
[ref001]


#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/24/96
#apologetics:  DEBATE LOGS - 5/24/96

[01:15] Mode change '+b *!*kntr@*.cc.ukans.edu ' by 
lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com
[01:15] iggie!ikntr@falcon.cc.ukans.edu kicked by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: 
lugen
[01:15] <lugen> bye bye iggie
[01:16] <Atheist> i guess lugen you don't like him? censorship 
is quite christian..
[01:16] `Skept (skept@h-adamant.ekx.infi.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:16] <Atheist> then go to faith
[01:16] <`Skept> hi
[01:16] <Atheist> yo
[01:16] <lugen> hey skept
[01:16] <`Skept> lo
[01:16] <Paisano> !niv heb 11 1
[01:16] Action: Jubilant says, "Hello, `Skept!" :-)
[01:16] <`Skept> lo Jub
[01:17] <Atheist> !niv psalms 137:9
[01:17] <Jubilant> I'm back...
[01:17] <Atheist> :(
[01:17] <Jubilant> My sister was on the phone.
[01:18] <Atheist> i was also talind to poseidon: he said 
the water's quite polluted
[01:18] <lugen> Atheist: I warned him about his language, 
kicked him, and he still persisted. I gave him ample 
time to consider the consiquences of his actions
[01:18] <lugen> so he's banned now
[01:18] <Jubilant> Poor iggie...
[01:18] <Atheist> lugen get real, he didn't cuss more 
than twice at most: you're just too christian
[01:18] <TrueOne> In all honesty, I would like someone 
who actually seems to know about the channel to define 
for me what apologetics is...
[01:18] <Paisano> Hebrews 11:1 To have faith is to be 
sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the 
things we cannot see.
[01:18] <Paisano> (TEV)
[01:19] <Atheist> then i have faith in zeus and faries
[01:19] <Atheist> fairies rather!
[01:19] <TrueOne> ...just a paraphrased definition would 
do
[01:19] <Jubilant> Atheist, then you don't have a rational 
faith.
[01:19] <Atheist> !niv hosea 1:2
[01:19] <lugen> Atheist: that is not a point for debate, 
that is a statement of fact.
[01:19] <Paisano> Atheist:  Beats NOT believing in God. 
:)
[01:19] <Atheist> neither does paisano dudes/l wake up
[01:20] <TrueOne> Jubilant: If it were ever argued rationally 
that God did not exist, would you believe it?
[01:20] <Atheist> huh? zeus is just as retarded as jesus 
dued: get a life
[01:20] <Paisano> Atheist:  I bet you believe in evolution 
too. :):)
[01:20] <Jubilant> T/O, if it could be proven I would 
believe it.
[01:20] <lugen> TrueOne: it cannot be done, moot point
[01:21] <Atheist> that's right boy, what you think i 
believe we came from the chinese cosmic egg?
[01:21] <Jubilant> But, you came to late to even discuss 
it because I know that He does exist.  I talked to 
Him this morning.
[01:21] <Paisano> lugen:  Amen!
[01:21] <TrueOne> Okay, I respect Jubilant a bit more... 
and I see lugen as being just that much more biased
[01:21] <TrueOne> lugen: That wasn't a moot point... 
it's the whole purpose of this channel...
[01:21] <Paisano> Jubilant:  Grin.
[01:21] <Atheist> i talked to sant this morning too: 
he said I should keep believing in zue because that's 
where all morality comes from
[01:22] <TrueOne> ...if you cannot say that you would 
believe a rational argument, IF it existed, that god 
doesn't exist,
[01:22] <Paisano> Atheist:  Where do you think you came 
from?
[01:22] <TrueOne> ...then you cannot claim that your 
belief in god is rational.
[01:22] <Paisano> Hebrews 11:1 To have faith is to be 
sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the 
things we cannot see. (TEV)
[01:22] <Jubilant> Atheist, perhaps you need to see a 
shrink.
[01:22] <Atheist> my aprents' dna, i bet you came from 
zeus?
[01:22] Jong (mymail@di
alup66d.mnl.sequel.net) joined #apologetics.
[01:22] <TrueOne> ...you have an easy out--all you have 
to do is say "yes, IF it were"... I would challenge you 
to be honest about it though
[01:22] <Atheist> no, i think jesus needed to see a shrink
[01:22] Action: Jubilant says, "Hello, Jong!" :-)
[01:23] <Jong> lo
[01:23] <lugen> True: 1) I do not believe in "proofs" with 
respect to existence; 2) all of metaphsics is based 
on faith; 3) as I've already indicated, people see 
what they want to see, nothing more, nothing less


[01:23] <Jubilant> Atheist, I am glad to see that you 
accept the validity of an historical Jesus.
[01:23] <Paisano> Atheist:  Calm down; your spelling/typing 
will improve.  Where did your parents and their parents 
come from?
[01:23] <Atheist> :) no i don't i'm funny,. but jesus 
never existed
[01:24] <Atheist> parents from their parents to homo 
erectus to homo habilis...etc...
[01:24] <TrueOne> lugen: I've just one point to make--I 
am quite sure that this channel--apologetics--is meant 
to rationally argue Christianity
[01:24] <Jong> 'cuse me.... do you kick people who do 
not believe in 'rational theism'?
[01:24] <Atheist> why nt belif in zeu trueone?
[01:24] <Jubilant> Atheist, you seem to be making some 
very misleading statements about your beliefs.
[01:24] <Atheist> they kicked iggie
[01:24] <Atheist> excuse me then: enough funny stuff
[01:24] <Paisano> TrueOne:  Can you be honest?  I suspect 
Romans 1:18-20 proves you canNOT be honest because 
in your heart of hearts you DO KNOW that God exists, 
you are just NOT prepared to give him honor and thanks.
[01:25] <Jubilant> Jong, yes and we stomp on them real 
hard too!
[01:25] <lugen> TrueOne: Rational argument can imply 
many things, not just proof
[01:25] SlackJaw (jchow@pm1-1.starlink.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:25] <TrueOne> Paisano: But honesty is what led me 
to be an atheist in the first place
[01:25] <Jubilant> Not
[01:25] <Atheist> hey slack
[01:25] <TrueOne> ...before that, I was a born again 
Christian
[01:25] <Jong> Then should I just lurk and not voice 
out my opinions?
[01:25] <Paisano> atheist:  Let's boil it down.  Where 
did the FIRST molecule come from?
[01:26] <Atheist> molecules are mad up of atoms
[01:26] <Jong> re Slack!
[01:26] <TrueOne> ...the bible says "Ask and it shall 
be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it 
shall be opened unto you"...
[01:26] <Jubilant> T/O, so do you think that Christianity 
is cheating people into being honest?
[01:26] <Paisano> TrueOne:  Atheism is an oxymoron.
[01:26] <Atheist> paul was an advocate of lying actually
[01:26] <SlackJaw> True: I guess that applies to about 
everything but proof
[01:26] <TrueOne> ...so, if I were asking, seeking, et 
al, like I was doing... like I AM doing... then, if 
Xianity is right, the bible promises that I'll find 
the answers
[01:26] <Paisano> Atheist:  Your delusion is self-imposed.
[01:26] <Atheist> actually christinsanity is: loving 
god
[01:27] <Atheist> pa: judge not lest ye be judged
[01:27] <Jubilant> Atheist, you are taking that passage 
out of its context.
[01:27] <lugen> TrueOne: the Bible is a book of Proclimation, 
not one of argumentation
[01:27] <Atheist> no i'm not
[01:27] <Jubilant> There are types of judgement that 
are forbidden and other types which are commaned.
[01:27] Action: SlackJaw sometimes wishes he had a 
"Harvey" to worship...a "Harvey" that would save him from 
mere death and cure his fears of non-existance
[01:27] <Atheist> garbage lugen paul said the bible can 
be used for rebuking and proving
[01:28] <Jubilant> commanded
[01:28] <TrueOne> er, so, the bible proclaims then that 
I willfind the answer... so?
[01:28] <Atheist> wrong
[01:28] <Paisano> TrueOne:  You will find the answers 
IF you are seeking with an honest heart.  But, make 
no mistake about this, you will someday know for sure 
when you face your creator. Pray that by then he has 
been merciful to you and given you

 faith.
[01:28] <TrueOne> Paisano: I seek with the most honest 
of hearts...
[01:28] Action: Atheist paisano's right! pray to your 
creator! but which one? zeus, shiva, jehovah, allah! 
so many choices!
[01:29] <Jong> Paisano: are you saying that God is vengeful?
[01:29] <TrueOne> ...I was even a "deist" praying to "whichever 
god was out there that REALLY was the true god", before 
becoming atheist
[01:29] <Paisano> Jong:  It would make NO difference 
what I said, it only matters what God has said.
[01:30] <SlackJaw> humans naturally need to have some 
sort of savior to cure their ills, and coax them when 
they are afraid...it is primal instinct
[01:30] <Jong> Paisano: Then how do I know truly what 
God has said? Isnt it true that the Angels and the 
Devil speak the same language?
[01:30] <TrueOne> ...so here I am... honesty and all... 
seeking truth... atheistic
[01:30] <Atheist> this is boring
[01:31] Atheist (atheist@exp5.wam.umd.edu) left irc: 
Leaving
[01:31] <TrueOne> Slack: That's a good point, but it 
doesn't really favor either side
[01:31] <TrueOne> ...we could just be believing in god 
because we are programmed that way by nature... or 
by god
[01:31] <lugen> True: what kind of answers are you looking 
for??
[01:31] <SlackJaw> True: I never said I was on a side
[01:32] <Jong> Paisano: Given the cunning of the devil, 
how can I, a mere mortal, know which is the true word?
[01:32] <Paisano> "For God loved the world so much that 
he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes 
in him may not die but have eternal life.  For God 
did not send his Son into the world to be its judge, 
but to be its sav

ior.  Whoever believes in the Son is not judged; but 
whoever does not believe has already been judged, because 
he has not believed in God's only Son." John 3:16-18 
(TEV)
[01:32] <Paisano> Jong:  We are NOT defenseless; we have 
the Holy Spirit as our guide and comforter.
[01:32] <TrueOne> lugen: I seek truth... what is true 
is more important to me than what I was raised to believe...
[01:33] SlackJaw (jchow@pm1-1.starlink.com) left #apologetics.
[01:33] <TrueOne> ...if the two were the same, it would 
have been great
[01:33] <lugen> TrueOne: what is truth?
[01:33] <Jong> Paisano: How do I recognize the will of 
the Holy Spirit? I base it on my conscience?
[01:33] Action: Jubilant sez... an insane learner learns 
strange things.
[01:33] <TrueOne> Many things are true, lugen...
[01:33] steck (aduran@apolo2-a16.racsa.co.cr) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:33] <Paisano> Jong:  The Holy Spirit is also our 
guarantee that God will keep his promises and give 
us eternal life.
[01:33] <TrueOne> ...but many things are false too :)
[01:33] <Paisano> Jong:  Your conscience is worthless 
if it is not informed by the Holy Spirit.
[01:34] <Jong> Paisano: How do I recognize the will of 
the Holy Spirit?
[01:34] <TrueOne> Here's something I wrote about truth... 
it will help you understand my views a bit more
[01:34] <Paisano> TrueOne:  How did life begin?  Where 
do we come from?
[01:35] <Paisano> TrueOne:  How was the universe begin? 
 How did it get here?
[01:35] <steck> Jesus is the life... for ever
[01:35] <Paisano> Jong:  Without Christ IN your life, 
there is no way you can receive the Holy Spirit.  Without 
the Holy Spirit, you cannot understand spiritual things.
[01:36] <lugen> erm
[01:36] <Jong> Paisano: you speak of Christ as if he 
is someone we could recognize without err
[01:36] <TrueOne> brb... emailing :)
[01:37] <steck> I'm agree, Paisano
[01:37] <Paisano> steck:  True.  "Jesus answered him, 
'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one goes 
to the Father except by me.'" John 14:6 (TEV)
[01:37] <Jong> Enlighten me: How do I know that you, 
Paisano, is not the devil himself speaking?
[01:38] <Paisano> Jong:  First, do you know God's Word? 
 It contains the words of life and it provides us constant 
hope.  You are wise not to take any man's word about 
God; compare what you are told against scripture.  
It is the touchstone.
[01:38] <steck> The devil is at the hell... 
[01:39] <Paisano> Jong:  Jesus said his sheep know his 
voice; they will not listen to another.
[01:40] <Paisano> Jong: Jesus is the good shepherd; he 
will not abandon his sheep.
[01:40] <Jong> Paisano: But the devil has such cunning 
that It could mislead the sheep
[01:41] <Paisano> Jong:  That is NOT possible; his sheep 
will listen to no other.
[01:41] Action: Jubilant says The Origin of Species 
is a fairy tale for adults...
[01:41] <Jong> Paisano: And if the sheep know the shepherd's 
voice, why are have so many sheep been mislead so far, 
to suffer damnation as God promised?
[01:42] <Paisano> Jubilant:  Agreed; the emperor has 
NO CLOTHES. :)
[01:42] Render (not@kato-ip-80.theramp.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:42] Chiara (watson@ppp12.prcn.org) joined #apologetics.
[01:42] <Render> I am So sorry.
[01:42] <Paisano> Jong:  God knows how to keep the lost 
lost and to keep the saved saved.
[01:42] <Render> God fucked my ass.
[01:42] Action: Jubilant says, "The survival of the 
fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit."
[01:43] Mode change '+b *!*not@*.theramp.net ' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com
[01:43] Render!not@kato-ip-80.theramp.net kicked by 
lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: lugen
[01:44] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: 
changing servers
[01:44] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:44] <steck> GOD BLESS ALL YOU!
[01:44] CTCP PING: 832830287 from lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) 
to #apologetics
[01:44] <steck> I'm on the rock... Jesus.
[01:45] <lugen> much better
[01:45] <Jong> Paisano: Even Judas has been had by the 
devil
[01:45] Chiara (watson@ppp12.prcn.org) left irc: Ping 
timeout for Chiara[ppp12.prcn.org]
[01:45] islander1 (none@dialup95.aloha.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:46] islander1 (none@dialup95.aloha.com) left #apologetics.
[01:46] <Jong> Am I lagged?
[01:46] Action: Jubilant says... 51% of being smart 
is knowing what you are dumb at!
[01:48] <TrueOne> Alright... it has been sent
[01:49] <Paisano> Jong:  Judas made his own choice; he 
was chosen to fulfill prophesy and to achieve the purposes 
of God.
[01:50] <Jong> Paisano: Judas' choice was wrong? And 
hence he is damned for eternity?
[01:50] <Paisano> Jong:  Don't worry about Judas; worry 
about yourself.  I am confident he would tell you likewise.
[01:51] <Jong> Paisano: I am afraid the same rules apply
[01:52] <Paisano> What rules Jong?
[01:52] <Jong> Paisano: That if I made the wrong choice, 
I would suffer eternal damnation.
[01:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[01:53] <steck> That the ops die! Ja ja ja : )
[01:53] <steck> soon1
[01:53] <Paisano> Jong:  That's life; full of choices 
... humble yourself and ask God for help.  He will 
not let you down even though you and I let him down 
far more than we should.
[01:54] <steck> apolobot is a louger
[01:54] <steck> W too...
[01:55] <steck> W is gay
[01:55] <Jong> Paisano: How would I know that I have 
let God down?
[01:56] <steck> APOLOBOT MAKING LOVE A W
[01:56] <Jong> W has just dated X yesterday, and the're 
both gay, steck
[01:56] QED (pch1@osip92.ionet.net) joined #apologetics.
[01:56] <steck> OPS...
[01:56] <Jong> Sheesh...
[01:56] Xinyang (WDYT@castles79.castles.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[01:57] <Paisano> Jong:  The Holy Spirit will CONVICT 
you if you sincerely trying to serve Jesus Christ your 
king.
[01:57] <steck> qED FUCK YOU
[01:57] <steck> xINYANG TOO
[01:57] <Paisano> steck:  Please KNOCK it off.  Thanks.
[01:57] <Xinyang> why me
[01:57] <steck> You are very gay
[01:58] <Jong> Paisano: How do I know what pleases God 
and what doesnt? Does God really require pleasing?
[01:58] <steck> Jong fuck you too
[01:58] <Xinyang> steck please watch your language
[01:58] <Jong> steck: I just had one, thank you.
[01:59] <steck> very lovable.
[01:59] <Jong> XinYang!!!!!!
[01:59] <QED> steck; problems?
[01:59] <Paisano> Jong:  He does need anything we have. 
 He does NOT need our praise; he can command the rocks 
to give him all the praise he might want.  We need 
God.  Period.
[01:59] <Xinyang> hello jong
[01:59] <TrueOne> steck: If you're looking for punishment... 
try #bdsm or #wasteland or some other netsex channel
[01:59] <Jong> Paisano: Then why do we have to please 
him at all?
[02:00] <TrueOne> #wasteland is known for it's sadism 
:)
[02:00] <Jong> Paisano: You mean we were created to please 
God, else suffer eternal damnation?
[02:00] Action: QED prescribes diazepam for steck: 
10mg t.i.d.
[02:01] <TrueOne> Jong: Watch out... they'll pull the 
"we cannot possibly know God's perfect plan" on you in 
a heartbeat
[02:01] Action: Jong prescribes a large rubber prophylactic 
stuck in steck's nose.
[02:02] <Jong> TrueOne: God's perfect plan includes eternal 
damnation?
[02:02] <TrueOne> steck: You're only going to mildly 
offend a few Xians here, who will then ignore you, 
and then you'll have no more fun
[02:02] <steck> Will going to he hell all.
[02:02] <steck> The hell is the better.
[02:02] <TrueOne> Jong: Sure... and it's quite benevolent 
in ways we cannot comprehend
[02:02] <Jong> steck is a juvenile, I tell you
[02:02] <steck> nops
[02:02] <steck> jong is a juvenile. yeah
[02:03] <Jong> Hmmm... benevolent eternal damnation...
[02:03] <Paisano> Jong:  Get real.  What answers do you 
have now?  Zip.  You will NEVER understand the ways 
of God or understand spiritual things UNTIL and UNLESS 
you humble yourself and repent of your sinful ways 
and accept Jesus Christ as your L

