
[ref001]


apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 3/18/96
apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 3/18/96

[19:51] TheMOM` (rhpowell@199.183.196.177) joined #apologetics.
[19:52] <ProfG> hiya mama
[19:52] <TheMOM`> Prooooooooooof!
[19:52] <TheMOM`> hey...
[19:52] <TheMOM`> gotta coupla questions
[19:52] <ProfG> umm, ok
[19:52] <ProfG> I'll try
[19:52] <TheMOM`> okay...
[19:52] <TheMOM`> where the heck are the prophets?
[19:52] <TheMOM`> i mean...
[19:52] <TheMOM`> back in the Old Testament.....
[19:53] <TheMOM`> God practically gave his "day-timer" 
to the old prophets...you know...like elijah, jeremiah,etc...
[19:53] <TheMOM`> why don't we have anything like that 
today?
[19:53] <TheMOM`> is the body of Christ that stupid?
[19:53] <ProfG> "day-timer"?
[19:53] <ProfG> ?
[19:53] <TheMOM`> you know....
[19:54] <TheMOM`> He was very very specific......i don't 
see that in the body now-a-days...
[19:54] <ProfG> well
[19:55] <ProfG> what did you have in mind?
[19:55] <TheMOM`> are there any left?
[19:55] <Milhous> Hey, sorry...alive again.
[19:55] <TheMOM`> what i mean i guess....
[19:55] <ProfG> the office of prophet still exists, certainly 
- in the NT way
[19:55] <TheMOM`> is ...
[19:55] <ProfG> re Milhous
[19:55] <TheMOM`> uh huh..
[19:55] <TheMOM`> what is the NT way?
[19:55] Action: ProfG will brb, Jordan needs help going 
poopy
[19:56] <TheMOM`> okay..
[19:56] <Milhous> John ze Baptizer? My guess.
[19:56] Action: TheMOM` waits...
[19:56] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) joined #apologetics.
[19:56] <TheMOM`> hmmm...
[19:56] <Milhous> Paul? 'Nother guess.
[19:56] <TheMOM`> interesting Milhous...
[19:56] <Deanr> greetings all
[19:56] <Milhous> Peter? Third..
[19:56] <TheMOM`> but my question was...
[19:56] <ProfG> re
[19:56] <Milhous> HI, deanr
[19:56] <TheMOM`> "where the heck are all the prof\
[19:56] <TheMOM`> er..prophets now-a-days?
[19:56] <ProfG> the prof is here
[19:56] <ProfG> oh
[19:57] <TheMOM`> yeah, yeah yeah i know...ya smart alec
[19:57] <Milhous> Hey, the ATF blew up the last one... 
:-I
[19:57] <TheMOM`> LOL
[19:57] <ProfG> "prophet" literally means "proclaimer", specifically 
of the word of God
[19:57] <TheMOM`> but seriously...
[19:57] <TheMOM`> hmmm....okay....
[19:57] <ProfG> there were many prophets in the OT, most 
of whom were never mentioned by name
[19:58] <ProfG> we know the big names
[19:58] <ProfG> but there were hundreds more
[19:58] <TheMOM`> i agree....but can you name a few true 
prophets in this age?
[19:58] <ProfG> I could name some, sure
[19:58] <TheMOM`> please do...
[19:58] <ProfG> Randall Terry, for one
[19:58] <TheMOM`> Randall Terry?
[19:58] <ProfG> absolutely
[19:59] <TheMOM`> hmmmm....
[19:59] <TheMOM`> never knew him as a prophet..
[19:59] <Milhous> Now, at the risk of sounding ignorant, 
who is Randall Terry?
[19:59] <ProfG> he has proclaimed the word of God faithfully, 
esp. in relation to God's heart for aborted children 
and the judgment on the nation
[19:59] <TheMOM`> The guy behind the "operation rescue" 
for abortion clinics
[19:59] <ProfG> Milhous: head of Operation Rescue
[20:00] <Milhous> Ah.
[20:00] <TheMOM`> okay, i will give you that one.....
[20:00] <ProfG> read ANY of his books or articles, or 
even better, hear him speak
[20:00] <ProfG> he operates in the office of prophet
[20:00] Action: TheMOM` has heard him speak
[20:00] <Milhous> "prophet"? Sounds like common sense to 
me, and I'm an agnostic, even...
[20:00] <ProfG> heh
[20:00] <ProfG> you are not an agnostic, Milhous
[20:01] <Milhous> Hm? "Positive atheist", if you like...
[20:01] <Milhous> "Doubting Thomas", perhaps.
[20:01] <TheMOM`> "positive atheist"? isn't that like an 
oxy-moron or something?
[20:01] <TheMOM`> :)
[20:01] Petrovich (petrovich@perseus.digital-rain.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:02] <Petrovich> hello...
[20:02] <Milhous> Thomas had to see the nail marks. So 
do I. In my nature.
[20:02] <ProfG> a "postitive" atheist would be one who 
claims (posits) that there is NO god
[20:02] <TheMOM`> hello Petrovich :)
[20:02] <ProfG> hi petro
[20:02] <Milhous> Strasvuitye, Petrovich
[20:02] <Petrovich> speeking biblically milhous, or just 
off the top of your head?
[20:02] <TheMOM`> okay Prof....Terry Randall.....any 
others?
[20:02] <ProfG> and anyone claiming agnosticism is a 
hypocrite
[20:03] <TheMOM`> hypocrite?
[20:03] <Milhous> ProfG: Sorry. I meant more along the 
lines of "positive" being "not negative", meaning I don't 
believe in God, but do not negate the possibility.
[20:03] Action: TheMOM` is lost now
[20:03] <Milhous> profg: Hypocrite??
[20:03] <Petrovich> profg... not truly a hypocrite, but 
maybe backboneless...
[20:04] <Petrovich> milhous... I agree with the statement 
on atheism
[20:04] <ProfG> Mil: absolutely. as John Frame has said, 
a true agnostic would go to church half the time
[20:04] <ProfG> :-)
[20:04] <TheMOM`> yikes!  a dog just ran across my screen
[20:04] <ProfG> agnostics *claim* that one cannot be 
sure of whether God exists, yet live as if He doesn't
[20:04] <TheMOM`> ah..thank you for clearing that one 
up for me Prof
[20:05] <ProfG> They have priorities like an atheist's 
priorities; they end up implicitly seeing the world 
from what has to be called an atheist perspective, 
even though they may call themselves "agnostic"
[20:05] <TheMOM`> ah....but aren't most "atheists" agnostics 
in reality?
[20:05] <ProfG> yes, and agnostics live like atheists... 
circular, huh?
[20:05] <TheMOM`> they just don't know
[20:05] <Petrovich> prof... I guess anyone who is not 
truly religious ends up veiwing the world from the 
perspective of an atheist though... including many 
who claim to be religious
[20:06] <TheMOM`> hmmmm...
[20:06] <ProfG> what does "veiwing the world from the 
perspective of an atheist" mean?
[20:06] <TheMOM`> there is the prob Petro..."religious"
[20:06] Deanr (deanh@KENDACO.TELEBYTE.COM) left #apologetics.
[20:07] <Petrovich> prof... the perspective of an atheist 
is one in which the rationale is the replacement for 
a theism... Bertrand Russell for example... his perspective 
is truly the perp
[20:07] <TheMOM`> Prof: well, i would gather that viewing 
the world from the perspective of an atheist means 
that one would look at the world and think..."gee, hasn't 
man done great"? or something like that?


