
[ref001]


#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/6/96
#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/6/96

[00:31] creation (dcovalt@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[00:31] Mode change '+o creation ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[00:32] <Nomos> uh....._howdee_
[00:32] <newsong> what's the discuss Alcuin?
[00:32] <Judith> zen, i HAVE questioned my faith and 
i appreciate your challenging it
[00:32] <creation> TheRaven:  I am at the university 
of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign.
[00:32] <ZenRookie> so, can anyone else explain to me 
what "rational" theism is?  
[00:32] <creation> where did everyone go?
[00:32] <Alcuin`> oh!
[00:32] <Alcuin`> I forgot!
[00:32] <Alcuin`> um
[00:32] <Alcuin`> I'm not alcuin
[00:32] <Alcuin`> darn
[00:33] <Mantro> Why do we have to challeng one another. 
 If our faith has relevance then the other person will 
be attracted to it.
[00:33] newsong (newsong@perham-40.dialup.eot.com) 
left #apologetics.
[00:33] <Judith> so zen, waht was the question again?
[00:33] <creation> Zen:  Talk to Acolyte about it.  He 
would be happy to tell you.  Although I think it is 
obvious.
[00:33] <creation> zen:  theism is rational.
[00:34] <Mantro> Zen.  I think it means that they can 
prove their belief through logic.
[00:34] <ZenRookie> creation: my question is asked, however, 
because it seems to me whenever i get into a discussion, 
it quickly becomes irrational.  
[00:34] Action: Judith isn't going to take that one 
on.
[00:34] Nick change: Alcuin` -> Flyer-
[00:34] <creation> zen:  The discussion or theism?
[00:34] <Mantro> Because the bible is irrational
[00:34] <Mantro> zen
[00:34] <ZenRookie> creation: the explanations seem to 
quickly dissolve into "i have faith" etc.
[00:35] <ZenRookie> which is not rational as far as I 
understand the definition
[00:35] <creation> zen:  Everyone has faith.
[00:35] <Mantro> faith is where it all ends up.   even 
faith in logic
[00:35] <Flyer-> I am not the Alcuin that frequents this 
channel...sorry for any misunderstanding.
[00:35] <Nomos> zen: are you equating rational and logical?
[00:35] <creation> zen:  is faith irrational?
[00:35] <ZenRookie> yes, i was referring to faith in 
god, jesus and the bible
[00:35] <ZenRookie> i was referring to faith in god, 
jesus and the bible
[00:36] <creation> zen:  Why is belief in God, Jesus 
and the Bible irrational?
[00:36] <Mantro> faith in your own experience is rational
[00:36] <Nomos> creation: but faith in what....faith 
is only as good as the object it is placed in.
[00:36] <Nomos> zen: define faith.
[00:36] <ZenRookie> creation: faith in miracles, etc, 
is irrational. 
[00:36] <creation> zen:  Why?
[00:36] <creation> zen:  Why is it irrational?
[00:37] <creation> zen : Why is belief in them irrational?
[00:37] <creation> zen:  because you say so?
[00:37] <Nomos> zen: define faith.
[00:37] <ZenRookie> creation: does not the definition 
of the word rational imply that there are logical explanations? 
 whereas miracles do not have logical explanations.
[00:37] <ZenRookie> nomos: that is not relevant/
[00:38] <creation> zen:  Logical based on the presupposition 
that there is a God.
[00:38] <Nomos> zen: it is if you do not know the meaning 
of  the word
[00:38] <creation> zen:  Logic presupposes the existence 
of God.
[00:38] <Nomos> zen: define pistis
[00:38] <Nomos> or pisteuo
[00:38] <ZenRookie> creation: so, then, your "rational" 
and mine are different.
[00:38] <Nomos> or give me a secular definition
[00:38] <AegisIII> really creation?
[00:38] <ZenRookie> nomos: what is your point?>
[00:39] <Nomos> zen: I am trying to understand if you 
can define the words, to understand what you are basing 
your conclusion on
[00:39] <creation> zen:  If you don't believe that there 
is a God, how can you even speak of what is rational 
and what isn't?
[00:39] <creation> AegisIII:  yes
[00:39] <Nomos> zen: do you believe in spontaneous existence?
[00:39] <Nomos> spontaneous generation
[00:39] <ZenRookie> creation: oh please.  i am not even 
going to get into a discussion based on your assertion 
that god created what is rational.
[00:39] <AegisIII> and you say that because?
[00:39] <creation> Zen:  God is logic.  Without God there 
is no logic.
[00:40] <Nomos> do you believe in spontaneous generation?
[00:40] <creation> Zen:  YOu can't contend with this?
[00:40] <Nomos> zen: do you believe in spontaneous existence?
[00:40] <ZenRookie> creation: well, then we have nothing 
to discuss.
[00:40] <Nomos> zen:
[00:40] <Nomos> ?
[00:40] <AegisIII> if god created logic, than logic would 
have to be entirely arbitrary, as whatever god decided 
was logical would be logical
[00:40] <creation> AegisIII:  God IS logic
[00:40] <ZenRookie> nomos: i would ask you to refrain 
from firing questions at me while i am having a conversation 
woth someone else.
[00:41] <Nomos> creation: what do you mean by that?
[00:41] <AegisIII> god is logic?  thats an assertion
[00:41] <Nomos> zen: fine.
[00:41] <Nomos> zen: I'll wait if you like.
[00:41] <creation> Aegis:  yeah, it is one that follows 
from logic.  :)
[00:41] <Nomos> creation: what do you mean God is logic?
[00:41] <creation> Aegis:  Is there a time when the laws 
of logic didn't exist?
[00:41] <AegisIII> odd, ive never reached that conclusion
[00:41] Judith (Sandra@199.86.33.188) left #apologetics.
[00:41] <creation> Aegis:  Try harder
[00:42] <AegisIII> sure, when people didnt
[00:42] <ZenRookie> creation: if you say that "god created 
logic and all that is rational" and I say "he did not 
because there is no god" there really is no way to argue 
it, i

