
[ref001]


apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 3/22/96
apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 3/22/96

[13:54] Junkyman (jgiesbrec@204.112.246.17) joined 
#apologetics.
[14:08] Boozer (scott@daphne.gfdi.fsu.edu) joined #apologetics.
[14:08] <Boozer> lonely?
[14:08] <Junkyman> nah, i'm doing other stuff too actually
[14:08] <Boozer> ah, I see.
[14:09] <Junkyman> bored?
[14:09] <Boozer> So are you a presuppositionalist or 
a empiricist?
[14:09] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2133.telepath.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[14:09] <Boozer> I have things to do also.
[14:09] ether_ore (emerkel@zoom2133.telepath.com) left 
#apologetics.
[14:09] <Junkyman> presuppositionalist who sees evidence 
too
[14:10] <Boozer> Ok, well suppose you were trying to 
convince someone that there is a god.  Would you take 
the presup or evidence approach?
[14:11] <Junkyman> obviously evidence.
[14:11] <Boozer> Is it obvious?
[14:11] <Boozer> It's not obvious to me.  What sort of 
evidence?
[14:12] <Junkyman> probably not. :)
[14:13] <Junkyman> well, the usual i suppose... the most 
convincing start for me is that naturalism logically 
must be false, and then go from there
[14:13] <Boozer> Yeah, I've heard the party line here 
on why naturalism is supposedly false.
[14:14] <Junkyman> you don't believe it?
[14:14] <Boozer> no, I do not.
[14:14] <Junkyman> can you honestly believe that truely 
rational beings could have appeared from matter??
[14:15] <Boozer> I can believe it because that is what 
I observe.
[14:15] <Junkyman> what you observe???  but don't you 
take YOUR presuppositions into your observations then?
[14:15] <Boozer> I take as few as possible.
[14:16] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line29.cis.yale.edu) 
joined #apologetics.
[14:16] <Alcuin> Hi
[14:16] <Boozer> Look, is your whole argument based on 
your attack of naturalism and its alledged fallacy?
[14:16] <Boozer> hello alcuin.
[14:17] <Junkyman> well, i don't have ONE argument all 
laid out... i'm a bit more flexible than that.  but 
i like starting there sometimes.
[14:17] <Boozer> Can you do it independently of your 
attack on naturalism?
[14:18] <Junkyman> i could try, but I suppose that you've 
probably heard most of them.
[14:18] <Boozer> You mean you'd give me the old first 
cause argument?
[14:18] <Junkyman> i'm just curious, how exactly do your 
observations show you that rational humans appeared 
out of matter?  I didn't get that.
[14:19] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: 
Supernaturalism--the negation of naturalism!
[14:19] <Junkyman> hey alcuin, i guess you're a Christian 
too?
[14:19] <Boozer> Since you're posing the question, tell 
me what matter is.
[14:20] <Junkyman> sorry, i shouldn't limit it to matter 
exactly, that word just comes to mind.  what i mean 
is how could rational people have evolved from a natural, 
self-contained chain of causes-effects?
[14:21] <Boozer> As opposed to irration people?
[14:22] <Alcuin> <matter: for all x, if x is matter, then 
x is extended in space>
[14:22] <Junkyman> as opposed to people whose actions 
are decided merely by previous causes and not rational 
decisions
[14:22] <Boozer> I don't care for that definition of 
rationality.
[14:23] <Boozer> That makes none of us rational.
[14:23] <Junkyman> why not?
[14:23] <Boozer> Give me an example of a "rational decision".
[14:24] <Alcuin> <rational: an adjective used for either 
[1] whatever pertains to one's intellect [2] whatever 
is based on the authority of one's mind>
[14:25] <Junkyman> but if all of our supposedly rational 
conclusions (eg. all men are mortal, i am a man, therefore 
i am mortal) are only the results of natural causes, 
then how can we have any trust in its validity???
[14:25] <Boozer> Is that your example?  That men are 
mortal?
[14:26] <Junkyman> that could be one example, yes
[14:26] <Boozer> And you arrive at that conclusion having 
observed that men die.
[14:28] Action: Alcuin pours Lime Rickeys for one and 
all.
[14:28] <Junkyman> having observed what seems to be a 
rule that all men are mortal, and that you are a man, 
you conclude that you are therefore mortal.  that is 
the example (assuming that the first two conclusions 
were true)
[14:28] <Boozer> Right, it is a "rational decision" based 
entirely on previous events.
[14:29] <Junkyman> the first two statements are based 
on previous events.  the third statement is a RATIONAL 
one only (you never observed your own death yet obviously). 

[14:29] <Boozer> So I don't see your distinction between 
actions decided by previous causes and rational decision.
[14:30] <Alcuin> Well, it's an inference based on previous 
events, anyhow.  It's logically valid, too.  However, 
what is the basis for believing that all men are mortal, 
when one hasn't empirically examined all men?
[14:31] <Junkyman> what i was calling a rational decision 
= logical.  does that make more sense?
[14:31] <Boozer> I'd say that if a high percentage of 
men (that is, all that have been observed) exhibit 
a certain quality, you can assume that it applies to 
all of them.
[14:31] <Alcuin> If I'm eating chinese food, then Bill 
Clinton is Elijah.
[14:31] <Alcuin> I'm eating chinese food.
[14:31] <Alcuin> Therefore, Bill Clinton is Elijah.
[14:31] <Boozer> Then you wait for an exception to rear 
its ugly head.
[14:32] <Alcuin> That's logical, too.  However, it's 
unsound.
[14:32] <Junkyman> okay, so assuming the first two statements, 
you come to the third statement, a logical conclusion. 
 my point is that if all thoughts are the result of 
natural causes, what makes that logical conclusion 
trustworthy?  how can you 

know it is based on the real world?
[14:32] <Boozer> That's silly.
[14:33] <Alcuin> Boozer: a high percentage of men exhibit 
heterosexuality.  Can you therefore assume that it 
applies to all of them?  That's not rational.
[14:33] <Boozer> I mean high percentage like more than 
Ivory Soap.
[14:34] <Alcuin> Boozer: Likewise, a high percentage 
of Americans support Bill Clinton.  Does it therefore 
follow that all Americans support Bill Clinton?
[14:34] <Junkyman> why is it silly?  the third statement 
was not observed, but yet according to naturalism it 
must have been the result of a natural cause.  how 
then can you know that it is true (it is not observable)???
[14:34] Action: Alcuin stirs his Lime Rickey
[14:34] rafzahn (e-was?@rwl02.cip.uni-regensburg.de) 
joined #APOLOGETICS.
[14:34] <Boozer> Considering he was elected with 43% 
of the popular vote, I'd say no.
[14:34] <rafzahn> hi
[14:34] rafzahn (e-was?@rwl02.cip.uni-regensburg.de) 
left #APOLOGETICS.
[14:34] <Junkyman> knowing that logical conclusions are 
trustworth is the basis of rational thought... naturalism 
disallows rational thought and therefore renders itself 
useless
[14:35] rafzahn (e-was?@rwl02.cip.uni-regensburg.de) 
joined #APOLOGETICS.
[14:35] rafzahn (e-was?@rwl02.cip.uni-regensburg.de) 
left #APOLOGETICS.
[14:35] <Junkyman> "trustworthy" :)
[14:35] <Boozer> Explain how naturalism does not allow 
logical thought.
[14:35] <Alcuin> Boozer: The point is that observation 
of *some* members of a natural set does not provide 
for rational inferences about *all* of the members 
of that set.
[14:36] <Boozer> Alcuin, when all of the observed members 
of a set exhibit some quality, we may reasonably infer 
that others that have not been scrutinized will exhibit 
those same qualities.
[14:37] <Alcuin> Boozer: false.
[14:37] <Boozer> Alcuin, we know that all people are 
not heterosexual because we have found many that are 
not.
[14:37] <Boozer> Alcuin, I don't see why you're having 
such a problem with this.
[14:38] Action: Alcuin has a problem with broad claims 
to the validity of induction, because he's familiar 
with the philosophy of science subsequent to David 
Hume's dismantling of induction in the late 18th c.
[14:38] <Junkyman> boozer: how can you know that the 
logical third-statement/conclusion as above is based 
on truth if that thought itself is merely the result 
of previous natural (and quite possibly unrelated) 
causes?
[14:39] <Boozer> Junky, are you suggesting that I might 
arrive at the conclusion that men are mortal independently 
of the first two statements?
[14:39] <Alcuin> Boozer: I guess I hesitate over your 
claim because of my commitment to rationality.  You 
say: ""when all of the observed members of a set exhibit 
some quality, we may reasonably infer that other

s that have not been scrutinized will exhibit those 
same qualities""
[14:39] <Junkyman> according to naturalism, yes, as thoughts 
are ONLY the result of other natural causes.
[14:40] <Boozer> Junkyman, so the first two statements 
lead to the third?  what's the problem?
[14:40] <Alcuin> Yet that's patently false.  If in your 
own experience, you have only ever had exposure to 
people with fair skin, are you rationally justified 
in concluding that no other pigmentations occur?
[14:41] <Junkyman> for logical conclusions to be true, 
they must act completely distinct from natural causes 
(eg. not just caused by some atoms in the brain smacking 
around), therefore rational minds are supernatural, 
therefore naturalism is wrong