ord and Savior.  At that point you will be given the 
gift of the Holy Spirit who will guide you into all 
righteousness.
[02:03] <TrueOne> ...it's all perfect, but, of course, 
we, especially if we go to hell, will never be able 
to comprehend it
[02:03] <steck> JOhn fucked his sister
[02:03] <Jong> I hope steck suffers eternal damnation
[02:03] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial79.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics.
[02:03] <steck> With you. YES
[02:03] <Jong> Paisano: and you claim to understand?
[02:04] <TrueOne> Paisano: I'm the one who am seeking 
for truth honestly and am an ex-Xian... a living counterexample 
to your previous arguments
[02:04] Mode change '+o lugen ' by W!cservice@undernet.org
[02:04] Mode change '+b *!*aduran@*.racsa.co.cr ' by 
lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com
[02:04] steck!aduran@apolo2-a16.racsa.co.cr kicked 
by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com: lugen
[02:04] <TrueOne> who is too :)
[02:04] <TrueOne> Thx lugen :)
[02:04] <lugen> sorry, did not know he was a problem... 
was in email
[02:04] <ProfG> hmmmmmmm
[02:05] Jong (mymail@dialup66d.mnl.sequel.net) left 
irc: emergency
[02:05] <Xinyang> thank you lugen
[02:05] Mode change '+o ProfG ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[02:06] Action: ProfG is lagged
[02:06] QED (pch1@osip92.ionet.net) left #apologetics.
[02:08] Mafu (matthew@isaac.biola.edu) joined #apologetics.
[02:08] Mafu (matthew@isaac.biola.edu) left #apologetics.
[02:09] <Xinyang> TrueOne: Eph2:10 "...we are God's workmanship, 
created in Christ Jesus, to do good works,...."
[02:09] <TrueOne> Okay Xinyang...
[02:10] <Paisano> TrueONe:  I would not brag if I were 
you about your disloyalty and desertion of your savior. 
 The Word says that one who renounces Christ and turns 
his back is like a dog returning to his vomit and a 
pig who is bathed but returns

 to the mud and wallows.  God help you.
[02:12] <TrueOne> Paisano: You interpret it as bragging... 
I'm only interested in truth... your point you made 
before didn't apply ("you will never understand the 
ways of god or spiritual things UNTIl and UNLESS you 
humble yourse

lf and repent of your sinful ways and accept Jesus 
Christ as your Lord and Savior.  At that point you 
will be given the gift of the Holy Spirit...")
[02:13] <TrueOne> ...the reason it didn't apply, is because 
I fit the above criteria, but am a counterexample to 
the implications...
[02:13] <Xinyang> True one: what happened
[02:13] <TrueOne> ...it's a moot point... you are simply 
arguing "You cannot possibly agree with me unless you 
believe in what I believe"
[02:13] <Xinyang> why do you no longer believe
[02:13] <Xinyang> what do you believe
[02:13] <Xinyang> now
[02:14] <Paisano> It's true ... if you can believe it; 
get on your knees before your maker and pray that he 
would have mercy upon your soul.  I can give you nothing 
but there is NOTHING that he cannot do for you if you 
will humble yourself and sim

ply ask.
[02:14] <TrueOne> Christianity post-rationalizes things... 
it claims to have the truth, but when faced with opposition, 
it modifies itself to where it can still be true...
[02:14] <TrueOne> ...that's not scientific.  That's one 
problem.
[02:14] <ProfG> TrueOne: what do YOU claim?
[02:15] <Xinyang> What religion is scientific?
[02:15] <TrueOne> ...another problem is that Christianity 
viewed objectively has no more value than that of a 
number of mutually exclusive religions
[02:15] st_aidan (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:15] Nick change: st_aidan -> Acolyte
[02:15] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[02:15] <ProfG> Acolyte  :-)
[02:15] <Acolyte> hey profg
[02:15] Mode change '-o lugen ' by lugen!lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com
[02:15] <Acolyte> 2 MORE DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[02:15] <Xinyang> I have found Christianity to be the 
truest of them all
[02:15] <TrueOne> ...a third problem is that Christianity 
is semantically inconsistent...
[02:15] <Acolyte> trueone thats funny
[02:16] <ProfG>  TrueOne: Christianity post-rationalizes 
things... it claims to have the truth, but when faced 
with opposition, it modifies itself to where it can 
still be true...
[02:16] <ProfG>    TrueOne: ...that's not scientific. 
 That's one problem.
[02:16] <Acolyte> Trueone where did you ever get the 
idea of consistency apart from God?
[02:16] <ProfG> TrueOne: ...another problem is that Christianity 
viewed objectively has no more value than that of a 
number of mutually exclusive religions
[02:16] <ProfG> TrueOne: ...a third problem is that Christianity 
is semantically inconsistent...
[02:16] <ProfG> for your edification, Acolyte
[02:16] <ProfG> :-)
[02:16] <Acolyte> profg that was edification?? ;)
[02:17] budso (budman@client22.sedona.net) joined #apologetics.
[02:17] <ProfG> lol
[02:17] <ProfG> more like mortification?
[02:17] Action: Acolyte notes he gets engaged in 2 
more days
[02:17] Action: ProfG offers even more congrats
[02:17] <Acolyte> profg ever read C.S. Lewis Space Trilogy?
[02:17] <TrueOne> Acolyte: What do you mean, consistency 
apart from God?
[02:17] <ProfG> budso  :-)
[02:17] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx02-50.teleport.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:17] <ProfG> Acolyte: no, stuck with Narnia  :-)
[02:17] <Xinyang> Trueone what do YOU believe?
[02:17] <ProfG> brentf  :-)
[02:17] <Acolyte> trueone how do you arrive at the idea 
of consistency apart from a Theistic paradigm?
[02:17] <TrueOne> Xinyang: I'm atheistic
[02:17] Paisano (tony@slip4.dtx.net) left irc: Excess 
Flood
[02:17] <Acolyte> profg DO YOURSELF a favor and read 
it
[02:17] Action: ProfG notes that the #apologetics cavalry 
has arrived
[02:17] <brentf> ProfG :)  Good to see ya!
[02:18] <Xinyang> and what made you turn away from god
[02:18] Paisano (tony@slip4.dtx.net) joined #apologetics.
[02:18] <brentf> Hello, Acolyte :)
[02:18] <Acolyte> hey brentf
[02:18] <Acolyte> hey paisano
[02:18] <Acolyte> profg the guy saw the future, lem me 
tell ya
[02:18] <TrueOne> Acolyte: By examining carefully what 
"God" really means and the reasons why people believe 
in god
[02:18] <brentf> Acolyte:  I read the Didache.
[02:18] <Acolyte> True fien, that is not what I asked 
for
[02:18] <Acolyte> brentf good
[02:18] <TrueOne> ...I would believe in God if presented 
with the right evidence
[02:18] <Acolyte> trueone how do you arrive at the idea 
of consistency apart from a Theistic paradigm?
[02:18] Action: Jubilant asks... Where are we going 
and why are we in this handbasket?
[02:19] <Acolyte> trueone please adress the quesiton 
that I addresed
[02:19] <TrueOne> Acolyte: I asked what you mean.  Do 
you lack the ability to clearly phrase questions?
[02:19] <Xinyang> So as an atheist you believe in the 
religion of evolution? :)
[02:19] <ProfG> TrueOne: how do you define "the right 
evidence"?
[02:19] <TrueOne> ...rephrase the question
[02:19] <Acolyte> Trueone, do you also lack the ability 
to clearly answer them?
[02:19] Mode change '-o ProfG ' by ProfG!wgreen01@fiudial79.fiu.edu
[02:19] <TrueOne> Acolyte: I cannot answer any question 
I do not understand
[02:19] <ProfG> we'll be here all night then
[02:20] <ProfG> ;->
[02:20] <Xinyang> Trueone: So as an atheist you believe 
in the religion of evolution? :)
[02:20] <Acolyte> Trueojne how do you arrive at the idea 
of consistency or regualarity apart from a theistic 
paradigm?
[02:20] <Acolyte> Trueone what is it that you do not 
understand?
[02:20] <TrueOne> Xinyang: evolution isn't a religion... 
do you need it to be so that you can refute it?
[02:20] <Xinyang> It is not a science
[02:20] <TrueOne> Acolyte: I do not understand what your 
question means...
[02:20] <ProfG> TrueOne: Acolyte is asking how, in an 
atheist worldview, one can believe in the idea of consistency 
or regularity AT ALL
[02:20] <Acolyte> True do you know what the word Paradigm 
means?
[02:20] <TrueOne> ...are you asking how I can have a 
consistent system of beliefs without believing in God?
[02:21] <Acolyte> True no, how do you justify a beleif 
or come to a belief in consistency?
[02:21] <ProfG> no, how can there by ANY consistency 
in an atheist worldview?
[02:21] <Acolyte> prog in any worldview
[02:21] <Acolyte> True in your paradigm, what are beleifs?
[02:21] <ProfG> aco this one in particular though
[02:21] <TrueOne> Ah... why is God necessary for consistency?
[02:21] <ProfG> answer the question, TO
[02:21] <ProfG> you aren't socrates
[02:21] <TrueOne> ...the universe exists... truths are 
things in our mind that explain the universe perfectly
[02:22] <ProfG> answer with answers, not questions
[02:22] <Acolyte> True, no, how do you arrive at the 
idea of consistency outside of a thesitic paradigm?
[02:22] <TrueOne> And you aren't Jesus ProfG
[02:22] <ProfG> prove it, TO
[02:22] <TrueOne> ...what's the point? We can both think... 
or at least claim to
[02:22] <TrueOne> ProfG: Are you attempting to demonstrate 
that I must have faith in my views?
[02:22] <Acolyte> true, I did not ask what truths are, 
I SPECIFICALLY Asked what beleifs are in your paradigm?
[02:22] <ProfG> TO: I'm TRYING to get you to answer Acolyte
[02:23] <TrueOne> Well, I still don't understand what 
Acolyte is asking :)
[02:23] Action: Acolyte notes that Atheismis pure mythology, 
an illusion, an organised illusional beleifs system 
signifying nothing
[02:23] <ProfG> doh
[02:23] <Acolyte> true on, do you have an idea of consistency?
[02:23] Action: ProfG notes that Acolyte is correct
[02:23] <Acolyte> yes or no?
[02:23] <ProfG> as usual  ;->
[02:23] <TrueOne> As in, something can be consistent? 
Of course
[02:23] <Acolyte> profg alcuin could say it better than 
i.
[02:23] <Acolyte> True no, do you have specific ideas?
[02:24] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
Atheism is pure mythology, an illusion, an organised 
illusional beleifs system signifying nothing
[02:24] <ProfG> heheheh
[02:24] <TrueOne> Specific ideas? Yes... that the universe 
exists...
[02:24] <TrueOne> ...and that truths are models in the 
mind that explain the universe
[02:24] <Acolyte> Profg Lewis seriously saw the whole 
Lesbo/gay thing back in 1946, seriously. pretty trippie
[02:24] <ProfG> aco: whoa
[02:24] <Acolyte> true ok, you meantioned consistency, 
that is an idea as well,is it not?
[02:24] <Jubilant> The word "atheism" would even be meaningless 
if there was no theism.  It cannot stand alone.
[02:24] <Acolyte> profg yea, and lots more
[02:25] Action: ProfG wishes he had time to read   
:(
[02:25] <TrueOne> ...I believe that subjectivity leads 
to stagnated views, which may be true or false...
[02:25] <Acolyte> jubulant if there were not God there 
would not be anymeaning for anything to be called meaningless
[02:25] <TrueOne> ...but that objectivity can at least 
change views to approach a truth
[02:25] <ProfG> TrueOne: is that a non-subjective view?
[02:25] <Acolyte> true fine, but do you have an idea 
of consistently? yes or no willbe sufficient?
[02:25] <Jubilant> Agreed, Aco
[02:25] Action: ProfG waits for TO to actually answer 
a single question from Acolyte
[02:25] <Acolyte> jubilant if the cosmos were meaningless 
we should have never found out that it were so
[02:26] <Acolyte> true fine, but do you have an idea 
of consistently? yes or no willbe sufficient?
[02:26] <TrueOne> Acolyte: I believe that things can 
be consistent
[02:26] <Jubilant> Aco, if there was no God there would 
be no cosmos.
[02:26] <Acolyte> true fine, where does this beleif come 
from?
[02:26] <ProfG> "I believe"... PROVE it
[02:26] <ProfG> prove it's POSSIBLE in your paradigm
[02:26] <ProfG> oops...
[02:26] Action: ProfG steps back and lets Aco have 
his fun
[02:26] <Acolyte> profg slow down, baby steps to Jesus...;)
[02:26] <TrueOne> From an assumption that I must make 
in order to explain anything :)
[02:27] Action: Acolyte puts on his surgical apparel, 
"Its time for yet another mental abortion."
[02:27] <Acolyte> true, and what assumption is that?
[02:27] <Xinyang> hehe
[02:27] <ProfG> Aco, my teaching on "The Reasonableness 
of the Christian Faith" is on the 'net now in RealAudio 
format...
[02:27] <TrueOne> if there is no consistency at all, 
then I will come to find that out, and will probably 
end up in a Buddhist temple
[02:27] <Acolyte> profg kewl
[02:27] <Acolyte> true I have a question
[02:27] <ProfG> Aco: http://jf.org/radio/sermons.htm
[02:28] <Acolyte> trueone if there were no consistency 
at all, even in your brain, would you even have a consistent 
idea that there were no concistency?
[02:28] <budso> switching servers. brb
[02:28] budso (budman@client22.sedona.net) left #apologetics.
[02:28] <Acolyte> True, here, the answer is real simple. 
its a big fat NO.
[02:28] <ProfG> big
[02:28] <ProfG> fat
[02:29] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Could you be under the illusion 
that that was the case?
[02:29] <Acolyte> True if there were no consistency, 
your ideas would not be consistent inthemselves either
[02:29] <Acolyte> true sure I could, could u?
[02:29] <Acolyte> true, but that is not jthe real issue.
[02:29] <Acolyte> True, now to the second point
[02:29] <Acolyte> True what is an idea?
[02:29] <TrueOne> An idea is something imagined by the 
mind
[02:30] Action: Acolyte pulls out his super duper analytic 
scapel
[02:30] <Acolyte> True what is the mind? what is its 
essence?
[02:30] <Acolyte> true does the mind have location?
[02:30] <TrueOne> The mind has no specific location... 
it's an abstract
[02:31] <Acolyte> profg you would be amazed how much 
Lewis forsaw...utterly baffles me
[02:31] <TrueOne> ...in a sense, though, it can be said 
to be located in the brain
[02:31] <Acolyte> true, so the mind is an idea as well? 
abstract?
[02:31] <Acolyte> ic
[02:31] Action: ProfG notes the bafflement in Acolyte's 
typing
[02:31] <Acolyte> so the mind is abstracted form the 
brain?
[02:31] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Yes... can't you imagine your 
own mind?
[02:31] <TrueOne> ...is that not what self-awareness 
is?
[02:31] <Acolyte> true that is context relative actually 
to what paradigm one is in. 
[02:31] <Acolyte> true, and what is the brain?
[02:32] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Precisely.  That is why your 
mind seems to "go" in stage 2, 3, and 4 sleep...
[02:32] <Acolyte> true thats nice, but what is the brain?
[02:32] <TrueOne> ...and also why you feel more "aware" 
at some times than at others
[02:32] <ProfG> sheesh
[02:32] <Acolyte> fine, but again........
[02:32] <TrueOne> The brain is a collection of neurons
[02:32] <Acolyte> whatis the brain?
[02:32] <Acolyte> ic
[02:32] <ProfG> finally
[02:33] Action: ProfG pulls out his neuron collection... 
"Look, a brain!"
[02:33] <Acolyte> Trueone is a human anything more in 
essence than his body? anything other than natural?
[02:33] <Xinyang> hehe
[02:33] <TrueOne> Acolyte: No
[02:33] <ProfG> bada - BING
[02:33] <Acolyte> True, and what is the essence of a 
human? mental? material? what?
[02:33] <Xinyang> then you have no mind?
[02:33] <TrueOne> take away half my brain, and I will 
only be half a person :)
[02:33] <Paisano> ProfG:  I tried the address but it 
says Netscape is unable to locate jf.org???
[02:34] <Acolyte> xinyang don't spoil this for me ok
[02:34] <ProfG> Paisano: server may be down right now. 
Try again later.
[02:34] <Xinyang> sorry
[02:34] <Acolyte> True, and what is the essence of a 
human? mental? material? what?
[02:34] <Acolyte> true what is the nature or esence of 
the body? mateiral perhaps?
[02:34] <Paisano> ProfG:  Wilco. :)
[02:34] <ProfG> (take away all his brain, and he's an 
atheist)
[02:34] <ProfG> lol
[02:34] <TrueOne> The essence of the body is material
[02:35] <TrueOne> ...the essence of the mind is material
[02:35] <Acolyte> true ic, and what governs the actions 
or mechanisms or processes of the body?
[02:35] <ProfG> Paisano: it's part of the first Christian 
Internet-only Radio Station
[02:35] <TrueOne> Acolyte: The brain
[02:35] <TrueOne> ...the environment
[02:35] <ProfG> it just went up, so bugs are being worked 
out
[02:35] <Acolyte> true, no perhaps I should clarify, 
including the brain, what governs them? somethng in 
nature or outside of nature?
[02:36] <Paisano> ProfG:  Great ... heard about it but 
it was just sending a test feed last time I checked.
[02:36] <TrueOne> Something in nature acolyte
[02:36] <TrueOne> ...why do you think LSD produces hallucinations?
[02:36] <Acolyte> true, and what is it in nature that 
governs the processes of the human organism>
[02:36] <ProfG> Paisano: what on the internet is NOT 
a test feed?  lol
[02:36] <Acolyte> true, and what is it in nature that 
governs the processes of the human organism?
[02:36] <TrueOne> Acolyte: It is nature
[02:36] <ProfG> redundant
[02:36] <Paisano> LOL
[02:37] <TrueOne> Nature is nature... is that redundant?
[02:37] <Acolyte> True, ic, so there are principles in 
nature that govern the processes of the human organism?
[02:37] <ProfG> that's not what you said, TO
[02:37] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Yes, and demonstrably so
[02:37] <Acolyte> profg its no biggie for now
[02:37] <TrueOne> Prof: It's not what you heard, but 
it's what I said
[02:37] <ProfG> okie dokie Aco
[02:38] <Acolyte> true IC, and are the thoughts or ideas 
of the brain chemical processes of nature governed 
by these principles or somethng outside of anture that 
does so?
[02:38] <ProfG> TO: you think what you said is not what 
I heard, but what I heard is what you said even though 
you said that you think that what I heard is not what 
you said and what you said is not what I heard
[02:38] <Acolyte> anture=nature
[02:38] <ProfG> I think
[02:38] <Paisano> TrueOne:  What made you turn your back 
upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for you?
[02:38] <Acolyte> paisano hold on
[02:38] <Acolyte> paisano almost there
[02:38] <TrueOne> Why, they are governed by nature acolyte
[02:38] <Acolyte> True I don't know how that answers 
my question
[02:38] <Acolyte> True please address my question
[02:39] Action: Xinyang whistles dixie:)
[02:39] <Acolyte> if you can't then say so plainly plz
[02:39] <Acolyte> true IC, and are the thoughts or ideas 
of the brain chemical processes of nature governed 
by these principles or somethng outside of anture that 
does so?
[02:39] <TrueOne> "are the thoughts or ideas of the brain 
chemical processes of nature governed by these principles 
or something outside of nature that does so?"
[02:39] <TrueOne> ...they are governed by nature
[02:39] <Acolyte> true plz answe that question
[02:39] <Acolyte> ok
[02:40] <Acolyte> so, are youpart of nature as a human 
organism?
[02:40] <TrueOne> Sorry, I had already answered it, so 
I was requoting you to show you I was answering in 
that context
[02:40] Action: ProfG notes that TO doesn't even see 
the brick wall he's running into
[02:40] <Acolyte> ok 
[02:40] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Correct, I am part of nature
[02:40] <Acolyte> but
[02:40] <Acolyte> ok
[02:40] <Acolyte> then I have a simple question for you
[02:40] <Acolyte> last one
[02:40] <ProfG> heh
[02:40] <Xinyang> hehe
[02:41] <ProfG> drumroll...
[02:41] Action: TrueOne has a feeling that this will 
be quite an interesting response to the question
[02:41] <Acolyte> If all your concepts are determined 
by the principles of nature, and everything in nature 
is governed by them as well, ho would you ever be able 
to verify any beleif since all your beleifs are determined 
by nature as well? hence 

