdom and Power, erase any existence or mention thereof of evil *right out?* [22:29] yes he could.... [22:29] cleese: It is logically possible to possess a power, I suggest, if the exercise of the power does not as such involve any logical impossibility. This means that there is no incoherence in the description of what it is to exerc ise that power. For a power [22:29] Cleese: yes, but that would have defeated his purpose in creation. [22:29] but that would not be consistent with his plan... [22:30] Why doesn't he? Why is he such a sadomasochist? (After all, he *did* forsake himself on the Cross, right?) [22:30] cleese: to be a logically possible power, it is not necessary that every exercise of it should be coherently conceivable, but only that some exercise of it should be. [22:30] question is, why are YOU so s/m in your contempt for god??? [22:30] Researchr (Researchr@58-187.client.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [22:31] I didn't know Creation *had* any purpose except for its own sake. [22:31] Hello, researchr [22:31] Hi all [22:31] hi... [22:31] What is the topic tonight? [22:31] The very properties that God has tend to lead to contradictions. [22:31] Cleese: Therefore, God is still omnipotent and omnibenevolent without contradictions. [22:31] Cleese, the term "sadistic" is a moral judgment. it involves a transgression against some existing moral code. if the moral code you are using is not an absolute moral system, then it is a priv ate morality. if it is a private morality, then it is based upon personal emotional likes and dislikes. but does actual reality depend upon personal likes and dislikes? [22:32] cleese: Sorry, I don't see no contradictions. [22:32] any contradictions :) [22:33] Cleese: God has a purpose in all His actions, including the act of creating. But your gonna have to slow down a bit if you want to discover what that purpose is. [22:33] cleese: Besides, saying that God CANnot do something doesn't necessarily mean that He LACKS A POWER to do it. It may mean that He lacks the moral capability to do it. [22:34] hmmm ... the phrase "I would if I could, but I can't, so I won't" comes to mind [22:34] I mean, when I asked "Why did God let Himself get nailed on a tree?" I always get some responses saying that sin *must* be atoned this way or Jesus *had* to shed His Divine Blood. [22:35] cleese: yes, that is true. [22:35] Cleese: Have you ever slowed down enough to find out what those responses mean? [22:35] He has the moral capacity to forsake himself, if the Trinity is true. [22:36] "had [22:36] must? [22:36] brent [22:36] these sound like imperatives to me. [22:36] Action: brentf will have to leave, shortly, and doesn't want to be accused of running away when things got warm :) [22:36] the bible does not contradict itself and is the perfect word of god (infallible)... [22:37] If the bible didn't contradict itself, there wouldn't be apologetics ;-) [22:37] Cleese, if they are imperatives, and if those imperatives are established by a god, then which would be the determining factor for their truth value: 1) that god's command, or 2) your personal dislike of that plan? [22:37] cleese: So? how does having the moral capacity of forsaking himself have anything to do with the moral capacity to sin? Does forsaking himself have anything to do with morals or is it something more to do with grace and self- sacrifice? [22:37] it is only our weakness in discerning the truth that limits us.....taht and our wish that there was no god..... [22:37] Cleese, apologetics is not limited to discussions of the bible [22:38] Researchr (Researchr@58-187.client.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [22:38] cleese: asumming there are contradictions which one has yet to show. [22:38] Cleese: non sequitor ... apologetics is not caused by a lack of consistency in scripture, it is a tool for answering those who claim not to believe scripture. [22:38] If I acted like the God of the Holy Bible, I would be thrown into a mental institution. [22:39] Cleese: or nailed to a cross. [22:39] Cleese, for what reason, and by whose standard? that is, who makes the determination of what is or is not a moral or sane action? [22:39] The sadomasochistic love that God seems to eschew us appears to be rather dubious to me. [22:39] Cleese: ... because of your love for those you created, who have chosen to hate you. [22:40] Cleese, again, for what reason, and on the basis of what moral standard? [22:40] Cleese: Sure, maybe in this society but not in the Hebrew society. Beside, I dn't think so in this society or any society. Unless performing miracles is grounds for institutionalization :) [22:40] Which brings me to another contradiction: free will vs. omniscience. [22:40] Cleese: hehehe Sorry, no contradiction there either. [22:41] Cleese: man's free will is not limited by God's omniscience [22:41] I think it would be best to deal with one issue at a time [22:41] There is no absolute morality just like there is no absolute space. [22:41] I'm sorry. Let's