.
[14:41] <Boozer> As far as you're concened there would 
be no other colors.
[14:41] <Alcuin> Amazing.
[14:41] <Junkyman> alcuin: yes you are, with some uncertainty. 
 that's not my point, anyway.
[14:42] <Boozer> And when you discover these other people 
with different pigmentations you say "Wow.  Learn something 
new every day."
[14:42] <Alcuin> And if you have read only X books (where 
X is some number), then you're rationally justified 
in inferring that books are only about the subject 
matters which you have seen in the books you've read?
[14:42] <Boozer> Junkyman, why must logical conclusions 
operate independently of natural causes?
[14:42] <Alcuin> Boozer, that's not rational; that's 
provisional.
[14:43] <Alcuin> Boozer: Junkyman is right.  Logic is 
impossible in a naturalistic worldview.
[14:43] <Boozer> Ah, the anthem of #apologetics.
[14:44] <Junkyman> boozer: if supposedly rational thoughts 
are the effect of a previous chain of causes, how can 
you know that they are true?  that chain of causes 
could result in any thought, not necessarily a true 
one.
[14:44] madcow (wtburns@dialin17.mwtech.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[14:44] <madcow> hello 
[14:44] <Boozer> You know truth though the consistency 
of these thoughts over time.
[14:45] <Junkyman> hiya madcom!  you a Christian or atheist 
or in between?? :)
[14:45] <Boozer> heh, madcow. :)
[14:45] <Alcuin> Boozer: Are there laws of logic in a 
naturalist's world?
[14:45] <madcow> Christian
[14:45] Action: Alcuin offers a milkshake to madcow
[14:46] Action: Boozer wonders if madcow is in Britain 
right now.
[14:46] <Junkyman> but what makes any of those thoughts 
true???
[14:46] <Boozer> if the thought is consistent with nature 
then it is true.
[14:46] <Junkyman> you are then using inferences to prove 
inferences true.  that is a circular argument, sorry.
[14:46] <Boozer> but truth is independent of what individuals 
think.
[14:47] <madcow> I have a question...thanks, I needed 
that
[14:47] <Alcuin> Boozer: How do you tell whether thought 
T is or is not consistent with nature?
[14:47] <madcow> No....in Kansas City
[14:47] <Junkyman> boozer: i know that.  but how do you 
know that your supposed logic is true to that truth??? 
that's the question here!
[14:47] <Boozer> Alcuin, the same way you do I'm sure.
[14:48] <Alcuin> Sample thought T: "There exists a duck 
such that the duck is naturally purple."
[14:48] <Junkyman> i can't see any way out of the problem 
unless you accept that rational minds operate apart 
from the natural order.
[14:49] <Boozer> JUnkyman, because there is no other 
order than natural order.
[14:49] <Alcuin> Boozer: How do you verify whether T 
is consistent with nature?  If you've never seen a 
purple duck, then according to you you're already rationally 
justified in claiming that all ducks are non-purple. 
 So why bother checking, sinc

e you've already figured it out "rationally" in advance?
[14:49] <Junkyman> but THAT IS A PRESUPPOSITION!!!!!!!!! 
 there is no evidence for that!!!
[14:49] <Alcuin> Junkyman, please don't shout.
[14:50] <Boozer> Alcuin, tell me something.  Are you 
being silly just for fun or are you serious.
[14:50] <Junkyman> sorry, but i needed to for effect. 
:)
[14:50] <madcow> anyone want to take a shot at my question?
[14:51] <Boozer> What is your question?
[14:51] Action: Alcuin is being quite serious. If people 
want to throw around the claim that they're rational, 
they had better be able to back it up with a cogent 
account of rationality.
[14:51] <Alcuin> Shoot, madcow.  What's on your mind?
[14:52] <Boozer> How about accepting that naturalism 
includes rationality and logic within it's nice neat 
package?  I have no difficulty with that.
[14:52] <Alcuin> Boozer: So you have no difficulty with 
the claim that laws of logic are material things?
[14:53] <madcow> wow...18 secs for a ping!  Anyway..my 
question arises from an encounter the other night when 
a person I was chatting with made the assertion that 
Jesus didn't really suffer since He knew ahead of time 
that He would be resurrected.

  I was wondering just what you would say to such a 
claim.
[14:53] Action: Alcuin wonders whether Boozer will 
point to a law of logic, so we can all see it.
[14:53] <Junkyman> you know, we seem to be distracted 
from my argument here... boozer did you have an actual 
refutation of it or just another illogical presupposition??
[14:53] <Boozer> Here they are treated as add-ons to 
some stripped down model.
[14:53] <Boozer> Alcuin, not material things.  Governing 
equations.  You know like thermodynamics.
[14:53] <Junkyman> madcow: He knew he'd be resurrected 
but that doesn't mean it didn't hurt!!!
[14:53] <Alcuin> madcow: I went to the dentist once. 
 I knew that novacaine wouldn't affect me for this 
particular procedure.  I alse knew that it'd be over 
after a few hours.  Still, I suffered.
[14:54] <madcow> that's what I said
[14:54] <Alcuin> Boozer: So the world you're positing 
isn't naturalism after all, is it.
[14:54] <madcow> I agree...but this person was very persistent 
that it was not 
[14:54] <madcow> "real" suffering
[14:54] <Alcuin> Madcow: has this person ever been crucified?
[14:54] <madcow> You don't have to convince me...
[14:54] <Boozer> Naturalism encompasses logic and rationality.
[14:55] <Junkyman> madcow: just remember, it was Jesus' 
perfectness up until death that allowed for our salvation, 
not the degree of "suffering".
[14:55] <madcow> I would assume not...but I doubt that 
that was his point 
[14:55] <Alcuin> Boozer: In naturalism, all that exists 
is extended in space [i.e., material].  If logic exists 
in naturalism, then logic is extended in space [material]. 
 So you should be able to point to it.
[14:55] <madcow> agreed
[14:56] Action: Alcuin points out to Boozer that just 
saying so doesn't make it so. "Naturalism includes logic 
because it does"
[14:56] <Boozer> Alcuin, you have abridged what naturalism 
is.
[14:56] <Junkyman> boozer: what exactly was your refutation 
to my above argument??  we seem to be a bit forgetful 
here. :)
[14:57] <Boozer> Of course pointing it out doesn't make 
it so.  I was merely summarizing my earlier point.
[14:57] <Alcuin> Good point, Junkyman.  Madcow: What 
pays for sin in the atonement of Christ is that Christ 
takes on the punishment for the sins of others.  God 
dictates what counts as punishment, and death is the 
key, not suffering up to the poin

t of death.
[14:57] <madcow> those are good points, I thank you...any 
more thoughts?  I think his problem was more a desire 
to reject Jesus' atonement more than a hard disbelief 
in the suffering
[14:57] <Alcuin> Boozer: If you think I have abridged 
naturalism, suggest an alternative.
[14:57] <Boozer> Junkyman, when your question scrolled 
off the screen in the midst of the "suffering" discussion 
it was lost.
[14:58] <Boozer> Alcuin, allow naturalism to include 
laws of physics and logic.
[14:58] <Alcuin> Boozer: Are you suggesting that in naturalism, 
everything that exists is material, except for one 
class of things, namely laws [of logic, nature, etc] 
?
[14:58] JJJade (SLIMOOSE@www-20-92.gnn.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[14:58] JJJade (SLIMOOSE@www-20-92.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[14:58] <madcow> I made the point that it is much the 
same as a transaction (i.e. what makes something "yours" 
when you buy it?")  God said, "this justice I will require...thi

s atonement I will accept" in effect.
[14:58] <Boozer> Alcuin, for in naturalism our thoughts 
are controlled by chemical processes, therefore they 
must be a part of naturalism.
[14:58] <Junkyman> could you do me a big favor and scroll 
it up a sec and find where we left off??  you had made 
a statement that you seemed to think was a refutation 
when it was bringing in an illogical presupposition.
[14:59] <Alcuin> Boozer:  Fascinating!  What is the *rational* 
basis for allowing *some* abstract [non-material] things 
into one's worldview, but not allowing *other* abstract 
things into it?
[14:59] <Boozer> Junkyman, you're probably thinking that 
my inclusion of these natural laws is a presupposition.
[14:59] <Junkyman> boozer: if thoughts are based on chemicals 
then how can you trust them to be accurate pictures 
of truth?
[15:00] <Boozer> the rational basis is that it works 
and is cohesive and doesn't introduce unnecessary entities.
[15:00] <Alcuin> madcow: It is not only much the same 
as a transaction.  It is a transaction.  God made a 
contract with his people, of which one of the stipulations 
was that sin would entail punishment.
[15:00] <Boozer> Juny, we've been throgh this.  They 
are consistent over time.
[15:01] <Junkyman> the rational basis is that it works?!? 
 like i said above, inferences to prove inferences 
is a circular argument.
[15:01] <madcow> agreed...I didn't mean to discount the 
fact of it being in actuality a transaction...it just 
sounds so businesslike...kinda wooden in those terms 
you know..?
[15:01] <Alcuin> Boozer: That's an *arbitrary* basis, 
not a rational basis.  After all, for any proposed 
abstract thing T that someone might say you should 
add to your collection of admissible abstract things, 
**how** do you judge whether T is "cohesive", whether 
T "works" and whether it is "unnecessary"?
[15:01] <Boozer> Junkyman, I don't think you know what 
a circular argument is.
[15:02] <Alcuin> Boozer: Thoughts are wildly inconsistent 
over time.  Look around!
[15:02] <Alcuin> madcow: Yup.  Sounds like your answer 
to your friend was fine.
[15:02] <Junkyman> inferences as seen in naturalism are 
under question here, and you are trying to use inferences 
to prove them true.  that is circular.
[15:03] <Alcuin> Boozer: IF you use logic to judge among 
other abstractions, then you're begging the question. 
 If you don't use logic to judge among them, then you're 
abrogating logic.  Those are the choices on the basis 
you've described.
[15:03] <Boozer> Alcuin, it's not arbitrary.  Each proposed 
law must work in all situations.
[15:04] <madcow> Thanks..I needed the reassurance.  He 
was so adamant that I wondered if there was a much 
better answer than I was offering.  
[15:04] <Alcuin> Boozer: But you can't *check* *all* 
situations!
[15:04] <madcow> I have been waiting for a chance to 
meet some of you folks in here and have checked the 
last week several times but no one has been home.
[15:04] <Boozer> all being those situations which you 
can check.
[15:04] <Boozer> or can be checked by others.
[15:05] <Alcuin> madcow: The issue can be explained much 
more thoroughly, of course.  And it *can* be established 
that Christ really suffered.  However, you're friend 
doesn't sound open to discussion on the issue.
[15:05] <madcow> that's what I figured
[15:05] <Alcuin> Boozer: So then, logic only applies 
to the situations you've personally looked into!  Rationality 
vindicated??
[15:05] <madcow> Got any suggestions for reading material 
on the subject?
[15:06] <Boozer> Alcuin, are you  a lawyer?
[15:06] <madcow> other than the Bible, of course
[15:06] Elysium (clayton@RED.SEAS.UPENN.EDU) joined 
#apologetics.
[15:06] <Elysium> yo
[15:06] <madcow> ho
[15:06] <Junkyman> hi elysium!
[15:06] <Boozer> hello Elysium
[15:06] <Elysium> brb
[15:07] <Alcuin> _The Death of Christ_  by John Owen.
[15:07] <Alcuin> Boozer: No, I'm not a lawyer.
[15:07] <Alcuin> Hi, Elysium
[15:07] <Elysium> Ok, now let's hit what's wrong with 
presuppositional apologetics
[15:07] <madcow> brb
[15:07] <Boozer> Alcuin, the reason I ask is that your 
questions are very demanding in tone.
[15:08] <Elysium> Alcuin, as a presuppositionalist, can 
you answer a few questions for m?
[15:08] <Junkyman> well, whatever... anyway, i don't 
see how one can see that order out of nothing makes 
any sense at all when that's the opposite of pretty 
much all observations
[15:08] <Elysium> me even.
[15:08] <Boozer> Yes, maybe Elysium can set you straight 
on allowing logic into naturalism.
[15:08] <Alcuin> Boozer: I'm just laying the questions 
out directly, for the sake of clarity and rationality. 
 No cross examination intended [though pun intended] 
:)
[15:08] <Elysium> that's untrue.  Crystal formation, 
spontaneous particle generation in a vaccuum, fractals
[15:08] <Alcuin> Elysium: I disavow the label "presuppositionalist".
[15:08] <Alcuin> However, I'd be pleased to discuss the 
issue with you.
[15:09] <Junkyman> sorry elysium, MOST observations.
[15:09] <Elysium> Alcuin: Ok.  Do you believe that the 
laws of identity and non-contradiction are necessary 
pre-requisites for definition?
[15:10] <Alcuin> For definition?  No.  For clear, stable, 
or cogent definition?  Yes.
[15:10] <Elysium> Alcuin: You mentioned this earlier 
and I'm not clear how this works.  If identity and 
non-contradiction are not accepted as true, how would 
one define something?
[15:11] <Elysium> The American heritage dictionary defines 
definition as, "1. The act of stating a precise meaning 
or significance."
[15:11] <Alcuin> Elysium: Arbitrarily, and with no claims 
to consistency, objective denotation, and intelligibility.
[15:12] <Alcuin> Elysium: Dictionaries are useful summaries 
of usage.  They rarely include the precise definitions 
used in specialized fields, such as philosophy or ballet.
[15:12] <Elysium> Alcuin: That understanding of definition 
is non-standard.  I'm not asking if letters from the 
alphabet can be concatenated in the absence of logic, 
but if *definition* is possible.
[15:12] <Alcuin> Elysium: I'll work with whichever notion 
of definition pleases you.
[15:13] <Elysium> Alcuin: So I think from the beginning 
you should probably alter your notion of definition. 
 Even polymorphic definition requires identity as they 
are intelligible and precise in more than one context.
[15:13] <Alcuin> Let's say arguendo that the only definition 
worth talking about is definition that requires identity 
and non-contradiction.
[15:13] <Elysium> Alcuin: That wont do.  A definition 
which does not assume identty and non-contradiction 
ceases to be a definition.
[15:13] <Alcuin> Elysium: I'm not talking polymorphic. 
 I'm talking whistling in the dark.  But, as I said, 
let's work with something less difficult.
[15:14] <Elysium> Alcuin: Whistling in the dark may be 
just that, but it certainly isn't definition.
[15:14] Frisbee (you@mw2-218.mwtech.com) joined #apologetics.
[15:14] <Elysium> Alcuin: Like I said, in asking whether 
definition ispredicated upon identity and non-contradiction 
I do not mean to imply that any concatenation of letters 
is a definition.
[15:14] Action: Alcuin notes that **mere** quibbles 
over whether "definition" means x or y are hardly worth 
anyone's time. Let's decide which definition we mean 
to discuss, and move ahead, shall we?
[15:15] <Alcuin> Elysium: As I said, if that definition 
of "definition" suits you, I have no objection.
[15:15] Frisbee (you@mw2-218.mwtech.com) left #apologetics.
[15:15] <Elysium> Alcuin: So, we can proceed allowing 
definition to have meaning.  I believe we have dismissed 
your first objection to my rebuttal to the transcendental 
argument.  Definition is contingent upon the laws of 
identity and non-contradi