[20:07] Petrovich (petrovich@perseus.digital-rain.com) 
left irc: Read error to Petrovich[perseus.digital-rain.com]: 
EOF from client
[20:08] <TheMOM`> "his perspective is truly the perp"? 
oh boy...i am outta my league here...
[20:08] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.249) left irc: 
Ping timeout for Milhous[199.218.197.249]
[20:08] <ProfG> but the atheist worldview, or paradigm, 
only leads to absurdity
[20:08] <ProfG> cheeze, where'd they go?
[20:08] <TheMOM`> i dunno
[20:08] <TheMOM`> so...how are ya?
[20:08] <ProfG> *&%&$*&((()
[20:08] <ProfG> dagnabbit
[20:08] <ProfG> ok, you?
[20:09] <TheMOM`> pretty good....did nancy tell you how 
my job is somewhat miserable lately?
[20:09] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
The Atheist Worldview Leads Only to Absurdity and Nihilism
[20:09] <ProfG> nope
[20:09] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.247) joined #apologetics.
[20:09] <ProfG> re Mil
[20:09] <TheMOM`> Hiya Mil :)
[20:09] Siri- (iris@prism.com) joined #apologetics.
[20:09] <ProfG> hi siri
[20:09] <Siri-> Hi ProfG
[20:10] <Milhous> Sorry...timedout, I guess...
[20:10] <ProfG> lost Petro too
[20:10] <Milhous> What's this 're' bit I see?
[20:10] <TheMOM`> re = re hi
[20:10] <ProfG> means "re-hello" on IRC
[20:10] <ProfG> hi again
[20:10] Siri- (iris@prism.com) left #apologetics.
[20:10] <Milhous> Buh.
[20:10] <Milhous> 3 months, and didn't catch on. Oh well.
[20:11] <TheMOM`> hey! you learned something new....
[20:11] JSL (JLeighton@www-18-198.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[20:11] <ProfG> JSL  :-)
[20:11] <JSL> hi prof
[20:12] <JSL> so what is up tonight/
[20:12] <ProfG> Milhous: did you catch the topic?
[20:12] <ProfG> it is what I said when you pinged out
[20:12] <Milhous> Hmmm...what was it?
[20:12] <Milhous> Oh.,
[20:12] <Milhous> I see it.
[20:13] <Milhous> WHat the heck does that mean?
[20:13] <ProfG> The Atheist Worldview Leads Only to Absurdity 
and Nihilism
[20:13] <ProfG> well, it's like this, Mil...
[20:13] <Milhous> Perhaps human existence is absurd.
[20:13] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp1.snni.com) joined #apologetics.
[20:13] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( ProfG ))))))))))
[20:13] <TheMOM`> i know a few absurd humans.... <G>
[20:13] <ProfG> under the non-theistic worldview, Unbeliever 
has to believe that qualities turn into their opposites, 
contradictions can be inspired, and we can't know anything 
of ancient history
[20:13] <Milhous> I am an absurd human.
[20:13] <ProfG> Ned  :-)
[20:14] mithrandi (afn32275@slip05.unf.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[20:14] <ProfG> hi mith
[20:14] <Milhous> ProfG: So? We can choose to believe 
that we know. What, really, does it matter?
[20:14] <NedFlndrs> HI ALL!!!!!!!.....Good to see you. 
:)
[20:14] <Milhous> Hail Gandalf Stormcrow.
[20:14] <ProfG> Mil: you can choose absurdity and nonsensical 
beliefs if you wish. Me, I prefer real life.
[20:14] <mithrandi> hello everyone...
[20:14] <JSL> hi Mith
[20:14] Action: mithrandi is flattered
[20:15] <TheMOM`> Mil: well, it depends on what you believe 
that you know!  If you believe that it is okay to kill 
little kids...well, i guess then your beliefs *would* 
matter
[20:15] <Milhous> profg: You choose what you believe 
is real life :)
[20:15] <mithrandi> what precisely is going on in here? 

[20:15] <Milhous> TheMOM`: To everyone else, yes.
[20:15] <TheMOM`> mith: chit-chat
[20:15] <ProfG> Mil: and you examine it to see if it 
IS real, or if it leads to absurdity
[20:15] <ProfG> mith: apologetics
[20:15] <mithrandi> ahhh...i see :
[20:15] <Milhous> profg: Reality is absurd. That's why 
we have a sense of humor.
[20:15] <ProfG> Greek "apologia", defense
[20:16] <ProfG> apologetics = defense of the faith
[20:16] <JSL> what is reality Mil?
[20:16] <mithrandi> thanx profg, but i knew the definition 
:)
[20:16] <ProfG> Milhous: we have a sense of humor so 
we can put up with ppl that say that reality is absurd 
 :-)
[20:16] <Milhous> JSL: Who cares?
[20:16] <Milhous> :-)
[20:17] <JSL> if you say it is absurd you must know what 
it is 
[20:17] Action: mithrandi knows what reality is
[20:17] <TheMOM`> hey mith....are you a gator?
[20:17] <JSL> good Mith, then tell us what it is
[20:17] <Milhous> JSL: Do you know why you do everything 
you do?
[20:17] Action: TheMOM` looks to mithrandi to find 
out what reality is....
[20:17] <mithrandi> yes....how'd you guess the afn give 
me away?
[20:17] <ProfG> Mil: the unexamined life is not worth 
living. If you simply say "I believe this way and I 
will not examine my beliefs" then you must accept that 
you are living in hypocrisy and are not worth much