they are neither true NOR 
[02:41] <ProfG> NOR
[02:41] <ProfG> NOR
[02:41] <Acolyte> false they are meningless because there 
is no way to verify any beleifs that u have
[02:41] <ProfG> ...
[02:41] <ProfG> ah
[02:41] <Acolyte> If all your concepts are determined 
by the principles of nature, and everything in nature 
is governed by them as well, ho would you ever be able 
to verify any beleif since all your beleifs are determined 
by nature as well? hence 

they are neither true NOR 
[02:41] <Acolyte> false they are meningless because there 
is no way to verify any beleifs that u have
[02:42] <ProfG> and there you have it
[02:42] <ProfG> we can all go home now
[02:42] <Acolyte> True how would you verify any beleif 
since all beleifs are determined?
[02:42] <TrueOne> Ah... sorry, I thought I was the one 
that was going to answer that
[02:42] <ProfG> you've been a great audience! good night!
[02:42] <Acolyte> you have reached nihilism it seems
[02:42] <Acolyte> true go for it
[02:42] <ProfG> ;->
[02:42] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Perhaps, I am part of nature, 
as I have already said above
[02:42] <Acolyte> true perhaps? you don;t knwo if you 
are or not?
[02:43] <TrueOne> ...if I choose to do something, that 
is natural...
[02:43] <ProfG> that doesn't address what Aco said at 
ALL
[02:43] <Acolyte> true exactly, so it is natural, does 
not make it true or right or wrong, just natural process
[02:43] <Acolyte> true how do you know what is correct 
if you all yoru actions and beleifs are determined?
[02:43] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Truth exists
[02:43] <Acolyte> True it does? 
[02:43] <TrueOne> ...how can the existence of nature 
deny that things cannot be true?
[02:44] <Acolyte> true in natrue nature exists
[02:44] <Acolyte> True it dos not deny it, it excludes 
it
[02:44] <Paisano> double negatives are HARD to follow.
[02:44] <TrueOne> I know what is correct only by showing 
what is not
[02:44] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Nature excludes truth?
[02:44] <Acolyte> true, but if all your beleifs and actions 
are determined, how do you CHECK to see if they are 
true if even your CHECKING is determined as well?
[02:44] <Acolyte> True naturalism excludes truth yes
[02:44] <TrueOne> ...if I dropped a pencil, it will hit 
the ground...
[02:45] <TrueOne> ...is that true? ...is it nature?
[02:45] Nomos (Nomos@kuts6p08.cc.ukans.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[02:45] <Acolyte> true sure,. but youwould not know it
[02:45] <Nomos> hi
[02:45] <Acolyte> ture you would only have a determined 
chemical reaction
[02:45] <Acolyte> chemcials are not true or false
[02:45] <TrueOne> You're making some pretty huge leaps 
here Acolyte
[02:45] <ProfG> hiya nomos
[02:45] <Nomos> hiya prof
[02:45] <Acolyte> true oh, on the contrary
[02:45] <Acolyte> trueone YOU ARE
[02:45] <TrueOne> Acolyte: You're right... chemicals 
cannot be true or false
[02:45] <ProfG> amen ACO
[02:45] <TrueOne> ...neither is the mind the brain
[02:45] <Acolyte> true, are your chemcials determined 
by nature?
[02:45] <Acolyte> yes or no?
[02:45] <TrueOne> ...neither is a computer program a 
set of transistors
[02:46] <Acolyte> true, are your chemcials determined 
by nature?
[02:46] <Acolyte> yes or no?
[02:46] Action: ProfG notes that it is 2:45 am where 
he is
[02:46] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Yes
[02:46] <ProfG> and he should be sleeping
[02:46] <Nomos> lugen: co to robisz? jak sie masz?
[02:46] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Everything you observe having 
to do with physical reality is a part of nature...
[02:46] <Acolyte> trueand your ideas are chemical reactins 
determine by nature, correct?
[02:46] <Paisano> ProfG need only move to Louisiana to 
gain an hour. :)
[02:46] <TrueOne> ...that's even true if you accept theism
[02:46] <ProfG> heh
[02:46] <Acolyte> true given that, even my reactions 
are part of nature
[02:46] <TrueOne> Acolyte: precisely
[02:47] <Acolyte> true, all your ideas are determined
[02:47] <Jubilant> Move to New Mexico to gain 2 hours.
[02:47] <Acolyte> they have no truth value since they 
cannot be checked
[02:47] <Paisano> TrueOne:  What made you turn your back 
upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for you?
[02:47] <TrueOne> Acolyte: That's true, too
[02:47] <Acolyte> no, NOTHING IS TRUE
[02:47] <Acolyte> there is only Nihilism
[02:47] <TrueOne> er, that's where you go wrong Acolyte
[02:47] <Acolyte> you have reached ground ZERO
[02:47] <ProfG> Atheism = Nihilism
[02:47] <Acolyte> true, there is no wrong to go to at 
this point
[02:47] <TrueOne> No, you have reached zero for me acolyte, 
by interjecting what you think I believe
[02:47] <ProfG> TO: he walked you here. where did you 
stumble off of the path?
[02:48] <Acolyte> true show me where I have reasoned 
incorrectly?
[02:48] <TrueOne> ...and your own definition of "nature"
[02:48] <TrueOne> Acolyte: I showed you exactly where...
[02:48] <Acolyte> True,  ok define nature
[02:48] <Acolyte> true name the fallacy then
[02:48] <TrueOne> ...Nature does not imply that there 
is nothing true
[02:48] <Acolyte> true define nature
[02:48] <Paisano> TrueOne:  What made you turn your back 
upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for you?
[02:48] <TrueOne> ...quite the contrary... nature would 
be the truth itself
[02:48] <Acolyte> nature would be a chemcials collection 
in motion
[02:49] <Acolyte> nanture chemcials are not true or false, 
as you agreed to
[02:49] <Acolyte> hence nature is NEITHER true nor false
[02:49] <Paisano> unTrueOne:  What made you turn your 
back upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for 
you?
[02:49] <TrueOne> Right Acolyte... and look what chemical 
collections in motion can do
[02:49] <TrueOne> Right acolyte... neither are transistors 
true or false...
[02:49] <Acolyte> true, so? motion or utility doe snot 
equal truth
[02:49] <TrueOne> ...and electricity cannot be true
[02:49] <Jubilant> Paisano, you are being rude.
[02:49] <TrueOne> ...so, does that nullify everything 
done using computer programs?
[02:49] <Acolyte> true, and you are chemicals, only, 
hence your ideas being chemcials are determined chemical 
reacitns, they lack truth value
[02:49] <TrueOne> ...you seem to be confusing the hardware 
with the software
[02:49] <Paisano> TrueOne:  What made you turn your back 
upon your Savior who loved you enough to die for you?
[02:50] <Paisano> Happy now Jubilant. :)
[02:50] <Acolyte> Truwe so u do thins, so?> you don't 
KNOW if anythng is true or not, even if you do do things, 
there is no truth
[02:50] <Jubilant> Thanks
[02:50] <TrueOne> Paisano: I've told you a few things 
to get you started already
[02:50] <Acolyte> true, is the software governed by nature? 
is the hardware governed by nature?
[02:50] <ProfG> Jubilant: Paisano has a point though 
 ;->
[02:50] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Nature implies no truths?
[02:50] <Paisano> TrueOne:  What have you told me?
[02:50] <TrueOne> ...this assumption comes from where?
[02:50] <Acolyte> True, natuealism excludes anything 
metaphyscial, don't u knw that?
[02:50] <ProfG> TO: he just SHOWED you
[02:51] <ProfG> were you in another window?
[02:51] <Acolyte> true comes form the fact that truth 
is not a physical thing
[02:51] <Jubilant> ProfG, I agree to the point but not 
to the way Paisano presented in one instance.
[02:51] <TrueOne> Acolyte: define metaphysical
[02:51] <Acolyte> True or do you tink that Truth is physical?
[02:51] <Acolyte> META-physical, not physical, above 
or beyond the physical
[02:51] <Acolyte> simple enough?
[02:51] <ProfG> Jubilant: well, we're not always the 
most... ummmm... non-sarcastic bunch in here...  ;->
[02:51] <TrueOne> Truth is an abstract Acolyte
[02:51] <Paisano> TrueOne:  Why did you DESERT your Savior 
who loved you so much?
[02:51] <Acolyte> please defien NATURE
[02:51] <Acolyte> true and absractsa re chemcials, so? 
still meaingless
[02:52] <Xinyang> hehe
[02:52] <TrueOne> You're confusing software with hardware 
Acolyte
[02:52] <Acolyte> paisano and looked what he deserted 
it FOR, for NOTHING
[02:52] <Acolyte> true I am?
[02:52] <Acolyte> True can I ask you a simple question?
[02:52] <TrueOne> ...would you accept a text file if 
I dcc-ed it to you?
[02:52] <TrueOne> Acolyte: You have been asking me questions 
for quite some time... I'm about to go to bed...
[02:52] <ProfG> TrueOne: have you ever visited our web 
site?
[02:53] <Acolyte> sleep well nihilist
[02:53] <Jubilant> T/O, I think you need to go back over 
the log here and see what happened to you tonight.
[02:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[02:53] <ProfG> and maybe looked at our logs?
[02:53] <TrueOne> If I were nihilist I would have told 
you already Acolyte :)
[02:53] <Acolyte> True the last point, BOTH hardware 
and software are chemcials, hence still dtermined
[02:53] <ProfG> http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[02:53] <Jubilant> You plainly lost the debate.  You 
should be man enough to admit defeat and come back 
again another time.
[02:53] <ProfG> TO: you did.
[02:53] <Acolyte> true you are in denial tho.
[02:53] <ProfG> TO: you said you are an atheist
[02:53] <ProfG> ipso facto
[02:53] <TrueOne> ProfG: I'm not nihilist
[02:53] <ProfG> a nihilist
[02:53] <Paisano> TrueOne:  I am sincerely interested. 
 Please answer before you go why your deserted the 
one who loved you so much?
[02:53] <TrueOne> I'm atheist
[02:53] <Acolyte> True sorry I don't have access to DCC 
email me if you like
[02:53] <Acolyte> true that snice, still a nihilst
[02:54] <Acolyte> .
[02:54] <ProfG> atheist = nihilisty
[02:54] <Acolyte> True the last point, BOTH hardware 
and software are chemcials, hence still dtermined
[02:54] <ProfG> no y
[02:54] <Paisano> TrueOne:  I am sincerely interested. 
 Please answer before you go why you deserted the one 
who loved you so much?
[02:54] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
ATHEISM = NIHILISM
[02:55] <TrueOne> Paisano: I didn't desert anything... 
I merely seek truths
[02:55] <Acolyte> NAturlistic evolutionary Athiesm=Nihilism
[02:55] <Acolyte> True just think about it, everythng 
is chemcial in your paradigm, it lacks truth value
[02:55] <Acolyte> True just think about it, everythng 
is chemcial in your paradigm, it lacks truth value
[02:55] <Paisano> TrueOne:  I see.  Does that mean you 
still are a follower of Jesus Christ and that you consider 
him your Lord and God?
[02:55] <Acolyte> Paisano take a quick guess
[02:56] <TrueOne> Acolyte: Truth is not a property of 
nature... it's an abstract
[02:56] <Paisano> Aco:  Let him answer plz. :)
[02:56] miche (mspring@ra01-03.sota-oh.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[02:56] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
Naturalistic evolutionary atheism = Nihilism
[02:56] <Acolyte> true abstrazcts are chemcial as well
[02:56] <TrueOne> Acolyte: What is your email address?
[02:56] <Acolyte> true hence still nihilism
[02:56] <Acolyte> ~st_aidan@deltanet.com
[02:56] <ProfG> TO: please visit our web site
[02:56] <ProfG> and look at some logs
[02:56] <Paisano> TrueOne:  I see.  Does that mean you 
still are a follower of Jesus Christ and that you consider 
him your Lord and God?
[02:56] <ProfG> Acolyte: no ~ in your address
[02:56] <Acolyte> profg same argument, different defeats
[02:56] <ProfG> Aco: yup
[02:56] <Acolyte> profg oh, sorry
[02:57] <Acolyte> TO the point is that your paradigm 
denies epistemology, ethics, science, just about everything
[02:57] <Acolyte> TO hence your paradigm is kinda, perhaps, 
just a tad...COMPLETELY FALSE
[02:57] <Acolyte> big clue
[02:57] <ProfG> those things are not possible in your 
paradigm, TO
[02:57] <Acolyte> ok? just think about it dude
[02:57] <Paisano> TrueOne:  You said you were once a 
Christian?  Are you still a Christian?  
[02:58] <TrueOne> Acolyte: You've quite a stubborned 
meme
[02:58] <Acolyte> meme?
[02:58] <ProfG> yeah, that meme
[02:58] <ProfG> you know, your meme
[02:58] <TrueOne> Paisano: That depends on who you ask... 
if you ask me, no :)
[02:58] <Acolyte> yes I am stubborned, truth has a habbit 
of being that way ya know
[02:58] <Paisano> TrueOne:  What got you off the RIGHT 
path?
[02:58] Action: ProfG notes that Acolyte has had a 
stubborned meme for quite some time
[02:58] <Acolyte> True, think about the argument
[02:58] <Acolyte> Profg I was bonr that way, its not 
my fault!!!
[02:58] <TrueOne> hehe, yeah, as the saying goes: "They 
laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, but they 
also laughed at Bozo the clown"
================================================
[03:05] Aman (Musl@Cust27.Max4.Boston.MA.MS.UU.NET) 
joined #apologetics.
[03:05] <Acolyte> hullo aman
[03:05] <Aman> Lugen:  Why do play Satan on #bible?
[03:05] <Pilgrim1> did I just see something about Nihilism? 
:)
[03:05] <Jubilant> Aman, are you a Muslim?
[03:05] <Acolyte> [ilgim just missed it
[03:05] <Aman> U bet
[03:05] <ProfG> oh boy
[03:06] <Acolyte> jubliant perceptive of you
[03:06] <Jubilant> I thought perhaps by your name...
[03:06] <Paisano> Aman:  Poor fellow.
[03:06] <Acolyte> oh good, a MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
YUMMY
[03:06] <Aman> Lugen is a MUTE satan!
[03:06] <Acolyte> they always taste good going down
[03:06] <Acolyte> aman lugen is busy
[03:06] <Acolyte> aman, why did you come to our wonderful 
channel?
[03:06] <Aman> U see folks..a mute Satan..dares not tell 
the truth..Just like Lugen here!
[03:06] <Paisano> Aman:  Pick on someone your own size.
[03:07] <Acolyte> aman why are you a Muslim?
[03:07] <ProfG> yeah... like a 4 year old
[03:07] <Acolyte> brentf u there?
[03:07] Qoheleth (jb@phx-ts10-36.netzone.com) joined 
#Apologetics.
[03:07] <Paisano> Aman:  Mohammed is dead and buried 
and the food of worms.
[03:07] Judith (Sandra@dial148.skypoint.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[03:07] <Judith> you rang?
[03:07] <Aman> I pick on Satan and his children..
[03:07] <Acolyte> aman why are you a Muslim?
[03:07] <Aman> yes..
[03:07] <Judith> aww man...
[03:07] <Acolyte> aman thats nice, why are you amulsim?
[03:07] <ProfG> Paisano: you forgot "Peace be upon him"
[03:07] <ProfG> LOL
[03:07] <Judith> i'll be back when aman is gone
[03:07] Judith (Sandra@dial148.skypoint.net) left #apologetics.
[03:07] <Acolyte> aman thats nice, why are you a muslim?
[03:08] <Acolyte> judith no wait
[03:08] <Aman> Begone ..
[03:08] <Paisano> ProfG:  A pox on his house maybe. :)
[03:08] <Acolyte> jusith you have such lovely hair anyhow
[03:08] <Aman> daughter of Satan.
[03:08] <Acolyte> aman, fihgt nice now
[03:08] <Aman> ok..
[03:08] <Acolyte> aman why are you a Muslim?
[03:08] <ProfG> Aman: debate rationally, or leave
[03:08] <Aman> yes..for the third time..i say yes.
[03:08] <Acolyte> aman I am not asking IF you are, but 
WHY you are a muslim? 
[03:09] <Paisano> Aman:  Does insanity run in your family?
[03:09] <Aman> U see Judith and Lugen,,the twin of Satan 
kicked and banned me from #bible!
[03:09] <Acolyte> aman why do you beleif in the Quar'an?
[03:09] Judith (Sandra@dial148.skypoint.net) joined 
#apologetics.
[03:09] <Acolyte> paisano thank God not in Italian ones. 
;)
[03:09] <Acolyte> hey judith
[03:09] <Paisano> aco: grin.
[03:09] <Aman> Aco:  It is the only book that is divine..no 
contradictions in it.
[03:09] <Pilgrim1> Aman why did they kick you? What did 
you say?
[03:09] <Acolyte> aman why do you believe in the Quar'an 
as truth?
[03:09] <Jubilant> Aman, I have some questions I have 
been wanting to ask of a muslim
[03:10] <Acolyte> Aman, ic, so can somethng be conssitent 
and be false?
[03:10] <Paisano> Aman:  Yeah like we have seen the fruits 
of the Muslim religion.
[03:10] <Acolyte> jubilant reading Giesler perhaps????
[03:10] <Paisano> aco:  consistently false. :)
[03:10] <Aman> Pilgrim:  I just commited the "sin" of opposing 
homosexulaity and lezbianism..They must adhere to these 
respective persuasions.
[03:10] <ProfG> Aman: #Bible is for the discussion of 
the Bible, with the assumption that it is the TRUTH 
(not "corrupted", etc.). You need to come HERE to debate 
the veracity of one faith over another.
[03:10] <Jubilant> Can you tell me about the Satanic 
verses which are found in the Quoran?
[03:10] <Qoheleth> someone mention Norman?
[03:10] <Acolyte> aman, my math book does not have any 
contradictions in it, does that make it divine too?
[03:11] <Acolyte> Qo I did
[03:11] <Jubilant> Can you tell me about the Satanic 
verses which are found in the Quoran?
[03:11] <Aman> Let Lugen say sonthing..assuming he is 
not a mute Satan!
[03:11] <Acolyte> Aman cut the stuff about lugen ok
[03:11] <Jubilant> Can you tell me about the Satanic 
verses which are found in the Quoran?
[03:11] <Acolyte> Qoheleth what about Normie?
[03:11] <ProfG> lugen is AWAY, Aman
[03:11] <ProfG> get it?
[03:11] <ProfG> AWAY
[03:11] <Pilgrim1> Aman I oppose those two and believe 
they are sin
[03:11] <Paisano> Aman:  Are you deaf?  Aco told you 
he was away.
[03:11] creation_ (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[03:11] <Jubilant> In order to appease his pagan family 
members and the members ofthe Quraysh tribe, Muhammad 
decided that the best thing he cold do wasto admit 
that it was perfectly proper to pray to and worship 
the threedaughters of Allah: Al-La