ction.  An attempt at formi
[15:16] <Elysium> Alcuin: ng a "trivial case" of definition 
fails in that it does not satisfy the meaning as it 
is either used in everyday practice or in philosophy.
[15:17] <Elysium> Alcuin: Now, in regards to the claim 
that god's nature provides the only "possible" ground 
for logic.
[15:17] <Alcuin> Elysium: [a] you have not offered a 
rebuttal to the transcendental argument, as far as 
I know; [b] the everyday practice of using some denotations 
and not others cannot in the nature of the case prove 
a thing.  However, [c] if you

 think you have a rebuttal, let's see it.
[15:17] <Elysium> Alcuin: How do you verify the claim 
that "god's nature" is the only suitable ground for logic? 
 What do you mean by that?
[15:18] <Elysium> Alcuin: Now remember, since we are 
talking about what you consider the basis for logic, 
you are not permitted to use "logic" in your answer.
[15:18] <Alcuin> Elysium: For the sake of clarity in 
our discussion, note: you have identified two issues: 
identity and god's nature.  Shall we take them one 
at a time?  Are you under the impression that you've 
made a point about identity that som

ehow damages the transcendental argument?
[15:18] Seven (blah@cadc47.cadvision.com) joined #apologetics.
[15:19] Seven (blah@cadc47.cadvision.com) left #apologetics.
[15:19] <Junkyman> hiya seven
[15:19] <Junkyman> seeya seven
[15:19] <Elysium> Alcuin: Let's split the question up 
again.  How do you verify the claim that god's nature 
is the only suitable ground for logic?
[15:19] <Alcuin> By retorsion
[15:19] <Junkyman> seeya, i'm not academic enough for 
this one (yet!)
[15:19] Junkyman (jgiesbrec@204.112.246.17) left #apologetics.
[15:20] <Elysium> Alcun: I'm unfamiliar with that term. 
 What does it mean?
[15:20] <Alcuin> It means a kind of indirect argument, 
from the impossibility of consistently denying the 
premise being asserted.
[15:20] <Elysium> Alcuin: But that presupposes identity 
and non-contradiction, which you are attempting to 
establish.
[15:21] <Alcuin> Elysium: Epistemic circularity [which 
is distinct from logical circularity, btw] is not a 
problem with respect to establishing transcendental 
premises.  Didn't you know that?
[15:21] <Elysium> Alcuin: An argument to absurdity if 
you will, makes no sense unless we accept identity 
and non-contradiction.  But if you are using these 
to establish god's nature as the only suitable ground 
for identity and non-contradiction, I

 believe we are approaching
[15:21] <Elysium> the fallacy of question begging.
[15:22] <Alcuin> Elysium: Then you, unfortunately, believe 
incorrectly.
[15:22] <Elysium> Alcuin: does this mean you have no 
satisfactory method of verifying the claim that god's 
nature is the only suitable ground for logic?
[15:22] <Alcuin> Question begging is when premises in 
an argument are assumed for the sake of providing a 
direct demonstration of those same premises.
[15:22] <Elysium> Alcuin: You find yourself int he same 
quandry you accuse atheists of.  You posit a nature 
of god as the only suitable ground for logic, and in 
doing so presuppose logic (i.e., that god's nature 
has identity).
[15:23] <Alcuin> No, Elysium, this means that I have 
a satisfactory method of verifying the claim that god's 
nature is the only suitable ground for logic, and that 
the method is ipso facto indirect, since the discussion 
deals with transcendentals.


[15:24] <Alcuin> Elysium: You are correct that both atheists 
and theists presuppose certain things in order to even 
have a worldview.  Why you consider this *problematic* 
rather than *structurally descriptive* is somewhat 
mysterious.  It's a commo

nplace of 20th c. epistemology, that you can get nowhere 
without starting somewhere.
[15:24] Frisbee (you@mw2-218.mwtech.com) joined #apologetics.
[15:25] Frisbee (you@mw2-218.mwtech.com) left #apologetics.
[15:25] <Alcuin> The fact that a starting place is always 
necessary does not at all tell against the notion that 
one can rationally discriminate among competing starting 
places.
[15:26] <Elysium> Alcuin: Which is pretty much why theism 
must be rejected if one is to be consistent.
[15:26] <Alcuin> Are you confusing logical circularity 
with epistemic circularity?
[15:26] <Elysium> Alcuin: No, not at all; axioms must 
be had.  I accept as axiomatic, logic.  you do not 
argue against logic, but posit a unevidenced being 
as necessarily existent to provide justification for 
my axioms.
[15:27] <Alcuin> On the contrary, Elysium.  If one wants 
to be consistent, and there are several possible starting 
places for one's worldview-formation, then one must 
ask the transcendental question: which of these starting 
places provides for eve

n the possibility of consistency?!
[15:27] <Elysium> Alcuin: A starting place which posits 
a mythical entity is questionable at best.
[15:28] <Alcuin> Elysium: You accept logic as axiomatic, 
yet you reject the other constituents of a worldview 
in which logic makes sense.  Thus, you are left with 
an inconsistent starting place.  You want the wheels, 
and the wind in your hair, but

 you don't believe in internal combustion!
[15:28] Action: Alcuin notes for the record that on 
Elysium's basis, "logic" is as "mythical" as God.
[15:29] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not really; the theistic hypothesis 
doesn't satisfy an actually existent need.  Logic is 
not transcendant.
[15:29] Action: Boozer scribbles out the fallacy Alcuin 
noted in the record.
[15:29] <Elysium> Alcuin: But in either case, it certainly 
doesn't require the *christian* deity's existence.
[15:29] <Alcuin> Oh, you don't think that logic is transcendental? 
 Or do you really mean not transcendent?  The two words 
are different you know.
[15:29] W (cservice@undernet.org) left irc: ERROR: 
Received SIGSEGV :(
[15:29] <Elysium> Alcuin: There are no transcendental 
concepts in the reified sense you are thinking of them.
[15:30] <Alcuin> Elysium: Oh, you know what I'm thinking? 
:)  Explain, please...especially the "reification" claim.
[15:30] <Elysium> Alcuin: In either case, logic as it 
stands is a good deal more intelligible, even as axiomatic 
than "god's nature" a tripartite unity.
[15:31] Action: Alcuin notes for the record that "transcendental" 
means "pertaining to the preconditions of intelligibility" 
while "transcendent"

 means "outside of temporal experience".
[15:31] <Elysium> Alcuin: Logic is a human abstraction 
of properties of this universe.  There is no *logic* 
in an actual sense; just as there is no *actually* 
existent logic; were even being capable of abstracting 
to die, logic would cease to exis

t (though what it refers to
[15:31] <Elysium> would continue).
[15:32] <Alcuin> Elysium: Trinity is no less logical 
than anything else.  God is three in sense(a) and one 
in sense(b).  As long as sense(a) and sense(b) are 
not the same sense, there's no logical problem.
[15:32] <Elysium> Alcuin: The trinity argues that god 
is both three and one in regard to his person; the 
same sense.
[15:32] <Elysium> Alcuin: Jesus is both mortal (human) 
and immortal; 2 exclusive states of being.
[15:32] <Alcuin> Elysium: Hmm.  So you are actually willing 
to assert that logic is not actual, not something that 
exists.   Is that logical?
[15:33] <Alcuin> Elysium: All Christian doctrines that 
seem mysterious can be formulated so as to satisfy 
logic.  Does that surprise you?  The question is not 
whether such is possible, but rather whether we must 
accept the propositions so specifie