 to listen to
[20:18] <mithrandi> reality is whatever it is perceived 
to be by whoever is perceiving it :)
[20:18] <TheMOM`> mith: yuppers....i am a seminole fan 
tho....'scool tho...i won't mess with ya ;-)
[20:18] <ProfG> mith: incorrect
[20:18] <Milhous> profg: Duh. Of course I re-examine 
my beliefs. That's why I'm here, instead of on #atheism
[20:18] <JSL> reality is what is, isn't it Mith?
[20:18] <ProfG> perception does not equal reality
[20:18] <Milhous> profg: And I have determined that the 
only person who can convince me of God's existence 
is God Himself.
[20:19] <TheMOM`> Prof: then what does reality equal?
[20:19] <Milhous> JSL: If you like.
[20:19] <TheMOM`> Mil: BINGO!!!!!
[20:19] <ProfG> mil: I applaud your efforts in the direction 
of self-examination. However, simply saying "Who cares" 
to questions of reality leaves much to be desired....
[20:19] <mithrandi> gotta go
[20:19] mithrandi (afn32275@slip05.unf.edu) left #apologetics.
[20:19] <JSL> by Mith
[20:19] <Milhous> ProfG: It's an unanswerable question.
[20:19] <ProfG> nonsense
[20:19] <Milhous> profg: From my current viewpoint.
[20:19] <TheMOM`> Mil: that is the point!!!  It is not 
MY job (nor Prof's) to convince you of God's existance....only 
He can do that.....
[20:19] <NedFlndrs> brb
[20:20] NedFlndrs (dananova@ppp1.snni.com) left #apologetics.
[20:20] <ProfG> that I agree with, Mil
[20:20] <Milhous> Well, then, God, I'm waiting.
[20:20] <ProfG> from your current viewpoint, you CANNOT 
be convince of the existence of God... which is why 
you must make a paradigm shift in order to BE convinced
[20:20] <JSL> for what Mil, he has given enough evidence 
of his existance
[20:21] <ProfG> I was not convinced of God's existence 
until I came to believe in God's existence
[20:21] <ProfG> one's presuppositions determine one's 
beliefs
[20:21] <JSL> what evidence of his existance are you 
prepared to accept Mil?
[20:21] <Milhous> profg: Oh, I'd say I could be convinced 
of a god...wine flowing out of my tap, Jesus Christ 
appearing in my living room...standard miracles.
[20:21] <Milhous> In fact, anything supernatural would 
suffice.
[20:21] <JSL> anything?
[20:22] TheMOM` (rhpowell@199.183.196.177) left #apologetics.
[20:22] <ProfG> Mil: what would you say if I proved to 
you that NOT believing in the existence of God meant 
that one would have to believe EVERYTHING that happens 
is a miracle?
[20:22] <Milhous> I've seen those verses twice in 15 
minutes :)
[20:22] <ProfG> Mil  :-)
[20:23] JSL (JLeighton@www-18-198.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[20:23] <Milhous> Bull. Miracles are supernatural. God 
is supernatural. Without God, miracles are impossible.
[20:23] <ProfG> Mil: shall I explain, or do you wish 
to ignore and dismiss out of hand?
[20:23] <ProfG> :-)
[20:23] <Milhous> Go ahead.
[20:24] <ProfG> On the unbeliever's approach to the world, 
by which he thinks that everything that happens has 
a natural explanation - "everything that happens is 
random" - which means that everything that happe

ns is *unpredictable*
[20:24] <ProfG> This means that *everything* is without 
an explanation!
[20:24] <ProfG> In science, we assume the uniformity 
of nature - the way things will be in the future will 
resemble the way things were in the past
[20:25] <ProfG> All language assumes uniformity as well
[20:25] <ProfG> We don't worry about whether the English 
words which were spoken to us today will mean the same 
thing tomorrow; we just assume we know the meanings 
of the words
[20:25] <Milhous> Where does God come in?
[20:25] <ProfG> hang on, you'll see what I mean
[20:25] <ProfG> You couldn't have language if you didn't 
have that kind of predictability
[20:25] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line10.cis.yale.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:26] <ProfG> If we couldn't learn from the past and 
project into the future, then we couldn't learn; we 
couldn't control our environment
[20:26] <ProfG> Alcuin  :-)
[20:26] <Alcuin> Greetings, earth people
[20:26] <ProfG> It won't do a scientist *any* good to 
do all this research for years and years, and finally 
think he understands chemical interactions or whatever 
it may be, if it turns out tomorrow that it may all 
be changed;
[20:26] <ProfG> the game may be completely different 
- all different rules, all different relationships 
- we couldn't function that way!
[20:27] <Milhous> But...may I break in?
[20:27] <ProfG> None of have the temptation to think 
that when we burn ourselves at the stove that that 
was a one-time experience; we all tend to think that 
that's a universal type of thing - I can count on that 
tomorrow too...
[20:27] <Milhous> Languages DO change, and so does science.
[20:27] Action: Alcuin tosses a coin in the air... 
it flies up and to the left, out of sight...
[20:27] <ProfG> yes, but my point is coming here...
[20:27] <ProfG> You don't walk up to the stove the next 
day and think, "Well, I wonder if *this* will be the 
thrill of a lifetime!" and put your hand out there
[20:27] <ProfG> In the unbelieving approach to reality, 
there's no reason why you *shouldn't* do that, because 
the unbeliever cannot *tell* you why the future should 
be like the past; on the unbeliever's approach, the 
future is random
[20:28] <ProfG> If *anything* can happen, then tomorrow, 
putting your hand on that flame might not hurt, and 
all that we've learned about science previously may 
not be applicable, and the way that we've learned language 
and how we've used it in th