look at the definitions of free will vs. omniscience. [22:41] cleese: Depends on what you mean by "free will" and/or "omniscience" [22:42] free will: You are free to do as you will. [22:42] omniscience: God knows. [22:42] Where's the contradiction? [22:42] Cleese, if there is no absolute morality, then the morality that you use to judge God is basically your own emotional feelings. but again, is reality dependent upon how you feel? [22:43] Action: brentf hopes Cleese can keep up with the 5 different threads he has started [22:43] free will is the property of an object with two or more possible paths that no observer can deduce. [22:43] That is the power of choice. [22:43] brent [22:43] cleese: You have molinism, Ochhamism, presetntism, atemporal eternalism. And many others that deal with omnicience and free will. Take your pick. [22:43] Cleese: Incorrect definition. [22:44] netwit (LPH9@38-2.client.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [22:44] Depends on your sense of right or wrong. [22:44] uh oh, not "right" again :) [22:44] your "free will" merely restated the words free and will. [22:45] The quantum mechanical definition seems to work best here. [22:45] Cleese: An analogy, if I may: If I place brocholli and ice cream in front of my son, I KNOW which he will choose. My knowledge in no way limits his choice, nor does it remove his responsibility for the choice he makes. [22:46] Unpredictability for any observer to discern the course of action that an object may take. [22:46] Cleese: that is randomness, not omniscience or free will. [22:47] God is analogous to the Ford Motor Company. Both made faulty parts (the Tree and burning dashboards) and knew this from the very beginning. [22:47] Action: brentf must leave now ... dinner is ready ... until next time ... :) [22:47] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx13-31.teleport.com) left irc: God bless you [22:48] the operative word here is *free*; i.e. without impedance or control. [22:48] Cleese, freewill of object X is not dependent upon the prediction ability of object Z. that is, the knowledge of Z is a separate entity and concept from the abilities of object X. object Z's lack of knowledge does not equal objec t X's lack of freewill. they are two different subjects. [22:48] Cleese: In order to be free with respect to an action, or with respect to the initiation of a train of events, I need to be in a position to refrain from performing the act or to prevent the sequence of events. I am free so lo ng as my activity is in... [22:49] cleese: keeping with my intentions or desires in the matter, even if there are no genuine alternatives open to me. [22:50] cleese: If we redefine "free will" in such a way that freedom doesn't require genuine options or alternatives for action we can come to conclusions that don't contradict omniscience. [22:50] if God knew everything that would happen before the Universe were even *made,* all consequences are wholly dependent on *his* action. [22:51] However, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us that this is not the case. [22:51] cleese: The view of freedom as compatible with a lack of options is known as compatibilism. [22:51] Verbatum (silver@ joined #apologetics. [22:51] Cleese, your comment confuses knowledge with cause. simply because person Z knows what person X will choose to do in a given situation does not mean that Z causes X to make that choice [22:52] As I said, God is like Ford with the recent ignition switch debaucle. God's ignition switch happened to be the Big Bang. [22:53] Thus, for the compatibilist, whether I have the power, or ability, or opportunity to deviate from the path God already believes I shall take is just irrelevant to the question of whether I am free in what I do. [22:53] Both knew beforehand what would happen. And both went out and did it anyway. [22:54] what is your definition of free will, then? [22:54] Cleese, the product of the Ford company was an unknown defect. how can this be analogous with a God causing the product of the Big Bang with known consequences? [22:55] Cleese: You are free in that you will do what you desire to do. [22:55] The Ford engineers *knew* beforehand that the capacitors in the ignition switch were too close and could make a current. [22:56] so, creation, I desire to drop a nuclear bomb on wall street. [22:56] Cleese, but that is knowledge of what "could" happen. hos is this analogous to a God knowing what "will" happen? [22:56] BBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM! [22:56] hos=how [22:56] Verbatum (silver@ left #apologetics. [22:56] Besides, can't God implant desires? [22:57] Cleese: I am free so long as my activity is in keeping with my desires in the matter, even if there are no genuine alternatives open to me. [22:57] Action: agathos sighs [22:57] cleese: Yes, so? [22:57] well, then, we're not *really* free. True freedom lay in the hands of God. [22:58] Obviously whatever I want will not always come to pass, so your definition of free will is moot. [22:58] cleese: If you mean ABSOLUTE freedom, then of course no one has absolute freedom except for God. I say that we have limited freedom in that we are limited in what we can desire. We can only do at any particular time what we m ost desire to do at that... [22:59] cleese: particular time. [22:59] Cleese, it is conditional freedom. a child who goes into an ice cream parlor with her parent has conditional freedom. the child can only choose from the flavors that are there (not every flavor that could ever exist), and the chi ld can only choose the size of cone directed by the parent. limiting the child's options does not eliminate the child's freedom. [22:59] afr (arogers@p1.pm3.