d.
[15:34] <Elysium> Alcuin: Logic does not have an *actual* 
existence (save as configurations of neurons in the 
brain); it's a human abstraction.
[15:34] <Alcuin> Elysium: And have humans experienced 
all of the material universe, or only a tiny part?
[15:34] <Elysium> Alcuin: i've read many attempts by 
christians to make 3 equal 1 in the same sense.
[15:34] <Alcuin> Elysium: Such christians do damage to 
their own worldview.  You are right to object to that 
same-sense nonsense.
[15:34] <Elysium> Alcuin: A very tiny part.
[15:35] <Alcuin> Elysium: And so at best, logic is an 
abstraction of just a tiny part of what's there?
[15:35] <Elysium> Alcuin: Yet in order to satisfy the 
OT constraints that "the lord our god, the lord is one."
[15:35] <Elysium> Alcuin: While maintaining the christ/deity 
+ holy spirit equation, these attempts are necessary.
[15:35] <Elysium> Alcuin: Either, in respect to his person, 
god is one, or god is three.  But not both.
[15:35] W (cservice@undernet.org) joined #apologetics.
[15:35] <Alcuin> Elysium: As I demonstrated above, Lord 
is one and Lord is three are not necessarily contradictory, 
though there's much we don't know about just how the 
senses(a and b) differ.
[15:36] Mode change '+o W ' by channels2.undernet.org
[15:36] <Elysium> Alcuin: In any case, occams' razor 
takes care of the transcendental argument.  Neither 
of us rejects the conclusion, that logic is valid.
[15:36] <Elysium> Alcuin: I accept the principles as 
axiomatic; you claim they are rooted in god's nature, 
which of course bars you from any knowledge *about* 
god's nature.
[15:36] <Alcuin> The doctrine of Christ can also be formulated 
in logically valid terms.  Likewise the spirit.  The 
fact that some christians {and some nonchristians} 
fail to do so doesn't tell against the doctrine....
[15:37] <Elysium> Alcuin: The doctrine of 3 in 1 in the 
same sense can not be logically valid.
[15:37] <Alcuin> Elysium: On the contrary, the claim 
that logic is rooted in God's nature is involved in 
the certainty of knowing something about God's nature.
[15:37] <Elysium> Alcuin: It's a very simple objection, 
one which opponents of the trinity concept voiced.
[15:37] <Elysium> Alcuin: There can be no knowledge outside 
of identity/non-contradiction.
[15:38] <Alcuin> Meanwhile, you assume that logic is 
axiomatic, yet it's an axiom that you admit is "unreal" 
"nonactual" merely an "abstraction" and one abstracted 
from a "very tiny" realm of experience.  What kind of 
axiom is that?
[15:38] <Elysium> Alcuin: You're shooting off your own 
foot; how do we verify that god's nature is in fact 
the ground for logic if we do not presuppose god's 
nature as having identity?
[15:38] <Elysium> Alcuin: It leaves one open for all 
sorts of sundry claims; personal revelation (conflicting 
ones at that) becomes the only means by which we can 
gain information about this purported nature.
[15:39] <Elysium> Alcuin: Which is pretty much the same 
as saying, "God exists because I believe god exists."
[15:39] <Alcuin> Elysium: And a nontheistic worldview 
cannot possibly account for identity and noncontradiction. 
 From which it follows that logic is impossible without 
theistic premises in one's worldview.
[15:39] <Elysium> Alcuin: That logic is not accounted 
for does not imply that logic can not *be*.
[15:40] <Boozer> Alcuin returns to the basic anti-naturalist 
stance.
[15:40] <Alcuin> Elysium: As I mentioned above [and perhaps 
you should reflect on this at length, so the objection 
doesn't keep confusing you], presupposing the theistic 
frame of reference doesn't disallow the possibility 
of [a] verifying the nece

ssity of that basis or [b] having knowledge about that 
basis.  You are confusing logical circularity with 
epistemic circularity.
[15:40] <Elysium> Alcuin: I agree with you, and hume 
in this regard; I can not verify the axioms of logic.
[15:41] <Elysium> Alcuin: How exactly do you propose 
to verify any information about god's nature without 
*presupposing* that god's nature has identity?
[15:41] <Alcuin> Personal revelations at this time would 
be inconsistent with the Christian worldview, imo. 
 
[15:41] <Elysium> Alcuin: Many christian disagree, but 
that is neither here nor there.
[15:41] <Elysium> Alcuin: I am not confusing epistemic 
circularity with logical circularity.  Epistemological 
axioms *entail* logical axioms.
[15:42] <Alcuin> No, the fact that logic is not accounted 
for does not imply that logic cannot be.  Exactly. 
 You're following my argument now.  Logic can be, *precisely* 
because the world isn't what the non-theistic worldview 
suggests!
[15:42] <Elysium> Alcuin: The minute you step back behind 
logic, you enter unintelligibility.
[15:42] <Elysium> Alcuin: no, if your argument is as 
you stated it before you concluded that logic is *impossible* 
in a non-theistic world *because a non-theistic worldview 
can not account for logic*.
[15:43] <Elysium> Alcuin: But the conclusion does not 
follow from the premises; an unaccounted for concept 
does not imply anything at all about a worldview, save 
that in that worldview it is unaccounted for.
[15:43] <Alcuin> Yes.  That's logically equivalent to 
my other phrasing of the claim.
[15:44] <Alcuin> Yes, in the worldview that denies theism, 
logic cannot be accounted for.  Are you granting this?
[15:44] <Elysium> Alcuin: No, I am saying that I am not 
currently able to account for it.
[15:44] <Elysium> Alcuin: I am not saying that logic 
*can not be accounted for* without recourse to fantasy.
[15:44] <Alcuin> "not currently able" is waffling.  I'm 
suggesting that it is impossible in principle, not 
merely unlikely.
[15:45] <Elysium> Alcuin: But the suggestion certainly 
doesn't *necessarily* follow from the premise.
[15:45] <Elysium> Alcuin: The leap from, "logic is not 
accounted for" to "logic can not be accounted for" is 
unwarranted.
[15:45] <Alcuin> If it is even the tiniest bit likely 
that a non-theistic worldview can account for logic, 
then show how.  Otherwise [a] why do you use logic, 
and [b] why do you find such a worldview credible?
[15:46] <Alcuin> Elysium: I'm not making such a leap. 
 As I said two comments ago, I'm arguing the stronger 
of those two claims.
[15:46] <Elysium> Alcuin: how would you determine the 
probabilities in this instance? I'm interested in what 
paradigm you are using.
[15:47] <Alcuin> Elysium: It *does* so happen that you 
personally are unable to account for logic.  I'm not 
suggesting that that leads to a principial rejection 
of non-theism.  It does lead to the untenability of 
your personal version of nontheism

 at this time.  However, I'm suggesting that non-theism 
as such is in the nature of the case unable to account 
for logic.
[15:47] <Elysium> Alcuin: As to A) I use logic because 
I dislike the consequences of solipsism, and B) I find 
the alternative even less credible.  To say that logic 
is accounted for by an unverifiable, unobservable, 
indeed unagreed upon by those w

ho *do* believe in it, is t
[15:47] <Elysium> o say that logic is *still* unaccounted 
for.
[15:48] <Alcuin> Elysium: But since your logic is an 
abstraction from a tiny range of experience, and isn't 
"actual" and "real" , your logic *is* solipsistic.  No?
[15:48] <Elysium> Alcuin: That isn't what you stated 
earlier; you stated that since logic is unaccounted 
for in a non-theistic worldview, logic can not exist 
in a non-theistic world view.  I stated your argument 
twice, and you agreed that I satisf

actorily described it.
[15:49] <Alcuin> Moreover, I'm not making the claim that 
you attempt to pin on me, namely that "logic is accounted 
for by an unverifiable" entity.
[15:49] <Elysium> Alcuin: No, it allows me to communicate 
with other individuals who's range of experience is 
similar.  Perhaps one day we will encounter a part 
of the universe who's structure does not require identity 
and non-contradiction.
[15:49] <Elysium> Alcuin: Verification without logic 
does not exist; Verification requires *identity*, which 
means that any entity who provides the foundation for 
logic is *necessarily* unverifiable.
[15:50] <Elysium> Alcuin: Which leads back to what I 
stated earlier; the transcendental "Argument" amounts 
to, "God exists because I believe god exists."
[15:50] <Alcuin> Elysium: If someone mugs you and takes 
your wallet, all he need do to justify himself is say, 
"Gee, Elysium, this must be one of those place/times 
where logic doesn't apply!"
[15:50] <Elysium> Alcuin: That does not follow and is 
entirely irrelavent.
[15:50] <Alcuin> Elysium: Likewise, if someone wants 
to disagree with you in your world, he need only say 
he's using other laws of logic!  Your world, as you 
describe it, provides for no rational means of settling 
such issues!
[15:51] VitamnTom (VitaminTo@dial-15.r2.gaagst.InfoAve.Net) 
joined #apologetics.
[15:51] VitamnTom (VitaminTo@dial-15.r2.gaagst.InfoAve.Net) 
left #apologetics.
[15:51] <Elysium> Alcuin: I make no bones about it; I 
am currently unable to account for the laws of logic. 
 Indeed until some other medium besides empiricism 
becomes available to me, I suspect I will always be 
unable to account for it
[15:51] <Alcuin> Elysium: You say ""Verification without 
logic does not exist; Verification requires *identity*, 
 which means that any entity who provides the foundation 
for logic is *necessarily* unverifiable.""   Elysium, 
this is a notorious non-sequitur. 
[15:51] <Alcuin> Elysium: You are a man of faith; I see 
that.
[15:52] <Elysium> Alcuin: Then tell me, how do you propose 
to have knowledge about the nature of god, unless god's 
nature has identity?  and unless god's nature is not 
not-god's nature.
[15:52] <Alcuin> Elysium: It happens that there is some 
other means than empiricism at your disposal, insofar 
as you have transactions with non-material things that 
are not apprehended by the five senses....
[15:52] <Elysium> Alcuin: We're dealing with the necessary 
ramifications of the statement, "logic is unaccounted 
for in a non-theistic worldview."  It does not follow 
from this that logic can not exist in a non-

theistic world.
[15:53] <Elysium> Alcuin: What other means are at my 
disposal and how would we verify it?
[15:53] <Elysium> Alcuin: Even my contact with the bible 
requires my senses.
[15:53] madcow (wtburns@dialin17.mwtech.com) left irc: 

[15:54] <Alcuin> Elysium: This really seems difficult 
for you, and I'm not sure why.  I've tried to be clear, 
but I'll reiterate: I'm *not* merely claiming "logic 
is unaccounted for in a nontheistic worldview"--