e past ma
[20:28] <Milhous> Not random.
[20:28] <ProfG> may be utterly inapplicable, etc. etc.
[20:28] <ProfG> why would the future not be random in 
the atheistic paradigm, Mil?
[20:28] <Milhous> Bound by observable natural laws. Remote 
chance that something else may occur, but very very 
small.
[20:28] Action: Alcuin notes that though languages 
change and scientific models are displaced, such changes 
presuppose a profound metaphysical continuity in experience....
[20:29] <Milhous> So small to be dismissible.
[20:29] <Milhous> or able?
[20:29] <ProfG> "observable natural laws"? what the heck 
are those, in an atheistic paradigm?
[20:29] <Alcuin> Milhous: Have you ever actually *seen* 
an "observable natural law" ?
[20:29] <Milhous> oh well
[20:29] <ProfG> The fact is, if tomorrow it turns out 
that nature is uniform with what we've learned in the 
past - THAT'S A MIRACLE!!!
[20:29] <Milhous> I drop my mouse. It falls.
[20:29] <ProfG> You can't *expect* it - there's no predictability, 
so if it happens to work out that way, "WOW! What an 
astonishing thing!"
[20:29] <Milhous> I try it again, and again.
[20:29] <Alcuin> Milhous: How many possible instances 
of mouse-dropping are there in space/time?
[20:30] <ProfG> which is what a miracle IS
[20:30] <Milhous> Eventually, I will expect that it will 
always fall.
[20:30] <Milhous> It may not.
[20:30] <Alcuin> In so expecting, you will be unwarranted....
[20:30] <ProfG> you have no reason to believe that, Mil
[20:30] <Milhous> Alcuin: Past experience.
[20:30] <Milhous> You still haven't brought God into 
it.
[20:31] <ProfG> BY REJECTING MIRACLES, the unbeliever 
is forced to say that EVERYTHING that happens is a 
miracle! Given this worldview, you can't expect anything 
to be predictable, so the unpredictable happens all 
the time
[20:31] <Alcuin> Milhous: And what non-questionbegging 
reason is there to think that the future will be like 
the past?
[20:31] <Milhous> Wait a minute, you skipped a step.
[20:31] <ProfG> miracles are the UNPREDICTABLE
[20:31] <Milhous> profg: I am going to drop my mouse. 
I think it will fall.
[20:32] <Milhous> It did.
[20:32] <Milhous> Where's God in that?
[20:32] <ProfG> so?
[20:32] <Alcuin> Milhous: There are a *whole bunch* (tm) 
of possible instances of mouse-dropping in space/time, 
of which you have tested only a tiny, tiny portion.... 
 From which, you infer by induction that mouse-dropping 
always entails mouse-fal

ling (in the presence of sufficiently massive bodies). 
 Is that rational?
[20:32] <ProfG> the only way you can make that prediction, 
Mil, is by borrowing from the theistic paradigm.
[20:32] <ProfG> Alcuin: agreed
[20:33] <Alcuin> Milhous: God is in the fact that your 
mouse didn't fly off into space, since nothing in your 
experience could possibly ground the expectation that 
you admit you hold to (religiously)....
[20:33] <Milhous> Is there any reason to believe that 
dropping a mouse in another point in space time will 
not result in it falling?
[20:33] <Alcuin> back later...food beckons.
[20:33] <Alcuin> Cheers, Milhous...
[20:33] <Milhous> Seeya
[20:33] <ProfG> bye al
[20:34] <ProfG> Mil: yes, there is a reason to believe 
that - but not in an atheistic paradigm
[20:34] <Milhous> I will need proof of a mouse not falling 
in an equivalent point in space-time for my supposition 
to be broken.
[20:34] <Milhous> profg: How bout a little objective 
evidence?
[20:34] <Alcuin> That's your basis for science?  "Prove 
to me that my hypothesis is false!"...
[20:34] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line10.cis.yale.edu) 
left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical!
[20:34] <Milhous> Um. Yes. Basis for all science. Duh.
[20:35] <ProfG> Mil: that is not the point. You are relying 
on past experience of mouse fallings, when in the atheist 
paradigm of randomness and chance, past experience 
can NOT be relied upon
[20:35] <Milhous> Falsifiability, etc,.
[20:35] <ProfG> no, Science is the proof that the hypothesis 
is CORRECT
[20:35] <Milhous> Hey, quit talking about an "atheistic 
paradigm", please. That's rampant generalization.
[20:35] <ProfG> it's factual generalization
[20:36] <ProfG> nothing wrong with it
[20:36] <Milhous> profg: Um. No. First tenet of science 
is that nothing is provable, beyond a doubt.
[20:36] <ProfG> Milhous: prove it
[20:36] <Milhous> profg: You can't prove anything correct.
[20:36] <ProfG> Milhous: prove that statement
[20:36] <Milhous> profg: Only incorrect.
[20:36] <ProfG> Milhous: prove that statement
[20:36] <Milhous> profg: That's not science. Red herring.
[20:37] W (cservice@undernet.org) left irc: will be 
right back
[20:37] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #apologetics.
[20:37] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org
[20:37] <Milhous> profg: Prove it incorrect.
[20:37] <ProfG> You are making claims as facts. Prove 
them please
[20:37] <Milhous> And I'll listen.
[20:37] <Milhous> Disprove them, please.
[20:37] <ProfG> you are making universal claims. The 
burden of proof is therefore on you
[20:38] <Milhous> You have a hypothesis.
[20:38] <Milhous> And you have data.
[20:38] <ProfG> Milhous, I have to get my son out of 
the bath - brb
[20:38] <Milhous> The data can either support, or disprove 
the hypothesis.
[20:38] <Milhous> It cannot prove it.
[20:39] <Milhous> Go back to 7th-grade science class.
[20:39] <Milhous> But, this sort of science isn't much 
use for technology.
[20:40] <Milhous> Therefore, we accept hypotheses that 
have been consistently supported, and not disproved 
as "facts"
[20:40] <Milhous> And they do appear to be so.
[20:40] <Milhous> Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, 
etcetera.
[20:42] <Milhous> No God in that.
[20:43] <ProfG> back
[20:43] <Milhous> :)
[20:44] <ProfG> Milhous: why accept these hypotheses 
as fact if they are not facts?
[20:44] Glenn (gturner@198.30.29.141) joined #apologetics.
[20:44] <ProfG> hi glenn
[20:44] <Glenn> Greetings all!
[20:44] <Milhous> profg: Why accept a Newtonian universe 
when it's more Einsteinian? Convenience.
[20:44] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line25.cis.yale.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:45] <Alcuin> re
[20:45] <ProfG> but one cannot live by "convenience" if 
one's paradigm is self-contradictory
[20:45] <ProfG> then one is living by "hypocrisy"
[20:45] <ProfG> re alcuin
[20:45] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal03-09.ppp.iadfw.net) 
joined #apologetics.
[20:45] <ProfG> Achimoth  :-)
[20:45] <Achimoth> hi prof
[20:45] Glenn (gturner@198.30.29.141) left #apologetics.
[20:46] <Achimoth> my email really drags.. :(
[20:46] <ProfG> Alcuin: I finally figured out what your 
nick means, in conjunction with your username  :-)
[20:47] <Milhous> profg: How is that 'paradigm' self-contradictory? 
My paradigm has no God in it, but the universe has 
semblance of order.
[20:47] Action: Alcuin gives ProfG the right hand of 
inference
[20:47] <ProfG> Mil: exactly - that is a self-contradictory 
paradigm
[20:47] <Alcuin> Milhous: The Problem (tm) is that your 
universe has a semblance of order *despite* what you 
claim is the case with respect to that universe.
[20:48] <Alcuin> greetings, Achimoth
[20:48] <Milhous> Which is what?
[20:48] Action: ProfG HATES the ping on ircle
[20:48] <Achimoth> Atheism demands the universe comes 
about by chance, yet the also claim a high amount of 
order came out of this chaos...
[20:48] <Milhous> Ever hear of chaos mathematics?
[20:48] <Alcuin> The universe bears scrutiny.  The atheist 
worldview cannot make that fact intelligible.
[20:49] <Milhous> Order arising from disorder.
[20:49] Derefram (Derefram@www-12-154.gnn.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[20:49] <ProfG> exactly - The unbeliever has to believe 
that qualities turn into their opposites
[20:49] <Alcuin> Milhous: chaos mathematics is a set 
of paradigms.  multivalent logic is a set of paradigms. 
 How in an atheist universe can the claim be sustained 
that such paradigms have anything whatsoever to do 
with the *stuff* that's comin' a