t, Al-Uzza, and Manat.
[03:11] <Aman> Aco..I am a mthematician..Math is a part 
of GOD..as GOD is TRUTH!
[03:12] <Acolyte> hey creation
[03:12] <Qoheleth> very good apologist, AC
[03:12] <creation_> hello acolyte
[03:12] Mode change '+o creation_ ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[03:12] <creation_> acolyte: Haveing a good discussion?
[03:12] <Acolyte> qo perhaps
[03:12] <Jubilant> This led to the famous "satanic verses" 
in which Muhammad in amoment of weakness and supposedly 
under the inspiration of Satan(according to early Muslim 
authorities) succumbed to the temptatio

n toappease pagan mobs in Mecca (Sura 53:19).
[03:12] <Aman> Jubilant:  Peace..
[03:12] <Acolyte> creation eh
[03:12] <Acolyte> Qo, he'd be better if he was not a 
racist
[03:12] <creation_> Acolyte:  did you get my email?
[03:13] <Acolyte> creaution have not checked yet
[03:13] <Acolyte> Quo u there?
[03:13] <ProfG> Acolyte: that's "racialist"
[03:13] <Qoheleth> Geisler...a racist???
[03:13] <ProfG> lol
[03:13] <Aman> Jubililant:  U know U are not quoting 
the HOLY BOOK!
[03:13] <Jubilant> The story of Muhammad's temporary 
appeasement of the pagans byallowing them their polytheism 
cannot be ignored or denied.  It is afact of history 
that is supported by all Middle East scholars, Westernand 
Muslim.
[03:13] <creation_> acolyte:  Ok
[03:13] <Acolyte> Qo sure, didn't u know?
[03:13] <Acolyte> qoh, never heard about his black grandchild 
that did not make it out of the womb?
[03:13] Action: lugen is back.
[03:13] <Qoheleth> no, and I don't take hearsay lightly 
either
[03:13] <Aman> Muhammad is just a man..a prophet..he 
is not GOD!
[03:14] <Acolyte> Qo, I know the couple, do you?
[03:14] <Jubilant> WHAT ABOUT THE CONVERTED JINNS (genies)?
[03:14] <Acolyte> Aman, how do you know he was a prophet?
[03:14] <Paisano> Aman:  Case solved ... he is also a 
liar.
[03:14] <Acolyte> jub reading Morey IC
[03:14] <Jubilant> In Suras 46:29-35; 72:1-28 Muhammad 
supposedly preached to andconverted the jinns (or genies). 
 In turn the jinns preached Islam tothe people.  Thus 
the male and female spirits who inhabited the trees,the 
rocks, and the waters o

f Arabia were now Muslims and under thecontrol of Muhammad.
[03:14] <Aman> Well, weell, well.
[03:14] <lugen> Jub: Djinns
[03:14] <lugen> erm, Djins
[03:14] <Pilgrim1> Aman: Can you type There is no god 
but Allah without typing "and Muhaamad is the messenger 
of God"?
[03:14] <Qoheleth> Acolyte, I have heard you before and 
I am always impressed by your haughtiness
[03:14] <Paisano> Muhammad is dead and buried and the 
food of worms.
[03:14] <ProfG> Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well?
[03:15] <Acolyte> Qoh, Giesler is a convienient Pro-lifer. 
Its a fact. write to him and ask him about it.
[03:15] <Jubilant> This is a classic form of shamanism 
in which Muhammad nowclaimed to be in control of the 
spirits of the earth.
[03:15] <Acolyte> Qoh thats nice
[03:15] <creation_> acolyte:  I just got done reading 
the essay "Divine Necessity" by Robert Merrihew Adams. 
 I had trouble understanding most of it.  I understood 
some.
[03:15] <Aman> Jinn and other beings are there..One must 
be a total idiot to really belive in the last decade 
of the 20th century that humans are the only intelligent 
beings around.
[03:15] <Qoheleth> sarcasm
[03:15] <Acolyte> qoh, I am not hear to appease ppl
[03:15] <Acolyte> Creation adams is somewhat liberal
[03:15] <Qoheleth> to offend?
[03:15] <Acolyte> Creation see William Lane Craig, Politically 
Incorrect Slavation
[03:15] <Aman> why Acol?
[03:15] <ProfG> Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well?
[03:15] <Acolyte> Creation see William Lane Craig, Politically 
Incorrect Salvation
[03:16] <Acolyte> Qoh, to teach
[03:16] <Pilgrim1> Jubilant can you put those verses 
about converted djinns back up?
[03:16] <Aman> Aco:  No..it is man made 
[03:16] <Pilgrim1> they scrolled off
[03:16] <Acolyte> aman what is man made?
[03:16] <Jubilant> WHAT ABOUT THE MENTION OF THE BIBLICAL 
MOSES IN THE QURAN?
[03:16] <ProfG> Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well?
[03:16] <Acolyte> aman what r u talking about?
[03:16] <Aman> just like the new and old testiment..full 
of contradictions..
[03:16] <Acolyte> aman ahahahahha
[03:16] CTCP PING: 832835802 from lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) 
to #apologetics
[03:16] <Qoheleth> He who presumes to teach should teach 
with truth AND love
[03:16] <Jubilant> The Quran states in Sura 7:136 compared 
to 7:59ff, that Noah'sflood took place in Moses' day. 
 It also states that Haman (of the bookof Esther) lived 
in Egypt during the time of Moses and worked forPharoah 
building the tower of 

Babel (Suras 27:4-6; 28:38; 29:39;40:23-24 & 36-37).
[03:16] <lugen> kewl
[03:16] <Acolyte> Qoh sometimes love gets mad ya know
[03:17] <Acolyte> woh never heard of righteous indignation?
[03:17] <creation_> Acolyte:  This essay was pretty good. 
 He was counterarguing arguments against the necessary 
existance of God.  He argued against "necessity" based 
on "analyticity".  It confused me.
[03:17] <Jubilant> This is not only evidence that Muhammad 
drew uponJudaism, but that he didn't do a very good 
job of keeping his storiesstraight.  Not only do these 
incidents contradict the Bible, they alsocontradict 
secular history as well.

[03:17] <Aman> Jubilant:  wrong..
[03:17] <Acolyte> creation try plantinga heheheh
[03:17] <ProfG> Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well?
[03:17] <Acolyte> creation Platinga's bk The Nature of 
NEcessity took me a stinking month to read
[03:17] <Jubilant> Perhaps you would like to read these 
passages to me and correct me if you think I am wrong.
[03:17] <ProfG> and it's only 25 pages
[03:17] <Jubilant> I challenge you to do so.
[03:17] <Aman> well..all must understand that All prophets 
came from the same GOD..hence an intersection set is 
a tutology!
[03:18] <Acolyte> Jubilant Mohammed was taught by a Excommunictaed 
Gnostic Monk
[03:18] <creation_> acolyte:  Hmmm, I don't think I have 
the patience.
[03:18] <ProfG> Aman: is the Hadith a HOLY BOOK as well?
[03:18] <creation_> aman:  Tautology
[03:18] <Aman> No Prof.
[03:18] <ProfG> Aman: you are no Muslim
[03:18] <lugen> ProfG: hey, you got an answer :)
[03:18] <Aman> creation:  ask the mathematician!
[03:18] <Acolyte> aman are you shi'ite or Sunni?
[03:18] <Aman> prof:  yes
[03:18] <creation_> aman:  ask him what?
[03:18] <Aman> aco:  a muslim is a muslim.
[03:18] <Acolyte> lugen but was it intelligable is the 
quesiton
[03:19] <Acolyte> aman fine are you Shi'ite or Sunni?
[03:19] <ProfG> Aman: a muslim believes that the Hadith 
is as holy as the Q'uran
[03:19] <Acolyte> Aman who was Issa?
[03:20] <Acolyte> well I am gonna check my email and 
probbaly log off
[03:20] <Acolyte> have fun with him kiddies
[03:20] <Aman> Well..The HQ   commands humans to think..hence 
the HADITH is HADITH..(i.e. x said this and Y said 
that)  what concurres wioth the HQ is OK..what does 
not is NOT!
[03:20] Judith (Sandra@dial148.skypoint.net) left #apologetics.
[03:20] <creation_> Acolyte:  What do you think of William 
P. Alston's essay "Functionalism and Theological Language"? 
 This is all from Morris's book "The Concept of God"


[03:20] <Pilgrim1> acolyte God Bless
[03:20] <Acolyte> creation have not read it
[03:20] <Acolyte> creation since I don't have that bk 
by Morris but I want it
[03:21] Xinyang (WDYT@castles79.castles.com) left #apologetics.
[03:21] <Acolyte> creation Alston is the leading guy 
in that field tho
[03:21] <ProfG> bye aco
[03:21] <Acolyte> by profg
[03:21] <creation_> Acolyte:  Well, you probably wold 
understand more of than I do since you have the background.
[03:21] Action: Jubilant sez... bye to Acolyte! Jubilant 
warmly shakes Acolyte's hand; lightly pats Acolyte 
on the back: and says, "I'll see you next time!" :-)
[03:21] <Acolyte> creation I understand some of it
[03:21] <Acolyte> jubulant c-ya
[03:21] <Aman> U see..the evolutionists have had it 80% 
right..20% wrong..the sad part of it is that they get 
the most important 20% wrong!
[03:21] <creation_> Aco:  more than I  :)
[03:22] <Acolyte> creation think about starting a course....erm...."the 
Philosophy of Immunology"
[03:22] <Aman> They just reversed the 80/20 rule into 
a 20/80 one!
[03:22] <Paisano> Aman:  Are you American?
[03:22] <creation_> hehehe
[03:22] <Acolyte> lol
[03:22] <Aman> Paisano:Si
[03:22] <ProfG> Aman: can I ask you a quick question 
before I go to bed?
[03:22] <Aman> of course.
[03:22] <Paisano> Aman:  From South America? :)
[03:23] <ProfG> The Koran tells us that Allah is so different 
from creation that nothing can be said of him - he's 
incomparable - correct?
[03:23] <Aman> no.
[03:23] <ProfG> no?
[03:23] <ProfG> but I have read the Koran
[03:23] <ProfG> and it DOES
[03:23] <Paisano> Aman:  Are your parents Muslim?
[03:23] <Aman> Yes ProfG..(the no was for paisano's question)!
[03:23] <ProfG> oh
[03:23] <ProfG> heh
[03:23] <ProfG> so, I am correct, yes?
[03:23] <creation_> Acolyte:  The interesting part with 
Adams was when he brought up the possiblility of knowing 
necessary truths because of the existence of a mind 
that intrinsically knows necessary truths that belongs 
to God.
[03:24] <Acolyte> creation it all hangs together
[03:24] <Aman> ProfG:  You are right..actually the Quraan 
flatly says "Nothing like HIM"!
[03:24] <ProfG> then, Aman...
[03:24] <lugen> creation: sounds like Descartes revisited 
:(
[03:24] <ProfG> So, how can the Koran speak of him?
[03:24] <ProfG> if Allah is so different from creation 
that nothing can be said of him - he's incomparable 
- how can the Koran speak of him?
[03:25] <creation_> lugen:  Actually, Augustine
[03:25] <Paisano> Aman:  Are your parents Muslim?
[03:25] <Aman> Yes ProfG..You are right in that point...There 
is nothing like GOD..hence trying to imagine him is 
sacrilgeous!
[03:25] Action: Acolyte goes to battle for the Trinity 
with a modalist
[03:25] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) left 
#apologetics.
[03:25] <Aman> Yes..Paisano..My parents were muslims.
[03:25] <lugen> creation: shaky framework :)
[03:25] <ProfG> Aman: if Allah is so different from creation 
that nothing can be said of him - he's incomparable 
- how can the Koran speak of him?
[03:25] <Paisano> Aman:  What are they now?
[03:25] <creation_> lugen:  oh well, i'm just an amatuer
[03:26] <lugen> creation: metaphysics is dead :)
[03:26] <Aman> Lugen..a sad thing to say from somebody 
who is posing as an OP in #bilble!
[03:26] <creation_> lugen:  I don't want to get into 
it. 
[03:26] <ProfG> aman: leave lugen alone and focus on 
the discussion
[03:26] <lugen> creation :)
[03:27] Action: ProfG doesn't have much time
[03:27] <ProfG> going to bed soon
[03:27] <Aman> Paisano:  One is dead.One is waiting GOD's 
mercy..I pray both will end up in heaven!
[03:27] <ProfG> if Allah is so different from creation 
that nothing can be said of him - he's incomparable 
- how can the Koran speak of him?
[03:27] <Paisano> Aman:  Who was Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
[03:27] <ProfG> Paisano: unfortunately for them, Muslims 
do not have the absolute assurance of heaven, as we 
do
[03:28] <ProfG> Paisano: note the "I pray both will end 
up in heaven"
[03:28] <Aman> ProfG:  I will never leave Lugen alone..He 
started a war against me..He is my enemy!
[03:28] <ProfG> aman: take it to /query then
[03:28] <ProfG> do your jihad in /msg
[03:28] <Aman> what is qyery?
[03:28] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[03:28] <Aman> they are too musch of cowards to talk 
to me!
[03:28] <Paisano> ProfG:  How tragic they don't understand 
that Jesus is the Way, the truth and the Life.  And, 
that no one comes to the Father EXCEPT through Jesus 
Christ.
[03:29] <ProfG> aman: type /query lugen
[03:29] <Acolyte> MICHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[03:29] <ProfG> then only he will see what you say
[03:29] <Acolyte> brentf btw what did you think of the 
Didache?
[03:29] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[03:29] Acts2_38 (doris.ros@wisof9.WiSo.Uni-Augsburg.DE) 
joined #apologetics.
[03:29] <miche> Hey Acolyte   :)
[03:29] <Aman> i tried..byt he and His conspirator are 
too much of ....to talk to me...
[03:29] <Acolyte> brentf u there?
[03:29] <ProfG> ahhhhh
[03:29] <Paisano> Aman:  Lugen could be the MOST important 
friend you have; he can recount to you the words of 
life.
[03:30] <Acts2_38> hi Acolyte. I am not trying to avoid 
you, but I just don't feel like arguing today. 
[03:30] <Acolyte> paisano kenotically of course tho ;)
[03:30] <Pilgrim1> Three cheers for the Didache....every 
NT should have it in the appendix
[03:30] <Acts2_38> I just wanted you to know that.
[03:30] <Acolyte> acts thats fine
[03:30] Acts2_38 (doris.ros@wisof9.WiSo.Uni-Augsburg.DE) 
left #apologetics.
[03:30] <Acolyte> act I know its kewl
[03:30] Action: Acolyte blesses Pilgrim1
[03:30] <Aman> Paisano:  I know this..whatever lugen 
says is wrong..WHY?  he is UNJUST!
[03:30] <Acolyte> brentf u there?
[03:30] <ProfG> you been bugging the pentecostals again, 
aco?
[03:30] <Acolyte> Profg Modalists
[03:31] <Acolyte> Profg he is Oneness Pentacostal
[03:31] <Paisano> Aman:  You do NOT know Lugen and you 
misjudge him.
[03:31] <Acolyte> Profg denies the Trinity
[03:31] <ProfG> oh, oneness
[03:31] <ProfG> the BAD pentecostals
[03:31] <ProfG> heh
[03:31] <Acolyte> profg he sent me some stuff from their 
Web page and I answered it, in of course excruciating 
detail. ;)
[03:31] <Aman> Paisano:  I do not listen to their words..I 
consider their deeds..
[03:31] <lugen> *sigh*
[03:31] <ProfG> heh
[03:31] <ProfG> what web page is that, Aco?
[03:32] <Paisano> Aman:  Why don't you apply the same 
test for Muhammad?
[03:32] <Acolyte> profg, so I juest wanted to see if 
he read my response
[03:32] <Acolyte> profg don't know
[03:32] <Aman> I did Paisano
[03:32] <Acolyte> profg he just told me that he got it 
from them
[03:32] <ProfG> Aman: shut up about lugen and stick to 
the subject here
[03:32] <ProfG> oh
[03:32] <ProfG> ok aco
[03:32] <lugen> Paisano: thanks for the character defense, 
but I don't need it per se.... he is mad because I 
banned him for being vulgar and rude on #bible, let 
him think about what he wants of me. I don't care
[03:32] <Acolyte> lugen sticks and stones
[03:32] <ProfG> a muslim, vulgar and rude? noooooo...
[03:32] <Aman> ProfG..watch your language..else i may 
conclude you are an IGNORANT IDIOT!
[03:33] <Paisano> Lugen:  okay.
[03:33] <ProfG> heheheh
[03:33] <Acolyte> profg and just think, with no alchol 
either!!
[03:33] Mode change '+b *!*Musl@*Max4.Boston.MA.MS.UU.NET 
' by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu
[03:33] <ProfG> oh well
[03:33] <ProfG> no voice
[03:33] <Acolyte> amdn adn you are a banend idiot
[03:33] <Acolyte> so we are even
[03:33] <ProfG> lol
================================================
[03:52] Silvern (mburnett@spork.callamer.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[03:52] <Silvern> hello
[03:52] Action: lugen is off to sleep
[03:52] lugen (lugen@chardonnay.niagara.com) left irc: 
Leaving
[03:52] <Paisano> every=ever
[03:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[03:53] <zote> Paisano.... i asked about this word once 
before... and a man I admire told me.. that the translators... 
decided on the surrounds text if it would be gods or 
LORD God
[03:54] <Paisano> Silvern:  Can we  help you?
[03:54] miche (mspring@ra01-03.sota-oh.com) left irc: 
Leaving
[03:54] Aman (Musl@Cust27.Max4.Boston.MA.MS.UU.NET) 
joined #apologetics.
[03:54] <Silvern> i doubt it; i'm just looking through 
your faq for anything about creation/evolution 
[03:54] <Paisano> Zote:  Contextual translation is important. 
 A ball is not always a baseball. :)
[03:54] <zote> Then... this gen `1:26  puzzled me...
[03:55] <Paisano> Silvern:  Are you an evolutionist?
[03:55] <zote> Paisano,,, well I took the oportunity 
to ask you learned folks...
[03:55] <Silvern> yes
[03:55] <Paisano> zote:  Why does it puzzle you?
[03:56] Action: Jubilant sez... bye to Pilgrim1! Jubilant 
warmly shakes Pilgrim1's hand; lightly pats Pilgrim1 
on the back: and says, "I'll see you next time!" :-)
[03:56] <zote> Paisano... well because the surrouning 
text is plural... sorry i don't explain things good.
[03:56] <Paisano> Silvern:  There is a GREAT question 
to ask you then.  What one thing can you tell us that 
you know to be TRUE about evolution?
[03:56] Action: Jubilant says... Good bye to all! The 
Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits (2Tim 4:22). 
Grace be with you all! :-)
[03:56] Action: Jubilant shouts... I LOVE JESUS, YES 
I DO! I LOVE JESUS, HOW `BOUT YOU?
[03:56] Action: Pilgrim1 says to Jubilant Be seein' 
ya bro
[03:56] <Paisano> Ciao Jubilant ... be happy!
[03:56] <Silvern> gee, i've never heard that one before.
[03:57] <Paisano> Silvern:  What's your answer?
[03:57] Action: Pilgrim1 says i love jesus yes I do, 
I love Jesus how about you?
[03:57] Action: Jubilant sez to Silvern... yeah right!!! 
:-) And you've never been to a Carman concert either... 
:-)
[03:57] <Paisano> zote:  So you have a plural noun to 
describe a God with more than one personality.
[03:57] Jubilant (griff@dialup25.nmia.com) left irc: 
Praise to the One who sent us His Son!
[03:57] Action: Pilgrim1 has a virtual frog in his 
throat :)
[03:58] <Pilgrim1> God Bless and Good bye
[03:58] <Paisano> Ciao Pilgrim, God bless you too.
[03:58] Pilgrim1 (voerding@usr07.primenet.com) left 
#apologetics.
[03:58] <zote> paisano.... ok... thanks for trying to 
answer....  i didn't want to ask it on #bible...
[03:58] <Silvern> an answer would be: evolution produces 
many structures which when examined appear flawed. 
 these structures don't appear as products of intelligent 
design, but as adaptions formed from what an organism 
had to work with.
[03:58] <Paisano> zote:  no problem.
[03:58] <zote> Goodnight God bless all
[03:58] zote (tm125@dialup02.geko.net.au) left #apologetics.
[03:59] <Paisano> silvern:  Any examples of that?
[03:59] <Silvern> paisano:  i will major in evolution 
btw.  i am just a beginning bio student (just finished 
my first semester).
[04:00] Mooo (who@j7.ptl11.jaring.my) joined #apologetics.
[04:00] <Paisano> Silvern:  Have you heard the question 
before?
[04:00] Dozer (killdozer@pws.net) joined #apologetics.
[04:01] <Silvern> yes... i'm rather well acustomed with 
such questions.
[04:01] <Silvern> i've never been asked it though... 
just listened to others discussing evolution
[04:02] <Paisano> Silvern:  Are you aware that there 
is NO RIGHT ANSWER because there is NOT ONE THING about 
evolution that can be proven to be true by established 
scientific methods?
[04:02] <Silvern> and i did just formulate that answer
[04:02] <Silvern> paisano: science doesn't prove things 
true.
[04:02] Dozer (killdozer@pws.net) left #apologetics.
[04:02] <Paisano> Silvern:  I commend you for trying 
to answer.  What is the scientific method?
[04:03] <Paisano> Silvern:  What is a truth?  What is 
a fact?  What is a theorum?  What is a theory?  What 
is an assumption?
[04:04] <Silvern> paisano: science proceeds in different 
ways...
[04:04] <Silvern> presuppositionalism?  is this what 
you're going to head into?
[04:05] <Paisano> Silvern:  But can a fact be established 
if one can not demonstrate (repeat) the hypothesis?
[04:05] <Silvern> what hypothesis and fact did you have 
in mind?
[04:05] <Paisano> Silvern:  Or to put it another way, 
can a theory be considered a fact UNLESS it can be 
proven by scientific method to be true?
[04:06] <Silvern> paisano: theories do not become facts, 
theories are never proven true.  science doesn't prove 
things true.
[04:06] <Paisano> Silvern:  Evolution is a theory.  It 
is based upon certain assumptions and hypotheses.  
Don't they have to be demonstratable (repeatable) to 
be considered a FACT?
[04:07] <Silvern> evolution is a theory; it is based 
upon certain evidence.
[04:07] <Paisano> Silvern:  That's okay but the OPPOSITE 
is definitely true.  A theory stands UNTIL it can be 
proven false in ONE case.
[04:08] <Silvern> and then it will usually be modified 
to fit the new data
[04:08] <Paisano> Silvern:  Then why is it presented 
as defacto truth and as a fact of science if it is 
indeed a theory?
[04:08] <Silvern> for instance newton's understanding 
of gravity ---> einstein's
[04:09] <Mooo> i have not met him..
[04:09] <Silvern> it is presented as a theory (the only 
scientific theory) for explaining the patterns of diversity 
of life on this planet.  it appears that "evoltion happened" 
is indeed a factual statement.