Get it?  I'm claiming that logic "cannot be accounted 
for in a nontheistic worldview".  The claims are distinct.
[15:54] <Alcuin> Elysium: I'm not suggesting that we 
not depend on the senses.  I'm suggesting that it is 
nonsense to suggest that we depend *only* on the senses.
[15:54] <Elysium> Alcuin: In fact, according to your 
own statement about our very limited experience with 
the universe, it shouldn't be suprising that my non-theism 
does not account for logic;  there are plenty of places 
we haven't looked.
[15:54] <Elysium> Alcuin: And I am saying to suggest 
that we depend on something else is a suggestion eyond 
verification.
[15:54] <Alcuin> Elysium: Exactly.  Your nontheism is 
nonrational.
[15:55] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not at all.  Now, how do you 
propose to prove your statement that, "logic cannot 
be accounted for in a non-theistic worldview."?
[15:55] <Alcuin> Elysium: By verification, are you depending 
on the early 20th c. notion of empirical verification? 
 [you're not, are you?]
[15:55] <Elysium> Alcuin: th euniverse may be the result 
of the activity of finite, but very advanced beings.
[15:56] <Elysium> Alcuin: It may well all be a hallucination, 
though I doubt this.  In any case, I'm curious as to 
how you arrive at the conclusion that logic *can* not 
(as opposed to is not) be accounted for without recourse 
to deities?
[15:56] Dysani (Dysani.tn@slip10.rnet.com) joined #APOLOGETICS.
[15:56] <Alcuin> There will necessarily be transcendental 
preconditions to the activity of those "advanced beings". 
 So?
[15:57] Dysani (Dysani.tn@slip10.rnet.com) left #APOLOGETICS.
[15:57] <Elysium> Alcuin: How will you verify that statement? 
That there are necessary "transcendental preconditions"?
[15:57] <Alcuin> Elysium: My claim is, again, not that 
which you attribute to me.  It's much more specific. 
 I'm claiming that logic presupposes specifically the 
Christian doctrine of God.  No other deities come into 
it.
[15:57] <Elysium> Alcuin: Oddly enough, it could even 
be accounted for by an infinite, but long dead deity.
[15:58] <Alcuin> Elysium: Since you're tossing the term 
around so much, why don't you define "verify" ?  That'll 
contribute to the clarity of our discussion.
[15:58] <Elysium> 2. To determine or test the truth or 
accuracy of, as by comparison,
[15:58] <Elysium> investigation, or reference:
[15:58] <Elysium>  ``conduct experiments to verify a 
hypothesis.
[15:59] <Elysium> American heritage dictionary, quote 
is from that is.
[15:59] <Elysium> I maintain that your "justification 
of logic" is beyond verification; and according to your 
own reasoning, this lack of verification indicates 
the impossibility of god's nature as actually exis

tent.
[15:59] <Alcuin> As for the numerous hypotheses that 
you're offering: so?  It's trivial to generate hypothetical 
scenarios.  The question is whether any of them comports 
with reality.  Specifically, do the suggested worldviews 
provide the precondi

tions of logic,etc.  So, as long as you choose to crank 
'em out, I'll be glad to refute 'em, but there's little 
point.
[16:00] <Elysium> Alcuin: And I maintain that as logic 
provides the basis for definition, any "precondition" 
can be at best undefined.  In your case it not only 
is undefined, it's non-existent.
[16:01] <Elysium> Alcuin: In the very least, if someone 
were to posit the necessity of finite, but very advance 
universe builders, we could at least hope for some 
sort of interaction to verify the claims about the 
finite but advanced universe crea

tor's nature.
[16:01] <Alcuin> Elysium: just as I suspected.  You're 
hung up on the notion of "verification" as an empirical 
procedure, and you think it's particularly telling 
that abstract beings, like logic, cannot be empir

ically verified.  So?  Not all knowledge can be empirically 
verified because not all known things are material. 
 However, some knowledge is true, justified belief 
in non-material things [such as laws of logic].  Are 
you under the impression that al

[16:02] <Alcuin> If you mean "God is unverifiable" because 
God is not empirically verifiable, then that's [a] 
obvious, and [b] irrelevant.
[16:02] <Elysium> Alcuin: Can you tell me of a non-material 
(neither energy nor matter) thing?
[16:02] <Elysium> Alcuin: And explain how we verify it's 
existence?
[16:02] <Alcuin> Sure: Laws of logic.
[16:02] <Alcuin> Sure: by retorsion.
[16:02] <Elysium> Alcuin: The laws of logic do not have 
an actual existence.
[16:02] <Alcuin> So you claim, and your claim leads to 
irrationality and solipsism.
[16:03] <Elysium> Alcuin: correction, they do not have 
an actual existence save in the neurons of intelligent 
beings.
[16:03] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not at all; it accepts concepts 
as what they are, concepts.  There isn't a transcendental 
plane where a sort of metaphysical "form of logic" exists.
[16:03] <Elysium> Alcuin: not if existence is to have 
any intelligible meaning.
[16:04] <Elysium> Alcuin: For instance, there is no *thing* 
that is two.  The number two is an abstraction.
[16:04] <Alcuin> Elysium, perhaps you didn't realize 
that from a contradictory proposition P, any other 
proposition whatsoever can be logically inferred.  
So, if you deny that logic is "actual", if you relativiz

e logic to individual human activity, then you have 
abandoned rationality altogether.
[16:04] <Elysium> Alcuin: The letter 2 isn't the *concept* 
but rather a way of communicating the concept.
[16:04] <Elysium> Alcuin: I have not relativized logic; 
the concept is a valid abstraction of fundamental structures 
in the universe as far as we know.
[16:05] <Elysium> Alcuin: Geocentrism is a invalid abstraction 
of the structure of the solar ystem.
[16:05] <Alcuin> Elysium: Sadly, the notion that concepts 
are material configurations of neurological transmitters 
in the brain eliminates the possibility of universal 
concepts.  No two people have the same brain.  Therefore, 
each to her own.

[16:05] <Elysium> Alcuin: I agree with that; no two concepts 
are the same, though they may convey the same information.
[16:06] <Alcuin> Elysium: You preach that logic as a 
concept is a valid abstraction of fundamental structures 
in the universe, as far as we know.  Do you not see 
how that undermines rationality?
[16:06] <Elysium> Alcuin: Since logic is an abstraction 
from the physical universe, and the beings in question 
are both abstracting from the same physical universe, 
they can convey the same information.
[16:06] <Elysium> Alcuin: not at all.  It does not undermine 
rationality at all; it puts rationlity in proper perspective. 
There's nothing mystical at all about rationality.
[16:06] <Elysium> Alcuin: 
[16:07] <Alcuin> *How* does one determine the correct 
[rather than incorrect] method of abstraction?  How 
does one determine whether two abstractions from the 
same data have the same qualities *as concepts*?
[16:07] <Elysium> Alcuin: That's where testing comes 
in.
[16:07] <Elysium> Alcuin: Although apparently you have 
some way of testing concepts which are beyond our senses.
[16:07] <Alcuin> Elysium: On the basis you have described 
[which smacks of the pop-philosophy of Ayn Rand, btw], 
rationality is not merely nonmystical--it is entirely 
impossible.
[16:07] <Elysium> Alcuin: I'd be interested in "Seeing" 
this method, though I suspect it is conjectre on your 
part.
[16:08] <Alcuin> And you apparently have no way of testing 
concepts whatsoever.
[16:08] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not at all. TRanscendental 
rationality is impossible, because transcendental concepts 
*do not actually exist* (save as neuron configurations).
[16:08] <Alcuin> That's the prejudice you preach, I realize. 
 
[16:08] <Elysium> Alcuin: of course I do.  The concept 
that the sun revolves around the earth can be tested.
[16:08] <Elysium> Alcuin: I think I'm understanding what 
it is that lies behind your theism.  You believe that 
"transcendental concepts" have an actual existence.
[16:08] <Alcuin> But you admit that the conclusions provided 
by testing are limited to the instances tested!
[16:09] Boozer (scott@daphne.gfdi.fsu.edu) left irc: 
Ping timeout for Boozer[daphne.gfdi.fsu.edu]
[16:09] <Elysium> Alcuin: No, I do not.  The conclusions 
provided by testing are limited by instances in which 
those conclusions are tested as false.
[16:09] <Elysium> Alcuin: So I'm not *really* afraid 
that in some part of the universe, F != MA, though 
I allow for the possibility.
[16:10] <Alcuin> So then, it you test 100,000 ducks and 
they're all white, are you rationally justified in 
saying that all ducks are white?
[16:10] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not at all, and that's a pretty 
pathetic straw man.
[16:10] <Alcuin> It's virtually a quote from your earlier 
comments.
[16:10] <Elysium> Alcuin: If I test 100,000 ducks, and 
they all are carbon-based, then I have good reasons 
to conclude that ducks are carbon based.
[16:11] <Elysium> Alcuin: should I ever encounter a non-carbon 
based duck (extremely unlikely), then I will revise 
my conclusion.
[16:11] <Elysium> Alcuin: Finite beings don't have the 
means to verify infinite concepts.
[16:11] Boozer (scott@daphne.gfdi.fsu.edu) joined #apologetics.
[16:11] <Alcuin> Then if someone tells you that there 
are non-carbon-based ducks, do you [a] say, "no there 
aren't" or [b] tests every thing to determine whether 
it's a non-carbon-based duck or not?
[16:11] <Elysium> Alcuin: There just isn't enough time. 
 This precludes our ability to rationally justify any 
concept we believe in as transcendant.
[16:12] <Boozer> Is this being logged by either of you?
[16:12] <Elysium> Alcuin: Well, I ask them to produce 
a non-carbon based duck, and I conduct some tests on 
it.
[16:12] <Alcuin> On the basis you suggest, there isn't 
enough time to rationally justify any concept whatsoever@
[16:12] <Alcuin> And if they don't produce one, then 
you don't believe in it, right?
[16:13] <Elysium> Alcuin: No, not at all.  We can rationally 
justify concepts and conclude that "this concept is 
very probably true everywhere"; but how would we ever 
conclude that a concept is necessarily trans