tcha?
[20:49] <ProfG> irrational and illogical
[20:50] <ProfG> hi dere
[20:50] <Alcuin> ProfG: nicely put.
[20:50] <Derefram> Hello 
[20:50] Action: ProfG graciously accepts the complement 
from the mysterious Alcuin...
[20:50] <Achimoth> especialy in the light of the Second 
Law of thermodynamics which says that order goes to 
chaos not chaos to order... entropy
[20:50] <ProfG> :-)
[20:51] <Milhous> Achimoth: That's very seventeenth-century 
of you.
[20:51] <ProfG> Mil: that's very post-modern of you.
[20:51] <ProfG> :-)
[20:51] <Alcuin> Achimoth: That's only applicable in 
a closed system, and as you say, chaos is not a closed 
system.
[20:51] Derefram (Derefram@www-12-154.gnn.com) left 
#apologetics.
[20:51] <Achimoth> milhous: not really..... even chaos 
mathemiatics dont support  order from chaos
[20:51] Action: ProfG waits for an answer by Milhous 
to Alcuin's previous question
[20:51] <Milhous> OK. Perhaps there is a design. Perhaps 
it's even intelligent. We're a long way from Christianity.
[20:52] <Alcuin> Milhous, Achimoth, ProfG: That's very 
Post-Now of you...
[20:52] <Achimoth> if anything the mathmatics raise the 
concept of chaos to a new plane
[20:52] <Milhous> alcuin: Thank you :)
[20:53] <Achimoth> I remember reading a Discover Magazine 
isuue, where they were discussing the Mediocrity cosmology 
theory...
[20:53] <Alcuin> Milhous: We're not *necessarily* a long 
way from Christianity if there's order.  Here's why. 
 We're not just saying that Any Ol' Theism (tm) is 
sufficient to account for human experience.  We're 
narrowing it down to Revelational E

pistemology (tm), and even further, to the Biblical 
Account (tm).
[20:54] <Milhous> Discover Magazine, now we're into some 
surces :-P
[20:54] <Milhous> er sources.
[20:54] <Alcuin> Achimoth: Compare that to the SuperString 
Unified Field Theory...;)
[20:54] <Achimoth> Milhouse: the source does not elleviate 
the theory being discussed.. which i believe was spoken 
of in Scientific American months before
[20:55] <Achimoth> there are scientists that hold to 
the theories, trying to explain a non designed universe.
[20:55] <Milhous> alcuin: All right. This is #apologetics. 
Let's assume for a minute, that I am an any ol' theist 
(tm). Why Christianity?
[20:55] <Alcuin> Milhous: Glad you asked...
[20:55] <Milhous> Achimoth: Nonsense. The issue of design 
is not up to science. Never was.
[20:56] Action: Alcuin pulls out an insurance policy, 
a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, and the note on some 
land in Florida. "You don't think I'd try to pull one 
over on you, do you?"
[20:56] <Achimoth> Milhous: then how can science explain 
order arising from chaos in SPITE of numerous examples 
that order always leads toward chaos not the other 
way around
[20:56] <ProfG> heh
[20:57] TheFiend (+kgreen@192.67.226.246) joined #apologetics.
[20:57] <Alcuin> Achimoth: Order to Chaos is only within 
a given closed system, despite what Duane Gish might 
assert....;)
[20:57] <ProfG> hello TF
[20:57] <TheFiend> hi, prof
[20:57] <Milhous> achimoth: It's not chaos. Matter bound 
by natural laws.
[20:57] <Alcuin> Milhous: Since you're willing to come 
along for the ride, arguendo, may I paint a little 
picture for you of "why Christianity" ?
[20:57] <Milhous> argh duane gish....dshdshdeirj93uriwejsjgkdnkvkdsls
[20:58] <Achimoth> milhouse where do these laws come 
from?
[20:58] <Milhous> Alcuin: More than willing.
[20:58] <Milhous> achimoth: Not a scientific question.
[20:58] <TheFiend> we don't know where the laws came 
from.
[20:58] <Achimoth> alcuin: if the universe is an open 
system.. then the atheists are wrong and there is more 
than we can peceive.. ;)
[20:59] Action: ProfG offers the floor to Alcuin
[20:59] <Milhous> achimoth: Than we do perceive, not 
can.
[20:59] <Achimoth> milhous: oh.. so we have to take on 
faith that these laws are there by chance not by design? 

[20:59] <TheFiend> the universe may be either open or 
closed, but it hasn't no bearing on atheism or evolution.
[20:59] <ProfG> Alcuin, you have the floor  :-)
[20:59] <Milhous> achimoth: Either way. Take yer pick.
[20:59] <ProfG> shaddup and let him talk already
[20:59] <Alcuin> Milhous: Good.  The Bible is taken by 
some Christians to be a self-revelation of God.  If 
there is some WorldProposition WP such that for any 
proposition P, one may deduce either P or ~P from the 
WP, then God knows that WP.  You w

ith me?
[20:59] <Achimoth> thefiend wrong
[21:00] <Alcuin> Hi, TheFiend...
[21:00] <Milhous> Sure.
[21:00] <Achimoth> if the universe is a closed system, 
then order must degrade to chaos
[21:00] <TheFiend> ach; your assertion that it's wrong 
does not make it wrong.
[21:00] <Achimoth> only in an open system is the law 
of entropy avoided
[21:00] <Milhous> achimoth: Again, how newtonian.
[21:00] Action: ProfG is about to +m so Alcuin can 
talk, already
[21:00] <Achimoth> correct alcuin?
[21:00] <TheFiend> achi; 1. we're not talking about the 
layman's concept of order, but the thermodynamicists.
[21:01] <Milhous> go ahead, prof
[21:01] <Alcuin> ok
[21:01] <Milhous> Dernit, gotta go...
[21:01] <Achimoth> thefiend: ahh, so you use semantics 
to answer the questions you want to ask, but when you 
get to the fundamentals of existence, you say.. "oh, 
thats not in the pervue of science" how nice of a