s there?
[00:42] <Nomos> zen: no, because that is a tautological 
argument.
[00:42] <Nomos> :)
[00:42] <creation> Aegis:  Oh, so when people didn't 
exist, then A doesn't equall non-A didn't hold?
[00:42] <AegisIII> no when people didnt exist, logic 
was meaningless
[00:42] <creation> Zen:  God is logic..  Capish?
[00:43] <Nomos> creation: what do you mean by that statement, 
God is logic?
[00:43] <AegisIII> same with morality
[00:43] <creation> Aegis:  logic isn't meaningless.
[00:43] <AegisIII> thw word "logis" would be meaningless
[00:43] <AegisIII> logis=logic
[00:44] <ZenRookie> creation: you may choose to label 
"god" what I call "logic".  but, your definition goes further 
than that, does it not?
[00:44] <creation> Aegis:  the words are only meaningless 
if they refer to nothing.  I say that the words refer 
to something and therefore have meaning.
[00:44] <AegisIII> fine then, explain logic or morality, 
without using humans in any way
[00:44] <creation> Zen:  Sure, but I don't have to go 
farther to prove my point.
[00:45] <Nomos> logics is a science (or a methodology) 
how can God be a science or methodology???
[00:45] <creation> AegisIII:  Simple, God's standard.
[00:45] <TheRaven> Hello creation
[00:45] <ZenRookie> BTW, nomos: i define rational as 
that which can be based upon reason or logic.
[00:45] <creation> hello theraven
[00:45] <creation> zen:  Then theism is rational
[00:46] <AegisIII> uhh were trying to prove wether god 
exists, right? so what is god's standard?  how did 
he decide it?
[00:46] <ZenRookie> creation: explain to me how, if jesus 
or god can perform miracles, those events would be 
based on reason and logic.  to me, a miracle, by definition 
is NOT what would normally follow.
[00:46] <creation> Aegis:  Ever here of the transcendental 
argument?  
[00:47] <Mantro> Hey Zen.  I answered your question. 
How about checking it out and answereing?
[00:47] <Nomos> zen: you are resticting logics to the 
laws of nature??
[00:47] <AegisIII> yeah-it sounds strange, i dont put 
much basis on it
[00:47] <Nomos> zen: that's interesting  ; )
[00:47] <creation> Zen:  Theism is logical and reasonable. 
 Miracles are reasonable in a theistic paradigm
[00:47] snowberry (snowberr@ad11-070.compuserve.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[00:47] <Nomos> zen: where do you think "logics" or "rational 
thinking" originated?
[00:47] <AegisIII> but again-how did decid what his basis 
for logical would be?
[00:48] <ZenRookie> creation: then, if you and I are 
in a different paradigm, our meaning of rational differs.
[00:48] <AegisIII> how did god decide that is?
[00:48] <Nomos> zen: was Socrates/Plato/Aristotle theists?
[00:48] <creation> AegisIII:   No one has brought up 
any good counter agument to it as of yet.
[00:48] <Nomos> was=were
[00:48] <AegisIII> no on eputs much weight on it
[00:48] <ZenRookie> nomos: were they the first logical 
thinkers?
[00:48] <Nomos> zen: you don't know?
[00:48] <TheRaven> What is the argument
[00:48] <ZenRookie> nomos: i assert that they were not.
[00:48] <Mantro> How old are you Zen?  and what sex?
[00:48] <creation> Zen: If you are not in  a theistic 
paradigm then you are the one that is in trouble, not 
me.  You are the one that won't have a basis for knowledge 
or ethics, not me.
[00:49] <ZenRookie> creation: i basically reject that 
statement
[00:49] <TheRaven> what is the Debate
[00:49] <creation> Aegis:  bull crap
[00:49] <Nomos> zen: it is obvious you have never read 
from Plato or Aristotle.
[00:49] Flyer- (whoneeds@dial9.vonl.com) left #apologetics.
[00:49] <AegisIII> creation-how did god decide what his 
basis for logic would be?
[00:49] <creation> Zen:  Prove me wrong
[00:49] <ZenRookie> nomos: grow up, i have a degree in 
philosophy.
[00:49] snowberry (snowberr@ad11-070.compuserve.com) 
left #apologetics.
[00:49] <creation> Aegis:   Does it matter.  It is based 
on His character.
[00:49] <Nomos> zen: please.
[00:49] <Nomos> zen: your point?
[00:49] <Nomos> zen: nice ad hominem there bud
[00:50] <Nomos> zen: did you learn that in philosophy?
[00:50] <creation> nomos:  heheh
[00:50] <Nomos> zen: or does that come natural?
[00:50] <ZenRookie> nomos: if i need to spell it out 
for you, you cannot get a degree in philosophy without 
reading the greek thinkers.  understand it now>?
[00:50] <AegisIII> his character- and how does his character 
make his basis of logical correct?
[00:50] <ZenRookie> nomos: it is natural.  
[00:50] Action: creation wishes acolyte were here, 
then we could have some real fun :)
[00:50] <Nomos> zen: thought so.
[00:51] <Mantro> Zen.  What do you think happens to you 
after death?
[00:51] <Nomos> zen: so are you non theist then?
[00:51] <Nomos> atheist
[00:51] <Nomos> whatever
[00:51] <ZenRookie> mantro: basically, i don't know.
[00:51] <creation> Aegis:  The conception that I hold 
of God.  
[00:51] <Nomos> zen: so are you non theist then?
[00:51] <TheRaven> Nomos: Do you believe in anything
[00:51] <ZenRookie> nomos: yes.
[00:51] <Mantro> Zen.  Did you read what I wrote for 
you?
[00:52] <Mantro> in private
[00:52] <Nomos> raven: certainly...do you?
[00:52] <AegisIII> conception? that's it.  you think 
god's character causes logic only due to your conception
[00:52] <ZenRookie> mantro: i did, but i have not really 
considered it, i got involved here.
[00:52] <Nomos> zen: so are you non theist then?
[00:52] <TheRaven> I believe in God the creator of the 
Heavens and the earth
[00:52] <Nomos> raven: amen...as I
[00:52] <Mantro> thats OK zen.  just move on to whatever 
interests you
[00:52] <ZenRookie> nomos, pay attention, i answered 
that already.
[00:53] <Nomos> raven: I also believe in His Son, Jesus...and 
in a literal resurection
[00:53] <TheRaven> PTL so do I 
[00:53] <creation> Aegis:  I have a concept of God.  
Anselmian.  From the concept it falls logically that 
He must exist.  
[00:53] <creation> Aegis:  You have to deal with my conception. 
 If you can't then that is your problem.
[00:53] <Mantro> Zen.  The only reason I keep bugging 
you is because I see you as the only seeker of truth 
here.
[00:53] <Nomos> zen: I didn't catch it....care to restate?
[00:54] <ZenRookie> nomos: yes, i am an atheist.
[00:54] <AegisIII> ahh the ontological argument. ive 
done some thinking on that.  the most perfect being 
only leads to contradictions
[00:54] <Mantro> but alas, maybe I should move on.... 