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [22:59] No, I define freedom as the property of an object has to be unpredictable to any observer. [22:59] hello afr [23:00] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) got netsplit. [23:00] hi all [23:00] After all, knowledge is the supreme power. [23:00] God simply doesn't have it if I have free will. [23:00] Cleese, again, the capacity of one object's knowledge is a separate topic from the ability of another object's freedom. [23:01] Cleese, you simply have to explain the contradiction in your definition of free will. [23:01] Cleese - Then there are no knowledgable Christians? [23:01] Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle: NO OBSERVER may predict the exact path *and* momentum of any quantum. [23:02] This is a power denied to God. [23:02] Where do you find your list of things denied to God? [23:02] Clease, that deals with the knowledge of one individal. it does not mention free will [23:03] Well, quantum mechanics is about as free-willing as it gets ;-) [23:03] nice try [23:03] Are you confusing imagination with free will [23:04] If God tries to look at an electron, He cannot find its exact position or velocity. [23:04] Cleese, the uncertainty principle is relative to finite human knowledge. it cannot be applied to a non-finite non-human god. [23:05] free means without impetance or control. God's arbitrary nature is an inherent impetence to my ability to act freely. [23:06] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) got lost in the net-split. [23:06] He's in control of *everything* all the time if he were omnipotent. If something has free will, it is a power denied to God. [23:07] Cleese, free means the ability to choose. it does not mean the ability to obtain every product of choice. a person has the freedom to jump off a cliff, but they do not necessarily have the freedom to survive this choice and to ch oose it again [23:07] Heisenberg made no such statements about the limits of uncertainty. Remember: there is no absolute space. [23:07] Cleese, "control" of "everything" can include controlling the environment of choice [23:08] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.FIU.EDU: The Home of Rational Theism [23:08] Cleese, the uncertainty principle was established relative to this dimension. it cannot be applied to all dimensions, unless knowledge of all dimensions is known. at this time, it only applies to human knowledge. [23:09] Skept (skept@h-add.ekx.infi.net) joined #apologetics. [23:09] Hello [23:09] well howdy Skept :) [23:09] agathos :) [23:10] what are you doing here? :) [23:10] There is no preferred frame of reference in quantum mechanics. There is no absolute. No frame, not even "God" can discern the exact position and velocity of an electron since *space* and *time* themselves are not absolute. [23:11] As God is omnipitent, why would you preclude his powers with human assumptions? [23:11] Cleese, one can only apply human limitations to a god if that god is human. if a god is not human, then there is no basis for applying human limitations to his/her/its abilities. [23:12] Besides, God says that He cannot lie--but he also said that insects like beetles and flies have four legs. Clear contradiction. [23:12] Hah!! [23:12] Great lord Harry [23:12] on that I will leave [23:13] afr (arogers@p1.pm3.theriver.com) left #apologetics. [23:13] If God were truly omnipotent, He wouldn't even limit himself to *exist.* Yet you claim that God *must* exist. [23:13] God doesn't *have* to even *exist.* [23:14] Cleese, I'm sorry, but jumping from topic to topic is not necessarily the best means of engaging in discussion. discussions are for the purpose of mutual understanding, while debates pit two established views against each other, and arguments are double monologues. [23:14] Well, it *is* hard to talk to two people at the same time. [23:14] ;-) [23:15] not if both conversations are on the same subject [23:15] actually, both may bring up different points against my claims, and I have to attack them individually. [23:16] your arguments are not the same. [23:16] true, which involves a focus upon differnt aspects of the same topic, not introducing completely different topics [23:16] as a consequence, the topic evolves ;-) a bit too quickly for my taste i might add. [23:17] We were talking