[04:10] Aman (Musl@Cust27.Max4.Boston.MA.MS.UU.NET) 
left #apologetics.
[04:10] <Paisano> Silvern:  Would it surprise you to 
know that the question I asked you is a favorite of 
Colin Patterson who is a senior paleontologist at the 
British Natural History Museum and the author of that 
museum's general text on evolution

?
[04:11] keke (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics.
[04:12] keke (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left #apologetics.
[04:12] Mattwolf (mcjohnson@reqf-091.ucdavis.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[04:12] Mattwolf (mcjohnson@reqf-091.ucdavis.edu) left 
#apologetics.
[04:12] Mattwolf (mcjohnson@reqf-091.ucdavis.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[04:12] <Silvern> paisano: well, not really.  paisano, 
if you we are going to start playing a who's who of 
evolutionists and creationists, believe me, you that 
will get no where.  there are no influential members 
of the scientific community who do

n't accept evoltion.
[04:12] <Paisano> Silvern:  He asked that question first 
at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 to 
a group of distinquished and leading evolutionists 
gathered there for a symposium.  He got stunned silence 
for an answer.
[04:13] <Mattwolf> What a cool channel
[04:13] <Mattwolf> You guys read Descartes, or what?
[04:13] <Silvern> ah yes, this is indeed the exact way 
i saw this question asked before.  they were probably 
so suprised at his stand.  heh
[04:13] <Paisano> Silvern:  You are right about that 
but they base their beliefs upon SECURED knowledge 
... why is it unsecured?  Because few are brave enough 
to challenge the fact that the Emperor has NO CLOTHES.
[04:14] <Silvern> paisano, don't you think evolution 
would have been a beautiful solution for a god to come 
up with?
[04:15] <Silvern> the emperor has no clothes?  are you 
saying there is no evidence for evolution.  please 
pick up an introductory college level bio book.
[04:15] <Paisano> Silvern:  Perhaps but they could NOT 
answer the question once they recovered.  Even they 
had to admit there was NO right answer because there 
is NOTHING that has been PROVEN about evolution.
[04:15] `Skept (skept@h-adamant.ekx.infi.net) left 
irc: Ping timeout for `Skept[h-adamant.ekx.infi.net]
[04:16] <Paisano> Silvern:  It is one lie built upon 
another lie.
[04:16] <Silvern> paisano: i cringe at the word proven, 
but there is much that has been demonstrated about 
evolution!
[04:17] <Silvern> paisano: just lies?  the shelves and 
shelves of books on evolution in your nearest university 
library... all lies?
[04:17] <Silvern> if i were a christian, i would attribute 
evolution to god.  it's brilliant.
[04:17] <Paisano> Silvern:  He later tried the same question 
at the Field Museum of Natural History.  Same response. 
 Again, he tried it at the Evolutionary Morphology 
seminar.  Same response except one fella stated that 
he did know one thing-- it

 ought not to be taught in high school.
[04:18] <Silvern> i've never heard of those <shrug> what 
do i know?
[04:18] <Paisano> Silvern:  It is the wisdom of man which 
is foolishness to God.
[04:18] keke (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) joined #apologetics.
[04:19] Mattwolf (mcjohnson@reqf-091.ucdavis.edu) left 
#apologetics.
[04:19] <Mooo> hahaha
[04:19] <Silvern> the wisdom of non-christians only, 
though?
[04:20] <Paisano> Silvern:  Just be skeptical, that's 
all.  Don't let your profs spoon-feed you stuff they 
have no proof to back up what they say.  As it stands, 
the naturalist have failed to demonstrate their case. 
 It is based upon BELIEF only .

.. pure-dee FAITH ... but ... NOT science.
[04:20] <keke> what is?
[04:21] <Silvern> i'm always skeptical... paisano: since 
you've called any evidence i might bring forth lies, 
i guess we haven't much more room for discussion on 
the topic? :)
[04:21] <keke> what was the topic?
[04:21] <Silvern> evolution
[04:22] <keke> oh, who is pro and who is con?
[04:22] <Silvern> pro
[04:22] <Paisano> Silvern:  Such is the situation UNLESS 
and UNTIL one can show documented proof WHICH can be 
verified to prove the claims that have been made.
[04:23] <keke> i know of an interesting web site about 
this subject its a book called "A New Look At An Old 
Earth" at power.net/users/aia/newlook/NLCHPTR5.htm#top
[04:23] <Paisano> Silvern:  Take the answer you gave: 
how does it prove evolution is responsible for the 
changes you observed?
[04:23] <Silvern> documented proof... science deals in 
documented evidence.  i do suggest perusing through 
the evolution books in the library, at least to see 
what the paleontologists and biologists are presenting 
as evidence.
[04:24] <Paisano> Silvern:  Evidence is PROOF.
[04:24] <keke> that book is written by a physicist named 
Don Stoner
[04:25] <Silvern> paisano: not in science.  we are constantly 
finding new evidence, all our theories change.  even 
evolution.  it will change more.
[04:25] <keke> you should check out that web site it 
has both sides of the issue
[04:25] <Silvern> i'm sure i've seen everything it has 
to offer... talk.origins is a pretty good place also.
[04:25] <Silvern> it's a usenet group
[04:26] <keke> do they discuss the young earth creationist 
theories vs the old earth theorie?
[04:26] <Silvern> the patterns of diversity (probably 
a better way to say that) show that eoops
[04:27] <Paisano> Silvern:  Mark my words; in no more 
than 10 years anyone subscribing to evolution as it 
is now taught will be committed to the same asylum 
as the "flat earth society" because the Emperor has No

 Clothes and there are fewer and fewer scientist who 
are swallowing that the pseudo-science underlying the 
theory of evolution.
[04:28] <Silvern> they show that evolution probably ocurred... 
for instance, why are the animals in desert regions 
of south america more morphologically related to animals 
in temperate regions of south america than they are 
to animals in desert re

gions of africa?
[04:28] <keke> alot of scientists now are changing their 
views on evolution, i doubt it will take ten years....
[04:28] <Silvern> evolution explains this!  and natural 
selection is our proposed mechanism
[04:28] <Silvern> scanning back to see what i've missed
[04:28] <Paisano> Silvern:  What you described is that 
a theory STANDS only so long as there is no evidence 
to the contrary.  At that point, it is proven false. 
 Evidence is collected to determine or prove the claim 
made or the untruth thereof.
[04:29] <Silvern> paisano:  hehe, i guess i should change 
my major from evolution and ecology to something else? 

[04:30] <keke> there is evolution among species for the 
adaptation to changes in the environment ie pesticides, 
strip mining, stripping of the amazon, etc.
[04:30] <Paisano> silvern:  Would it not occur to you 
that desert creatures must have somethings in common 
if they are to survive and flourish?  Doesn't that 
demonstrate that a clever designer placed the right 
creatures in the environment they wou

ld have to live in?
[04:30] <Silvern> paisano: that's correct.  if you can 
present onr organism in which could not possibly have 
been formed by evolution (this is only one example), 
then the theory of common descent is falsified.
[04:31] <Paisano> Silvern:  Science is ill-equipped to 
handle origins.
[04:32] <Silvern> paisano: you didn't catch the question 
correctly:  the creatures in the african and south 
american deserts are more disimilar to eachother than 
are the animals in the south american temperate regions 
are to those in the south ame

rican deserts...
[04:33] <keke> Galileo's theory of the earth revolving 
around the sun was refuted by the Inquisitors of the 
religious right of the day stating it was hearsy against 
the bible because of the scripture stating that the 
sun stood still....
[04:34] <Silvern> paisano: why do you think christians 
won't except evolution eventually like they have other 
things (keke's example for one)
[04:34] <Silvern> sorry, i didn't mean to make that question 
so loaded
[04:35] <Paisano> Silvern: I just finished scrolling 
back.  You have changed the question dramatically.
[04:35] <Silvern> perhaps i made a mistake when i first 
wrote it... one sec
[04:35] <Paisano> Silvern:  Anything is possible. :)
[04:36] <Silvern> i worded is poorly :(  v2.0 is correct
[04:37] <keke> the inquisitors took the statements literally 
from the bible "the sun rising" etc and interpreted them 
to be literal to support their own beliefs of the sun 
revolving around the earth...
[04:38] <keke> to say the sun rises is not incorrect 
in as much as our language communicates what we really 
mean and what is understood....
[04:38] <Paisano> Silvern:  Okay but even v2 makes a 
big leap if we are to attribute natural selection and 
evolution as the reasons for these differences.  The 
fact is that we can not demonstrate (repeat) NOR verify 
any of the claims made upon its

 behalf.  We see lots of extinctions but no new creatures 
formed in the fossil records.
[04:39] <Paisano> keke:  Shows what old men holding power 
of life and death over other people can do when they 
don't know the word of God.
[04:40] <keke> The creation of the earth in 6 literal 
24 hr days is open wide for different translation if 
you go back to the original greek, the word "day" can 
mean 24 hrs or a longer period of time....
[04:40] <Paisano> keke:  That same power is being wielded 
by the evolutionists in our university science departments 
today.
[04:42] <keke> so Paisano does that mean you believe 
that this whole world was created in 6 24 hr days......?
[04:42] <Paisano> keke:  Any God who could create this 
universe and world and everything in it IS not limited.
[04:43] <keke> i didn't say he was limited...i asked 
you if that is what you believe...
[04:43] <Silvern> the fossil record is sometimes sketchy... 
possible due to punctuated rates of evolution or mosaic 
evolution (evolution of non-fossilizing adaptions (eyes)). 
 but we do have transitional forms.  archaeopateryx 
for one, and the evo

lution of modern horses
[04:43] <Silvern> lag!
[04:43] <Silvern> is well documented
[04:43] <Silvern> okay going back
[04:44] <keke> pasiano?
[04:45] <Paisano> keke:  My point being; it is possible. 
 God said it.  I accept it.  I suspect we will know 
the answer someday and as unlikely as some might believe 
it to be; everything will be exactly as it is written. 
 For the present time, we 

do best to focus on the cross and our lives in Christ.
[04:45] <Silvern> probably got alot to type this time 
through
[04:45] <keke> paisano?
[04:45] <Paisano> keke: ?
[04:46] <keke> well...that is true about focusing on 
the cross...it is interesting to discuss though the 
differences on the creation issue...are you a young 
earth creationalist?
[04:46] <Silvern> God said it?  paisano, here your challenging 
me to be skeptical is contradicted.  what evidence 
do you base your biblical beliefs on?
[04:47] <Paisano> keke:  How can I not be; the Jews have 
been keeping track of time from the beginning and they 
are only up to about 5776 years (give or take a few 
... it being late, I won't consult my Jewcal program 
for the correct number). :)
[04:47] <keke> Paisano?
[04:47] <Silvern> paisano: would you like to make a wager 
about that 10 years until evolution is no longer the 
main theory on the life's origins?
[04:48] <keke> Paisano, how do you explain dinasours? 
they are older than that
[04:48] <Paisano> Silvern:  Let me EXPLAIN myself.  I 
base my beliefs upon FAITH and I do so unabashedly 
but I do NOT pander them off as SCIENCE. 
[04:49] <Paisano> Silvern:  I see Jesus coming long before 
any such 10 year period might end.
[04:49] <Paisano> Silvern:  Then we will all know FOR 
SURE. :)
[04:50] <Silvern> paisano: i base my beliefs upon evidence. 
 e.g.: the overwhelming evidence that whales evolved 
from land mammals
[04:50] <Paisano> Silvern:  As for my "biblical beliefs" 
... they are based upon the Bible. :)
[04:50] <Paisano> Silvern:  What else? :)
[04:50] <keke> Paisano please ans the question...
[04:50] <Silvern> you want more:  haven't you anything 
to say about this example?
[04:50] <Silvern> or is it a "lie"?
[04:51] <Paisano> silvern:  There is NO EVIDENCE unless 
you can demonstrate it happened and your so-called 
facts can be verified (repeated).
[04:51] <keke> Paisano, how do you explain the dinasaurs? 
they are older than 5,776 years..
[04:51] <Silvern> paisano: is there no evidence that 
the american civil war happened?
[04:52] Mooo (who@j7.ptl11.jaring.my) left #apologetics.
[04:52] <keke> There is evidence that the earth is older 
than 5,776 years.....
[04:52] <Paisano> keke:  What dinosaurs?  The Bible does 
speak of large mammals roaming the earth but they were 
present with man like in the Alley Oop cartoon.
[04:52] <Paisano> keke:  Upon what possible basis can 
you make such an assumption?
[04:53] <keke> Paisano, if so then why are there none 
now, did Noah forget to put them on the ark?
[04:53] <Silvern> dinosaurs and man lived during the 
same time?  
[04:53] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.fiu.edu: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[04:53] <Paisano> silvern:  Sure there was a civil war; 
until a few years back ... we even had living witnesses. 
 And, they were even recorded on tape.
[04:54] <keke> Paisano ans the question, please...
[04:55] <keke> Paisano, what happened to the dinosaurs?
[04:55] <Silvern> paisano: the evidence for evolution 
is just like the recordings on the tape yo mentioned. 
 events leave signs!  and this is how we discover evidence 
for passed events.
[04:55] <Paisano> keke:  See, that's the problem.  How 
much do we really know about dinos?  You are talking 
about rocks that resemble a bone.  Then you give it 
a name and create a fantasy to go with it.  You give 
it flesh and blood and can even te