[00:54] <creation> Aegis:  Wrong.
[00:54] <AegisIII> wrong on what?
[00:54] <Nomos> mantro: based upon what?
[00:54] <Mantro> You all are having more fun with your 
bible debate.
[00:54] <Nomos> mantro: you know us well enough to assert 
that?
[00:54] <Nomos> zen: so then...that proves my point....you 
believe spontaneous generation is logical???
[00:55] <TheRaven> Spontaneous generation is not logical 
for me
[00:55] <creation> Aegis:  Not only do you have to deal 
with the ontological argument, you have to deal with 
the cosmological, the transcendental, the teleological, 
etc and many reditions of them.
[00:55] <creation> spontaneous generation is a hoax
[00:55] <TheRaven> AMEN
[00:55] <Nomos> creation: sounds like you have read a 
lot of Tillich or Chardin
[00:55] <Mantro> Your mind is made up.  Zen admits he 
doesn't know things for sure.  More enlightened to 
me.
[00:56] <ZenRookie> nomos: i do not hold that god and 
the creator are necessarily one and the same.
[00:56] Action: AegisIII only is gonna concetrate on 
the ontological right now, as he really should be sleeping
[00:56] <TheRaven> what is onotlogical
[00:56] Action: creation needs to study for his finals.
[00:56] <creation> Theraven:  ontological refers to state 
of being.
[00:56] <AegisIII> creation- feel like stopping? 
[00:57] <creation> Aegis:  I should.  I have to study.
[00:57] noah (none@dd15-108.compuserve.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[00:57] <AegisIII> ok.  bye
[00:57] noah (none@dd15-108.compuserve.com) left #Apologetics.
[00:57] <Nomos> zen: interesting thoughts....based upon 
what? your own subjective thoughts?
[00:57] AegisIII (estoeben@asm4-2.sl003.cns.vt.edu) 
left irc: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page
[ref003]Return to LOGS Page
[ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library



[ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_5_6_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../