cendent?  WE're finite creatures, there'd never be 
enough time 
[16:13] <Elysium> check.
[16:13] <Elysium> Alcuin: I lack belief in the claim, 
"non-carbon based ducks exist" until confronted with 
compelling evidence to the contrary.
[16:13] <Elysium> Alcuin: Which is, btw, my stance with 
regards to your claim, "god exists".
[16:13] <Alcuin> Time is irrelevant to confirming the 
existence of transcendent things!  Transcendent by 
definition is logically distinct from considerations 
of time.  Confused?
[16:14] <Elysium> Alcuin: And I'm saying that if that's 
the case, the as finite beings, transcendant concepts 
are off-limits rationally.
[16:14] <Alcuin> Elysium: Good, we're about to see the 
irrationality of your position:  Do you believe that 
the law of logic (A v ~A) exists?
[16:14] <Elysium> Alcuin: We may speculate or conjecture 
about them, but we have no way of rationally knowing 
them.
[16:14] <Elysium> Alcuin: As an object? no.
[16:14] <Alcuin> That doesn't follow at all.
[16:15] <Alcuin> i.e., you claim that transcendent concepts 
are off limits rationally is a non-sequitur.  Nevertheless, 
let's stick with laws of logic for a minute.
[16:15] <Elysium> However, I would point out that christian 
theism does not entail non-contradicton.  An eternal 
ever-present and immortal deity can be both alive and 
dead.
[16:16] <Elysium> Alcuin: If transcendent concepts are 
"actually existing infinites" then finite beings are 
unable to rationally verify their truth.
[16:16] <Alcuin> When you make any judgment whatsoever, 
do you use the law of noncontradiction, (A&~A) ?
[16:16] <Elysium> Alcuin: There isn't enouh time; suppose 
the purportedly infinite concept is only true up until 
th elast picosecond of existence? (a pico second which 
can never happen if the concept is transcendental).
[16:17] <Alcuin> Elysium: That's sheer assertion, and 
there's no reason at all to believe it!  Finitude doesn't 
preclude knowledge of abstract entities. Nevertheless, 
**I propose that you not duck the issue of logic**
[16:17] <Alcuin> When you make any judgment whatsoever, 
do you use the law of noncontradiction,   (A&~A) ?
[16:17] <Elysium> Alcuin: That question is a little general. 
 Do you mean in practice, or technically?
[16:17] <Alcuin> <That should've been (A v ~A), of course>
[16:18] <Elysium> or from my profession A && !A
[16:18] <Elysium> :)
[16:18] <Alcuin> Elysium is a programmer?
[16:18] <Elysium> yep.
[16:18] <Alcuin> kewl
[16:18] <Alcuin> Now, in practice do you use (Av~A) ?
[16:19] <Elysium> Alcuin: Everyday?  I dont have any 
choice.  I have no experience with contradictory events.
[16:19] <Alcuin> But that begs the question.  How would 
you know whether you had experience with contradictory 
events?
[16:20] <Alcuin> By applying the little "law" that you 
have "abstracted" from those same events?
[16:20] <Elysium> Alcuin: How is that begging the question?
[16:20] <Alcuin> Why not use this law instead: (A&~A) 
 ?
[16:20] <Elysium> Alcuin: non-contradiction is a precondition 
for knowledge.
[16:20] <Alcuin> Why should anyone in a naturalist world 
believe such a claim?
[16:21] <Elysium> Alcuin: I accept it as an axiom.  I 
state that it comes frome xperience because I dont 
begin my life with experiences.
[16:21] <Alcuin> eh?
[16:21] <Alcuin> You state that it comes from experience, 
but you don't begin your life with experiences.
[16:22] <Alcuin> So, you start your life with no logical 
tools?
[16:22] <Elysium> Alcuin: The law of non-contradiction 
is incorporated into what I "know" as the result of experience. 
 I am not born with the concept of non-contradiction 
in my brain.
[16:23] <Elysium> Alcuin: I experience *reality* which 
does not entail contradiction (since contradiction 
is a concept not an actually existent thing)
[16:23] <Alcuin> Then some sense-data happen to you. 
 If you say that they're noncontradictory experiences 
and therefore infer non-contradiction from them, that's 
circular.  You need the law to determine that the experiences 
are non-contradictory 

in the first place!  But if you grant that the experiences 
may be contradictory, then you never gain access to 
the law you desire.
[16:24] <Alcuin> If you don't have the law in advance, 
the experiences are just so much white noise.
[16:24] <Elysium> Alcuin: from that experience I conclude 
that objects can not be both a and not-a.
[16:24] <Alcuin> Why?
[16:24] <Elysium> Alcuin: That doesn't follow at all. 
 Precisely because it ignores the temporal nature of 
the problem.  *I personally* did not abstract the law 
of non-contradiction until sufficient events occured 
for me to abstract it.
[16:25] <Alcuin> But Elysium, the process of abstraction 
involves the use of the law you're claiming to abstract 
from those experiences!  Otherwise, the process itself 
could be erratic!
[16:26] <Alcuin> <This doesn't even address the fact that 
there are many laws of logic for which no corresponding 
physical phenomenon can be indicated.>
[16:26] <Elysium> Alcuin: *sigh*.  The process of abstraction 
which leads to me *stating* the conclusion (the law 
of non-contradiction) entails the use of non-contradiction 
(not explicitly though).
[16:27] <Alcuin> So you deny that the process of abstraction 
which leads to your *conceptualizing* the law of non-contradiction 
does not itself have to be a non-contradictory process?
[16:27] <Elysium> Alcuin: I am not claiming that the 
law of non-contradiction is valid *because* of my experience, 
but that I formulate it via experience.
[16:27] <Alcuin> Yet such a claim is blatantly question-begging.
[16:28] <Elysium> Alcuin: not at all.  If I were claiming 
that non-contradiction is valid because I experience 
non-contradictory reality, *that* would be begging 
the question.
[16:28] <Alcuin> You claim that you start without the 
law, that you have a few experiences, and then through 
the magic of "abstraction" you somehow infer the law 
from those experiences, without reference to the 

law itself.
[16:28] <Elysium> Alcuin: But I do not exist in a metaphysical 
sense; I am a finite being.  I dont start off with 
all of my concepts elaborated.
[16:29] <Alcuin> Elysium: No, that would be a contradiction.
[16:29] <Elysium> Alcuin: No, I claim that I start without 
an elaboration of the law.
[16:29] <Alcuin> Elysium: But does the law hold apart 
from your having any elaboration of it?
[16:30] <Elysium> Alcuin: the law of contradiction does 
not exist apart from an elaboration of it, though the 
physical structure of the universe on which the concept 
is based, does.
[16:30] <Elysium> Alcuin: rather, the law of non-contradiction.
[16:30] <Alcuin> On which the concept is based===question 
begging.
[16:31] <Alcuin> Does the law exist independent of minds? 
If so, then it's not relative to particular minds after 
all.  If not, then how does your mind happen upon that 
law and not it's negation?
[16:32] <Elysium> Alcuin: You really don't get this one 
do you?  What we formalize as the law of non-contradiction 
is the result of the *actual* structure of the universe. 
 The "law" as it will has no existence 

independent of minds.
[16:32] <Elysium> Alcuin: The universe however, does 
have an existence independent of minds.  Minds which 
come into being in that universe will opt for solipsism 
or will abstract the law of non-contradiction.
[16:32] <Alcuin> There are, after all, numerous "laws 
of logic" that are inconsistent with one another and 
are all vying for your attention.  Meanwhile, you cannot 
appeal mystically to the "str

ucture of the universe" when [a] you have extremely 
limited experience of it, and [b] your notion of the 
universe can't determine the law, if the law is what 
determines your notion of the universe.
[16:33] <Alcuin> Elysium: Or both, apparently.
[16:33] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not at all.  I maintain that 
the law of non-contradiction does not exist apart from 
brains (or minds if you will).
[16:34] <Alcuin> No, Elysium, I don't *get* how you think 
you know the "actual structure of the universe", which 
, by the way, "does have an existence independent of 
minds".  

Sounds pretty arbitrary from here.
[16:34] <Elysium> Alcuin: Our axioms are just different. 
 I begin with the primacy of the universe.  You begin 
with the primacy of a deity.
[16:34] <Alcuin> Beginning with the primacy of the universe, 
it is impossible to give a cogent rational account 
of the possibility of knowledge, as you have demonstrated.
[16:35] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not at all, there is no *leap 
of faith* that is required.  Knowledge is possible 
because it is abstracted from the axiom, "The universe 
is primary".
[16:35] <Boozer> And now we're back where we started.
[16:35] <Elysium> Alcuin: You may account for knowledge 
by adding th addition of a deity; You certainly aren't 
arguing that the universe does not exist.  Occams razor 
takes care of the rest.
[16:35] <Alcuin> Elysium: Do you have a way out of your 
logical circle?  logic is inferred from consistent 
nature, and we know that consistent nature is consistent 
because our logic tells us so?
[16:36] <Boozer> Alcuin, I hope you're logging this and 
pass it on to profg for the web site.  I want to see 
how it comes out.
[16:36] <Boozer> later fellas.
[16:36] Boozer (scott@daphne.gfdi.fsu.edu) left #apologetics.
[16:36] <Elysium> Alcuin: Do you have a way out of your 
logical circle?  Logic is inferred from the "nature 
of god" and our knowledge of that nature is contingent 
on logic being valid.
[16:37] <Alcuin> You seem to have a fuzzy notion of Occam's 
razor.  It dictates that one eliminate premises that 
are unnecessary to the construction of the case.  Clearly, 
the elimination of the theistic premise in worldview 
construction leads to 

self-contradiction [despite veneration of logic].  
So Occam's Razor would seem to support me on this. 
:_
[16:37] <Alcuin> By, Boozer!
[16:37] <Elysium> Alcuin: You say potato, I say potato. 
 The universe is the axiom upon which conceptual abstractions 
"logic" are bsed.
[16:37] <Elysium> based even.
[16:37] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not at all.  The premise unnecessary 
to the construction of knowledge is a god.
[16:37] <Alcuin> Elysium: As it happens, I do have a 
way out of the circle.
[16:38] <Alcuin> Elysium: You keep asserting that the 
universe is the basis for the conceptual abstraction 
"logic", yet you have no independent means of verifying 
that the universe implies your preferred "logic."  Ring 
aroung the rosy....
[16:38] <Elysium> Alcuin: It simply wont do to shift 
the problem of verifying logic (a nonsensical term 
if I ever saw one) to verifying god's nature.
[16:39] <Elysium> Alcuin: You keep asserting that god 
is the basis for logic, yet have no independent means 
of verifying that either god exists or that god's existence 
entails logic.
[16:39] <Alcuin> Elysium: So, you figure that all those 
philosophers of logic have been wasting their time 
asking these questions?
[16:39] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not at all.
[16:40] <Alcuin> Elysium: You say ""Alcuin: You keep asserting 
that god is the basis for logic, yet have no independent 
means of verifying that either god exists or that god's 
existence entails logic"