ll us what he ate.  All from a rock?
[04:55] <keke> Paisano, i guess you don't know the answer....
[04:56] <Silvern> paisano: yes
[04:56] <keke> Paisano, i have been to the Smithsoian 
institute, those are bones....
[04:56] <Paisano> keke:  I know the answer and it is 
as you suspect.  One fossil (rock) that resembles a 
bone does not a dinosuar make.
[04:56] <Silvern> paisano: you do realize your definition 
of evidence has been made useless
[04:56] <keke> There litereally thousands of dinosaur 
skeletons and remains....
[04:57] <Silvern> the civil war's occurence is not repeatable
[04:57] <Silvern> i've been to the smithsonian also
[04:57] <keke> Paisano, you need to read up on history, 
you are very ignorant
[04:58] <Silvern> come now :)
[04:58] <keke> lots of bones...
[04:58] <keke> it just blows my mine that someone can 
make statements like that
[04:58] <Paisano> keke:  They are NOT bones .... they 
have found maybe one so-called fossil bone but it is 
no longer made of calcium and other bone type materials. 
 Afterall, that's why they think they are billions 
of years old ... it would take t

hat long to become a rock.  But, ask yourself the question 
... aren't you talking some form of carbon-14 testing 
and if so, who's been around 7000 years to determine 
the halflife of carbon?
[04:59] <Paisano> keke:  And if we are talking 7000 years, 
how can anything tell us anything about something that 
is older than 7000 years.
[04:59] <keke> Carbon-12
[04:59] keke (dorflum@dynasty.doi.com) left irc: Read 
error to keke[dynasty.doi.com]: EOF from client
[05:00] <Silvern> paisano: you are demonstrating some 
severe misunderstandings of how science work (and also 
of specific scientific techniques).  i suggest sticking 
to the presuppositionalism techniques i have read through 
on the apologetics web p

age.  those are much tricke
[05:01] <Silvern> trickier to wade through than claims 
that dinosaurs never existed (or whatever it is you 
are insinuating)
[05:01] <Paisano> keke:  The rest of the skeletons are 
CREATED out of whole cloth from the imagination of 
the discover of the fossil.  He even gets to name them 
and invent a good story to go along with it.  It's 
a very nationalistic thing ... what

 country wants to be left without any dinos ... so 
get with the program and invent an even bigger, meaner 
and better dino. :)
[05:01] <Paisano> silvern:  Have you ever met a dino?
[05:02] <Silvern> yes, i have several of them in my house.
[05:02] <Silvern> two finches and a cockatiel
[05:02] <Paisano> silvern:  sure ... grin.  I each them 
for breakfast. :)
[05:02] <Paisano> Silvern:  Then you have done well, 
you have proven dinos are not extinct as thought. :)
[05:02] <Silvern> birds are the evolutionary remnants 
of dinosaurs, fyi. :)
[05:02] <Silvern> they aren't, really
[05:03] <Paisano> Silvern:  Do you know what the word 
dinosaur means?
[05:03] <Silvern> terrible lizard
[05:03] <Silvern> or something like that
[05:03] <Paisano> silvern:  so much for your bird theory. 
:)
[05:03] <Silvern> uh... 
[05:04] <Silvern> please, go to the library.
[05:04] <Paisano> bird=lizard
[05:04] <Paisano> silvern:  I think NOT!
[05:04] <Silvern> dinosaurs were not "lizards"
[05:04] <Silvern> they were warm-blooded for one
[05:05] <Paisano> Silvern:  They were a class to themselves 
at best if in fact they ever existed.
[05:05] <Silvern> paisano: this is another subject which 
much work has been done on.
[05:05] <Paisano> silvern:  Yeppers ... like a Japanese 
movie. :)
[05:05] <Silvern> paisano: are you going to put this 
discussion on the web page?
[05:06] <Silvern> i hope so
[05:06] <Silvern> no, you really can go and look it up! 
 i promise!
[05:06] <Paisano> Silvern:  I haven't even visited the 
web page.  You promise what?  That dinos existed.  
What's the evidence?  Are they rocks or not?
[05:07] <Silvern> fossils... you should read about those 
too.
[05:07] <Paisano> fossils are rocks.
[05:07] <Paisano> or impressions in the rock formation.
[05:09] <Silvern> two minutes left online... any desire 
to continue this? 
[05:09] <Silvern> i don't see exactly where we are going 
hehe
[05:09] <Silvern> one...
[05:10] <Paisano> No, but I have enjoyed the convo; we'll 
meet again and then we can set a course for our favorite 
topic.
[05:10] <Silvern> alright... i'll be back :)
[05:10] <Paisano> Don't let the profs buffalo you ... 
they are paper tigers.
[05:10] Silvern (mburnett@spork.callamer.com) left 
#apologetics.
[05:10] Paisano (tony@slip4.dtx.net) left #apologetics.
===============================================
[19:34] pascoe (Pascoe@vrb.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:43] Mithras (user12@pc39.vernal.usu.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[19:43] <Mithras> join #monty-python
[19:44] <Mithras> Hi, is this the channel where the fundies 
apologize for the contradictions in the bible?
[19:45] <pascoe> Mithras:  no.
[19:46] <Mithras> darn.
[19:46] <Mithras> are you a christian, or do you believe 
in Mithras?
[19:46] Action: pascoe is a Christian.
[19:47] <Mithras> are you in the Unitarian-Universalist 
sect?
[19:47] <Mithras> LDS?
[19:47] <Mithras> JW?
[19:47] Xpressor (kgb@slip3.worldaxes.com) joined #apologetics.
[19:47] <Mithras> Meth?
[19:47] <pascoe> Mithras:  just plain Bible believing 
Christian.
[19:47] VideoBlue (email@qrvl-67ppp158.epix.net) joined 
#Apologetics.
[19:47] <Xpressor> video!
[19:47] <VideoBlue> X!!
[19:47] <VideoBlue> tryed to caa you
[19:48] <VideoBlue> Call
[19:48] <Mithras> The Bible is, obviously, a work that 
needs interpretation, for there are a legion of contradictions 
and literary devices that decieve the fundies.
[19:49] <pascoe> Mithras:  we need to be patient with 
our understanding before we proclaim that God's Word 
has contradictions.
[19:51] <Mithras> Explain Lev. 11:20-23.
[19:51] <Mithras> i like the NIV better.
[19:52] <pascoe> Mithras:  its a bit easier to understand 
than KJV.  but what is your question?
[19:52] <Mithras> no winged creatures with four legs 
*exist*
[19:52] <pascoe> Mithras:  what about the praying mantis? 
 it goes on four legs all the time.
[19:52] <pascoe> Mithras:  so does the mole cricket.
[19:53] <Mithras> he might as well say "Thou shalt not 
eat green arklenseizures from Alpha Centauri."
[19:53] <Mithras> Beetles, however, as mentioned in lev. 
11:23, do NOT.
[19:54] <pascoe> Mithras:  if a man with one arm got 
down on the ground, could we say he was down on all 
fours?
[19:54] <Mithras> Obviously not, but there is no analogy 
to the question.
[19:54] <pascoe> Mithras:  going on all fours is an idiom 
for creepy crawly things that have horizontal locomotion 
as opposed to vertical locomotion.
[19:55] <Mithras> Insects here are said to walk on ALL 
FOURS, while they obviously have SIX LEGS.
[19:55] VideoBlue (email@qrvl-67ppp158.epix.net) left 
#Apologetics.
[19:55] <pascoe> Mithras:  do you believe that the scientific 
classification of centipoda is accurate for centipedes?
[19:55] <Mithras> God did not say "four legs" here, he 
said "ALL fours."
[19:56] <pascoe> Mithras:  centipedes obviously don't 
have exactly 100 legs either, but I bet you still call 
them centipedes.
[19:56] <pascoe> Mithras:  what about milipedes?  do 
you deny the science of taxonomy because milipedes 
don't have exactly 1000 legs?
[19:57] <Mithras> Of course not, but God is supposed 
to have written this perfect work called the Bible, 
right. And there is a flaw. Centipede is a misnomer. 
Millipede is a misnomer. And God's taxonomy made a 
mistake. It's as simple as that.
[19:57] <pascoe> Mithras:  if the weatherman says that 
the sun will rise at 6:20 tomorrow, do you reject the 
science of meteorology and astronomy because you know 
that the sun is really stationary and the earth rotates?
[19:57] <Mithras> It doesn't matter what I believe.
[19:58] <Mithras> I reject the notion that the weatherman 
is infallible.
[19:58] <pascoe> Mithras:  your difficulty is not with 
the accuracy of the Bible, but with the imprecision 
of normal discourse itself.
[19:58] <Mithras> The Bible is not accurate!
[19:59] <Mithras> Clearly God has said "Four legs," when 
he meant "six."
[19:59] <pascoe> Mithras:  idiom is a normal part of 
common discourse.  your difficulty is with the imprecision 
of language and not really the Bible itself since it 
is quite clear what is meant in that passage.
[20:00] <pascoe> Mithras:  what you are attempting to 
do is assert that ancient Jews couldn't count to six, 
but the rest of Scripture shows that claim to be kinda 
silly.
[20:00] <Mithras> No wonder the Trinity is such a load 
of bollocks. The Bible can't discern between four and 
six or one and three.
[20:01] <Mithras> So much for Biblical perfection and 
infallibility.
[20:01] <pascoe> Mithras:  if this is really the best 
argument you have against the accuracy of the Bible, 
then that is reassuring to me.  since the claim that 
Jews can't count is patently absurd.
[20:02] <Mithras> Make no mistake, I think that the Bible 
has been the most influential literature in the world, 
and has been used for great good, and it is a great 
window into the eyes of the ancient Hebrews' paradigm, 
but is still frought with e

rrors.
[20:03] <Mithras> Of course, God could simply be a liar 
and *telling* us that all the Scriptures are inspired.
[20:03] <pascoe> Mithras:  but you haven't shown any 
errors yet.  all you have done is point out the imprecision 
of common discourse.  the Bible is not unique in its 
use of idioms.  every one uses idioms including scientists.
[20:03] <Mithras> God has been shown to not be entirely 
factual, as is the wont of an omnipotent deity;-)
[20:03] <Mithras> Unless YHWH is like Q from Star Trek;-)
[20:04] <pascoe> Mithras:  who has shown that?  certainly 
you haven't yet.  8)
[20:05] <Mithras> I have. How can God be so STUPID as 
to say that beetles et al. walk on ALL FOURS?
[20:05] <pascoe> Mithras:  the only thing you have done 
is pointed out the imprecision of common discourse. 
 that is certainly no slight against the Bible because 
it is written using common discourse.
[20:05] <pascoe> Mithras:  why are scientists so stupid 
as to name them centipedes when they don't have exactly 
100 legs?
[20:05] <Mithras> That's right. The Bible is nothing 
more than common discourse, and liable to error. Thank 
you for conceding the point.
[20:06] <pascoe> Mithras:  I don't see you throwing out 
science because of this imprecision on the part of 
taxonomy.
[20:06] <Mithras> The scientists ARE stupid you git!
[20:06] <Mithras> That's why they PURSUE knowledge instead 
of assuming they have all the answers inside a damn 
BOOK!
[20:06] <pascoe> Mithras:  first you need to show an 
error in the Bible tho and how it changes the message 
being conveyed.
[20:07] <Mithras> 4=6.
[20:07] <pascoe> Mithras:  so you are really going to 
stick to the claim that Jews couldn't count to 6?  
ok.  8)
[20:07] <Xpressor> if it were not written in common language 
wouldnt it be dconfuseing to the people of the day?
[20:07] <Mithras> God would not tolerate even A TYPOGRAPHICAL 
ERROR IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IF THEY ARE INTENDED TO 
BE PERFECT!
[20:08] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.FIU.EDU: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[20:08] <pascoe> Mithras:  I think its kindof a pitiful 
argument on your part to even use this example, but 
it appears to be the best you have to offer as far 
as errors are concerned.
[20:08] <Xpressor> perfect for us
[20:09] <pascoe> Mithras:  Jesus spoke in parables that 
many of the listeners didn't even understand.  We are 
called to study to show ourselves approved, but God 
has blessed us with a tremendous amount of textual 
resources to study His Word from.
[20:09] <Mithras> Where have I explicitly claimed that 
the Jews could'nt count to six? I'm saying that if 
God DESIGNED and CREATED the smegging buggers that 
he bloody well should know how many LEGS they have!
[20:10] <pascoe> Mithras:  so now you are trying to argue 
that God Himself can't count to six?  that is even 
more absurd since God knows the number of hairs on 
our head.
[20:11] <Mithras> Or that the Priests were lying when 
they said that God even *exists...*
[20:11] <pascoe> Mithras:  the only thing you have succeeded 
in doing is pointing out the imprecision of common 
discourse.  going on all fours is an idiom for horizontal 
locomotion.  just like sunrise is an idiom for the 
earth's rotation.
[20:12] <Xpressor> well i hate to leave but i must   
.. but it the phrase chokeing on nats and swallowin 
camels does come to mind
[20:12] <pascoe> Xpressor:  haha, bye.  8)
[20:12] <Xpressor> c ya!
[20:12] Xpressor (kgb@slip3.worldaxes.com) left #apologetics.
[20:12] <pascoe> Mithras:  is this really the best example 
you have against the Bible?
[20:13] <Mithras> Refute the notion that the Holy Bible 
was written by old shepherd coots four thousand years 
ago who had no idea that the world was round, that 
insects were thought to have four legs since four was 
a holy number, and that, if Jesu

s is God, that he forsook
[20:13] <Mithras> himself on the cross.
[20:14] <Mithras> That is how outsiders see the Bible.
[20:15] <pascoe> Mithras:  I'm not denying that you can 
reject the Bible if you want to.  but to do so for 
the reasons you are asserting is absurd and deceptive. 
 the truth is that you don't like what you find there 
so you make up external reasons

 to reject it.
[20:15] <Mithras> The Bible is nothing more than the 
Common Discourse among the Levite priests, and made 
an oopsie about the insects.
[20:16] <Mithras> I don't like the notion that The Living 
God lied to me as to how many legs insects have.
[20:16] <pascoe> Mithras:  if someone said 'sunrise' 
would you corrrect them for making an 'oopsie' or would 
you accept the idiom as common discourse?
[20:17] <Mithras> The Sun rises in the Earth's inertial 
frame. Point refuted.
[20:17] <pascoe> Mithras:  the Sun does not rise at all, 
the earth simply rotates around.  you just made an 
oopsie.  8)
[20:18] <Mithras> um, pascoe, you presume that space 
is absolute, you stupid git. remember Albert Einstein.
[20:18] <Mithras> All space is ****relative*****
[20:18] <Mithras> ;-)
[20:19] <pascoe> Mithras:  wait a minute are you saying 
that its ok to say that the Sun moves arount the earth?
[20:19] <pascoe> Mithras:  so if the Bible said that 
the Sun moves around the earth you would find it perfectly 
acceptable?  8)
[20:20] <pascoe> Mithras:  still tho, this whole point 
is kinda silly.  nothing you have presented changes 
the message that God gave in the slightest.
[20:20] <Mithras> Indeed it does;-) but very slowly you 
see. Since forces are equal and opposite, the sun accelerates 
around the earth in (mass of sun)/(mass of earth) years.
[20:21] <pascoe> Mithras:  hahah, whatever.  and centipedes 
have exactly 100 legs too.  8)
[20:21] <Mithras> Well God says that beetles have four:-P
[20:22] <pascoe> Mithras:  no, it says they go on all 
fours as an idiom.  I'm sorry you can't accept that. 
but if its the best you've got, I guess that's what 
you have to use.  8)
[20:22] <Mithras> do insects have four legs? no.
[20:22] <Mithras> God says that insects have four legs.
[20:22] <pascoe> Mithras:  the praying mantis goes on 
four legs.
[20:23] <pascoe> Mithras:  no, the verse says they go 
on all fours as an idiom.
[20:23] <Mithras> There are no literary devices or allegories 
used here. It is a simple error or an outright lie.
[20:24] <pascoe> Mithras:  ya, the Jews were trying to 
lie to us about the number of legs that insects have 
so that they could prepare us for the coming alien 
invasion of earth right?  where is the motivation here?
[20:25] <Mithras> I'm afraid not, pascoe, the phrase 
"walk on all fours" is a category that included winged 
beasts that had *six* legs..
[20:25] <pascoe> idiom is a literary device and useful 
in common discourse.
[20:25] <Mithras> I'm afraid your responses are about 
as garbled as the Bible.
[20:25] <pascoe> Mithras:  why are you afraid?  is it 
because this is your best argument?
[20:26] <pascoe> Mithras:  'bugs' is a category for animals 
that have 6 to 1000 legs, big deal.
[20:27] <Mithras> my use of "i'm afraid" is a result of 
being an imperfect, flawed being who is subject to 
chaos.
[20:27] <Mithras> However, since God is Perfect in Every 
Way, He has no Holy Excuse.
[20:27] <pascoe> Mithras:  so 'I'm afraid' is imprecise 
discourse?  hahahahahah
[20:28] <Mithras> I'm going to tell somebody about Ezekiel 
23:20.
[20:28] <pascoe> Mithras:  how do you draw that conclusion? 
 God has subjected all creation to futility, including 
communication thru written languages.  But His message 
remains preserved for anyone who would care to study 
it.
[20:28] <Mithras> brb
[20:29] Xluv (briekw@exp8.wam.umd.edu) joined #apologetics.
[20:30] <Xluv> my fiancee did a report on Mithraism
[20:30] <Xluv> d/owx
[20:31] pascoe (Pascoe@vrb.com) left #apologetics.
[20:31] CTCP PING: 832984272 from Xluv (briekw@exp8.wam.umd.edu) 
to #apologetics
[20:31] Xluv (briekw@exp8.wam.umd.edu) left #apologetics.
[20:33] Mithras (user12@pc39.vernal.usu.edu) got netsplit.
============================================
[22:13] Cleese (gayle@pc50.vernal.usu.edu) joined #apologetics.
[22:13] <agathos> creat, yes. a "right" is a previlege 
that cannot be denied or taken away from a person. 
I would not have a right to free speech in this country 
if that right was repealed by the laws of this co