about the contradictions of God's nature throughout. [23:17] And have kept it on topic. [23:19] Now, can you refute the skeptic's point that God doesn't *have* to exist. [23:19] ? [23:19] Cleese, what is the point? [23:21] Bou (rboucher@magi03p09.magi.com) joined #apologetics. [23:21] God doesn't *have* to exist. If God were omnipotent as you claim, He could simply will himself out of existence and come back at will. [23:21] nosehair (jcc15583@ joined #apologetics. [23:21] Hello all. May I listen in? [23:21] Cleese, how does one will oneself out of existence and then emerge from non-existence? [23:21] hello Bou [23:21] Saying that God *has* to exist is putting limits on God, thus rendering him non-omnipotent. [23:21] hi nose [23:21] Bou (rboucher@magi03p09.magi.com) left #apologetics. [23:22] Cleese, what is meant by "has" to exist? [23:22] aggie, I mean that he cannot possibly not exist. [23:23] Cleese, why cannot a god possibly not exist? [23:23] It is impossible for God not to exist. [23:23] Cleese, impossible for what reason? [23:24] That is the claim of the Bible. There is no possibility in its ledgers that allows for his non-existence. [23:24] Cleese, where does it say that god cannot not exist? [23:25] It is *impossible* for God to be false, for instance. [23:27] It is inherent throughout the work; I'm surprised you've missed it. [23:27] Cleese, if a god did exist, wouldn't his/her/its non-existence be false? [23:27] Merciful (jedun@ joined #apologetics. [23:27] Yes, and inversely. [23:28] Cleese: if there is a God so powerful, surely he can exist in non-existence. [23:28] Existence in nonexistence is a contradiction. A & ~A. [23:28] Hello everyone. [23:28] Cleese, I'm not certain that I understand your point. the bible simply states that a god exists. it does not offer an argument for this existence. it already assumes this existence. if it assumes that a god exists, then naturally the conclusion would be that non-existence is false. [23:28] hi Merciful [23:28] Cleese: that's binary logic.. I prefer fuzzy logic [23:28] Hello agathos. [23:29] If God exists, He is limited by being in the Universe, which is, of course, the set of everything. [23:29] where and A & ~A have an intersection and are not mutually exclusive. [23:29] Cleese, how does one know that the universe is the set of everything? [23:29] Skept (skept@h-add.ekx.infi.net) left irc: Leaving [23:30] lag [23:30] can you see this? [23:30] yes, nose [23:30] thanks [23:31] For instance, if God created the Universe, He would have to exist in order to create it, yet that implies that the set of everything, i.e. the Universe, *already* exists. [23:32] Cleese, not necessarily. your argument equates the nature of god's existence with the nature of this three-dimensional universe. it is an underlying false assumption. [23:32] Cleese: the universe (physical) cannot be the set of everything... Even mathematics has no physical component. [23:34] I merely said that the Universe is the set of EVERYTHING. Satan < Universe. Santa < Universe. Invisible Pink Unicorn < Universe. God < Universe. [23:35] And just what is physics, Nosehair? The scientific discernation of real phenonema. [23:36] Cleese: physics is a 'model'. You cannot confuse the model with the observed object. the model can never become the object. [23:36] Cleese, it is still a false assumption. stating that the universe is the set of every "thing" implies that every object in that set has equal qualities. it is like saying a basket full of only tennis balls. the qualification for being included in the basket is being a tennis ball. if a god had different qualities from every "thing" then he/she/it would not be in the set of every "thing." [23:37] Cleese: the energy in the universe is finite. Does the universe contain the set of infinite energy? [23:38] Voltaire (MikeBarber@15-83.client.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [23:38] hi Voltaire [23:38] hi all [23:38] Besides, agathos, you're claiming that the nature of this *3D* Universe is a false assumption. There are a lot more than three dimensions. We live in Hilbert (00-D) space. [23:39] Voltaire! [23:39] Nick change: Cleese -> Diderot [23:40] How is the definition of Universe false? [23:40] Cleese, the false assumption is that the nature of god is being equated with every "thing" (finite existence, whether in this dimension or other dimensions). if the nature of god is not a "thing" then it does not fall into the set of all "things." [23:40] Existence is inherently finite. [23:41] Even if God *exists,* He is limited by His *existence.* [23:42] Diderot, if existence ("things") is finite, then every "thing" is the set of all finite things. if a god is not finite, then he/she/it does not fall into the set of every thing. [23:44] If God were *truly* omnipotent, we wouldn't even be able to talk about him, he would be so incomprehensible the very concept would be beyond us. [23:44] Voltaire (MikeBarber@15-83.client.