 way to avoid the dilemma
[21:01] <ProfG> no way
[21:02] <Milhous> Maybe on later, hopefully...
[21:02] <Alcuin> So, the WP is obviously an enormous 
proposition consisting of the conjunction of many propositions, 
all of which are true.
[21:02] <Milhous> Crud.
[21:02] <TheFiend> achi; i thought we were waiting for 
acuin
[21:02] <Alcuin> Sorry to see you go, Milhous.  When 
might you return?
[21:02] <ProfG> TF: we were. He wasn't.  ;->
[21:02] <TheFiend> achi; learn something about thermo.
[21:02] <Milhous> Hopefully tonight. I'm sure we'll meet 
again.
[21:02] <Achimoth> i have
[21:02] <Alcuin> All the best to you, Mil....
[21:02] <Milhous> achi: Thermodynamics is not the universe. 
That is all.
[21:02] <Milhous> You too...
[21:02] <TheFiend> achi; from anything other than a creationist 
brochure?
[21:03] Milhous (hlm3mr@199.218.197.247) left irc: 
God is dead -- Nietzche.   Nietzche is dead -- God.
[21:03] <Achimoth> thefiend: personal attacks? how cute
[21:03] <TheFiend> not yet.
[21:04] <Achimoth> as a matter of fact im not even attempting 
to deal with a special creation theory at this point... 
I'm dealing with the universe occuring by sheer chance
[21:04] <TheFiend> i asked a direct question. right now 
i'm asking myself the question "Is this guy worth spending 
a few minutes with or not?"
[21:04] <Achimoth> and no I dont read "creationist brochures"
[21:05] <Alcuin> Achimoth: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 
does not follow from the model of a universe of sheer 
chance.  So, it is self-evident that such a law will 
be inconsistent with such a model.  
[21:05] <TheFiend> i don't think i criticized special 
creation. i criticized your interpretation of the second 
law.
[21:05] <Achimoth> Alcuin: yes, I agree...
[21:06] <Achimoth> yet, the atheist will trumpet these 
"natural laws" all day long
[21:06] <Alcuin> Achimoth: Do you also agree that the 
Real Question (tm) is how in an atheist's universe 
this or any other law can be posited at all?
[21:06] <Achimoth> and i once again ask where do these 
natural laws come from, what mechanism can cause them 
to be?
[21:06] <Achimoth> alcuin: yep.. ;)
[21:07] <TheFiend> ach; we don't know.
[21:07] <ProfG> "I don't know, so I'm going to base my 
worldview on it"
[21:07] <ProfG> hmmmmm
[21:07] <TheFiend> ach; there are speculations - superstring 
theory, etc. but "we don't know"
[21:07] <Alcuin> TheFiend: Do you believe that although 
you don't know, you *can* know?
[21:07] <TheFiend> hehehe
[21:08] <TheFiend> alcuin; i don't know if i *can* know. 
(and I mean that in both senses)
[21:08] <Achimoth> so thefiend: you rely as much on faith 
as does the theist
[21:08] <TheFiend> achi; not at all. faith is belief 
without evidence.
[21:09] <TheFiend> achi; we do not 'believe' the laws 
without evidence. we accept the laws until they are 
shown to be unworkable.
[21:09] <Alcuin> TheFiend: What evidence leads you to 
believe that you can act as if there's regularity in 
nature?
[21:09] <Achimoth> thefiend: ahh, but you have just admited 
you are sure you can know how the laws came to be
[21:09] <Achimoth> cannot know even
[21:09] <TheFiend> alcuin; what evidence leads you to 
believe that you can act as if there's not?
[21:09] JSur (JSur@www-47-244.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:09] <Achimoth> the feind you take without evidence 
that the laws came to be by sheer chance
[21:09] <TheFiend> achi;
i never said that. i thought i maintained the contrary.
[21:09] <ProfG> hi jsur
[21:10] Action: Alcuin POSITS A LAW: The human brain 
is actually tomato paste, when no one is "looking" at 
it, where "looking" is any kind of probing or discerning.
[21:10] <Achimoth> thats faith
[21:10] <ProfG> LOL
[21:10] <JSur> Is this a college course of?
[21:10] <TheFiend> alc; your LAW might be true. we can't 
look at it scientifically.
[21:10] <Achimoth> lets try this again... the Laws determine 
how the universe works
[21:10] Action: Alcuin notes that according to TheFiend, 
this LAW is legitimate until disproved.
[21:10] <ProfG> JSur: nope, but it might as well be  
:-)
[21:10] <Achimoth> the Laws came to be when the universe 
began, that much we know...
[21:11] <TheFiend> alc; no. i didn't say that. nor did 
naything i say imply that.
[21:11] <JSur> Ah parrallel lines do meet, in infinit!
[21:11] <Achimoth> and no one disputes this...
[21:11] <Achimoth> BUT
[21:11] <Alcuin> TheFiend: Nope, we can't look at it 
scientifically, by definition.  Now what we're all 
interested in knowing from you is why you think any 
other law is in a different category than the one I 
offered....
[21:11] <Achimoth> what evidence do we have of where 
these Laws came from?
[21:11] <TheFiend> alc; it is only sensical to posit 
law that can be proven wrong if they are wrong.
[21:12] <Alcuin> TheFiend speaks: """we do not 'believe' 
the laws without evidence. we accept the laws until 
they are shown to be unworkable."""
[21:12] <Achimoth> alcuin: sounds like faith to me... 
ie the Laws just coming to be
[21:12] <Alcuin> TheFiend: What would constitute "proving 
wrong" the Law of Gravity?
[21:13] <TheFiend> alc; that was a shortening. clearly 
we don't say everything when we type.
[21:13] <ProfG> or type everything we say
[21:13] <ProfG> heh
[21:13] <Alcuin> lol
[21:13] <TheFiend> alc; by the 'law of gravity' i assume 
you mean the inverse square law F=Gm1m2/r^2?
[21:14] <Alcuin> TheFiend: Or, intuitively, that this 
anvil will plummet at 9.8m/sec^2 if I drop it from 
Rockefeller Ctr....
[21:14] Action: ProfG thought he meant the universal 
hectagonal law, Zip/=huh7buh8huh9buh
[21:14] <Alcuin> How to "disprove" such a law....atsa da 
question...
[21:14] <TheFiend> ah, but see, that is not the law of 
gravity....we knew that anvil plummetted long before 
we had a 'law of gravity'.
[21:15] <Alcuin> ProfG proffered the "hectagonal law" but 
had to eight his words....
[21:15] <ProfG> lol
[21:15] <ProfG> it plummets *without* a law of gravity?
[21:15] TRTimm (TRTimm@www-14-31.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[21:15] <ProfG> interesting...
[21:15] <ProfG> hi trt
[21:15] <Alcuin> TheFiend: That's why I said "intuitively".... 
  Do you have any gesture toward an answer to this 
inquiry?  Or is your model of disconfirmation admittedly 
an article of faith?
[21:16] TRTimm (TRTimm@www-14-31.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[21:16] <Achimoth> lol
[21:17] <TheFiend> alcuin; sure. if airplanes ceased 
to work properly, or the athmosphere suddenly flew 
away from the earth, or the ocean suddenly spewed up 
to the moon, that would be a good indication that the 
law was wrong.
[21:17] <TheFiend> alcuin; failing that we could devise 
a series of simple experiments with weights.
[21:17] <Achimoth> how did the law of gravity occur?
[21:18] <Achimoth> what mechanism caused it?
[21:18] <TheFiend> if the law of gravity did not hold 
we might never have discovered some of the outter planets.
[21:19] <TheFiend> it was only due to perturbations of 
the orbits of the 'known' planets that caused astronomers 
to look for them.
[21:19] <Alcuin> TheFiend: There.  That's something to 
work on.  Now, in actual practice, when a scientist 
comes upon apparently disconfirming phenomena, does 
the scientist [a] toss out the hypothesis [b] assimilate 
the deviant phenomenon to the i