untry.
[22:13] <brentf> hello, Cleese
[22:13] <creation> clesse:  are you here to make trouble 
?
[22:14] <creation> clees:  because I won't put up with 
it.
[22:14] AMDG (xenon@206.151.101.137) joined #apologetics.
[22:14] <creation> agathos:  But you just contradicted 
yourself
[22:15] <agathos> creat, in what way?
[22:15] <creation> agathos:  You said that a right can't 
be taken away but then you say it can.
[22:15] <Cleese> depends on what you mean by trouble.
[22:15] <creation> Cleese:  I'll be the judge of that.
[22:15] <Cleese> dissenting viewpoint, yes.
[22:15] <brentf> creation:  Scripture absolutely denies 
the right to free speech!
[22:15] <agathos> creat, it can't be taken away if it 
is supported by law. if the law is repealed, then the 
right no longer exists
[22:16] <Cleese> ad hominem attacking, no.
[22:16] <creation> Cleese:  good
[22:16] <creation> cleese:  I know that Ironsky wouldn't 
last long 
[22:16] netwit (LPH9@38-2.client.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[22:16] netwit (LPH9@38-2.client.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[22:17] netwit (LPH9@38-2.client.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[22:17] <creation> Listen, agathos and brentf, I refuse 
to argue about it.  Ok?  Just let me be.
[22:17] <brentf> fine, creation.  Just chill out a little, 
okay?
[22:17] <agathos> creat, what?
[22:18] <creation> brent:  In due time :)
[22:18] <brentf> :)
[22:18] <Cleese> I do not view the Holy Bible as an infallible 
scripture that is the vox deus.
[22:18] <agathos> creat, I'm not certain that I understand 
your response, in light of the channel name
[22:18] Roamin (jbrewer1@slip28.dialup.ua.edu) joined 
#apologetics.
[22:18] Roamin (jbrewer1@slip28.dialup.ua.edu) left 
#apologetics.
[22:18] <brentf> AMDG and netwit:  Hello, by the way 
:)
[22:19] <agathos> Cleese, how would you define "infallible 
scripture?"
[22:19] <creation> agathos:  anyways.
[22:19] <AMDG> Hello brentf
[22:19] <netwit> hello...
[22:20] <agathos> hello netwit
[22:20] <creation> agathos:  I will just conceed to your 
point.  We have no rights whatsoever.  Ok?  
[22:20] <Cleese> agathos, an infalllible scripture is 
a document that is entirely self-consistent and wholly 
consistent with reality.
[22:20] <creation> agathos:  outside of laws that is.
[22:20] <brentf> Cleese:  How have you determined that 
God did not, in fact, inspire the words we read in 
the Holy Bible.
[22:20] <Cleese> The Bible fails both these tests.
[22:21] <brentf> Cleese:  Where?
[22:21] <agathos> creat, I don't believe that was the 
point. the point was the substantiation for a right 
to be angry. certainly people do become angry, but 
is this a right or a choice?
[22:21] <creation> agathos:  fine, I have no rights that 
arn't substantiate by law.
[22:21] <agathos> Cleese, self-consistant? what does 
this mean?
[22:21] Action: brentf thinks anger is neither a right 
nor a choice, but a reaction ... at least initially.
[22:22] <Cleese> Well, I presumed that God always tells 
the truth (i'm sure you can find scripture that says 
God cannot lie) and that God is omnipotent and all 
that.
[22:22] <brentf> Cleese:  Yes.
[22:22] <creation> agathos:  So, I have a right to choose.
[22:22] <Cleese> And that he created the Universe perfectly.
[22:22] <brentf> creation:  You are forced to choose, 
it is not a "right".
[22:22] <brentf> Cleese:  Yes.
[22:22] <agathos> creat, you have an ability to choose. 
whether you have a "right" is a differnt issue
[22:23] <agathos> Cleese, not necessarily
[22:23] <creation> cleese:  perfectly as this possible 
world can be made
[22:24] <creation> cleese:  that doesn't mean that this 
world is the best possible world.
[22:24] <Cleese> If God is omnipotent, he really can't 
*not* be anything that he wants to be.
[22:24] <brentf> IMHO:  absolutely perfectly.  "Good" was 
God's word for it.
[22:24] <brentf> Cleese:  He can choose to limit Himself.
[22:24] <creation> cleese:  Are you saying that God can't 
want?  I'm not sure what you are getting at.
[22:25] <Cleese> When you ascribe imperatives like "God 
cannot lie" "God cannot hate" the premise that He is omnipotent 
is contradicted.
[22:25] <brentf> Cleese:  not at all.
[22:25] <Cleese> Why did God nail His Son on a tree?
[22:26] <agathos> Cleese, the concepts of "lie" and "hate" 
are not connected with the concept of power. they are 
connected with the concept of morality
[22:26] <brentf> BTW:  God can hate (loathe, detest, 
etc.)
[22:26] <netwit> people nailed jesus...not god...
[22:26] <creation> cleese:  depends on how do define 
"omnipotent" .  If you define it as God can do anything 
and everything, then of course it leads to contradictions. 
 But I define omnipotence as that God has e

very power that it is possible for him to have.
[22:26] <Cleese> God is then guilty of neglecting his 
son.
[22:26] <creation> Clees:  A possible power 
[22:27] <creation> excuse me
[22:27] <netwit> no...god is guilty of devising a perfect 
plan to redeem people.....
[22:27] <agathos> Cleese, I'm sorry but I don't quite 
understand your argument
[22:28] <Cleese> please, why did it have to involve such 
a sadistic *requiring* of shedding Jesus' blood?
[22:28] AMDG (xenon@206.151.101.137) left #apologetics.
[22:28] <brentf> Cleese:  Jesus, who is Himself God, 
chose to allow Himself to be nailed to a cross so that 
you could have life, instead of the punishment you, 
and I, deserve.
[22:29] <netwit> we can make cute arguments like"is god 
strong enough to create a rock so big he can't pick 
it up...."   and call that a contradiction, but that's 
a smoke screen for the real issues...
[22:29] <Cleese> I mean, couldn't God, in all His Infinite 
Wisdom and Power, erase any existence or mention thereof 
of evil *right out?*
[22:29] <netwit> yes he could....
[22:29] <creation> cleese:  It is logically possible 
to possess a power, I suggest, if the exercise of the 
power does not as such involve any logical impossibility. 
 This means that there is no incoherence in the description 
of what it is to exerc

ise that power.  For a power
[22:29] <brentf> Cleese:  yes, but that would have defeated 
his purpose in creation.
[22:29] <netwit> but that would not be consistent with 
his plan...
[22:30] <Cleese> Why doesn't he? Why is he such a sadomasochist? 
(After all, he *did* forsake himself on the Cross, 
right?)
[22:30] <creation> cleese:  to be a logically possible 
power, it is not necessary that every exercise of it 
should be coherently conceivable, but only that some 
exercise of it should be.
[22:30] <netwit> question is, why are YOU so s/m in your 
contempt for god???
[22:30] Researchr (Researchr@58-187.client.gnn.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[22:31] <Cleese> I didn't know Creation *had* any purpose 
except for its own sake.
[22:31] <brentf> Hello, researchr
[22:31] <Researchr> Hi all 
[22:31] <netwit> hi...
[22:31] <Researchr> What is the topic tonight?
[22:31] <Cleese> The very properties that God has tend 
to lead to contradictions.
[22:31] <creation> Cleese:  Therefore, God is still omnipotent 
and omnibenevolent without contradictions.
[22:31] <agathos> Cleese, the term "sadistic" is a moral 
judgment. it involves a transgression against some 
existing moral code. if the moral code you are using 
is not an absolute moral system, then it is a priv

ate morality. if it is a private morality, then it 
is based upon personal emotional likes and dislikes. 
but does actual reality depend upon personal likes 
and dislikes?
[22:32] <creation> cleese:  Sorry, I don't see no contradictions.
[22:32] <creation> any contradictions :)
[22:33] <brentf> Cleese:  God has a purpose in all His 
actions, including the act of creating.  But your gonna 
have to slow down a bit if you want to discover what 
that purpose is.
[22:33] <creation> cleese:  Besides, saying that God 
CANnot do something doesn't necessarily mean that He 
LACKS A POWER to do it.  It may mean that He lacks 
the moral capability to do it.  
[22:34] <brentf> hmmm ... the phrase "I would if I could, 
but I can't, so I won't" comes to mind <heheheh>
[22:34] <Cleese> I mean, when I asked "Why did God let 
Himself get nailed on a tree?" I always get some responses 
saying that sin *must* be atoned this way or Jesus 
*had* to shed His Divine Blood.
[22:35] <creation> cleese:  yes, that is true.  
[22:35] <brentf> Cleese:  Have you ever slowed down enough 
to find out what those responses mean?
[22:35] <Cleese> He has the moral capacity to forsake 
himself, if the Trinity is true.
[22:36] <Cleese> "had
[22:36] <Cleese> must?
[22:36] <agathos> <g> brent
[22:36] <Cleese> these sound like imperatives to me.
[22:36] Action: brentf will have to leave, shortly, 
and doesn't want to be accused of running away when 
things got warm :)
[22:36] <netwit> the bible does not contradict itself 
and is the perfect word of god  (infallible)...
[22:37] <Cleese> If the bible didn't contradict itself, 
there wouldn't be apologetics ;-)
[22:37] <agathos> Cleese, if they are imperatives, and 
if those imperatives are established by a god, then 
which would be the determining factor for their truth 
value: 1) that god's command, or 2) your personal dislike 
of that plan?
[22:37] <creation> cleese:  So?  how does having the 
moral capacity of forsaking himself have anything to 
do with the moral capacity to sin?  Does forsaking 
himself have anything to do with morals or is it something 
more to do with grace and self-

sacrifice?
[22:37] <netwit> it is only our weakness in discerning 
the truth that limits us.....taht and our wish that 
there was no god.....
[22:37] <agathos> Cleese, apologetics is not limited 
to discussions of the bible
[22:38] Researchr (Researchr@58-187.client.gnn.com) 
left #apologetics.
[22:38] <creation> cleese: asumming there are contradictions 
which one has yet to show.
[22:38] <brentf> Cleese:  non sequitor ... apologetics 
is not caused by a lack of consistency in scripture, 
it is a tool for answering those who claim not to believe 
scripture.
[22:38] <Cleese> If I acted like the God of the Holy 
Bible, I would be thrown into a mental institution.
[22:39] <brentf> Cleese:  or nailed to a cross.
[22:39] <agathos> Cleese, for what reason, and by whose 
standard? that is, who makes the determination of what 
is or is not a moral or sane action?
[22:39] <Cleese> The sadomasochistic love that God seems 
to eschew us appears to be rather dubious to me.
[22:39] <brentf> Cleese:  ... because of your love for 
those you created, who have chosen to hate you.
[22:40] <agathos> Cleese, again, for what reason, and 
on the basis of what moral standard?
[22:40] <creation> Cleese: Sure, maybe in this society 
but not in the Hebrew society.  Beside, I dn't think 
so in this society or any society.  Unless performing 
miracles is grounds for institutionalization  :)
[22:40] <Cleese> Which brings me to another contradiction: 
free will vs. omniscience.
[22:40] <creation> Cleese:  hehehe  Sorry, no contradiction 
there either.  
[22:41] <brentf> Cleese:  man's free will is not limited 
by God's omniscience
[22:41] <agathos> I think it would be best to deal with 
one issue at a time
[22:41] <Cleese> There is no absolute morality just like 
there is no absolute space.
[22:41] <Cleese> I'm sorry. Let's look at the definitions 
of free will vs. omniscience.
[22:41] <creation> cleese:  Depends on what you mean 
by "free will" and/or "omniscience"
[22:42] <brentf> free will:  You are free to do as you 
will.
[22:42] <brentf> omniscience:  God knows.
[22:42] <brentf> Where's the contradiction?
[22:42] <agathos> Cleese, if there is no absolute morality, 
then the morality that you use to judge God is basically 
your own emotional feelings. but again, is reality 
dependent upon how you feel?
[22:43] Action: brentf hopes Cleese can keep up with 
the 5 different threads he has started <heheheh>
[22:43] <Cleese> free will is the property of an object 
with two or more possible paths that no observer can 
deduce.
[22:43] <Cleese> That is the power of choice.
[22:43] <agathos> <g> brent
[22:43] <creation> cleese:  You have molinism, Ochhamism, 
presetntism, atemporal eternalism.  And many others 
that deal with omnicience and free will.  Take your 
pick.
[22:43] <brentf> Cleese:  Incorrect definition.
[22:44] netwit (LPH9@38-2.client.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[22:44] <Cleese> Depends on your sense of right or wrong.
[22:44] <creation> uh oh, not "right" again :)
[22:44] <Cleese> your "free will" merely restated the words 
free and will.
[22:45] <Cleese> The quantum mechanical definition seems 
to work best here.
[22:45] <brentf> Cleese:  An analogy, if I may:  If I 
place brocholli and ice cream in front of my son, I 
KNOW which he will choose.  My knowledge in no way 
limits his choice, nor does it remove his responsibility 
for the choice he makes.
[22:46] <Cleese> Unpredictability for any observer to 
discern the course of action that an object may take.
[22:46] <brentf> Cleese:  that is randomness, not omniscience 
or free will.
[22:47] <Cleese> God is analogous to the Ford Motor Company. 
Both made faulty parts (the Tree and burning dashboards) 
and knew this from the very beginning.
[22:47] Action: brentf must leave now ... dinner is 
ready ... until next time ... :)
[22:47] brentf (brentf@ip-pdx13-31.teleport.com) left 
irc: God bless you
[22:48] <Cleese> the operative word here is *free*; i.e. 
without impedance or control.
[22:48] <agathos> Cleese, freewill of object X is not 
dependent upon the prediction ability of object Z. 
that is, the knowledge of Z is a separate entity and 
concept from the abilities of object X. object Z's 
lack of knowledge does not equal objec

t X's lack of freewill. they are two different subjects.
[22:48] <creation> Cleese:  In order to be free with 
respect to an action, or with respect to the initiation 
of a train of events, I need to be in a position to 
refrain from performing the act or to prevent the sequence 
of events.  I am free so lo

ng as my activity is in...
[22:49] <creation> cleese:  keeping with my intentions 
or desires in the matter, even if there are no genuine 
alternatives open to me.  
[22:50] <creation> cleese: If we redefine "free will" in 
such a way that freedom doesn't require genuine options 
or alternatives for action we can come to conclusions 
that don't contradict omniscience.
[22:50] <Cleese> if God knew everything that would happen 
before the Universe were even *made,* all consequences 
are wholly dependent on *his* action.
[22:51] <Cleese> However, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle 
tells us that this is not the case.
[22:51] <creation> cleese:  The view of freedom as compatible 
with a lack of options is known as compatibilism.  

[22:51] Verbatum (silver@204.212.59.155) joined #apologetics.
[22:51] <agathos> Cleese, your comment confuses knowledge 
with cause. simply because person Z knows what person 
X will choose to do in a given situation does not mean 
that Z causes X to make that choice
[22:52] <Cleese> As I said, God is like Ford with the 
recent ignition switch debaucle. God's ignition switch 
happened to be the Big Bang.
[22:53] <creation> Thus, for the compatibilist, whether 
I have the power, or ability, or opportunity to deviate 
from the path God already believes I shall take is 
just irrelevant to the question of whether I am free 
in what I do. 
[22:53] <Cleese> Both knew beforehand what would happen. 
And both went out and did it anyway.
[22:54] <Cleese> what is your definition of free will, 
then?
[22:54] <agathos> Cleese, the product of the Ford company 
was an unknown defect. how can this be analogous with 
a God causing the product of the Big Bang with known 
consequences?
[22:55] <creation> Cleese:  You are free in that you 
will do what you desire to do.  
[22:55] <Cleese> The Ford engineers *knew* beforehand 
that the capacitors in the ignition switch were too 
close and could make a current.
[22:56] <Cleese> so, creation, I desire to drop a nuclear 
bomb on wall street.
[22:56] <agathos> Cleese, but that is knowledge of what 
"could" happen. hos is this analogous to a God knowing 
what "will" happen?
[22:56] <Cleese> BBBBBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
[22:56] <agathos> hos=how
[22:56] Verbatum (silver@204.212.59.155) left #apologetics.
[22:56] <Cleese> Besides, can't God implant desires?
[22:57] <creation> Cleese:  I am free so long as my activity 
is in keeping with my desires in the matter, even if 
there are no genuine alternatives open to me.  
[22:57] Action: agathos sighs
[22:57] <creation> cleese:  Yes, so?
[22:57] <Cleese> well, then, we're not *really* free. 
True freedom lay in the hands of God.
[22:58] <Cleese> Obviously whatever I want will not always 
come to pass, so your definition of free will is moot.
[22:58] <creation> cleese:  If you mean ABSOLUTE freedom, 
then of course no one has absolute freedom except for 
God.  I say that we have limited freedom in that we 
are limited in what we can desire.  We can only do 
at any particular time what we m

ost desire to do at that...
[22:59] <creation> cleese:  particular time.
[22:59] <agathos> Cleese, it is conditional freedom. 
a child who goes into an ice cream parlor with her 
parent has conditional freedom. the child can only 
choose from the flavors that are there (not every flavor 
that could ever exist), and the chi

ld can only choose the size of cone directed by the 
parent. limiting the child's options does not eliminate 
the child's freedom.
[22:59] afr (arogers@p1.pm3.theriver.com) joined #apologetics.
[22:59] <Cleese> No, I define freedom as the property 
of an object has to be unpredictable to any observer.
[22:59] <agathos> hello afr
[23:00] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) got netsplit.
[23:00] <afr> hi all
[23:00] <Cleese> After all, knowledge is the supreme 
power.
[23:00] <Cleese> God simply doesn't have it if I have 
free will.
[23:00] <agathos> Cleese, again, the capacity of one 
object's knowledge is a separate topic from the ability 
of another object's freedom.
[23:01] <agathos> Cleese, you simply have to explain 
the contradiction in your definition of free will.
[23:01] <afr> Cleese - Then there are no knowledgable 
Christians?
[23:01] <Cleese> Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle: 
NO OBSERVER may predict the exact path *and* momentum 
of any quantum.
[23:02] <Cleese> This is a power denied to God.
[23:02] <afr> Where do you find your list of things denied 
to God?
[23:02] <agathos> Clease, that deals with the knowledge 
of one individal. it does not mention free will
[23:03] <Cleese> Well, quantum mechanics is about as 
free-willing as it gets ;-)
[23:03] <agathos> <g> nice try
[23:03] <afr> Are you confusing imagination with free 
will
[23:04] <Cleese> If God tries to look at an electron, 
He cannot find its exact position or velocity.
[23:04] <agathos> Cleese, the uncertainty principle is 
relative to finite human knowledge. it cannot be applied 
to a non-finite non-human god.
[23:05] <Cleese> free means without impetance or control. 
God's arbitrary nature is an inherent impetence to 
my ability to act freely.
[23:06] creation (dcovalt@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) got lost 
in the net-split.
[23:06] <Cleese> He's in control of *everything* all 
the time if he were omnipotent. If something has free 
will, it is a power denied to God.
[23:07] <agathos> Cleese, free means the ability to choose. 
it does not mean the ability to obtain every product 
of choice. a person has the freedom to jump off a cliff, 
but they do not necessarily have the freedom to survive 
this choice and to ch

oose it again
[23:07] <Cleese> Heisenberg made no such statements about 
the limits of uncertainty. Remember: there is no absolute 
space.
[23:07] <agathos> Cleese, "control" of "everything" can include 
controlling the environment of choice
[23:08] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.FIU.EDU: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[23:08] <agathos> Cleese, the uncertainty principle was 
established relative to this dimension. it cannot be 
applied to all dimensions, unless knowledge of all 
dimensions is known. at this time, it only applies 
to human knowledge.
[23:09] Skept (skept@h-add.ekx.infi.net) joined #apologetics.
[23:09] <Skept> Hello
[23:09] <agathos> well howdy Skept :)
[23:09] <Skept> agathos :)
[23:10] <agathos> what are you doing here? :)
[23:10] <Cleese> There is no preferred frame of reference 
in quantum mechanics. There is no absolute. No frame, 
not even "God" can discern the exact position and velocity 
of an electron since *space* and *time* 