"   Yet this is false.
[16:40] <Elysium> Alcuin: Perhaps one day knowledge will 
be possible without identity/non-contradiction as pre-requisites; 
until then, the question is beyond verification.
[16:40] <Elysium> Alcuin: It's analogou to asking what 
color my dog is, I dont have a dog to have a color. 
 "Verify" has no meaning without logic.
[16:42] <Elysium> And since neither of us is questioning 
the presence of knowledge, let's do away with the unnecessary 
construct, "god" (unless you would rather do away with 
the concept of universe)
[16:42] <Alcuin> In a worldview that [a] allows for the 
existence of abstract beings, the universality and 
normativity of logic are not problematized by the relativistic 
circle that plagues your view; [b] arguments by retorsion 
are possible, becau

se there is an objective method [viz. logic] for testing 
their validity, and [c] sense data and abstraction 
from them is non-arbitrary and verifiable, because 
of the existence of laws that affirm continuity of 
ex
[16:43] <Elysium> What exactly is an abstract being?
[16:43] <Alcuin> Elysium: You say [charmingly] ""And since 
neither of us is questioning the presence of knowledge, 
let's do away with the unnecessary construct, "god"""  
 Yet, we are not at all agreed as to *what* knowledge 
is.  We're not on common ground here, as if there were 
some "knowledge" apart from the presupposition of a God 
who makes such things

 intelligible.  Why pretend to neutrality?
[16:43] <Alcuin> An abstract being is a being not extended 
in space/time.
[16:44] <Elysium> The presupposition of god is exactly 
what is in question.  Knowledge exists apart from the 
existence of god.
[16:44] <Alcuin> Wrong, imo
[16:45] <Elysium> Which is where we diverge.  Knowledge 
doesn't need a god, and certainly doesn't need an omnipotent, 
currently living, god.
[16:45] <Alcuin> And the inability to give an account 
of why one uses logic or how one knows [apart from 
reference to theism] is symptomatic of the soundness 
of the claim I've made.
[16:45] <Elysium> I can form abstractions about the physical 
world around me; some of those abstractions will be 
valid (that is, my internal subjective representation 
of the world corresponds to an actually existent state 
of affairs).
[16:46] <Alcuin> To back up *your* claim, all you need 
do is provide *one* cogent non-theistic account of 
the possibility of knowledge.  Where's your purple, 
non-carbon-based duck, Elysium?
[16:47] <Elysium> Alcuin: But your use of the term knowledge 
differs from mine.  You believe that knowledge has 
a transcendental existence, which I see no reason to 
belive.
[16:47] <Alcuin> Elysium: How would you *ever* know that 
your subjective construct corresponds to the external 
state of affairs, since on your basis, you have no 
access to that external state of affairs except what's 
mediated by your construct?
[16:47] <Elysium> Alcuin: So all you need to do is provide 
one cogent example of a deity (take your pick, christian 
or otherwise) and that' deity's nature, and we're all 
set.
[16:47] <Alcuin> The reason to believe that knowledge 
has preconditions is that denial of that claim leads 
to the inability to avoid contradiction in accounting 
for knowledge.
[16:48] <Elysium> Alcuin: I agree, knowledge does have 
preconditions.  I am in no way denying that statement. 
 I deny that god is a necessary precondition (since 
god is unverifiable).
[16:48] <Elysium> Alcuin: The preconditions for knowledge 
*are*.  That's just the way it is, if you will.
[16:49] <Alcuin> What do you take to be the preconditions 
of knowledge?
[16:49] <Elysium> I have the physical universe, my senses, 
and a bunch of other folks to collaborate with.  That's 
all it takes.
[16:49] <Elysium> Alcuin: Now there you go asking me 
what color my dog is.  The preconditions of knowledge 
*are*.
[16:49] MrBell (Micah@ppp109.ihug.co.nz) joined #apologetics.
[16:50] <Alcuin> No answer, huh....
[16:50] <Elysium> Alcuin: How do you propose to have 
knowledge of the preconditions of knowledge?
[16:50] <Alcuin> You say: ""The preconditions for knowledge 
*are*.  That's just the way it is, if you will.""  "I'm 
right because it's just that way," you say!
[16:50] <Elysium> Alcuin: By positing a deity that stands 
in the capacity of a metaphysical warehouse?
[16:51] <Elysium> Alcuin: Pretty much.  If you've got 
gripes about the way the universe is, you certainly 
have the option of adjusting your membership in it.
[16:51] <Alcuin> Elysium: Knowledge of preconditions 
comes by justifying claims that such and such is a 
precondition of knowledge.  The logical method employed 
is retorsion: denial of certain claims [and not others] 
leads to a scenario where a non

-contradictory account of knowledge cannot be given.
[16:51] <Elysium> Alcuin: It's a nonsensical question. 
 One which can have no answer because it has no form.
[16:52] <Elysium> Alcuin: Ok, let's take that sentence 
apart.
[16:52] MrBell (Micah@ppp109.ihug.co.nz) left #apologetics.
[16:52] <Elysium> Alcuin: "Knowledge"(knowledge 1) of preconditions 
comes by justifying claims that such and such is a 
precondition of "knowledge"(knowledge 2).
[16:52] <Alcuin> Elysium: I'm quite con
tent with the way the universe is.  I'm quite content 
with those things that I cannot deny while maintaining 
my rationality.  I'm even content that you're able 
psychologically to live in the world the way it 

is, even though what you say about that world is not 
cogent.
[16:52] <Elysium> Alcuin: What is the definition of that 
odd concatenation "Knowledge"(knowledge 1)?
[16:54] <Alcuin> For some person P and for some proposition 
Q, P has "knowledge" of Q if and only if [a] Q is true, 
and [b] P believes that Q,  and [c] P is warranted 
in believing that Q.
[16:54] <Alcuin> That's the definition of knowledge.
[16:54] <Elysium> Alcuin: I'm not asking for a definition 
of what it means to *have knowledge* or a description 
of the set of individuals who possess knwledge.
[16:54] <Elysium> Alcuin: I'm asking for a definition 
of the odd concatenation "knwledge"(knowledge 1)?
[16:54] <Alcuin> "knowledge" = true, warranted belief.
[16:55] <Alcuin> Does that paraphrase help?
[16:55] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not really; since that entails 
that I have knowledge of what is true (via my senses, 
which you greatly under-rate) and warranted.
[16:55] <Elysium> Alcuin:But since we're defining knowledge, 
it wont do to utilize knowledge in its explanation.
[16:56] <Elysium> Alcuin: So again I am forced to ask 
you, What is the definition of that odd concatenation 
"Knowledge"(knowledge 1)?
[16:56] Action: Alcuin does not underrate senses, but 
does not believe that all knowledge derives from their 
transactions.
[16:57] <Alcuin> "True, warranted belief"  Where does the 
term "knowledge" occur in that definition?
[16:57] <Elysium> Alcuin: What is that odd concatenation 
"true" or "warranted" or "belief"?
[16:57] <Elysium> Alcuin: I've seen similar combinations 
of english letters, but since we're defining what knowledge 
is, I am unable to marshal knwledge in my aid.
[16:58] <Alcuin> Would you like me to recommend some 
elementary books on epistemology?  They  may prove 
useful to you in covering such basic ground.
[16:58] <Elysium> Alcuin: marshal knowledge to assist 
me in this definition.
[16:58] <Elysium> Alcuin: Stop squirming.  Provide a 
definition of knowledge that does not presuppose knowledge. 
 And now you should begin to see the absurdity in asking, 
"How do you verify logic?"
[16:58] <Alcuin> "belief" = "the mental state of affirming 
a proposition"
[16:59] <Elysium> Alcuin: What is that odd combination, 
"the" "mental" "state" "of" "

affirming" "A" "proposition"?
[16:59] <Elysium> Alcuin: or are you assuming that I 
have knowledge of those terms (which doesn't do me 
much good since we're supposedly defining knowledge"?
[17:00] <Alcuin> Elysium, no squirming is required.  
Your objection is trivial.  You have failed to demonstrate 
that the definition I have provided *does* presuppose 
knowledge.
[17:00] <Elysium> Alcuin: of course it does.  In defining 
something you are inevitably forced to use words; for 
the definition to have meaning, the words used in defining 
it must have meaning.  Which is knowlede.  See the 
problems of using the too

ls we use to evaluate actua
[17:01] <Alcuin> Now, if what you mean is that I should 
provide a definition of X on the assumption that you 
are truly *tabula rasa*, then you are merely proving 
my point, that the assumption that we begin *tabula 
rasa* leads to absurdity!
[17:01] <Elysium> lly existent objects with concepts?
[17:01] <Elysium> Alcuin: No, not at all.  We begin with 
blank minds.  Logic *is*, and because of this, knowledge 
*can be*.
[17:01] <Alcuin> Good, you're getting the point.  Now, 
follow it to its inevitable logical conclusion.
[17:02] <Alcuin> If we begin with blank minds, why should 
anyone "believe" the concatenation "logic is" ?
[17:02] Action: Alcuin puts on his rollerblades again, 
to skate around Elysium's circle.
[17:03] <Elysium> Alcuin: I'm not sure I understand what 
your'e asking.  Unless of course logic *is*, and I 
can assume that the question utilizes the principle 
of identity and non-contradiction (allowing me to understand 
it).
[17:03] <Alcuin> From a truly tabula rasa, there is no 
reason whatsoever to believe that nature is consistent 
and that it will therefore allow the inference of logical 
principles.
[17:04] <Elysium> Alcuin: Like I said, you dont' *have* 
to beieve that logic is; in whih case you are free 
to indulge your solipsism until the day you cease to 
be.
[17:04] <Alcuin> Elysium: You *can* understand the question, 
because the world *is* as I suggest it is: i.e., a 
state of affairs necessary and sufficient to account 
for the possibility of logic.
[17:04] <Elysium> Alcuin: And as I maintained earlier, 
that claim is unsubstantiated.  Theism is not necessary 
for knowledge.
[17:04] <Alcuin> Elysium: Let the whole world hear your 
renunciation of logic: ""you dont' *have* to beieve that 
logic is""
[17:05] <Elysium> Alcuin: Which stems from my disagreement 
that concepts are either transcendant or actual.
[17:05] <Alcuin> Elysium: Not only is the claim not unsubstantiated, 
it is inevitable.  Just try to demonstrate the possibility 
of logic, given its denial!
[17:05] <Alcuin> And which leads to the narrowly circular, 
absurd position that logic can never be known at all.
[17:06] <Alcuin> Logic because regular nature; regular 
nature because logic.
[17:06] <Alcuin> ""And it's *just* *that* *way*""
[17:06] <Elysium> Alcuin: You dont get it.  Logic is 
a pre-requisite for knowledge.  There is no knowledge 
*before* logic.  If your deity provides the basis for 
logic, then your deity becomes an unknowable, unknown 
(nonexistent) entity.
[17:06] <Elysium> Alcuin: But let's follow this through. 
 Let's begin from the standpoint that god does not 
exist.
[17:07] <Alcuin> But earlier, you said that you derived 
knowledge of logical laws after having been bombarded 
with sense data for a time.  Were those data unintelligible, 
or did you have logical laws after all?
[17:07] <Alcuin> Yes, let's.
[17:07] <Elysium> Alcuin: The universe exists.
[17:08] <Alcuin> Elysium: How do you know?
[17:08] <Elysium> Alcuin: There are only a few positions 
you can take on that one.  Either you agree that it 
does, in which case we can move forward.
[17:08] Action: Alcuin is willing to follow Elysium 
down this path, arguendo.
[17:08] <Alcuin> Elysium: Why should anyone agree to 
that?
[17:08] <Elysium> Alcuin: if you are unconvinced of it's 
existence, then I have no way of communicating with 
you.  If A is not A, what do any of you words mean?
[17:08] <Alcuin> Exactly!!!!!!!!
[17:09] <Elysium> Alcuin: A similar fate awaits you, 
should you agree with the denial of it's existence.
[17:09] <Elysium> Alcuin: Still no god's in sight.  All 
this abstracted from the actual existence of the universe.
[17:09] <Alcuin> All *what*?
[17:10] <Elysium> Alcuin: That's pretty simple.  Deities 
have nothing to do with knowledge.
[17:10] <Alcuin> If you're *really* going to try to deny 
the existence of God, you've got some tough explaining 
to do.  I'm willing to hear you out.
[17:10] <Elysium> Alcuin: Not at all.  I've just presented 
a situation in which knowledge exists and there are 
no gods about.
[17:10] <Alcuin> Just gesture however vaguely in the 
direction of a cogent account of how knowledge is possible, 
how logic is identifiable.
[17:10] <Elysium> Alcuin: Which is what I have maintained 
from the beginning; the primacy of the universe.
[17:10] <Alcuin> You have?
[17:10] <Alcuin> Where?
[17:11] Action: Alcuin looks for Elysium's account 
of knowledge without god.
[17:11] Anon (Garbonzo@iad_ppp0128.iamerica.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[17:11] <Anon> greetings?
[17:11] <Anon> er, greetings!
[17:11] <Anon> anyone here?
[17:11] <Anon> or am I looking at bots again?
[17:11] <Elysium> Alcuin: This is getting tiresome.  
A denial of the proposition, "the universe exists" entails 
absurdity (or solipsism as I prefer to call it),
[17:11] <Anon> Elysium?  Alcuin?
[17:11] <Alcuin> There's not a rational basis for believing 
in the primacy of the universe.  Even IF (tm) we granted 
such a belief, however, you still wouldn't be able 
to account for knowledge, Elysium!
[17:11] <Alcuin> Hi, Anon.
[17:11] <Anon> hello?
[17:11] PaulC36 (paul@s12.carolina-chat.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[17:11] <Anon> hi
[17:12] <Elysium> Alcuin: The primacy of the universe 
is the axiom upon which rationality is based.
[17:12] <PaulC36> Hello all! God be with you!
[17:12] <Alcuin> Elysium: So, let's grant your premise 
and see whether it makes knowledge possible.  [E1] 
The universe exists.
[17:12] <Alcuin> Hi, PaulC36
[17:12] <Anon> I don't know about that, Paul... :)  Which 
is why I'm here, I guess
[17:12] keltic (meren@ix-nyc17-08.ix.netcom.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[17:13] Action: Alcuin waits for Elysium to show how 
the premise ([E1] the universe exists) leads to the 
conclusion that knowledge is possible.
[17:13] <PaulC36> What don't you know about, Anon?
[17:14] <Elysium> Alcuin: our senses interact with the 
physical universe.  We make internal subjective representations 
of the universe around us.  We test some of the conclusions, 
and some of them we accept as true based on other folks 
tests.