nstances that conform to the norm [c] question whether 
additional conditions might have obtained that supplemented 
the test conditions [d] have a Bud Light(tm) ?
[21:19] <Alcuin> Normally, when airplanes cease to work 
properly, the notion that the law of gravity has been 
disconfirmed is not even given lip-service.
[21:20] <TheFiend> alcuin; if they all ceased to work 
at once, it might.
[21:20] <TheFiend> alcuin; when we say that something 
is falsifiable, that doesn't mean that it will be falsified. 
only that it's somehow capable of being falsified.
[21:21] <Alcuin> Why should a failure of the law of gravity 
be universal rather than only in a particular space/time 
coordinate?
[21:21] <JSur> hey ProfG, gimmee that extension again 
is this right http://www.fiu-edu/~qgreen01/apologetic.html?
[21:21] <TheFiend> doesn't need to. could be magic.
[21:21] <TheFiend> then again, we couldn't investigate 
it, if that were the case.
[21:22] <Alcuin> TheFiend: And what I'm saying is that 
the notion that anything is falsifiable, though popular 
among logical positivists in the early part of this 
century, has been thoroughly discredited by now...
[21:22] <ProfG> JSur: no, apologetics.html
[21:22] <TheFiend> i would say that the experiment would 
be repeated. a single exception could be an experimental 
error.
[21:22] <Alcuin> TheFiend: Nope, we couldn't investigate 
at all, if nothing were verifiable....  That's the 
quandary of a non-theistic universe, where there's 
no basis for believing that laws will not be capricious....
[21:23] <ProfG> JSur: and it's ~wgreen01
[21:23] <TheFiend> alcuin; falsification was not a big 
thing for positivists...verification was.
[21:23] <ProfG> http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[21:23] <TheFiend> alc; i agree.
[21:23] <Alcuin> A single exception *could be* an experimental 
error.  Or it could be a place/time where the law just 
happens not to work.  If the latter is the case, then 
it follows that the law has no predictive value.  How 
then is it possible t

o distinguish these two cases?
[21:23] <TheFiend> alc; if the laws are capricious, we 
can't examine anything.
[21:23] <Alcuin> TheFiend: exactly
[21:24] <ProfG> YES
[21:24] <TheFiend> alc; let me think about this.
[21:24] <Alcuin> brb...[reading a letter]
[21:24] <TheFiend> however, we all-of-us use this method 
of reasoning to survive.
[21:25] <Alcuin> TheFiend: that's true.
[21:25] <ProfG> yup
[21:25] <ProfG> no one is denying that the method is 
used
[21:25] <ProfG> and is sound
[21:25] JSur (JSur@www-47-244.gnn.com) left irc:  gone
[21:26] <ProfG> but to use it, one must employ certain 
presuppositions
[21:26] <TheFiend> if i come home and my family is dead 
and i have a video of Mr. X performing the crime, and 
his fingerprints on the weapon, etc. and he claims 
it was really a demon did it at the last sec...etc.
[21:26] <ProfG> which, in an atheist paradigm, would 
be contradictory
[21:26] <Alcuin> TheFiend: Our theory here is that we 
*can* all get by *despite* the ways in which what-we-claim 
fails to be true just because there is a true account 
of how-things-are.  When Atheist A "gets by"