themselves are not absolute.
[23:11] <afr> As God is omnipitent, why would you preclude 
his powers with human assumptions?
[23:11] <agathos> Cleese, one can only apply human limitations 
to a god if that god is human. if a god is not human, 
then there is no basis for applying human limitations 
to his/her/its abilities. 
[23:12] <Cleese> Besides, God says that He cannot lie--but 
he also said that insects like beetles and flies have 
four legs. Clear contradiction.
[23:12] <afr> Hah!!
[23:12] <afr> Great lord Harry
[23:12] <afr> on that I will leave
[23:13] afr (arogers@p1.pm3.theriver.com) left #apologetics.
[23:13] <Cleese> If God were truly omnipotent, He wouldn't 
even limit himself to *exist.* Yet you claim that God 
*must* exist.
[23:13] <Cleese> God doesn't *have* to even *exist.*
[23:14] <agathos> Cleese, I'm sorry, but jumping from 
topic to topic is not necessarily the best means of 
engaging in discussion. discussions are for the purpose 
of mutual understanding, while debates pit two established 
views against each other, 

and arguments are double monologues.
[23:14] <Cleese> Well, it *is* hard to talk to two people 
at the same time.
[23:14] <Cleese> ;-)
[23:15] <agathos> not if both conversations are on the 
same subject
[23:15] <Cleese> actually, both may bring up different 
points against my claims, and I have to attack them 
individually.
[23:16] <Cleese> your arguments are not the same.
[23:16] <agathos> true, which involves a focus upon differnt 
aspects of the same topic, not introducing completely 
different topics
[23:16] <Cleese> as a consequence, the topic evolves 
;-) a bit too quickly for my taste i might add.
[23:17] <Cleese> We were talking about the contradictions 
of God's nature throughout.
[23:17] <Cleese> And have kept it on topic.
[23:19] <Cleese> Now, can you refute the skeptic's point 
that God doesn't *have* to exist.
[23:19] <Cleese> ?
[23:19] <agathos> Cleese, what is the point?
[23:21] Bou (rboucher@magi03p09.magi.com) joined #apologetics.
[23:21] <Cleese> God doesn't *have* to exist. If God 
were omnipotent as you claim, He could simply will 
himself out of existence and come back at will.
[23:21] nosehair (jcc15583@206.228.225.104) joined 
#apologetics.
[23:21] <Bou> Hello all.  May I listen in?
[23:21] <agathos> Cleese, how does one will oneself out 
of existence and then emerge from non-existence?
[23:21] <agathos> hello Bou
[23:21] <Cleese> Saying that God *has* to exist is putting 
limits on God, thus rendering him non-omnipotent.
[23:21] <agathos> hi nose
[23:21] Bou (rboucher@magi03p09.magi.com) left #apologetics.
[23:22] <agathos> Cleese, what is meant by "has" to exist?
[23:22] <Cleese> aggie, I mean that he cannot possibly 
not exist.
[23:23] <agathos> Cleese, why cannot a god possibly not 
exist?
[23:23] <Cleese> It is impossible for God not to exist.
[23:23] <agathos> Cleese, impossible for what reason?
[23:24] <Cleese> That is the claim of the Bible. There 
is no possibility in its ledgers that allows for his 
non-existence.
[23:24] <agathos> Cleese, where does it say that god 
cannot not exist?
[23:25] <Cleese> It is *impossible* for God to be false, 
for instance.
[23:27] <Cleese> It is inherent throughout the work; 
I'm surprised you've missed it.
[23:27] <agathos> Cleese, if a god did exist, wouldn't 
his/her/its non-existence be false?
[23:27] Merciful (jedun@199.166.210.164) joined #apologetics.
[23:27] <Cleese> Yes, and inversely.
[23:28] <nosehair> Cleese: if there is a God so powerful, 
surely he can exist in non-existence.
[23:28] <Cleese> Existence in nonexistence is a contradiction. 
A & ~A.
[23:28] <Merciful> Hello everyone. 
[23:28] <agathos> Cleese, I'm not certain that I understand 
your point. the bible simply states that a god exists. 
it does not offer an argument for this existence. it 
already assumes this existence. if it assumes that 
a god exists, then naturally

 the conclusion would be that non-existence is false.
[23:28] <agathos> hi Merciful
[23:28] <nosehair> Cleese: that's binary logic..  I prefer 
fuzzy logic
[23:28] <Merciful> Hello agathos. 
[23:29] <Cleese> If God exists, He is limited by being 
in the Universe, which is, of course, the set of everything.
[23:29] <nosehair> where and A & ~A have an intersection 
and are not mutually exclusive.
[23:29] <agathos> Cleese, how does one know that the 
universe is the set of everything?
[23:29] Skept (skept@h-add.ekx.infi.net) left irc: 
Leaving
[23:30] <nosehair> lag
[23:30] <nosehair> can you see this?
[23:30] <agathos> yes, nose
[23:30] <nosehair> thanks
[23:31] <Cleese> For instance, if God created the Universe, 
He would have to exist in order to create it, yet that 
implies that the set of everything, i.e. the Universe, 
*already* exists.
[23:32] <agathos> Cleese, not necessarily. your argument 
equates the nature of god's existence with the nature 
of this three-dimensional universe. it is an underlying 
false assumption.
[23:32] <nosehair> Cleese: the universe (physical) cannot 
be the set of everything... Even mathematics has no 
physical component.
[23:34] <Cleese> I merely said that the Universe is the 
set of EVERYTHING. Satan < Universe. Santa < Universe. 
Invisible Pink Unicorn < Universe. God < Universe.
[23:35] <Cleese> And just what is physics, Nosehair? 
The scientific discernation of real phenonema.
[23:36] <nosehair> Cleese: physics is a 'model'.  You 
cannot confuse the model with the observed object. 
 the model can never become the object.
[23:36] <agathos> Cleese, it is still a false assumption. 
stating that the universe is the set of every "thing" 
implies that every object in that set has equal qualities. 
it is like saying a basket full of only 

tennis balls. the qualification for being included 
in the basket is being a tennis ball. if a god had 
different qualities from every "thing" then he/she/it 
would not be in the set of every "thing."
[23:37] <nosehair> Cleese: the energy in the universe 
is finite.  Does the universe contain the set of infinite 
energy?
[23:38] Voltaire (MikeBarber@15-83.client.gnn.com) 
joined #apologetics.
[23:38] <agathos> hi Voltaire
[23:38] <Voltaire> hi all
[23:38] <Cleese> Besides, agathos, you're claiming that 
the nature of this *3D* Universe is a false assumption. 
There are a lot more than three dimensions. We live 
in Hilbert (00-D) space.
[23:39] <Cleese> Voltaire!
[23:39] Nick change: Cleese -> Diderot
[23:40] <Diderot> How is the definition of Universe false?
[23:40] <agathos> Cleese, the false assumption is that 
the nature of god is being equated with every "thing" 
(finite existence, whether in this dimension or other 
dimensions). if the nature of god is not a "thing" then 
it does not fall into the set of all "things."
[23:40] <Diderot> Existence is inherently finite.
[23:41] <Diderot> Even if God *exists,* He is limited 
by His *existence.*
[23:42] <agathos> Diderot, if existence ("things") is finite, 
then every "thing" is the set of all finite things. if 
a god is not finite, then he/she/it does not fall into 
the

 set of every thing.
[23:44] <Diderot> If God were *truly* omnipotent, we 
wouldn't even be able to talk about him, he would be 
so incomprehensible the very concept would be beyond 
us.
[23:44] Voltaire (MikeBarber@15-83.client.gnn.com) 
left #apologetics.
[23:45] <agathos> Diderot, you're jumping topics again. 
simply because the finite mind cannot comprehend every 
aspect of the infinite does not mean that the infinite 
cannot use broad finite definitions in order for the 
finite mind to attain to gen

eral understanding of the infinite.
[23:46] <Diderot> Yet here we are, discussing the things 
that *Jesus Christ* did. Calling Jesus Jesus limits 
him and your God is supposed to be *unlimited* right?
[23:47] <agathos> Diderot, a small child may not be able 
to understand calculus, but this does not hinder a 
calculus teacher from communicating with the child 
in his/her language
[23:47] <Diderot> If God were *truly* LIMITLESS, we would 
not have one single Idea what God is, since that is 
a limit (he can't be anything else.)
[23:48] <nosehair> Diderot: a line is quite limitless, 
yet we have a pretty good understanding of it's nature 
through our finite reasoning.
[23:48] <agathos> Diderot, the issue has already been 
addressed. a god can offer the finite mind finite understandable 
information. it is not an all or nothing proposition. 
that is, the finite mind doesn't have to comprehend 
everything or nothing 

at all.
[23:49] <Diderot> Christians have the hardest time understanding 
a small child's questions anyway. The bald-faced questions 
strike the very core of your theology.
[23:49] <agathos> not questions offered thus far tonite
[23:50] <Diderot> We can't limit God by calling him Jesus.
[23:51] <agathos> Diderot, human langugae does not limit 
objective reality. language limits human comprehension 
of reality, but it has not affect upon the reality 
itself.
[23:51] <Diderot> What do you mean? We can't call Jesus 
Osiris or Mithras or Buddha? Or Vsdajkfghliatghueoghruiyksdhdjkashfjsdhfjksdha?
[23:52] <nosehair> Diderot: just as physics models is 
able to 'model' the physical, we are able to 'model' 
a 'God'
[23:52] <agathos> Diderot, different labels affect how 
human persons perceive and understand objective reality. 
but those labels do not someone change the reality 
itself.
[23:52] <Diderot> There is no objective (absolute) reality 
anyway.
[23:52] <Diderot> .
[23:52] <Diderot> .
[23:52] <Diderot> .
[23:52] <Diderot> .
[23:52] <Diderot> .
[23:52] <Diderot> .
[23:52] <agathos> Diderot, you're jumping topics again
[23:53] <Diderot> That's Evolution, agathos ;-)
[23:53] <agathos> that's avoidance
[23:54] <nosehair> Diderot: then there is no reality.
[23:54] <Diderot> No, that's called attacking your assumptions. 
You've seemed to be blind in that area.
[23:54] <agathos> Diderot, I have offered no assumptions. 
I believe that your arguments have been based upon 
false assumptions, which I and others have poitned 
out tonite
[23:55] <Diderot> You've offered no assumptions? Your 
very duty is to apologize for the Bible.
[23:55] <Diderot> You're not apologizing for Mithras 
here.
[23:55] <agathos> Diderot, I have offered no arguments 
in support of the bible
[23:56] <Diderot> Beam eye mote.
[23:56] <nosehair> Diderot: why all the attacking? try 
being a little less angry.
[23:56] <Diderot> Who determines the falsehood or truth 
of these arguments?
[23:57] <agathos> Diderot, of what arguments?
[23:57] <Diderot> God is waiting to be *demonstrated.*
[23:58] <agathos> Diderot, I'm not certain that I understand 
the focus of this line of reasoning
[23:58] <Diderot> I claim that an omnipotent and unlimited 
God cannot exist because even limiting him by language 
contradicts his definition.
[23:59] <nosehair> Diderot: just as some christians have 
anthropomorphised 'God' to some white male guy sitting 
in heaven.. I get the impression that you've anthropomorphised 
a 'noGod' to some scientific models on the physical..
[23:59] <agathos> Diderot, the objection has already 
been addressed. human language applies and affects 
human understanding. it does not alter or change the 
reality that the language seeks to describe
[23:59] <nosehair> both groups fall into the same trap.
[00:00] <Diderot> Calling God Omnipotent limits him.
[00:01] <agathos> Diderot, it at best limits human understanding. 
at one time the world was defined as being flat. the 
definition did not affect actual reality. that is, 
the world did not suddenly become spherical when it 
was discovered not to be 

flat.
[00:02] <nosehair> Diderot: not true. there is a symbolic 
nature to language.  calling something omnipotent is 
not equating God to omnipotence, but showing the symbolic 
nature of language.
[00:03] <Diderot> He can't *not* be omnipotent, and this 
limits him as *requiring* him to be omnipotent. If 
he's required to do something, He has no say in the 
matter.
[00:03] <agathos> Diderot, why cannot a god be omnipotent? 
and how are you defining the term omnipotent?
[00:04] <Diderot> Yes, human understanding is flawed. 
that's why saying that God even exists is preposterous.
[00:04] <Diderot> The Bible says the world is flat.
[00:04] <agathos> Diderot, you are jumping topics again
[00:05] <Diderot> We've discovered that it is a sphere.
[00:05] <Diderot> Then we've discovered again that it 
is an ellipsoid.
[00:05] <nosehair> tell me if i'm lagging.
[00:05] <nosehair> ping me
[00:05] <Diderot> And discovered again that the earth 
is a fractal.
[00:06] Action: agathos sighs
[00:06] <nosehair> Diderot: isn't it quite obvious the 
difference between the 'MODEL' and what is being observed??? 
i've emphasized it many many times.
[00:06] <agathos> [nosehair PING reply] 23 seconds
[00:06] <nosehair> thanks
[00:07] <Diderot> There is no underlying *reality,* and 
even claiming that there is is sheer preposterousness.
[00:07] <nosehair> there is practical reality.
[00:07] <Diderot> That has been my point all along.
[00:07] <nosehair> and unprejudiced reality.. the unaltered, 
what the Buddhist get at.
[00:07] <nosehair> and what the mystics hint at.
[00:08] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@serss0.FIU.EDU: 
The Home of Rational Theism
[00:08] <agathos> Diderot, then in your opinion language 
= reality?
[00:09] <Diderot> Actually, the Buddhists begin with 
nil, a tabula rasa if you will. Philosophers try to 
presuppose nothing and use Occam's razor for this goal.
[00:10] <Diderot> language is a means of categorization 
used to label and store otherwise chaotic events or 
things.
[00:11] <Diderot> damn!
[00:11] <Diderot> you're making me diverge from my topic!
[00:11] <nosehair> Diderot: the OBJECT is the TRUE reality. 
 The perception and interpretation (language, thought, 
senses) is not the reality but the 'model' of reality.
[00:11] <agathos> Diderot, but does language = reality? 
if a person uses the word "apple," is the word = apple?
[00:12] <Diderot> REALITY is UNCERTAIN. Read Heisenberg's 
Uncertainty Principle.
[00:12] <Diderot> agathos, obviously not.
[00:13] <nosehair> Diderot: NO. the observer alters what 
is being observed by his measuring instrument. (quantum 
observe effect)
[00:13] <nosehair> Heisenberg has nothing to do with 
it. (delta v)*(delta x) = h/2*pi.
[00:14] <agathos> Diderot, the uncertainty principle 
deals with predictability and future existence. if 
language does not equal reality, and if the word "apple" 
does not equal the reality of an apple, then langu

gae does not affect reality. humanity can use language 
to describe a god without having that language limit 
the reality of a god.
[00:14] <Diderot> language, i said is merely a categorization 
of an uncertain and chaotic reality which is not in 
any terms objective or absolute, since it begins with 
a tabula rasa.
[00:15] joesixpac (danielwoot@dial-5.r2.nccrty.InfoAve.Net) 
joined #apologetics.
[00:16] joesixpac (danielwoot@dial-5.r2.nccrty.InfoAve.Net) 
left #apologetics.
[00:16] <agathos> Diderot, reality is only uncertain 
and chaotic if it is assumed that all reality in all 
dimensions is the same. presuming that it all must 
fit into the same set. but if there is an existence 
that is not within this set of all "things" then there 
is no contradiction.
[00:17] <Diderot> I take it then that, since there is 
an absolute reality, and whatever uncertainties we 
observe are our fault, that an electron is *really* 
*still* moving at an absolute speed and can be found 
in an absolute position. That's a loa

d of bollocks.
[00:18] <agathos> Diderot, simply because human perception 
cannot identify the exact position of an electron at 
a given time T1, does not mean that a non-human entity 
cannot identify that position.
[00:19] <Diderot> However, a quantum defies absolute 
"common sense" reality. It can go backwards in time and 
travel faster than light, and can be observed in more 
than one place at a time. (Don't believe me, pas

s a laser through a slit.)
[00:20] <agathos> Diderot, so?
[00:21] <Diderot> There is no preferred frame or reality. 
Get it. Einstein had to overcome that crutch in relativity.
[00:21] <nosehair> Diderot: model model model model ..ahhh.... 
how many times... 
[00:22] <Diderot> We don't model an *absolute* reality 
you stupid gits, and I've told you that at least three 
times!
[00:22] <agathos> Diderot, any given present moment is 
an object reality. the next moment cannot necessarily 
be predicted in the current moment, but this lack of 
predictability does not mean that all finite reality 
in the present is uncertain

[00:22] <Diderot> Einstein would disagree.
[00:23] <nosehair> passing laser through slit has nothing 
to do with time.. you're the stupid one.  passing the 
laser throught the slit is trying to find the exact 
position of a particle, but instead shows the particles 
WAVE nature.
[00:23] <agathos> Diderot, Einstein is not here
[00:23] <nosehair> i'm gettig annoyed
[00:23] <agathos> <g> nose
[00:24] <Diderot> Time is, of course, relative.
[00:24] Action: agathos sighs
[00:24] <agathos> time to put the kid to bed...
[00:24] agathos (agathos@207.19.221.21) left irc: the 
truth is out there...
[00:25] Robd (*@27-236.client.gnn.com) joined #apologetics.
[00:25] <Diderot> If you move past me at half the speed 
of light and I see two bolts of lightning strike you 
car or whatever you will see those bolts strike, you 
will see those bolts hit at different times.
[00:26] <nosehair> Diderot: why are you arguing science?
[00:26] <Diderot> What you're saying is that one of those 
frames *has* to be right.
[00:26] <nosehair> you're talking about different things... 
yes time is relative, the speed of light is not.
[00:26] <Diderot> .
[00:26] <Diderot> .
[00:26] <Diderot> .
[00:27] Robd (*@27-236.client.gnn.com) left #apologetics.
[00:28] <Diderot> The only problem with Einstein's light 
constancy postulate is that it simply doesn't work 
at times at the quantum level.
[00:29] Barabbas (demonk@ip31.techline.com) joined 
#apologetics.
[00:29] Barabbas (demonk@ip31.techline.com) left irc: 

[00:29] Diderot (gayle@pc50.vernal.usu.edu) left irc: 
Read error to Diderot[pc50.vernal.usu.edu]: EOF from 
client
[00:29] <nosehair> no diderot: the speed of light is 
constant in ALL reference frames. one of the paradoxes 
of modern science.
[00:31] nosehair (jcc15583@206.228.225.104) left #apologetics.
[ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page
[ref003]Return to LOGS Page
[ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library




[ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_5_24_96.html
[ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html
[ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html
[ref004] ../