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [23:45] Diderot, you're jumping topics again. simply because the finite mind cannot comprehend every aspect of the infinite does not mean that the infinite cannot use broad finite definitions in order for the finite mind to attain to gen eral understanding of the infinite. [23:46] Yet here we are, discussing the things that *Jesus Christ* did. Calling Jesus Jesus limits him and your God is supposed to be *unlimited* right? [23:47] Diderot, a small child may not be able to understand calculus, but this does not hinder a calculus teacher from communicating with the child in his/her language [23:47] If God were *truly* LIMITLESS, we would not have one single Idea what God is, since that is a limit (he can't be anything else.) [23:48] Diderot: a line is quite limitless, yet we have a pretty good understanding of it's nature through our finite reasoning. [23:48] Diderot, the issue has already been addressed. a god can offer the finite mind finite understandable information. it is not an all or nothing proposition. that is, the finite mind doesn't have to comprehend everything or nothing at all. [23:49] Christians have the hardest time understanding a small child's questions anyway. The bald-faced questions strike the very core of your theology. [23:49] not questions offered thus far tonite [23:50] We can't limit God by calling him Jesus. [23:51] Diderot, human langugae does not limit objective reality. language limits human comprehension of reality, but it has not affect upon the reality itself. [23:51] What do you mean? We can't call Jesus Osiris or Mithras or Buddha? Or Vsdajkfghliatghueoghruiyksdhdjkashfjsdhfjksdha? [23:52] Diderot: just as physics models is able to 'model' the physical, we are able to 'model' a 'God' [23:52] Diderot, different labels affect how human persons perceive and understand objective reality. but those labels do not someone change the reality itself. [23:52] There is no objective (absolute) reality anyway. [23:52] . [23:52] . [23:52] . [23:52] . [23:52] . [23:52] . [23:52] Diderot, you're jumping topics again [23:53] That's Evolution, agathos ;-) [23:53] that's avoidance [23:54] Diderot: then there is no reality. [23:54] No, that's called attacking your assumptions. You've seemed to be blind in that area. [23:54] Diderot, I have offered no assumptions. I believe that your arguments have been based upon false assumptions, which I and others have poitned out tonite [23:55] You've offered no assumptions? Your very duty is to apologize for the Bible. [23:55] You're not apologizing for Mithras here. [23:55] Diderot, I have offered no arguments in support of the bible [23:56] Beam eye mote. [23:56] Diderot: why all the attacking? try being a little less angry. [23:56] Who determines the falsehood or truth of these arguments? [23:57] Diderot, of what arguments? [23:57] God is waiting to be *demonstrated.* [23:58] Diderot, I'm not certain that I understand the focus of this line of reasoning [23:58] I claim that an omnipotent and unlimited God cannot exist because even limiting him by language contradicts his definition. [23:59] Diderot: just as some christians have anthropomorphised 'God' to some white male guy sitting in heaven.. I get the impression that you've anthropomorphised a 'noGod' to some scientific models on the physical.. [23:59] Diderot, the objection has already been addressed. human language applies and affects human understanding. it does not alter or change the reality that the language seeks to describe [23:59] both groups fall into the same trap. [00:00] Calling God Omnipotent limits him. [00:01] Diderot, it at best limits human understanding. at one time the world was defined as being flat. the definition did not affect actual reality. that is, the world did not suddenly become spherical when it was discovered not to be flat. [00:02] Diderot: not true. there is a symbolic nature to language. calling something omnipotent is not equating God to omnipotence, but showing the symbolic nature of language. [00:03] He can't *not* be omnipotent, and this limits him as *requiring* him to be omnipotent. If he's required to do something, He has no say in the matter. [00:03] Diderot, why cannot a god be omnipotent? and how are you defining the term omnipotent? [00:04] Yes, human understanding is flawed. that's why saying that God even exists is preposterous. [00:04] The Bible says the world is flat. [00:04] Diderot, you are jumping topics again [00:05] We've discovered that it is a sphere. [00:05] Then we've discovered again that it is an ellipsoid. [00:05] tell me if i'm lagging. [00:05] ping me [00:05] And discovered again that the earth is a fractal. [00:06] Action: agathos sighs [00:06] Diderot: isn't it quite obvious the difference between the 'MODEL' and what is being observed??? i've emphasized it many many times. [00:06] [nosehair PING reply] 23 seconds [00:06] thanks [00:07] There is no underlying *reality,* and even claiming that there is is sheer preposterousness. [00:07] there is practical reality. [00:07] That has been my point all