[17:14] <Anon> I don't know that God exists.
[17:14] Nick change: Elysium -> Rev_Ely
[17:14] Action: Rev_Ely apologizes for the nick shift 
mid-stream.
[17:14] <keltic> ely
[17:14] <Alcuin> Elysium: On [E1], how do you know that 
our senses interact [a] at all, and [b] consistently, 
with the universe?
[17:15] <Anon> brb... putting the whites into the wash...
[17:15] <PaulC36> I know He does. He proves it to me 
every day.
[17:15] keltic (meren@ix-nyc17-08.ix.netcom.com) left 
irc: 
[17:15] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: B) is satisfied by testing, 
and the denial of a leads to absurdity.
[17:15] <Alcuin> Elysium: Furthermore, how is it possible 
to non-circularly "test" the correspondence of our subjective 
sense-data to the universe, without reference to those 
data?
[17:15] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: If it isn't true that your 
senses interact, then I have no way of knowing what 
you mean when you say something.
[17:16] <Alcuin> That was objection [c] to [E1]
[17:16] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: Well that's pretty easy.  I 
may abstract  concept, say, force, from my experiments 
with apples falling.
[17:16] <Alcuin> Rev_Ely: Yes, you are right.  Yet a 
non-theist has no way to affirm the reliability of 
the senses.
[17:17] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: Then a few thousand miles away, 
somebody writes down some information about planets 
and rotation.
[17:17] PaulC36 (paul@s12.carolina-chat.com) left #apologetics.
[17:17] <Rev_Ely> Alcun: A few thousand miles south of 
that, someone writes down some information about collisions 
between small balls.
[17:18] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: My abstraction of F=MA from 
applies accurately predicts what my friend studied 
about planets!  But I died before getting to check, 
so I wrote it down.
[17:18] <Alcuin> Rev_Ely: [a] leads to radical solipsism. 
 The fact that you don't like this is distinct from 
your having demonstrated that it's any more absurd 
than other possibilities inherent in your model [E1]
[17:18] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: Still no gods in sight.  We've 
got knowledge and no gods.
[17:19] <Alcuin> Rev_Ely: You're ambitious!  You haven't 
got knowledge at all!
[17:19] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: It has very little to do with 
whether or not I like the conclusions of a.  If a is 
accepted, then the discussion ceases.
[17:19] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: Which is why a's acceptance 
leads to absurdity.
[17:19] Action: Alcuin looks around yet again to verify 
Rev_Ely's bald assertion of having established epistemology....
[17:20] <Rev_Ely> I've addressed your objections.  And 
I have explained how knowledge (in this case, f=ma) 
can be arrived at without deities.
[17:20] <Alcuin> Rev_Ely: You haven't established on 
the basis of [E1] that there is a method of determining 
whether [a] leads to absurdity or not.
[17:20] <Anon> I'm back... Okay, Paul.  How does He show 
you?
[17:20] <Alcuin> Rev_Ely: You say "" I've addressed your 
objections.  And I have explained how knowledge (in 
this case, f=ma) can be arrived at without deities."" 
 False, and 

false.  You've barely scratched the surface, with a 
few arbitrary assertions.
[17:20] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: I have explained that.  If 
my senses do not interact with the physical world, 
then I am unable to formulate notions (which I do) 
or communicate them (which I do).
[17:21] <Alcuin> So maybe that's the case!
[17:21] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: You on the other hand have 
not explained how you have arrived at conclusions about 
your deities nature and how we verify thes notions. 
 You have not explained how 1 = 3, how non-material, 
non-temporal *beings* actually ex

ist
[17:21] <Anon> Does god enter into all this by implanting 
all knowledge into us?  Is that what Alcuin's saying? 
 That knowledge could not exist without god?
[17:22] <Alcuin> Maybe you [a] do not interact with an 
external world (though it's there), [b] subjectively 
believe that it seems to you that you are formulating 
notions, and [c] project the illusion of communication 
within your solipsistic bubble

!
[17:22] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: In short, as I stated at the 
outset, the claim, "god exists" is still unevidenced.
[17:22] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: Once we've accepted your revised 
a) the discussion ceases  I have no idea what you mean 
by b and c if a is true.
[17:22] <Alcuin> Giving up on your claim to be able to 
provide an account of knowledge on [E1]?  So soon?
[17:23] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: So, as I stated earlier, while 
axioms are necessary for knowledge, the christian god 
axiom is not.
[17:23] <Alcuin> Rev_Ely: Good.  So now we've granted 
you *arguende* that E1: the universe exists, and now 
we're going to grant you E2: that your sense perceptions 
somehow relate to the universe (to help you ward off 
solipsism, which you dislike f

or reasons that you've been unable to establish).  
Next?
[17:24] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: Sense perception is related 
to the universe because it's denial entails absurdity.
[17:24] <Alcuin> Note, that we're only granting E1 and 
E2 *arguendo*, since you are entirely unable to account 
for *why* anyone should believe such things .
[17:24] <Alcuin> Why shouldn't the universe be absurd?
[17:24] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: I'm not saying that the universe 
shouldn't be absurd, but that it is not.
[17:25] <Alcuin> I don't believe that the universe is 
absurd.  Apparently you don't either.  I have a reason. 
 Do you?
[17:25] <Alcuin> How do you *know* that it is not?  [Try 
to avoid a logically circular argument, here]
[17:26] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: Whenyou use the term absurd, 
I am assuming you mean that the laws of identity do 
not hold.
[17:26] <Alcuin> For example, yes.
[17:26] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: identity, non-contradiction 
that is.  These are the basis upon which definition 
make sense.  If these are true, then the universe is 
not absurd.
[17:27] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: I dont think either of us is 
arguing that identity and non-contradiction are not 
true.
[17:27] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: however, should you find yourself 
in that position, then I have no idea of what you mean 
when I see the letters after your name.
[17:27] <Alcuin> If these are true, then the universe 
is not absurd.  However, on the basis of "The universe 
exists" you have no access to laws of identity and non-contradiction.
[17:27] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: Of course I do; the universe's 
existence entails the laws of identity nd non-contradiction.
[17:28] <Alcuin> And if you *did* have such access, you'd 
have no non-circular way of determining whether such 
laws are to be preferred over absurdity.
[17:28] <Alcuin> Nonsense.  The universe could be absurd.
[17:28] <Anon> Absurd in what sense?
[17:29] <Alcuin> Rev_Ely: This has been a lovely 3 hours, 
but I have a few things to take care of.  Can we take 
this up right here, some other time, with you trying 
to give a cogent account of the possibility of knowledge? 
 I'm very interested in 

seeing the outcome of your reasoning.
[17:29] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: You really don't seem to get 
it.  The universe *is* not absurd.
[17:29] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: I'll agree to that if you will 
provide a clear explanation of how one can verify the 
claim that, "logic is rooted in god's nature".
[17:29] <Alcuin> So you say.  I agree.  But does your 
worldview provide a way of *demonstrating* that there's 
any reason whatsoever (however feeble and childlike) 
for believing that the universe is not absurd?
[17:30] <Alcuin> I will agree to provide as clear an 
explanation as I am able of my claim that logic is 
rooted in god's nature, since you have asked and since 
it's a good question.
[17:30] Action: Alcuin holds out a hand to shake Rev_Ely's
[17:30] <Rev_Ely> Alcuin: I do not deny the problems 
inherent in discussions of knowledge.  I maintain very 
simply that theism does not address these questions; 
it sets them a step back.
[17:30] <Alcuin> I don't
[17:31] Action: Rev_Ely shakes alcuin's hand.
[17:31] <Alcuin> Gotta go.  *Bye* 
[17:31] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line29.cis.yale.edu) 
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_3_22_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../