, or when Theist B "gets by" it's because Theism happens 
to be the case, *regardless* of what A or B profess 
is the case....
[21:27] <TheFiend> prof; well, would a theist say, "Hey, 
we can't disprove it, so we let the guy go?"
[21:27] <Alcuin> TheFiend: The theist would say: In a 
theistic world, it makes sense to uphold the continuity 
of nature, the reliability of the senses, and moral 
precepts.  So nail the guy...
[21:27] <ProfG> no, but that is because the theist has 
reason to rely on the "proof"
[21:27] <ProfG> alcuin: exactly
[21:28] <Alcuin> Whereas an atheist would hafta say: 
An atheistic worldview cannot account for the reliability 
of the senses, the continuity of nature, the reliability 
of logic, or the cogency of moral claims.  Nevertheless, 
nail the guy...
[21:29] <TheFiend> i agree with the "cogency of moral 
claims" part and disagree with the others.
[21:29] <ProfG> ah hah
[21:29] <Alcuin> TheFiend: that's fine.  I admire your 
forthrightness in stating where you stand as of now.
[21:29] <TheFiend> i need to think this through a little. 
it's a slightly different approach than what I've heard 
before.
[21:30] <ProfG> TF: you are welcome here anytime.
[21:30] <ProfG> :-)
[21:30] <TheFiend> alcuin; hey! and i admire your not 
wasting my time telling me silly stuff i've heard a 
million times before.
[21:30] <Alcuin> TheFiend: It probably is a different 
approach.  I think that I, and perhaps others here, 
would join you in asserting that most theistic claims 
and arguments are quite obviously unpersuasive and 
arbitrary.
[21:30] <ProfG> Alcuin: AMEN
[21:30] <TheFiend> wish i'ld logged this.
[21:31] <TheFiend> do you have a page?
[21:31] <Alcuin> TheFiend: If you're not logging this, 
the logs are available from ProfG...
[21:31] <ProfG> TF: we prefer what has been called the 
"presuppositional" apologetical approach, not the evidentialist
[21:31] Action: Alcuin prefers both, rightly related 
to one another...
[21:31] <ProfG> TF: we post discussion logs on the #apologetics 
Web site
[21:31] <ProfG> Alcuin: well, of course  ;->
[21:31] <TheFiend> okay. i know where it is.
[21:31] <Alcuin> This log will be labelled with today's 
date.
[21:32] Action: ProfG is a couple days behind getting 
them up...  :-/
[21:32] <Alcuin> Now ProfG has an incentive...:)
[21:32] <ProfG> heh
[21:32] <TheFiend> well, i better get home to me munchkins. 
(heck i probably won't get around to checking it out 
til the weekend anyway)
[21:32] <ProfG> ok, TF
[21:32] <ProfG> and TF...
[21:32] <TheFiend> later...it's been worthwhile.
[21:33] <Alcuin> That's fine.  We expect that, if the 
future is like the past, we'll be around here often. 
 You're welcome to drop in anytime....
[21:33] <TheFiend> yes?
[21:33] <ProfG> God bless you  :-)
[21:33] <TheFiend> hehehehehehehe....yea, right!
[21:33] TheFiend (+kgreen@192.67.226.246) left #apologetics.
[21:33] <ProfG> "if the future is like the past", lol
[21:33] <Alcuin> :)
[21:33] <ProfG> that slays me
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[23:44] Achimoth (adarcaan@dal03-09.ppp.iadfw.net) 
joined #apologetics.
[23:45] Mode change '+o Achimoth ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@131.94.128.54
[23:45] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[23:45] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@131.94.128.54
[23:46] <Achimoth> betcha utopia doesnt come
[23:46] Life4Him (Life4Him@ppp-67-50.dialup.winternet.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[23:47] utopia (slurpy@colosseum.com) joined #apologetics.
[23:48] <Achimoth> welcome
[23:48] <Acolyte> hullo
[23:48] <utopia> bow
[23:48] <utopia> okay so what is an apolegeticthen?
[23:48] <Acolyte> utopia, what would youconsider evidence?
[23:48] Action: utopia would like to read the bible, 
but he doesn't know where to obtain one.
[23:49] <Achimoth> hmm.. aco apolobot REQUIRES that faq 
be in it.. heh
[23:49] <Acolyte> utopia what country are you in?
[23:49] <utopia> acolyte: anything physical...
[23:49] <Acolyte> utopia, what do you mean?
[23:49] <utopia> acolyte: Canada.
[23:49] <Acolyte> utopia you mean it has to be inn front 
of you to be considered eviedence
[23:49] <Acolyte> ?
[23:49] <utopia> acolyte: Anything that can be proven 
by one of the 5 senses.
[23:50] Life4Him (Life4Him@ppp-67-50.dialup.winternet.com) 
left #apologetics.
[23:50] <Acolyte> utopia IC, so you think the only kind 
of proof is whatis available to you now?
[23:50] <Achimoth> hmmm.... then i guess a tree doesnt 
make a sound when no one heres it... ;P (just a joke 
folks)
[23:50] <Achimoth> hears even... heh
[23:50] <utopia> acoltye: yes. if it is not.. then it 
is an unprooven theory.. unless it has been prooven 
by another reliable source (prooven with one of the 
5 senses)
[23:50] <utopia> acolyte: yes, anything else can be forged.
[23:51] <Acolyte> utopia , true, but physical evidence 
can be tampered with, can it not?
[23:51] <utopia> achimoth: hehehehe... unless it falls 
on a gopher (sorry from a tv show!)
[23:51] <Achimoth> utopia: then how do we know that say.. 
Karl Marx existed?
[23:51] <utopia> acolyte: it can, but it is much more 
reliable.
[23:51] <utopia> achimoth: I say that he existed because 
I have seen him in a movie...
[23:52] guilty (x@206.65.72.70) joined #Apologetics.
[23:52] <Acolyte> utopia why>
[23:52] <Acolyte> why is it more reliable?
[23:52] <Acolyte> achimoth hold on 
[23:52] <Acolyte> utopia but movies can be faked
[23:52] <Achimoth> wrong... that could have been an actor 
portraying a fictional character
[23:52] <Acolyte>  very easily
[23:52] guilty (x@206.65.72.70) left #Apologetics.
[23:53] <Acolyte> utopia, why is physical data more reliable?
[23:53] <utopia> acolyte: but so could the bible.
[23:53] <utopia> acolyte: physical date? like what?
[23:53] <Acolyte> utopia I asked a question
[23:53] <Achimoth> how can 66 books over 1000's of years 
maintain a pretty common theme?
[23:53] <utopia> sorry if I'm a bit slow in replying.. 
but u are challenging me, and it takes me time to think.. 
:)
[23:54] <Acolyte> utopia sure it could, but the question 
is not what COULD be what what we do in fact have evidence 
for.
[23:54] <Acolyte> utopia no
[23:54] <Acolyte> achimoth hold on
[23:54] <Acolyte> utopia why is physical data more reliable 
than eyewtiness accounts?
[23:54] <Acolyte> ok
[23:54] <Acolyte> think away
[23:54] Action: Achimoth withdraws till aco makes his 
points
[23:54] <utopia> achimoth: they maintain a theme of Fear.. 
which is common to the whole human race.
[23:54] <Acolyte> achimoth untell an epistemology is 
agreed on it does not do any good to throw out examples, 
particularly to a skeptic
[23:55] <Acolyte> utopia why is physical data more reliable 
than eyewtiness accounts?
[23:55] <utopia> acolyte: okay, A physical date means 
nothing to me. eyewitness accounts do.. but I would 
have to meet the eyewitness.
[23:56] <Acolyte> utopia please READ what I said. I did 
not say DATE, I said DATA as in information.
[23:56] Action: utopia wants to believe in god, but 
refuses to believe in god.
[23:56] <Acolyte> utopia, why is physical DATA, information, 
empirical data, more reliable than eyewitness acounts?
[23:57] <utopia> acolyte: terribly sorry. because everyone 
sees everything differently.
[23:57] <Acolyte> why?
[23:57] <Acolyte> utopia, ic, do ppl use their five senses 
to see?
[23:58] <utopia> acolyte: it is late and I am not making 
much sense... but if something is prooven to me by 
means of one of my 5 senses then it is real. until 
it is prooven otherwise.
[23:58] <utopia> acolyte: to see what?? I don't understand 
the question.
[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_3_18_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../