along. [00:07] and unprejudiced reality.. the unaltered, what the Buddhist get at. [00:07] and what the mystics hint at. [00:08] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.FIU.EDU: The Home of Rational Theism [00:08] Diderot, then in your opinion language = reality? [00:09] Actually, the Buddhists begin with nil, a tabula rasa if you will. Philosophers try to presuppose nothing and use Occam's razor for this goal. [00:10] language is a means of categorization used to label and store otherwise chaotic events or things. [00:11] damn! [00:11] you're making me diverge from my topic! [00:11] Diderot: the OBJECT is the TRUE reality. The perception and interpretation (language, thought, senses) is not the reality but the 'model' of reality. [00:11] Diderot, but does language = reality? if a person uses the word "apple," is the word = apple? [00:12] REALITY is UNCERTAIN. Read Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. [00:12] agathos, obviously not. [00:13] Diderot: NO. the observer alters what is being observed by his measuring instrument. (quantum observe effect) [00:13] Heisenberg has nothing to do with it. (delta v)*(delta x) = h/2*pi. [00:14] Diderot, the uncertainty principle deals with predictability and future existence. if language does not equal reality, and if the word "apple" does not equal the reality of an apple, then langu gae does not affect reality. humanity can use language to describe a god without having that language limit the reality of a god. [00:14] language, i said is merely a categorization of an uncertain and chaotic reality which is not in any terms objective or absolute, since it begins with a tabula rasa. [00:15] joesixpac (danielwoot@dial-5.r2.nccrty.InfoAve.Net) joined #apologetics. [00:16] joesixpac (danielwoot@dial-5.r2.nccrty.InfoAve.Net) left #apologetics. [00:16] Diderot, reality is only uncertain and chaotic if it is assumed that all reality in all dimensions is the same. presuming that it all must fit into the same set. but if there is an existence that is not within this set of all "things" then there is no contradiction. [00:17] I take it then that, since there is an absolute reality, and whatever uncertainties we observe are our fault, that an electron is *really* *still* moving at an absolute speed and can be found in an absolute position. That's a loa d of bollocks. [00:18] Diderot, simply because human perception cannot identify the exact position of an electron at a given time T1, does not mean that a non-human entity cannot identify that position. [00:19] However, a quantum defies absolute "common sense" reality. It can go backwards in time and travel faster than light, and can be observed in more than one place at a time. (Don't believe me, pas s a laser through a slit.) [00:20] Diderot, so? [00:21] There is no preferred frame or reality. Get it. Einstein had to overcome that crutch in relativity. [00:21] Diderot: model model model model ..ahhh.... how many times... [00:22] We don't model an *absolute* reality you stupid gits, and I've told you that at least three times! [00:22] Diderot, any given present moment is an object reality. the next moment cannot necessarily be predicted in the current moment, but this lack of predictability does not mean that all finite reality in the present is uncertain [00:22] Einstein would disagree. [00:23] passing laser through slit has nothing to do with time.. you're the stupid one. passing the laser throught the slit is trying to find the exact position of a particle, but instead shows the particles WAVE nature. [00:23] Diderot, Einstein is not here [00:23] i'm gettig annoyed [00:23] nose [00:24] Time is, of course, relative. [00:24] Action: agathos sighs [00:24] time to put the kid to bed... [00:24] agathos (agathos@ left irc: the truth is out there... [00:25] Robd (*@27-236.client.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [00:25] If you move past me at half the speed of light and I see two bolts of lightning strike you car or whatever you will see those bolts strike, you will see those bolts hit at different times. [00:26] Diderot: why are you arguing science? [00:26] What you're saying is that one of those frames *has* to be right. [00:26] you're talking about different things... yes time is relative, the speed of light is not. [00:26] . [00:26] . [00:26] . [00:27] Robd (*@27-236.client.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [00:28] The only problem with Einstein's light constancy postulate is that it simply doesn't work at times at the quantum level. [00:29] Barabbas (demonk@ip31.techline.com) joined #apologetics. [00:29] Barabbas (demonk@ip31.techline.com) left irc: [00:29] Diderot (gayle@pc50.vernal.usu.edu) left irc: Read error to Diderot[pc50.vernal.usu.edu]: EOF from client [00:29] no diderot: the speed of light is constant in ALL reference frames. one of the paradoxes of modern science. [00:31] nosehair (jcc15583@ 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_5_24_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